True Love Waits is a virginity pledge program, probably the largest of its kind. Started by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1993, it now claims more than 2.5 million members, teenagers and young adults who have promised to remain sexually "pure" until marriage. Many other virginity pledge programs have sprouted up since the '90s, and what's more, state lawmakers have jumped on the abstinence bandwagon. Thirty four states now require that abstinence be taught or emphasized in the school curricula, while only 15 mandate instruction in contraception.
One of the major rationales for these efforts -- at least the school-based programs -- is that delaying sex reduces the frequency of risky sex and early pregnancy. And indeed, early sexual initiation has been linked again and again to risky sexual behavior in adulthood -- more sexual partners, frequent sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol, less caution in avoiding disease -- and to early pregnancy. This link is not disputed. What is disputed -- because it remains unproven -- is that early loss of virginity actually causes risky sexuality later.
A team of psychological scientists decided to test this underlying assumption, to see if they could prove or disprove a causal link. Marina Bornovalova of the University of South Florida and her colleagues wanted to explore alternative explanations -- notably, that both early sexual initiation and later risky behavior are caused by something else entirely. This might be a social factor like the family's economic situation or the influence of troubled peers. Or it could be that both early sex and risky sex are the consequence of a genetic predisposition toward uninhibited behavior in general. If either of these other explanations is correct, then delaying sex in adolescence might be ineffective in reducing risky sex later on.
To test this, the scientists studied more than 1000 pairs of twins over time, following many of them from age 11 to 24. Some of the twin pairs were identical twins, and others were fraternal twins. Some reported their first sexual encounter before age 16; the rest later. The scientists also gathered information--as the teens moved into adulthood -- on total number of regular sexual partners and casual partners; regular and casual partners in the past year; sexual behavior under the influence of drugs or alcohol; and pregnancy.
The scientists combined a couple analytic methods to create a rigorous test of the causality hypothesis, based what would be expected from the genetics and upbringing of identical and fraternal twins. For example, if early sexual initiation really does cause later risky behavior, then within twin pairs, only the twin who had early sex should go on to a risky sex life. But if, by contrast, the risky behavior is caused by either genetics or early social influences, then both twins would be expected to have equally risky sexual careers. Furthermore, if genetics alone are to blame, then identical twins -- but not fraternal twins -- should have similarly risky sex lives. And if environment is the cause of risk taking, then both types of twins should have the same outcomes, regardless of when they lost their virginity.
Bornovalova and her colleagues crunched all the data together, with provocative results. They did in fact replicate the well-known link between early sexual initiation and later sexual risk taking. But there was no evidence that an early loss of virginity actually caused risky sexuality later. Indeed, twins who had very different initiations into sex -- one early and one late -- nevertheless went on to have similarly risky sex lives, indicating that risk taking was influenced by some combination of shared genes and experience.
These findings have important public health implications, the most obvious being that delaying sexual initiation is unlikely to reduce risky sexuality, including unwanted pregnancy, later on. The results are consistent with other research, which suggests that virginity pledges may delay teens' loss of virginity up to 18 months -- but do nothing to reduce sexually transmitted infections in young adulthood. Even more important is this general conclusion: A diverse set of adolescent problem behaviors appear to predict a diverse set of adult pathologies, so that intervening to stop any specific behavior will probably be ineffective. It might be better to identify the group of kids who are at high risk for all poor adult outcomes.
The scientists are not suggesting that having sex early has no untoward consequences. As they conclude in their on-line report in the journal Psychological Science, losing one's virginity at an early age might lead to problems like depression and substance abuse. Lawmakers and pastoral leaders may have their own reasons for wanting to delay kids' sexual experience, but their alarms about promiscuity and pregnancy just lost much of their power.
I've been on "The Pill" since before I started having sex (which was way too young, at 14, but it is what it is, and I'm over it now), and have never been pregnant!
Also, condoms are important for open relationships, or FWB relationships (or ONS, if that's your thing, no judgement).
I may have made some mistakes in partners, but, thankfully, I have been able to avoid any long term consequences because I protected myself from them.
So did my boyfriend / future husband (when we're ready), and now, we don't have any serious baggage to carry!
I could never understand how promoting sexual promiscuity and marriage can co-exist in the same discussion. Marriage implies that you don’t act on your sexual desires except with your spouse and, if your spouse ain’t around, you don’t start exploring your sexual promiscuity – you remain celibate.
Promoting sexual promiscuity is like training to be a failure in the marriage.
-----
and I love the phrase "risky sexual careers" - human sexuality is like being in sales – never miss an opportunity to practice it with whomever and whenever
Because, seriously, if a teen is bouncing from back seat to bed and back again, the place to look for problems and issues is at home, not sex ed class.
the article starts with the notion of remaining sexually "pure" until marriage and then takes a complete detour into early vs. later "risky behavior"
If you're a virgin until marriage, there is no "later risky behavior"
If you're having sex before marriage, at whatever age, you're practicing "risky behavior" at whatever age you started.
----
How about after marriage, eg after divorce or while cheating. Just because you wait, doesn't mean you don't experiment later.
Sorry, I can keep it in my pants when the b/f is not around but when he's around we enjoy each other fully.
But even the most obvious consequences could be avoided if teens actually got decent sex education, instead of the disinformation which now passes for much of sex ed.
I think what kind of home life they have has a lot to do with how much and how early they try sex, but even the greatest home is no guarantee if there is a lack of education. Which is why the smart parent doesn't just leave it up to the school--it may be under the spell of religious fundamentalist thinking.
It's not easy to talk to kids about sex, which is why it's wise to start pretty early before you turn stupid--and uncool. Because it's pretty much a guarantee that at some point, you will become much stupider than your kids are, and then they won't listen for sometimes years.
I've found that "Be careful", "Be sure", "Be safe" and "Be respectful" are so much more effective than "Don't or you'll rot in hell."
The real point, which is what you are missing, is what matters more is what causes the risky sexual behavior. Then you may be able to address the cause and solve problems like teen pregnancy more effectively. If the cause is troubled peers, you can work to reduce that problem and people will avoid the risky sexual behavior through adulthood. Thus you don't even need to worry about the 19 year old getting pregnant. Or maybe the risky behavior is cause by something you can't address like genetics, in which case why guilt and shame everyone to only delay something that is a minor issue for some and inevitable for others by a mere 18 months.
My point was merely that while 18 months isn't a long time it can be a critical amount of time for a great many people. The difference in lifetime achievement between someone who never got a high school diploma and one who did is significant. The difference in lifetime achievement between someone who never got a college degree and one who did is significant. So, extrapolated out over a nation of 300 million, 18 months no doubt works out to tens of thousands of people achieving more and being better parents. I'm in no way suggesting that we should be satisfied with the status quo, we're in shockingly awful shape with regard to all this and clearly need better education, better studies on why we're in this situation, and I'd argue better medical options (the distant future no doubt includes medical means of harmlessly preventing fertility until the appropriate time).
you're describing the secular Bill-Clinton definition of sex - not the Christian