Talk:Sexual abstinence

message: The topic about Medical aspects of S.abs. has been stuffed with paragraphs about religious views on it. They should be put in separate topics. HIV and AIDS cannot be cured this is because the vrus attacks the immune system and is always changing. You can however, take antiretrovirals which help pospone the development of HIV into AIDS but eventually AIDS will kill you.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.95.180.197 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical and Religious aspects

message: I question saying that minors are expected to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage.  If abstinence until marriage is the standard, it hardly has any application to minority.  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:45, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning Standard 

message: From 1st paragraph:
:There is a distinction between the terms abstinence and chastity, the latter more frequently implying the application of force or the existence of rules.
What does the application of force have to do with chastity? Are you talking about chastity belts? No one wears these outside of porno novels, I think...
And what does the existence of rules have to do with the distinction?
AFAIK, the words 'abstinence' and 'chastity' are synonyms.
The only distinction I'm aware of, having to do with sexual activity or its absence, is that between (a) restricting one's sexual activities according to a set of rules and (b) not following much of any restrictions at all. 
Okay, maybe there's one other distinction within (a):
#having sex only with one's spouse (for married, male-female couples)
#not having sex at all, like adults who don't get married; and
I guess this gives us (A1) fidelity within marriage, (A2) celibacy, and (B) unrestricted sexual activity.
Note: I am not urging that the Wikipedia endorse any POV; nor am I suggesting any major change to the articles. I'm just trying to understand (and possibly straighten out) the terminology.
Comments? --Uncle Ed 18:42, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: First things first, Jack. You're saying that in some Islamic countries, parents or others FORCE women into chastity. Accordingly, you distinguish between forced and voluntary abstinence. I guess you want to call abstinence voluntary and chastity forced. Am I reading you right? --Uncle Ed 19:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. now answer my questions please ;) JackLynch 19:15, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Sure it does. besides, I think your getting a little too philosophical here. If you look it up, Chastity is the state of being pure, and abstinance is the act of refraining. If I don't allow you to soil yourself, you are still pure. But you havn't necessarilly refrained. There is a distinction. JackLynch 19:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I would argue that yes there are obviously differences in implication and POV between the two terms, but that they are so similar as to not warrant seperate articles. Neither "sexual abstinence" nor "chastity" require complete abstinence in all situations - they may both be context-dependant. Martin 17:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstinence and Chastity 

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: The introduction defines abstinence as "the practice of voluntarily refraining from sexual activity". But just a few lines donw, it cites the "lack of suitable partners" as a possible reason. I don't think that would count as voluntary. Unmitigated Success 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory introduction 

message: Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate".  I would also like to see the same change on this page.  Please make any comments there.  --Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" 

message: I didn't fully understand, is sexual abstinence medically bad or good for man's health. Does the lack of masturbation reflects on man's body in a bad way? Is it bad for my body that I am not having sex? It is a powerful urge and it is difficult trying not to think about it, but does the constant lack of semen ejaculation leads to something bad for my body. I know that sex is overall good for human's body. But is the lack of thereof, something bad? I would like to see more definitive explanation about that.
:Regards: Painbearer 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to question the reliability of such studies. For example, despite having the highest rates of sexual intercourse in the world, outside of France, the US also has one of the highest prostate cancer rates in the world. So sex really doesn't seem to be an issue in preventing it, but does it have a role in promoting it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.20.172 (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: France, however, has relatively low prostate cancer rates, and we're discussing masturabation and not sexual intercourse anyways. Seeing as your arguement isn't based on any studies quoted and fails to account for other factors leading to prostate cancer, I don't believe it's a proper counterpoint to this scientific study.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.145.188 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical aspects of abstinence for men 

message: I think there should be a section on Involuntary Sexual abstinence, ie can't get none for various reasons other than reliogipus and moral beliefs. 75.15.178.185 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involuntary Sexual abstinence 

message: I'm under the impression that because oral sex involves the contact of mucous membranes, that oral sex is a riskier activity in terms of the likelihood of contracting stds than having penetrative intercourse with a condom. In light of this, and with appropriate references, would it be ok for me to insert this after the following sentence. "Oral sex is not perceived as being "real sex." Teenage girls are able to indulge in sexual practices while claiming the traditional virtues of the virgin in cultures that admire it." Supposed 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm trying to express is that because the article is stating that often abstinence leads to people replacing sex with oral sex, then the riskier nature of oral sex means this abstinence leads to riskier sexual activity. It leads to the increased chance of the spread of stds if the statement quoted above is true. Supposed 12:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral sex riskier than sex with a condom. 

message: Should a section be added concerning what those who practice sexual abstinence do to replace or quell their urges?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danman111111 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of Sex 

message: Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence, heritage foundation -- Cherubino (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref? 

message: In Western attitudes section is the following sentence: "Historically, there has been a swing from the sexually free end of the Industrial Revolution to the chaste values of the early Victorian period."
I am not sure that the term "sexually free" is the right term to use to describe that period. I am thinking of making a change here.  Any opinions on this? Hopewatchful (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial Revolution labelled as "sexually free?" 

message: This article was clearly mostly written by people against abstinence only sexual education. needs to be cleaned up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.55.2 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding, right? There's an entire section of the article whose only source is a study from the Heritage Foundation, which is hardly reputable. (Character attacks aside,) the adjacent sections on "possible psychological effects" and abstinence-only sex-ed each need better citation and the assertions made need to be backed up better. What's there is inadequate, and which way you think it's slanted, I think you'll agree.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naptastic (talk • contribs) 06:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: There is a passage in this section citing a study that found that sexual abstinence led to fewer STDs and a lower likelihood of bearing children outside of marriage. Neither of these things are psychological effects and should be removed from this section (??).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Garvey (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological Effects 

message: Ceremony has been used in pairing and marriage throughout culture and history.  It has been recognized early on that such ceremonial bonding was diminished or corrupted in effect by premarital sex.
In extreme cases, the first sexual encounters could corruptly bond individuals in non-productive or perverse attachments, although this may only be speculative.
Pair Bonding can directly be linked to the effects of vasopressin , oxytocin, and dopamine upon the nervous system.  High stress situations create strong memory imprints using these neurochemicals, quite like a baby bonds to its mother.
Abstinence is a means of clearing the bonding state for new imprinting.  This results in a stronger sense of fidelity and greater chance of long-term marriage success.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200910/the-mysteries-pair-bonding  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.6.246 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurochemical Bonding 

message: Hi, there is a new study about the effectiveness called Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The article Abstinence-only programs might work, study says in The Washington Post also quotes Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services: "No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention". Should this be included? Regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity and effectiveness - New study 

message: I assume it would be hard to find empirical studies for, but shouldn't the typical use rate be considerably higher, especially in light of other contraceptive articles using rates that include the occasional failure to use (missed pills, not using a condom, etc.)? Bristol Palin comes to mind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodsorr0w (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the bot beat me in signing my own post. Preston (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

text: http://www.scarleteen.com/blog/heather_corinna/2010/01/29/whats_the_typical_use_effectiveness_rate_of_abstinence Preston (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Typical use" failure rate 

message: In the reasons for why some people choose sexual abstinence, it calls the reason of not wanting to become pregnant 'Material'. I find that somewhat judgemental. Couldn't a more suitable word be found?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.115.172 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judmental word? 

message: Abstinence has failed before. Are you guys forgetting about all the virgin births that have happened throughout history? Abstinence is 99% effective not 100%.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.217.103 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: facepalm Naptastic (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I know just about one virgin birth in history and that's Jesus Christ; of course, I doubt it is true Aminabzz (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth is that intercourse isn't per se needed for conception, just sperm leaking into the vagina. tgeorgescu (talk)  09:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the sperm leaking into the vagina? That's not called abstinence. Abstinence means not doing any sexual activity. But if sperm comes out of the penis, it's sexual activity. In fact, abstinence is 100% effective. Aminabzz (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Various religious groups have different understandings of what "virgin until marriage" is supposed to mean. That often means that if a girl does anal sex, she is still a virgin according to her own religion. tgeorgescu (talk)  15:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual abstinence means no sexual activity. It doesn't matter if you remain a virgin or not. If you have sexual activity, then you have breached the sexual abstinence. Because premarital sexual activity of any kind is considered a sin in most religions. Aminabzz (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstinence is NOT 100% effective 

message: This section isn't supported by the references provided - for instance it talks about high school acceptance when most US high schools do not have acceptance requirements.  The section also needs to specify that it's a US-only section.  "Almost twice as likely to drop out from college" is incorrect - the data shows that students that attempted but failed to complete college has only a 1% difference.  The report does say that students are more than twice as likely to graduate college, but that is only because more of those students start college, not because of a drop out rate difference.  I don't really have time to sit down and study the report to find the correct data, and didn't want to just wipe it all out.  If someone else could take the time to read it carefully and update the article, I'd appreciate it. Denaar (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible psychological effects 

message: Abstinence should be something that you choose for your own personal benefit. not because of your religion. It should be something you want because you want to share yourself with the one you love, not random strangers..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.161.190 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myself 

message: The Possible psychological effects segment currently contains information regarding mentality of societies that have had premarital chastity imposed upon them. I feel that the segment should also take into consideration the psychological effects on individuals as well.
Please take note of this while editing. Thank you. NK (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "Possible psychological effects" segment 

message: The abstinence only sex education section is US centric.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.146.145 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Centric information on abstinence only education 

message: Why does turn off redirect here? I couldn't find any reference to it in this article, and it has more to do with arousal (or lack thereof; or even it's opposite) than whether or not one engages in the sexual activity or abstains from it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.134.114 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn-offs? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Sexual abstinence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
From John Joseph O'Connor: "Archdiocese Challenges Koch's Order on Hiring, New York Times, November 27, 1984. Retrieved 1-2-09
From Christian meditation: Teaching world civilization with joy and enthusiasm by Benjamin Lee Wren 2004  page 236
From Rebecca St. James: 
From Sexual harassment: Boland, 2002
From Christian naturism: A History of Private Life, Volume I, From Pagan Rome to Byzantium by Paul Veyne, Phillippe Ariès, Georges Duby, and Arthur Goldhammer (Translator)
From Bill Baird (activist): Love and Cott, Feminists Who Changed America
From Premature ejaculation: 
From William Godwin: An essay on the principle of population, (1798) Chap. 10.
From Anarchism and issues related to love and sex: "An Anarchist Defense of Pornography" by Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
From Human sexuality: “Human Sexuality Today” by Bruce M. King (ISBN# 978-0-13-604245-7)
From Christian views on contraception: Handbook 2: Administering the Church (2010).
From Criticism of the Catholic Church: Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, Volume 3, "Caesar and Christ":
From Celibacy: The Catholic Encyclopedia vol 3, New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 486
From International Standard Book Number: The ISBN Users' Manual International Edition, 6th edition
From Asceticism: P. 377 Classical Hinduism By Mariasusai Dhavamony
From Sex differences in human physiology: Birke, Lydia (2001). The Gender and Science Reader, ed. Muriel Lederman and Ingrid Bartsch. New York, Routledge, pp. 306-322.
From Unification Church: Exposition of the Divine Principle
From Honor killing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml#h3
From Ages of consent in North America: 
From Sexual violence: Jewkes R, Abrahams N. The epidemiology of rape and sexual coercion in South Africa: an overview. Social Science and Medicine (in press).
From Orgastic potency: : 19.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Sexual abstinence]] 

message: "Chastity belts have been created for males and females, ostensibly for the purpose of chastity."
This is a weird sentence. Obviously, by definition they're ostensibly pro-chastity; if we think we should mention assertions that they were actually (or also) designed for different reasons—to subjugate women, to enforce heterosexuality, to mark rank, for BDSM activity, etc.—we should lay those assertions out clearly with refs. Otherwise, let's scrap this empty aspersion. FourViolas (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final sentence of "Associated practices" 

message: This section appears very poorly supported... among other things, I don't think a single study from the 1930s and one from the '70s should be the only sources here. 
The 1930s one in particular looks highly biased towards the cultural values of the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.132.26 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects on society? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sexual abstinence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150430134523/http://www.zmag.org/0007.htm to http://www.zmag.org/0007.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just wanted to point out that in the "Associated practices" section, there is no citation outside of Wikipedia detailing the characteristics and common uses of a chastity belt. It would be helpful to link to a study describing them, as was done in the same section for purity rings. Citations are also needed for the section detailing chastity as practiced in Islam and Judaism under "Chastity in religions". 
Also, in the subsection entitled "Popularity and effectiveness", the following sentence should be reworded: "Currently, there are also issues as to what abstinence means: is it an abstinence from sexual intercourse, or from sexual behavior?" I would suggest rewording it in a way similar to: "There are ongoing debates regarding whether abstinence should be defined as abstaining from sexual intercourse, or as abstaining from sexual behavior." RCLU12 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: More Citations and Proofreading Needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Sexual abstinence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510180701/http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument to http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081026065259/http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236 to http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801084310/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513043100/http://www.siecus.org/pubs/tsha_scaredchaste.pdf to http://www.siecus.org/pubs/tsha_scaredchaste.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025082806/http://info.xxx-sextoys.net/post/congress-abstinence.html to http://info.xxx-sextoys.net/post/congress-abstinence.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113134804/http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/premarital-sex-13377.htm to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/premarital-sex-13377.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818043434/http://ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm to http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703152443/http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/Family_Support/abstinence.asp to http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/Family_Support/abstinence.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just came across the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Chastity_Sexy when watching Joshua Harris documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLu68SWJFUk. Would that fit into this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:BBC5:5500:142E:DF0C:C8C:A7D1 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making chastity sexy 

message: J. D. Unwin fails WP:MEDDATE. It can be easily shown that 21st-century MDs, psychologists and sexologists overwhelmingly follow in Kinsey's footsteps rather than Unwin's. After Kinsey's scientific triumph, Unwin's arguments have become hilarious. Let's not forget that the Old Testament, basis of many civilizations, was written by a polygamous people. The Bible endorses polyginy by precept and example. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwin 

message: Moe.abuameer, regarding this, and this in October, we need to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for biomedical material. For example, we should typically avoid primary sources for this topic. See WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also, peer review is not the same thing as literature review. Please read and study WP:MEDRS. It is clear about the type of sourcing you should be using, and this begins with its introduction: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." You should be looking for secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. You can look on Google Books if that will help. It often helps me. If you haven't looked on PubMed, look on there as well. 
Also be mindful of MOS:BADHEAD and WP:Tone. Please read WP:MEDRS, WP:Primary sources, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, MOS:BADHEAD, and WP:Tone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Student editing]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Selfrink (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: JMC 440 Research Methods in Public Relations

message: In initial paragraph, why does it need to say "refraining from some or all aspects"? 86.22.43.187 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is nonsensical