Why faith-based marathon training might delay teen sex

I was half-joking in my previous post when I said that marathon training might delay teen sex more than abstinence programs. Of course, that would not hard to do because the definitive study of abstinence programs finds they don't delay teen sex at all.

Marathons fit in with the question of how people who don't intend to run marathons admire those who do, and I wasn't thinking about it as a potential intervention. The reason marathon training might delay teen sex is that the studies by the National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy show that comprehensive lifestyle programs are the most effective programs of all: these are the programs which involve the adolescents in some kind of activity, improve support systems, and take a lot of time.

The half-joking reasons why marathon training might delay teen sex are that they will be too tired and scheduled to find a partner and find time alone with the partner. But in the ideal case, first, it could create a close-knit and supportive group that meets regularly for long periods of time, so the group will reinforce its norms more strongly than a more loose group. Second, setting a high goal and working towards it may raise participants' self-efficacy, the confidence that they can accomplish their goals in general. Self-efficacy may be particularly important in the case of religious teens that have sex even though they think they shouldn't. Third, working towards a big goal may make that goal more salient in their minds, and may make sex slightly less salient. The endorphins wouldn't hurt. Plus, as one commenter said, maybe it would delay puberty, though I'm not sure if marathon training is safe so young.

This is assuming the maximal best case where all of the participants are super into the idea. Obviously in the real world, most would drop out, and only the most risk-seeking kids would stay in the program so it would be hard to find the right control group to test whether it works.

Casual team sports take up some time, but might not have enough intensity to raise participants' self-efficacy.

Abstinence at MTV music awards

This article came through my Google keywords, originally from a pro-life website:

Jordin Sparks, last year's American Idol winner, has high standards and at this year's MTV video music awards (VMA), she fearlessly made them public...

The host of the VMAs, Russell Brand, a British comedian ... took shots at the Jonas Brothers, a group of three brothers who are well known in the entertainment industry for wearing chastity rings and for being vocal advocates of premarital chastity.

"I'd take it a little more seriously if they'd wear it on their genitals," said Brand about the boys' promise rings. Brand then joked that the brothers' decision not to have sex before marriage was "a little bit ungrateful because they could have sex with any woman they want. That is like Superman deciding not to fly and go everywhere on a bus."

A few minutes later, however, Sparks shot back from the podium: "I just have one thing to say about promise rings. It's not bad to wear a promise ring, because not everybody - guy or girl - wants to be a slut."

...

Sparks comment at the VMA's was met with an audible cheer from the crowd and elicited a sheepish apology from the show's host.

"I didn't mean to take it lightly," Brand said about purity rings. "I don't want to piss off teenage fans."

However, Brand could not resist a parting shot, observing that, while he supported chastity rings, "a bit of sex, it never hurt anybody."

The editorializing makes it not a strict news story, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Assuming that the facts about who said what are correct, though, I think it's interesting that the host made the second remark about abstinence. If the article is accurate, it comes off as a little defensive.

Before I comment, I want to be clear that taxpayer-funded public policy and individuals' personal choices are separate issues. Public policy has to be evidence-based and so far the evidence for abstinence education and virginity pledges is simply not there. Even if there were evidence, it is unprecedented and contrary to conservative political thought for the federal government to promote a specific curriculum.

Individual choices to deny themselves are often applauded, even by people making different choices: so many times I've heard people sincerely say to a vegan or marathoner, "Wow, I could never do that." Even if they don't personally see the value of veganism or marathoning, per se, many people want to eat less meat or get more exercise. And just as an interpersonal issue, it's nice to tell someone that you value their choices.

Sexual abstinence seems like it should be similar. Even people who don't believe in premarital abstinence have been in situations requiring sexual restraint --- being in any committed relationship or avoiding a relationship with an inappropriate partner --- so disparaging remarks like this really puzzle me.

You can admire marathoners while opposing federal grants to marathon-training programs. Though, completely seriously, marathon-training programs could be more effective in delaying adolescent sexual initiation than abstinence, or perhaps any classroom curriculum.

Where are all the church-sponsored adolescent running groups?

Palin supports abstinence-plus, but doesn't call it that

The LA Times reports that Sarah Palin supports teaching condoms in sex ed. Although she declared herself to be a supporter of abstinence-only sex education, Palin said during a debate in 2006, "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues."

The political orthodoxy is that teaching any contraception cancels out any message of abstinence (e.g., the Abstinence Clearinghouse's statement in the article), but Palin seems not to believe that. It's possible for a conservative Evangelical Christian to agree that it's important to make sure all kids have accurate information about contraception.

Much has been made of the "small town values" and "common sense values" discussed during the Republican convention (see the third segment of Friday's Daily Show for an attempt to define them).

Is it possible that one of the "common sense values" is a pragmatism about the limits of values in affecting behavior?

Short abstinence updates

Catching up on some of the abstinence news while I was away:

1. A WSJ article tells of a teen vampire series with a large and burgeoning readership enraptured with the characters' intense restrained abstinent romance. The WSJ review of the actual book, however, is skeptical: "The most devoted readers will no doubt try to make excuses for this botched novel, but [author Stephanie] Meyer has put a stake through the heart of her own beloved creation."

2. Abstinence is not merely not-having-sex, but is apparently seen by some teensas a step towards having sex. Before sex is salient, not having sex is the default, and there's no thought of doing otherwise. Abstinence doesn't become a conscious choice until sex is an actual possibility. How this should change abstinence-focussed sex ed is a good question.

A new online sex ed campaign

The Portland Oregon Planned Parenthood created a new campaign for teens which manages to be both informative and dripping with irony. Or perhaps I am overinterpeting the irony.

It amplifies the weird stilted moments of any sex ed video where a creepily earnest adult pops up, uses overly slangy and very dated slang, and creates what any normal teen would find an uncomfortable moment. In the usual sex ed videos in my experience, the teens seem unfazed and take in the information. In this one, they just look uncomfortable, and in some cases walk away. These are more over the top than the usual ones, but also might feel more genuine because of that especially because the kids are responding as real kids would if a sex ed video inserted itself into their lives. An example of an overly stilted moment: in the abstinence episode, a girl (who in a past episode was afraid she had an STD) tells her friends that she can't go to a party because she plans to spend the night masturbating.

Dating as casual sex

An interesting piece in Salon purports to be ``In defense of casual sex.'' In fact, it is a defense of dating widely, the old-fashioned form of dating. For instance, this book advocates that its evangelical audience should date as many people as possible, even people they would never picture themselves marrying such as the secular, in order to learn about themselves and their relationships.

The only difference between the Salon author's dating and the old-fashioned version is how the date ends.

The Salon author acknowledges both versions of dating as valid, but thinks that people should be able to choose which path they take. She says that the abstinence movement "prescribes a particular path, rather than encouraging young women to blaze their own trail." which is a weird criticism of a conservative religious movement, which by its nature prescribes and proscribes. That's its job. Congregants can choose whether to listen --- as in the case of Catholics and birth control --- but a conservative religious movement by its very nature would never endorse fully open choice about anything.

Her premise that the abstinence movement is a unitary entity with a single path is also wrong, just as conservative religious movements' sweeping criticisms of "secular culture" as if it were a single entity. Our culture is just so divided that the two sides aren't aware of each other.

A sociologist studying dating among evangelical Christian young adults could probably find half a dozen legitimized paths towards marriage, ranging from courtship to wide dating with some sexual involvement. More importantly, they would also find another half a dozen of actual paths that people take, and I'm sure some are similar to the Salon author's path. Sexually active conservative Christians have had a handful of sexual partners by the time they finish college, and the handful of conservative Christian dating books that I've read all acknowledge that. I've seen none that speak of using sex as a carrot, though I don't deny they exist; they do speak of setting sexual boundaries as an exercise that will help in maintaining a marriage.

There's very little new to be said about dating and relationships, and much shared ground, as people would know if they would talk to each other. After acknowledging the shared ground, they can talk about the differences. The conservative authors already acknowledge that they are putting young adults in a difficult position, and that many young adults don't hold to the ideal. In this theoretical conversation, the parties could talk about whether more partners or more intimate relationships are better for developing one's sexuality, whether sex takes up time that might be better spent on more varied activities that would reveal more about the relationship, and whether making sex transgressive even though most conservative Christians have premarital sex causes problems.

Ironically, the author's ending is quite conservative, as she ends the article telling how she met her significant other. First-date-sex aside, she lives happily ever after in a monogamous mutually respectful relationship, just as the evangelical dating books want their readers to.

Abstinence thongs

Finally. More abstinence-themed thongs