Editing Abstinence pledge (section)

==Studies==
There have been numerous peer-reviewed studies on those who have taken abstinence pledges promising to maintain chastity until marriage, with varying results. Four of the five peer-reviewed virginity pledge studies and the non-peer-reviewed study discussed below use the same federal data, the [[National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health]] (Add Health), in which 13,000 adolescents were interviewed in 1995, 1996, and 2000. The other peer-reviewed study used a study of virginity pledges in [[California]].

The first peer-reviewed study of virginity pledgers (by sociologists [[Peter Bearman]] of [[Columbia University|Columbia]] and Hannah Brueckner of [[Yale University|Yale]]) found that in the year following their pledge, some virginity pledgers are more likely to delay sex than non-pledgers; when virginity pledgers do have sex, they are less likely to use contraception than non-pledgers.<ref name="webmdVPDCSR">{{cite web | title = Virginity Pledges Don't Cut STD Rates | work = WebMD.com | url=http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20050322/virginity-pledges-dont-cut-std-rates}}</ref> This study found that virginity pledges are only effective in high schools in which about 30% of the students had taken the pledge, meaning that they are not effective as a universal measure.  Their analysis was that identity movements work when there is a critical mass of members:  too few members, and people do not have each other for social support, and too many members, and people do not feel distinctive for having taken the pledge. This study was criticized for not being able to conclude causality, only correlation, a criticism which applies to all studies of virginity pledges thus far.<ref>{{cite web | title = Appraising Evidence on Program Effectiveness: Do Virginity Pledges Cause Virginity? | publisher = Public Health Institute Center for Research on Adolescent Health and Development | url = http://crahd.phi.org/VirginityPledges.html | access-date = 2004-11-29 | archive-date = 2004-10-14 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20041014085951/http://crahd.phi.org/VirginityPledges.html | url-status = dead }}</ref>

A second peer-reviewed study, also by Bearman and Brueckner, looked at virginity pledgers five years after their pledge, and found that the pledgers have similar proportions of [[sexually transmitted disease|sexually transmitted infections]] (STIs) and at least as high proportions of [[anal sex|anal]] and [[oral sex]] as those who have not made a virginity pledge. They deduced that there was substitution of oral and anal sex for vaginal sex among the pledgers, although the data for anal sex without vaginal sex reported by males did not reflect this directly.<ref name="webmdVPDCSR"/><ref name="pmid15780782">{{cite journal
| title = After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges
| author = Brückner and Bearman
| date = April 2005
| journal = Journal of Adolescent Health
| pages =271–278
|  volume= 36 
| issue= 4 
| doi=10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.01.005
| last2 = Bearman
| first2 = Peter
| pmid = 15780782
| s2cid = 10150529
| doi-access = free
}}</ref>
This study also estimated that male pledgers were 4.1 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge (25% vs. 6%), and estimated that female pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge (21% vs. 6%).  The study also noted that those who pledge yet became sexually active reported fewer partners and were not exposed to STI risk for as long as nonpledgers.<ref name="webmdVPDCSR"/><ref name="pmid15780782"/> 
  
A third peer-reviewed study — by Melina Bersamin and others at Prevention Research Center, in Berkeley, California — found that adolescents who make an informal promise to themselves not to have sex will delay sex, but adolescents who take a formal virginity pledge do not delay sex.<ref>{{cite journal
|vauthors=Bersamin MM, Walker S, Waiters ED, Fisher DA, Grube JW |title=Promising to wait: virginity pledges and adolescent sexual behavior
|journal=J Adolesc Health
|volume=36
|issue=5
|pages=428–36
|date=May 2005
|pmid=15837347
|pmc=1949026
|doi=10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.016
}}</ref>

A fourth peer-reviewed study — by [[Harvard University|Harvard]] public health researcher [[Janet Rosenbaum]] published in the [[American Journal of Public Health]] in June 2006 — found that over half of adolescents who took virginity pledges said the following year that they had never taken a pledge.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/08/MNGPHIN8IF1.DTL | title = Some may play fast and loose with virginity pledge, study finds | author = Elizabeth Mehren | work = San Francisco Chronicle | date=  2006-05-08}}
</ref> This study showed that those who make the pledge but have sex are likely to deny ever pledging; and many who were sexually active prior to taking the pledge deny their sexual history, which, it is speculated, may cause them to underestimate their risk of having STIs.

A fifth peer-reviewed study, also by Janet Rosenbaum published in the journal ''[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]]'' in 2009,<ref name="pmid19117832">{{Cite journal | last1 = Rosenbaum | first1 = J. E. | title = Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers | doi = 10.1542/peds.2008-0407 | journal = Pediatrics | volume = 123 | issue = 1 | pages = e110–e120 | year = 2009 | pmid = 19117832 | pmc =2768056 }}</ref> found no difference in sexual behavior of pledgers and similar non-pledgers five years after pledging, but found pledgers were 10 [[percentage point]]s less likely to use condoms and 6 percentage points less likely to use birth control than similar non-pledgers. Rosenbaum's study was innovative for using [[Rubin causal model]] matching, instead of relying on [[regression analysis]], which makes potentially untrue [[parametric statistics|parametric]] assumptions. According to Rosenbaum, past research findings that virginity pledgers delayed sex may have been affected by their statistical method's inability to adjust fully for pre-existing differences between pledgers and non-pledgers: pledgers are much more negative toward [[premarital sex]] prior to even taking the pledge, so would be predicted to delay sex even if they had not taken the pledge. Comparing pledgers with similar non-pledgers is the only way to be certain that the effect comes from the pledge rather than the pre-existing greater beliefs of pledgers that sexuality should be restrained to the matrimonial context.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801588.html|title=Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds|first=Rob|last=Stein|date=29 December 2008|access-date=29 May 2017|via=washingtonpost.com}}</ref>
When examining the dynamics of abstinence pledges in the purity culture, it becomes clear that these pledges exist on the boundary between intentional and unintentional, as articulated by Muskrat (2024)https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13558358.2024.2332980. It is not uncommon for purity culture to create a space where teens are even encouraged to promise themselves no sex before marriage, the stage that society heavily stresses on temperature. Nevertheless, during the period of purity culture, when there is no restriction on physical intimacy, abstinence supporters often harbor doubts about the conformity of sexual behavior among the younger generation. g generation. The [[liminality]] (Muskrat, 2024), as with the whole nuance of the transition period from adolescence to adulthood, is the underlying necessity for learning to surmount the restraint that comes with a strict moral pattern.

On the other hand, Ray (2023) will talk in depth about virginity checking (VCT) and hymnography (HTG)https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=40DkEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PT21&dq=virginity+pledges+journal+taylor+and+francis&ots=2dLjGWntYS&sig=qD_PuMtzeiQ6CCQJctuD--p40xc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=virginity%20pledges%20journal%20taylor%20and%20francis&f=false. He will also talk about the larger cultural norms that led to these practices. These norms show us how much society (especially women) values and expects people to uphold the traditions and customs of purity and righteousness. Indeed, such pledges can be perceived as a source of protection against the trend that modern civilization transmission and changing social norms are causing, undermining classical beliefs. On the other hand, Ray's (2023) work on the campaign to make harmful cultural practices unacceptable exposes this approach as not up-to-date, rather ineffective, and even dangerous when promoting sexual health and well-being, and in general when taking into account the complexity of nowadays's varied cultural, gender, and sexual development.