osu.edu
The results showed that, unlike many adult networks, there was no core group of very sexually active people at the high school. There were not many students who had many partners and who provided links to the rest of the community.
Instead, the romantic and sexual network at the school created long chains of connections that spread out through the community, with few places where students directly shared the same partners with each other. But they were indirectly linked, partner to partner to partner. One component of the network linked 288 students – more than half of those who were romantically active at the school – in one long chain. (See figure for a representation of the network.)
Ok, let’s cut through to the core of this: Researchers have finally mapped out the sexual connections of an entire school — proving once and for all it’s not the, “Bad kids,” who are having sex. It’s everyone’s kids. No, they are not doing the whole school and, no, they may or may not even be having full on vaginal intercourse (not that that makes much difference to a virus.) In fact, these teens are so limited in their exploration they are each likely only having sex with two different partners — but they are having sex and it’s strikingly well organized.
In my mind, this is a serious assault on the whole silver-ring-thing movement that regularly claims that teens who take their pledge avoid sex or at least limit sex to a very small number of partners. (Though I fully admit it’s never going to be taken notice of…) Reality check: They are all having sex with limited partners.
Not-In-My-Back-Yard thinking is as prevalent today as it ever was. We have a lot of good luck charms we use to convince ourselves that it makes sense — even in the face of research. One of the most common responses to this is simply, “Oh yes, but that’s not my kid — s/he wears a purity ring — and must be numbered in the smaller percentage of students who were not sexually involved.” It’s usually these same parents who are then fighting against the HPV vaccine being administered to their kids or having their kids taught about condoms. (For a brief synopsis of how well purity rings work — not at all — see a recent study published by Medical News Today.)
It’s really easy to believe it will not be your child — and easier still for the teens to believe it won’t be them considering they are bound to know one of the two or three in the entire school who has MANY sexual partners. Trouble is, with the social pressure not to be seen as taking a friend’s, “Leftovers,” there is a self organizing nature to the sexual networks that ensures that whatever diseases one student has are likely to be systematically distributed to the whole works of them.
Sociologists Peter Bearman and Hannah Brueckner (Columbia and Yale, respectively) found that when virginity pledgers do have sex, they are less likely to use a condom that could save their lives than non-pledgers. So, if they are having sex and it is always with limited numbers, then two questions arise: How can we keep kids from even the limited sex they are having (Seeing as the rings are not working) and/or at least keep them from the unsafe sex the rings are CAUSING. Interestingly enough, these same researchers also found that 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.
In my mind, that last sentence is key in answering those two questions:
Parental ignorance, acculturated shame (A.K.A: Purity Balls) and the absence of freedom leads to rebellion — stupid rebellion that gets teens pregnant or dead.
Parental knowledge, shame free involvement, the presence of freedom and the provision of options, when coupled with direct and clear teaching about God’s best for your life, leads children to make decisions for themselves and deeply embed those decisions within their own hearts. Strangely enough, they actually manage to stick to those decisions or at least fail to do so in less dangerous ways.
The number of Christian organizations presenting totally false statistics to back up their ring sales, purity balls and opposition to teens being taught about condoms is staggering. (No, I will not link to them.) Apparently, it’s better to go on marketing the same fictions then to admit that our rather macabre little road show hasn’t worked — and then actually parent our kids.
For me, the final irony is that the purity ring was initially a beautiful original creation of Jack McLemore, a Mississippi jeweler, who actually did love, engage and teach his daughter and intended it as a special symbol meant only for her. He never intended it to become a mass marketed control tactic or a quick-fix Bandaid that allows parents to hide their heads in the sand.
