Read an article in todays news concerning a court case that is about to take place in the UK. A girl of 16 who has pledged her viriginity till marriage had been taken into isolation for teaching at school as the ring contravened strict jewellery and uniform rules. At the same school it would be tolerated for a Muslim to wear a headscarf and for a Sikh to wear their ceremonial bracelet.

I have mixed feelings on this case, doubtless AC-1 may propose that a complete secularisation of school rules would prevent the alleged disparity that is occuring here, and the alleged anti-christian legislation. I am not so sure I would agree with that, but it does have its valid points. I am concerned that the case is an unfair test case, the action is being pursued by the girls parents, who happen to be involved in the UK organisation of the chastity movement. But the girl has declared that she is freely consenting to participating in legal action, so despite personal concerns one must take her word on that.

The headmaster has stated (correctly) that the chastity ring, just like a neclace crucifix is a non-obligatory accessory in Christianity. By not wearing it, no sin or breech of rules is occuring, unlike in Islam or Hinduism where certain accessories are prescribed. This is however slightly besides the point, for the Silver Ring Thing has a specific resonance for those teenagers who take the pledge of chastity. By wearing it there is a visible symbol of that pledge to the wearer and to others. Some criticism emerges in that those who break their pledge and remove their rings are perhaps vulnerable to peer criticism, but this argument is only relevent in those situations where it is peer popular (i.e. America). In the UK the Silver Ring Thing is a minority counter cultural group. Therefore I am inclined to say to the headmaster, use your common sense and let them get on with it.

The Silver Ring Thing, and True Love Waits are US protestant Christian chastity movements, specifically aimed at teenagers, but specifically founded as a counter-cultural method of decreasing teenage pregnancy and STD’s. The pledge that is taken is that the bearer will abstain from sexual intercourse until they are married. In the US federal funding was removed a couple of years ago over fears that it was being used to spread the Christian message.

There has of course obviously been some criticism from all manners of directions some of which are secular interference, others are mocking the counter-cultural nature of the movement, and some is valid criticism.

As I said I have mixed views, the notion that abstinence can reduce teen prenancies and STD rates of infection is a valid one. No sex, no babies, no STD’s. It really is that simple. But some opponents point out that such an emphasis on abstinence leaves the pledger un-educated when it comes to sexual health, meaning that if they were to break their pledge they would most likely engage in higher risk activity such as unprotected sex. This is a possible criticism, but one that is probably only valid in the US, sex-education in the UK is near obligatory and it is hard to accept the argument as being valid here. The majority of teenage pregnancies in this country occur due to high-risk activity, irrespective of their religious adherence, in fact most of them probably are religiously unaffiliated anyway.

There are some valid observations made about this programme, for example marriages occur at a younger age, and pregnancy within the early years of marriage are high.

There was one part of the article (and the research) into this phenomenon that does bother me. At the end of the article it was stated that some scientists are critical of the effects of the chastity movement. So I decided to investigate the research myself and see what was being said.

Scientists declared that pledges of abstinece barely cut teen pregnancies and STD infection rates. I thought, thats interesting how so? Well the normal propaganda was reeled out that the pledgers are uneducated and if and when they fail they are just as likely and in some cases possibly more likely to contract an STD or to fall pregnant.

Of course as I read the material more it became obvious that most of it was bunkum and second rate christian-bashing bunkum at that. The figures indicated the possibility that those who broke their pledge were more likely to engage in high risk sexual activity (unprotected, oral sex, anal sex) than those who took no such pledge. Thus rendering them at greater risk.

Of course the scientists had to acknowledge that those who took the pledge were more likely to get married early and had fewer sexual partners (even if they broke the pre-marital sex pledge). And (though they wouldnt openly admit it) there was a begrudging admission that yes indeed no sex equals no babies and no infection transmission.

So whats the problem… well according to Prof Bearman it is: “From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs.”

So lets look at the figures.

7% of non-pledgers contracted STD’s, compared to 6.4% of the inconsistent pledgers (who broke the pledge on numerous occasions and engaged in high-risk activities), compared to 4.6% of consistent pledgers (who only lapsed very rarely).

What Bearmans research didnt show was that teen-pregnancies had fallen. So some criticism fell his way that he was amplifying the negative results over the positive.  What is interesting is that he considers the statistical difference to be minute, but this is over tens of thousands of surveyed participants so the gap is larger. If the figures had shown the opposite, namely that infection rates were higher amongst abstainers I would listen more attentively.

There are two problems with the research here, and two examples of the heresy of presenting statistics as though they actually mean anything. Firstly the researcher kindly differentiates between consistent and inconsistent pledgers. The latter are those who regularly break their pledge and engage in sexual activity. What isn’t shown is the frequency of those lapses. The greater the number of lapses the greater the occurence of rates of infection. Surely then he should re-categorise these incosistent pledgers as simply former pledgers, who broke their pledge and engaged in behaviour that wasnt all that different from non-pledgers. Secondly he is absolutely correct that any chastity programme that focuses on abstinence from vaginal sex is ignoring the dangers that are incurred through other high-risk sexual acts. But, most if not all of these chastity movements are quite clear that abstinence means abstaining from all sexual acts. If they do not then they are falling into the semantic trap characterised by President Clintons defence in the Monica Lewinski scandal, diffeentiating between sex and a sexual act.

OK rant over. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds. If the case highlights the inconsistency in religious tolerance edicts then fine. Lets hope it doesn’t become a vehicle for fundamentalism. Chastity and abstinence are fine, but they must be personal consenting choices.