Talk:Virginity pledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pregnancy Risk 2 Alternative intercourse 3 Homosexuals 4 Rector's Article

[edit] Pregnancy Risk

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)

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)

[edit] Alternative intercourse

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)

Another thing which I think we should discuss but we need a source is whether protection is less likely to be used when anal sex or oral sex is practiced instead of vaginal sex. I suspect the answer is yes. In this case, it similarly suggests there may be a greater risk, at least with anal sex (I'm not particularly sure what the transmission rates of unprotected oral sex vs protected vaginal sex) and it's something I think we should mention. Even better if we there is research which directly links it to virginity pledges (teens who make virginity pledges are more likely to have anal or oral sex and when they do are even less likely to use protection)Nil Einne 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuals

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)

[edit] Rector's Article

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)