Many bloggers have noted the “failure” of abstinence programs and chastity pledges to “work.” It seems to me that a lot of bad conclusions are drawn from this data. In fact the oddest thing about the studies into these programs is that people find the results worth noting. That is to say, the notion that superficial statements about changing one’s life or setting its course do not actually often change or set the course of that life unless one really changes the course of your life in non-superficial ways.
Consider the alcoholic or habitual drug user who (time after time) states, they are “quitting”, only to fall again and again “off the wagon.” You cannot stop drug use without changing all or at least most/many of the habits which accompany one’s life. Consider the convert to Christianity, who professes his or her faith yet changes other outward (or inward) modes and manner of thought. Failure to regularly attend liturgy, engage in daily prayer, and perhaps repentance and fasting … that conversion will likely be temporary and superficial.
If conversion to any new mode of life, is not accompanied by a change of daily praxis and symbol then that change will likely fail the “test of time” like those purported studies above. If one “pledges” abstinence from pre-marital but remains fully engaged in a culture which celebrates hedonism, sexual permissiveness, and individual fulfillment-as-pleasure then it is not surprising that these pledges are not meaningful.
However, cultures do change and people do on occaison change their way of life and living. Jason Kuznicki and others (for example in the comments here) recently has been dismissing Mr Ssempa’s “burning of condoms” as a fruitless and meaningless gesture. But, religion and Christianity in Africa also recently have been noted to be a thing which has been transformational of daily praxis, symbol, and modes of living in Africa. Could one imagine that such cultural change would extend to sexual mores. As an extreme example, consider Puritan New England in the colonial period. If one finds that out of wedlock childbirth is less common than other comparable cultures, one might realize that culture can make a difference. Those people “pledged” chastity before marriage … and accompanied that pledge by orienting their daily practices in a way that supported that choice. And made such pledges meaningful and ones which did impact their lives.
Or as it was put far more convincingly some time ago (Matthew 13:1-9 & 18-23):
That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down. And the whole crowd stood on the beach. And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.”
and
“Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”
The point is, that such pledges and acts (like burning of condoms) can be meaningless but they can also not be meaningless. One has to look at the person or people doing these things and consider if their acts are superficial or accompanied by supporting practices and symbols and a change of life that extends past just a quick symbolic statement. Has their life changed? Are they changing their ways of living and thinking. If so, then the symbolic statement is real and important … and should not lightly be dismissed as nonsense.
Consider the alcoholic or habitual drug user who (time after time) states, they are “quitting”, only to fall again and again “off the wagon.”
Ah, but we’re not talking about habitual “users,” here, we’re talking about virgins. It’s more like having kids pledge to never drink than like having alcoholics pledge that they’ll never drink.
Regardless, it’s really the confusion of use and abuse that is the issue with right-wing religion. (That’s really a subset of all-or-nothing thinking which is at the heart of “fundamentalist” [using the term loosely] religion.) Not all premarital sex is bad just like not all drinking is bad. Refusing to acknowledge the difference leads to more risky sex/drinking/whatever.
I notice that this is a slightly different defense of the pledge than has been offered on other sites, including one your linked too previously. That argument was that the ‘apples to apples’ nature of the study hide the fact that kids with more conservative religious or social beliefs tended to delay having sex. That would seem to make your assertion up here moot. The kids taking the pledge already have a lower rate of sex because they already have like minded beliefs. The studies would then indicate once you have those beliefs, the pledge itself seems to do nothing to reinforce.
But I think this observation misses a larger point. Abstinence education advocates have been working with a very simplistic and inaccurate model of human behavior. That is:
Person + Education Program = Behavior
They have pinned their hopes to something that fundamentally violates their own theology of individual free will. People choose to make decisions about sex the way they make decisions about religion. The education may give them a point of reference but ultimately the choice resides inside their own free will rather than in the right ‘program’.
As a result, I suspect abstinence education has become degraded into propaganda. Trying to redo old 40′s and 50′s hysterical hygine films and ‘refer madness’ flicks isn’t going to work (heck it didn’t work then, witness the 60′s). The reason they don’t work is that they are essentially about hedonism.
This may come as a surprise but think about how a lot of abstinence messages are presented. You may get STDs. You may get pregnant. You may get depressed. You may do poorly in school. You may end up unemployed more often in later life. etc. etc. What all these messages have in common is “me me me”. You’re selling ‘fulfillment-as-pleasure’ only your product has a longer time horizon. If sexual permissiveness is immediate hedonism then your pitch is delayed hedonism. Think of the travel agent, on one hand, who sells the Aruba vacation today with all its luxuries for a week or two versus the 401K financial planner who sells visions of you retiring to an island paradise. Both are essentially types of hedonism.
Not surprisingly, a hedonist would like nothing better than to hear he can have his cake and eat it too. When it becomes clear the attempts to ‘sell abstinance’ based on the numbers are faulty….that it’s quite easy to have sex and dramatically minimize your STD risk to almost zero…ditto for pregnancy…..well then the games over. The person is going to take a loan out of their 401K and book the vacation!
The sales pitch for abstinence based on hedonism is a set up for failure. No matter what, when people grow up they will see more and more of their peers start to become sexual. They will see that doing so does not immediately lead to STDs or pregnancies or suicidal depression. Hence the game is over. The fear of premarital sex (based on hedonism….having it will cost you more ‘toys’ then you will gain) will look childish and immature. Brittany Spears is a great ancedotal example of this. In her early years she was happy to tell anyone who wanted to know she was a virgin and was going to wait ‘until she was ready’……well it doesn’t take much to be ready and when she found out she was she really was!
The site you linked too previously noted that people with this ‘mindset’ tended to delay sexual activities until their early 20′s. But what the site didn’t note is that with the average marriage age tracking up clearly this was simply a delay, not a rejection, of premarital sex. From a public policy POV this may be ok since at least in most cases premarital sex among 24 yr olds is less problematic than among 16 yr olds but all you’ve really done is delay maturity. Something our secular society has done very well with it’s extended adolescence & 30-somethings living at home on their parent’s dime…
Boonton:
Great point. By couching their essentially moral message (premarital sex is immoral) in utilitarian terms (premarital sex is risky) they’ve damaged their own message. Put simply, the risks involved with premarital sex are risks most teens are willing to accept.
That applies to so many things. You correctly mentioned reefer madness as another moral-posing-as-utilitarian challenge. I’d argue that the opposition to same-sex marriage is exactly the same. People are morally opposed to it, but because that argument is unpalatable to the public, they come up with all of these utilitarian arguments (it’s an attack on marriage! churches will be forced to marry gays!) that don’t withstand a moment’s scrutiny by an observer who doesn’t agree with their moral take on the issue.
This also explains why the Christian right so often settles on “solutions” which are patently counterproductive to their stated aims — because their stated aims aren’t their actual aims. Their actual aim here is to reduce premarital sex. If by doing so, they actually increase the rate of STDs and teen pregnancy (due to teens not using condoms) well then, so be it. They’ll never come out and admit this, but then again, they’ll oppose harm reduction measures (e.g., distributing condoms, needle exchanges, methadone clinics) at every step for a message of abstinence (because sin is sin — it’s not about the harm that results, the sin is the harm to them.)
JA,
On the first, what’s your point. Are you suggesting that if we get 9 year old’s to “pledge” not to drink (or take meth) that they will be less likely to binge drink in college, become an alkie, or become a meth addict later in life.
No they won’t and a pledge won’t make a difference. To quote Mr Boonton, “Person + Education Program = Behavior” is wrong and that this is wrong is not news. But if a person changes his behavior that takes a change of behavior, a full commitment.
The reasons that utilitarian/consequential arguments are used today are manifold. However, they aren’t exactly the one’s you suggest I think. Consequentialist meta-ethical methods are dominant today. Resorting to those in Christian apologetics is either because the dominant mode of thought has permeated the rhetorical methods, that the Christian is reaching out to argue to those who will not respond to internal arguments based on Christian tradition, or the person is not self-aware of the meta-ethical basis of their argument.
I might argue that your empathy-as-ethics framing of meta-ethics was just a version, I think, of hedonistic consequentialism without you apparently being aware of it.
And before you get on your soapbox about harm-harm and sin-as-harm, recall that a monogamous married or single monastic religious life is one which is results in a happier outlook and result than the alternatives. So if the result that you’re looking for is happiness … then addiction to sex or other pleasures isn’t the avenue to which you should turn.
Boonton,
I’m not sure what you disagree with that I’m saying. Abstinence will work, if it isn’t a pledge but a lifestyle. If you renounce modern permissiveness and hyper-sexuality, devote your life to things not oriented and focused on sex then it will not be at best a statistical blip. Christian conversion will work and be meaningful if it accompanied by a sea-change in the patterns of your life. It seems to me you’re agreeing with that. What are you disagreeing with then?
No they won’t and a pledge won’t make a difference. To quote Mr Boonton, “Person + Education Program = Behavior” is wrong and that this is wrong is not news. But if a person changes his behavior that takes a change of behavior, a full commitment.
I would point out that I did assertion education can shape decisions or at least provide some grounding to them. For example, pledgers seemed to break their pledge no less than their non-pledging fellow believers but when they did break it they were less likely to use sensible birth control/std protection. Perhaps when they made the pledge they got the idea that they didn’t need to know about such things since it would never apply to them.
Consequentialist meta-ethical methods are dominant today. Resorting to those in Christian apologetics is either because the dominant mode of thought has permeated the rhetorical methods, that the Christian is reaching out to argue to those who will not respond to internal arguments based on Christian tradition, or the person is not self-aware of the meta-ethical basis of their argument.
Kind of convoluted here but I think you’re trying to mask the truth a bit. As a social group, Christians in the US are no less narcissistic than the rest of us…in some ways they are more so. Hence so many ‘methods’ center around a ‘what’s in it for me’ mindset.
I’m not sure what you disagree with that I’m saying. Abstinence will work, if it isn’t a pledge but a lifestyle. If you renounce modern permissiveness and hyper-sexuality, devote your life to things not oriented and focused on sex then it will not be at best a statistical blip.
Well actually you are drawing a distinction between a hedonistic based “permissiveness and hyper-sexuality” and a supposedly non-hedonistic based abstinence movement whose selling points are essentially hedonistic. It is hardly news that denying gratification can enhance the ultimate experience. This is probably lesson 1 for every stripper and in another world of pleasures this is why chef’s know desert comes at the end of the meal rather than the beginning. But you’re trying to sell what is basically asceticism, a denial of pleasure, as a form of pleasure and ultimately that’s not going to work.
I’m not sure what you mean by abstinence will work. Yes it works in the sense that a person will not spontaneously combust if they reach 21 still a virgin. It will work in the sense that except for one possible case, people who don’t have sex won’t get pregnant (sans IVF too). But does it work as a social policy as currently conceived and presented? The answer is no it does not. Why? Because it is basically a pretty flimsy scam based on some really dubious half-truths and by ignoring some pretty basic facts. It doesn’t work for the same reason the three-card monte hucksters on city streets do not make millions of dollars a year. An education policy that depends on people being and remaining stupid is really tricky to pull off.
If you want a silly analogy, imagine a drug education policy based on giving kids sugar and having them snort it on the belief that it will get them high. Yes such a ruse might cause a few extra years to pass before they turn 18 or 20 and figure out that real coke will do the job a lot better. Yes maybe that will let you say you lowered high school drug use & maybe in the big scheme of things it isn’t so bad since 20 year olds are a bit more mature than 17 yr olds so better to experiment with coke then rather than earlier…but ultimately you haven’t made a real drug policy.
Boonton,
I strongly disagree with that assertion. Show me data demonstrating that those people attending liturgy or Bible studies 2 or more times a week are more narcissistic than the norm. Now I haven’t done a large study, but among the non-casual Christians there is a non-narcissistic mindset is prevalent I’d offer.
The reason “abstinence” doesn’t work is it isn’t coupled with social change or at least a shift in personal habit and lifestyle. That’s the only problem with it.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with your snorting sugar analogy.
Consider the following, in the Philippines when I was there some years back (on business), I found that monastic communities among the Catholics were healthy and active. You find nuns and monks in their early twenties. They have taken a “abstinence vow” and at the same time embraced and changed dramatically their life’s habits and outlook. I submit that they will have a strikingly different rate of failing their “abstinence pledge” than the norm. That’s an extreme example, but it is my point. The pledge makes no difference unless coupled with other factors.
Somehow I don’t think those nuns took their pledge because they were trying to minimize STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and depression.
Boonton,
Somehow I don’t imagine that teens who take pledges (but alas don’t reform their entire lifestyle) also don’t take the pledge with a primary reason of minimizing STDs, unwanted pregnancies and so on.