Pledge study skewed!

[Ben Kenobi]

Was my first thought too.

You can contract some stds through oral sex. Herpes anyone?

[Asher]

No thanks, Ben.

[MrFun]

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not in this format, no. They didn't break the numbers down like they did here, since that casts doubts on the validity of their argument when they base their case on 21 people in a sample. Hardly representative.

Well, you know, without an actual article to read I can't really analyse the validity of its conclusions. First you say that the sample size was over 14,000, then you say that only 21 were studied. I don't know what you mean. Were the 14000 studied, or only 21 chosen out of a potential population of 14000? Was it that only 21 out of 14000 decided to go along with the pledge? Were 14000 enrolled into the study with some pledging and others not, and if so how many were in each group? Was it that only 21 of the whole group were tested for STDs?

[Ben Kenobi]

The article is in the link. That's why I provided it.

Explaining the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, Rector and Johnson point out that Bearman and Bruckner “culled through the Add Health sample looking for tiny sub-groups of pledgers with higher risk behaviours,” then describing the high-risk behaviours of these tiny subgroups, allowing the press to draw their own conclusions, by inferring “that they are talking about pledgers in general.”

“The centerpiece of their argument about pledgers and heightened sexual risk activity is a small group of pledgers who engaged in anal sex without vaginal sex,” Rector and Johnson explain. “This ‘risk group’ consists of 21 persons out of a sample of 14,116.

They inferred from the fact, that pledgers overall were more likely to engage in anal and oral sex than those who did not, even though this only applied to the small group of 21 folks to which this statement actually applied.

[Boris Godunov]

Hmmm. That doesn't seem to jive with what the study really says, though:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135215

Bearman and Bruckner in March 2004 at the 2004 National STD Prevention Conference in Philadelphia presented their findings that teens who make abstinence pledges have similar rates of STDs as teens who have not made pledges. The study -- also based on data from the NLSAH -- found that, although teens who made the pledges had sexual intercourse an average of 18 months later than teens who did not take a pledge and averaged fewer sexual partners overall, they had similar rates of STDs. In addition, the study found that pledgers were much less likely to use contraception the first time they had sex and also were less likely than other teens to have undergone STD testing and know their STD status, which could increase their risk of STD transmission to sexual partners (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 3/10/04). Of the 777 teens who reported being virginity pledgers throughout the course of the study, 4.6% had trichomoniasis, chlamydia or gonorrhea. Of the 1,622 who reported pledge to remain abstinent at some point during the study, 6.4% had one of the STDs. Of the 9,072 teens who did not ever make a virginity pledge, 6.9% had one of the STDs (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 3/19). The study did not reveal significant geographical differences but did show that minorities were "far more likely" to have an STD, according to the Post. About 25% of African-American girls had at least one STD in 2002, the study found (Washington Post, 3/19).

Bearman and Bruckner divided it into three categories asked to take a pledge over a period of time: Those who never took a pledge, those who took a pledge but not consistently, and those who consistently did so. So they certainly didn't lump the "wafflers" in with the consistent pledgers. Even so, the STD rates were statistically not very different for all groups.

Heritage Foundation's gripes don't seem to really be about this conclusion, so the conclusion of the study appears to stand.

[Agathon]

Watch PBS next Tuesday night, Ben. There's a doc on about how effective abstinence is.

[MrFun]

We need to save our children!!

[MrFun]

Let the truth about sex be told without the lies from pink, bleeding heart liberals.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You can contract some stds through oral sex. Herpes anyone?

Yea.. but to call it more "risky" then normal intercourse is rather a fallacy isn't it. HIV for example is not commonly transferable in oral sex (i guess if you have a cut in your mouth perhaps).

[DeathByTheSword]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I breathe air?

no che People do not communists

HIV can also recieved by 'swallowing' or just thru the thinner skin parts of your body (thus oral sex can give you HIV)


btw 2 years ago i saw a program on the BBC that showed the HIV was transmitted to me via the foreskin because it had more white bloodcells so HIV could spread easier and that circumzided people had a far less of a change to catch HIV during sex then non circumzided people...i found that quite shocking to hear but afterwards never heard anything about it...so anybody knows about this?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by lightblue


Yea.. but to call it more "risky" then normal intercourse is rather a fallacy isn't it. HIV for example is not commonly transferable in oral sex (i guess if you have a cut in your mouth perhaps).

Funny you should mention that I was just reading a pamphlet about risk of HIV transmission. The rate of HIV transmission of various types of contact with a known HIV positive person for each episode of contact are:

Vaginal receptive: 0.1 - 0.2 %
Vaginal insertive: 0.04 - 0.14 %
Anal receptive: 0.1 - 5.0 %
Anal insertive: 0.1 - 0.3 %
Oral receptive: 0.06 %
Oral insertive: rare

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword


no che People do not communists

HIV can also recieved by 'swallowing' or just thru the thinner skin parts of your body (thus oral sex can give you HIV)


btw 2 years ago i saw a program on the BBC that showed the HIV was transmitted to me via the foreskin because it had more white bloodcells so HIV could spread easier and that circumzided people had a far less of a change to catch HIV during sex then non circumzided people...i found that quite shocking to hear but afterwards never heard anything about it...so anybody knows about this?

There have been studies in Africa showing that circumcised men are less likely to contract the virus. A more definitive study is currently being conducted. There are small gland-like structures in the foreskin that are thought to enhance the entry of the virus into the penis. These glands are supposedly part of the immune system. It's thought that their purpose is to help expose the immune system to viruses so that the body can generate antibodies against them.

[DeathByTheSword]

that was it... thanks Dr......so where is my huntingknife

[Pekka]

cut the whole dick off.. no STDs guaranteed.