Monday, December 29, 2008

No, really?

It's been a busy couple of weeks of visiting family for Mrs. Mav and I, but I'm hoping to get back in the swing of things now that the hectic travel period is over. So, I thought I'd start with this utterly unsurprising article on MSNBC. Not only do teenage "virginity pledges" fail to prevent pledgers from having sex at the same rate as non-pledgers, but those who do take such pledges are less likely to use protection when they do have sex. The person who conducted the study puts it succinctly:
"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge," Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program."
You think?

Then again, I'm sure conservatives who are in favor of mandating abstinence-only programs will find some way of avoiding the issue, never mind the fact that the new hero of the whacky right, Sarah Palin, has a daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock, pledge or no pledge. Does anyone doubt that if one of Obama's daughters did the same, we would have heard about it from the Palinists in the GOP?

1 comments:

Rachel Pitt said...

If this were a non-meta analysis study, the only thing I would have included was a religiosity survey since the author seemed to indicate there was a trend in religiosity and delaying sex. Though doing virginity pledge studies is kind of a "how many different ways can we re-invent the wheel" as far as methodology goes.

In spite of how ridiculously sound meta-analysis is as a statistical method, I imagine the results will some how be attributed to author bias because you can't really refute the methodology. But I don't think that will stop those who disagree from trying their hardest.