Talk:Abstinence pledge

message: While they can CERTAINLY lead to the spread of STIs, oral and anal intercourse carry NO RISK of pregnancy--only vaginal intercourse can result in conception.  This is a gross inaccuracy. Marieprecious 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This statement is utter nonsense. Heterosexual anal sex of course carries that risk. Sperm can reach the vagina nevertheless since it doesn't always stays in situ.--Nemissimo 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the risk however is so extremely low, has anybody even measured it above a level of the margin of error? Mathmo Talk 09:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pregnancy Risk

message: I've improved the bit on anal sex and oral sex somewhat. Initially it seemed to suggest anal sex and oral sex were completely safe from pregnancy (anal sex is definitely not and even unprotected oral sex must carry a small risk) and that protection is foolproof when it comes to STIs (it's not due to failures). I've also added a bit on the greater risk of STIs from anal sex since I think this is important in the 'debate'. I don't think this is OR or has NPOV problems as we're not trying to lead the reader in any direction just point out that anal sex has greater risks which is well established. We might want to mention that oral sex has lower risks of STIs then vaginal sex too perhaps? Nil Einne 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anal sex is only a pregnancy risk if sperm makes its way (traveling outside, not inside) from the anus to the vagina, since of course there is no mechanism in the anus that would allow a woman to get pregnant. But there is a risk, as you say. I don't see any pregnancy risk when it comes to oral sex, unless semen also somehow makes its way to the vagina via a body part or in this bizarre case that is reported in the Notes section of the Oral sex article. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative intercourse 

message: This article more or less completely ignores homosexuals. Is there any effort at all to promote pledges to homosexuals? Any info on how they effect behaviour im homosexuals? I appreciate most of these groups engaged in promoting virginity pledges hate homosexuals with a passion (although they usually say it's not the sin but the sinner or whatever bullshit) so in all likelihood homosexuals are completely ignored (and indeed I suspect many of them would prefer homosexuals to be having sex with a an opposite sex partner then even thinking that they might be homosexual). Not to mention that most of them don't think it's possible for homosexuals to be in a commited relationship like marriage so I guess virginity pledges are irrelevant when it comes to homosexuals in the eyes of most promoting the concept. Then again perhaps some groups do promote virginity pledges for homosexuals but in this case the idea is that they don't have sex ever Nil Einne 15:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuals 

message: I have removed the line about the "non peer reviewed" study and the link to the article containing it. That article is obviously garbage, contains nothing but inaccuracies, and the citations in the man's article are to other articles that he has written. It is 100 per cent POV and should not be even noted. --King Bee 14:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rector's Article 

message: How do the organization links support the virginity pledge as an article? This is not a wikipage about [proper noun] True Love Waits or Silver Ring Thing. It appears as "Links mainly intended to promote a website"
Furthermore, what criteria do the reports meet to be in external links? if they are worth citing, then cite it. 
According to wikipedia: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site, if any." Neither are these links interviews or reviews that can't be added into the article. Not sure what 'unique' resource it provides either. 
Remember the wikipedia rule: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Lihaas (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: On examination of the removal and revert of the following paragraph, I have removed it again.
:Content removed: "A 2004 report by Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Jennifer A. Marshall contradicts all the above statistics even though analysing much of the same data. The reason for the difference can be seen in citation (16) of that report which states [16]"In some cases, individuals failed to answer the pledge question on one or more waves of the survey; an individual who responded negatively to this question on at least one wave and gave no response on the other waves was categorized as a non-pledger." - thus many teens who had broken the pledge but denied making it were counted as NON pledgers, rather than lapsed pledgers."
I was able to find this study.  It was published by the Heritage Foundation and, so far as I can tell, was not peer-reviewed. I removed the paragraph for two reasons: 1) As a non-peer-reviewed study by an organization with an obvious bias, it lacks equivalent reliability to the other studies cited in the article. 2) The paragraph as written interprets the study's methodology, rather than summarizing its findings (which were very pro-virginity pledge, no surprise there) and as such appears to be original research. If someone can find a reliable source that includes the quoted critique of the Heritage Foundation study, then I suggest that the study's conclusions be summarized and the critique be included and cited.  Otherwise, I suggest this stay out of the article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Heritage Foundation study paragraph 

message: Wow.  I'm in the UK and watching a programme about purity balls etc, and it says that one in six US girls take a purity vow.  Is this true?  We have nothing like a large movement doing this in the UK, as yet. 
::As for this comment being rv'ed as 'not a forum'- I'm sorry if you saw my comment this way as that's not how it was meant.  It is not using this as a forum, as it is an interesting fact that may be added to the article, thus discussing the article's improvement.  This is how changes to articles are made, by mentioning possible facts and discussing their accuracy  or otherwise so as to decide on their use for the article or possible additions to it to explain possible things which can be cleared up in the article or added.  (adding other bit from user talk as I feel it explains what I mean better)  Please WP:AGF, this contained several facts we could seek sources for or explain in the article- how many women are doing it, and how it has less participation in other countries, though that's probably growing. For all this we could probably find WP:RS, indeed it was mentioned in a documentary on mainstream television in the UK. Sticky Parkin 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  First off, the line between valid discussion of an article and using the talkpage as 'a forum' is somewhat subjective really. Anyway, my point. The page would be improved if we added some facts as I discuss below. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: One in six

message: The article as it reads seems a little biased with it's use of facts. For instance it overplays the lessening of Sexually transmitted disease when a few moments on Google one finds, .
Also, the article is too US centred, some refs to Europe and other parts of the world, such as,  should be added. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little more balance 

message: I propose splitting this article into Alcohol abstinence pledge and Sexual abstinence pledge. I'm surprised to see them joined in this article, as they are promoted by different organizations, are evaluated by different outcomes, and largely discussed by different sources. Any objections? Daask (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of alcohol pledges vs. sexual behavior pledges