(UK) Banned: Schoolgirls are forced to take off chastity rings

[muriel_volestrangler]

Heather and Philip Playfoot have spent almost two years in dispute with Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, over their 15-year-old daughter Lydia's ring. While the school's uniform rules forbid jewellery, they argue that the rings - given to teenagers who complete a controversial evangelical church course preaching sexual abstinence - hold genuine religious significance.
...
Knight told him in a written parliamentary answer that while school governors had freedom to set uniform rules, government guidance states that they 'should have regard to their responsibilities under equalities legislation' and be 'sensitive to pupils' cultural and religious needs'.

Selous said while many schools banned jewellery he did not see a problem with purity rings, adding: 'Given that the government is failing to avchieve its teenage pregnancy targets, you would have thought that schools would do everything in their power to help children help themselves.'

However Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society defended the school, adding: 'If the school has the uniform policy I don't see why it should make an exception for this. I'm deeply distrustful of these Silver Ring Thing-type initiatives: the research is quite clear that they don't work.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

I agree that it's really another form of jewellery - it says "look at me" just as much as a normal ring. And the best argument for school uniform - that it stops competition and showing-off of how much the children's families can afford - applies especially to jewellery.

[Warpy]

1. Yeppers

Besides, those ceremonies where little girls marry Daddy are beyond creepy.

Perhaps the compromise for the spiritually constipated would be to wear the ring on a simple chain INSIDE the clothing.

No jewelry means no jewelry. I'm with the school on this one.

[Milspec]

13. Do you have a link to the "ceremonies " you mention

I did just a little google and couldn't find a reference. Sounds creepy to me too

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. "Purity balls": a description from Mark Morford

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/05/12/notes051206.DTL&nl=fix

[smirkymonkey]

18. Zoloft, Jesusville

:rofl:

[TomInTib]

19. I absolutely love Morford's writing.

He writes for our local (S F Chronicle). I used to post his stuff here and never got more than maybe 4 reads.

So I stopped doing it.

[nonconformist]

47. That's a shame - you should start posting them again

I love his style and wit.

[Warpy]

23. I couldn't find the original article, which was really, really, creepy

because it took the whole thing seriously and approvingly, but Pandagon has a nice summary written with an acid keyboard: http://pandagon.net/2006/04/18/the-entrance-fee-is-an-intact-hymen/

The script is at http://www.lifeway.com/tlw/leaders/ring_ceremony.asp

(The operative sentence is at the bottom of the page)

I'm really sorry the original article has disappeared. It featured (complete with touching pictures) girls from 11-16 in white dresses, walking down an aisle with Daddy to get their rings.

"Creepy" really doesn't begin to describe it.

[nonconformist]

46. You've just gotta wonder how many of these girls

are being molested by Daddy - because, you know, he wants to teach her about "bad touching".

[lcruiz]

66. the ceremonies

Lol I don't think they actually happen. I believe its more of a symbolic ceremony. The daughter should promise that her dad will be the only important man in her life until she marries. I know of this because one of my good friends wears a ring that her father gave her at 13, and she made that promise to him.

[lcruiz]

65. reply to yeppers

I def agree with you about the creepy ceremonies. But these rings symbolize something very important to the family and the little girl, they shouldn't have to hide it underneath their clothing. On their hand, its a constant reminder of their promise, and as the article states the country hasn't been very good at controlling the birth rate, so I have to say I'm siding with the faimily

[Nihil]

68. Junk

> they shouldn't have to hide it underneath their clothing

The rules say that jewelry is not allowed so it is not allowed.
Other kids at the school can apparently grasp this except for these
"little chaste girls". The family are just being arseholes.

[oneighty]

2. Advertising

Reminds little boys (and big boys) of the anatomy of chastity.

Almost a challenge. Not much different than short shorts.

180

[elgati]

20. Prepare to puke...

http://www.halljewelers.com/chastityrings.htm

[crikkett]

3. it says "look at me" - more like "steal me!"

..having lost my class ring in the gym lockerroom. I forgot my lock.

They can wear the red sashes of Orwell's Junior Anti-Sex League

[mcscajun]

5. The red sashes Would be more appropriate.

:rofl:

But of course, they'd probably break the uniform code as well.

Hey! I've got it! They can wear chastity belts. No one will know. :evilgrin:

[mcscajun]

4. Jewelry is jewelry. Period. If they make one exception, they'll have

to make more, and then there's no more uniform rule.

And I agree that there's something massively creepy about these ceremonies where it's declared that Daddy "owns" his daughter's virginity until her wedding night. Ugh.

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Apparently they allow kara braclets for Sikhs

So they are pursuing this as religous discrimination.

I remember the debate about kirpans (knives observant Sikhs wear at all times for religous reasons) which reached the Supreme Court in Canada and there have been issues with it elsewhere...lots of noise about that one too.

[Trillo]

21. I wonder if "cultural" exception would allow a watch,

even though a watch is a piece of jewelry. A watch is also religious, part of the workaholic/consumer religion, simply looking at the position of the sun in the sky gives a general idea of the daytime, so it's not really needed, but it seems part of the religion of workaholism/consumerism is splitting hours down to minutes and seconds for the efficiency aspect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. To play your game

This is England, where you can't see the position of the sun for most of the school day.

[Trillo]

24. How about dealing with the core issue my post raised?

The religion of consumerism is quite real, and surely is just as unreal and unnatural as any other indoctrinated religion.

Instead of playing a advocate's game, how about dealing with the core issue my post raised? Do they allow watch jewelry to be worn at that school(?). Or how about dealing with the second point, that of corporatism and the corporatists' religion of indoctrinated consumerism/workaholism(?).

Well, at least you did address the sun issue. Is it your claim that on a cloudy day, one can't tell that it's daytime(?).

[Posteritatis]

26. You sure as hell can't tell if it's 11am or 2pm

"Religion of consumerism" silliness aside, people do occasionally, for some strange reason, have or want to coordinate their activities sometimes.

Do you really think a watch is a religious talisman? That wanting to know what time it is is somehow a bad thing?

[Trillo]

27. Watches are usually sold in the jewelry department, at least in the U.S.

It is reasonable to make the connection.

Edited to add:

Do they allow watch jewelry in their schools?

Regarding your last question, I'm quite certain there's a whole essay therein. A short one liner wouldn't do the question the justice it deserves.

I'd be willing to bet that most non-ill people can tell the time within an hour or two without using a time-telling device. Likely, with practice, that skill could be improved.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. They can't tell the time by the sun that accurately

For a start, people don't carry around compasses with them, so they don't know where north is. The height of the sun is a very bad guide - changing throughout the year. And it's frequently cloudy. So your comment that people could use the sun is what we've taken to mean you weren't serious about this. Yes, of course we can tell it's daytime, as opposed to nighttime - but on a completely cloudy day, you often can't tell more than that. I'm sure you know that, which makes your post look even more non-serious.

People have an idea of the time based on "it feels like so many minutes/hours since X happened" - if they know what time that was. But they're not very good at it, and in a school, where there is a timetable, accurate knowledge of the time helps a lot. You're expected to be organised, turn up for lessons, and not keep other people waiting. A watch is a practical item, and I don't think I've heard the phrase "watch jewellery" in my life. But yes, I'm sure they allow watches in the school.

If you really think you are raising serious points, then "the corporatists' religion of indoctrinated consumerism/workaholism" has little to do with wearing a watch. A watch doesn't make you buy more; work may make a watch necessary, but that's because it helps you work with other people - it's good manners to not keep people waiting.

Do you think the practice of timestamping posts on DU is part of "the corporatists' religion of indoctrinated consumerism/workaholism"?

[Posteritatis]

32. Watches actually serve a practical purpose

Though you're splitting hairs thin enough that I think you've sliced that particular fact clean away, or at least declared it to be evil.

[Trillo]

33. Hypocrisy is not a "silly" topic to question.

Simplistically, prohibiting jewelry while allowing a watch at school is another fine example of hypocrisy, given the watches association to jewelry and class status. Of course, in a workaholic society, careful dicing of time units would be required, which I pointed out above with the word "efficiency".

muriel_volestrangler wrote: " For a start, people don't carry around compasses with them, so they don't know where north is."

Lol! You must be writing of magic compasses to confuse where the compass points versus earth rotations.

muriel_volestrangler wrote: "People have an idea of the time based on "it feels like so many minutes/hours since X happened""

I rather doubt that "minutes/hours" is the root of animals' time knowledge, but it's likely that a conversion would be attempted by the mind to units others would understand. I suspect that "hours/minutes" is a non-natural time unit, whereas, daylight versus nighttime is much more natural, so in a culture without watches, likely a different cultural ethic of time measurement would be realized. It's probably a fascinating area of study with lots of nuances.

muriel_volestrangler wrote: "A watch doesn't make you buy more". The last time I checked, retailers don't give watches away for free, though, in fairness, some versions are quite inexpensive, while others are clearly class status symbols (jewelry). I've read that corporations used to give expensive watches like a Rolex (made with real gold) to retirees of long employment, but those days are long since gone: fortune 500 CEOs can probably buy one without worrying about breaking their personal budgets. A clock is a critical tool of the 'micromanager', and in many people's minds micromanagement itself is an unhealthy modern-day phenomenon of a corporate driven society.

It is not at all clear to me that dicing time so finely, indeed compulsively, is healthy for any of us humans. There may be some gray area in the debate, that much I'm willing to equivocate, but one must keep in mind the nature of extremism and the fact that most of our lives are micromanaged down to the second these days.

Some are even suggesting that industrialism (correlates to the rise of corporatism in the U.S. as well as CO2 emissions) is responsible for global warming, but we here on DU do not take serious stock of such suggestions, therefore corporatism in some of its many facets is just fine and dandy. Yep, watch that clock closely, remember, you cannot "live" without it, and anyone who tells you otherwise is "evil" (a wee bit'o sarcasm).

No, hypocrisy is not a "silly" topic to question. There are other fine posts in this thread that touch on it, so read on....

[mcscajun]

34. Who needs a watch anymore?

I gave up wearing one in January 1993, and I haven't missed it since.

We're surrounded by devices and reminders of what time it is. Nearly every digital device, from PCs to calculators, TVs, VCRs, DVD players, ranges, ovens, microwaves, toaster ovens, cell phones, PDAs, pagers, displays the time (unless you never have managed to program 'em, so all they say is 12:00 all the damned time. :D

Clocks are damned near everywhere, and in the USA, so it seems are televisions (they're in banks, post offices, dentist offices, auto dealership service department waiting areas to name just a few locations).

It's tough to be out of reach of a clock or time display anymore.

And if you're in a high school and regulations forbid most digital devices, you certainly don't need to worry about the time, as the bell will ring soon and let you know it's time to move to your next class, take lunch, or go home.

[Shipwack]

48. Best use of "BLINK" tag -ever- :) NT

[mcscajun]

49. Thank you.

::chuckle::

[earth mom]

6. Playfoot?! Guess "playing footsie" is the only thing allowed

:evilgrin:

Sorry-couldn't resist!

[Posteritatis]

7. Everyone involved's being a dolt in this one

The school? "Health and safety issue," my ass. That's an even better copout than "disruptive."

The student? "I do actually keep to the school rules?" No, honey, you don't, or this wouldn't be an issue.

The parents? "Alternative lifestyles?" Really, now, I wonder why they used that particular bit of word choice?

The NSS spokesmuppet? If you've got a problem with the rings, where's your problem with headcoverings and bangles? I thought so. (Note: Yes, I know those are considerably more integral to their respective faiths than these rings are, but the NSS is being hypocritical by not flaring up over those, too.)

Dubya? $170 million spent on stuff like this? Really now, that's money that could've gone into compensating the American population for the Da Vinci Code movie or Battlefield Earth or something.

The Observer itself? What's with all that boldface in the last section? It reads like an AFA email.

[salin]

8. Do what other kids do with special rings... if 'jewelry is not allowed'

put it on a necklace and wear it under your top - if it has special meaning, then it is with you. If it is just meant to show a messge - and one is in a school with a dresscode or uniform that prevents such 'message bearing' attire - then the solution wouldn't work, but then the motivation of the ring would be clear - and thus be out of compliance with such a policy.

Whether or not a school should have such a policy is another question altogether.

[Raine]

39. That's what I was thinking

attach it to a string and wear it around the neck then no one would even see it but I guess that's the problem cause then they can't show off how self-righteous they are. x(

[fedsron2us]

9. The education system in the UK only has itself to blame for this mess

Once you start allowing some religious symbols to be worn in schools it is hard to keep others out. Judging whether any such item is truely of 'religious' significance is almost impossible, particularly if those making the decision do not share the beliefs. It would be better if religion and all religious symbols were simply excluded from all state schools. If parents want their kids to brought up in a particular religion then they should do it privately paying for them to attend a religious schools where necessary. After all those who are serious about their faith should be prepared to make some financial sacrifice to follow it not rely on the secular masses ( who are the vast majority in the UK) to pick up the costs.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. In an earlier branch I brought up Sikhs and the Kirpan

Its been batted around in the US and Canada. Currently bonafide Sikhs are now allowed to carry them in school.

[XemaSab]

35. I don't quite agree

"It would be better if religion and all religious symbols were simply excluded from all state schools."

Banning Muslims from wearing headscarves, Jews from wearing yarmulkes, Catholics from wearing St Anthony medals, and fundies from wearing purity rings just draws attention to them... a better tactic is to let them wear whatever they want and not draw more attention to it by allowing these fundies to make a lot of noise about how persecuted they are.

[Cronus Protagonist]

37. In Britain, the government pays for Catholic schools

And they're ALL about religious symbols. They should ban religious symbols AND jewelry countrywide, to be fair, but each school has its own latitude, perhaps appropriately so.



Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[tanyev]

10. I didn't know this chastity ring thing had caught on in the UK, too.

Gads, is there no place where committed secularists can relax and feel comfortable?

[fedsron2us]

12. You need to remember that the UK actually has a state religion

the Church of England of which the Queen is temporal and spiritual head. Many of the schools within the state education system once belonged to the Church and still retain tenuous links with it. An act of religious worship is still a compulsory part of the school day in Britain. This system worked without too many problems as long as nearly everyone was at least nominally Christian. However, mass immigration by those practising other faiths and increasing secularism amongst the rest of the population has complicated the position. Blair's solution is to allow the government to fund state schools affiliated to other religions. The problem is that the one area where this set up has actually been put into practise in the UK is Ulster and it has been a major reason why sectarian hatreds have persisted for so long in that province. It would be far better and more honest to disestablish the Church of England and then to turf all religious elements out of the state education system. After all why should the secular majority in the UK have to subsidise religious education in Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other belief system. If a faith means so much to an individual surely they should be prepared to pay for their children's education in it. The fact that so many are not prepared to make such a commitment makes me wonder how dearly they cleave to their God.

[Cronus Protagonist]

38. I had no act of religious worship in any of my British schools

... other than, perhaps, the people who prayed quietly to themselves right before an exam landed on their desks. I don't know where you got that info from, but your source is incorrect on that point. On your other points, I'm with you pal.



Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. The source is the law of England and Wales

70. - (1) Subject to section 71, each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80031--o.htm

But many schools, especially secondary schools, fail to follow this.

All state schools should hold an act of worship each day, either for all pupils in assembly or as a class-based prayer.

But in the 149 secondaries inspected, 81 failed to meet the legal obligation.
...
But the new law also offered schools greater flexibility, and it meant worship was no longer confined to the morning assembly.

Instead children can pray in smaller groups, during class tutorial time, or indeed at any time during the day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4552382.stm

It's a strange situation - few people really think the 'act of collective worship' is a vital daily thing, so there aren't many complaints that it's frequently not done in reality. As Britain (I'm not sure of the legal position in Scotland) has become more multi-cultural, the definition of worship has been widened (parents can have their children exempted, but on the whole it's better to not have to single people out like that), but calls to reform the law to come up with something more secular suddenly run up against opposition - which the politicians don't think it's worth pushing against, because not many people are passionately complaining about the current setup (also, Blair is far more religious than most politicians, and is pushing for many more faith schools).

[Cronus Protagonist]

56. That must be a new thing then, because I never had to do it

And I was brought up there from birth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. It dates from 1944

perhaps you predate that?

"the school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance"

http://www.know-britain.com/general/education_in_england_3.html

[Cronus Protagonist]

59. Nope, I don't predate that

I suspect the law does not apply in Scotland. We have our own laws in small matters. I went to school there from 1963 to 1981 (college as well) and never had a single "worship" session. The closest we ever came was a "moment of silence" during war memorial season, during which one could possibly pray silently to one's self. Of course, one can always do that anyway, which is why forcing public prayer/worship is clearly has an evangelistic intent. I seem to remember something from my church experience that indicated Christians should pray in private.... I wonder how US Christians get around that... :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Ah yes, it probably is the Scotland/England difference

I couldn't find the law for Scotland before. I've now found this in a 1980 act:

(1) Whereas it has been the custom in the public schools of Scotland for religious observance to
be practised and for instruction in religion to be given to pupils whose parents did not object to
such observance or instruction, but with liberty to parents, without forfeiting any of the other
advantages of the schools, to elect that their children should not take part in such observance or
receive such instruction, be it enacted that education authorities shall be at liberty to continue the
said custom, subject to the provisions of section 9 of this Act.
(2) It shall not be lawful for an education authority <…> 10 to discontinue religious observance or
the provision of instruction in religion in terms of subsection (1) above, unless and until a resolution
in favour of such discontinuance duly passed by the authority has been submitted to a poll of the
local government electors for the education area taken for the purpose, and has been approved by
a majority of electors voting thereat.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/minlangs_annexH_EdAct.pdf

So it sounds as if it was a local decision ('custom') before and after 1980. They now appear to be saying there ought to be something at least 6 times a year, but I don't know if this is guidance or compulsory.

The Review Group acknowledged the need to balance the frequency which would make a positive impact on young people with the need to ensure that the experiences are valuable and inclusive. This will require careful planning by schools. The group concluded that every school should provide opportunities for religious observance at least six times in a school year, in addition to traditional celebrations central to the life of the school community, and preferably with greater frequency. We recognise that many primary schools value weekly religious observance as part of their regular assembly programme and will wish to continue with this. The school community should be involved in making decisions about frequency.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/20778/53820

[tenshi816]

51. The poster is not incorrect.

It's a requirement of the UK national schools curriculum that students have classes in Religious Education. My children certainly do.

[Benhurst]

11. When they take off the magic chastity rings,

does this mean they are no longer virgins?

[ldf]

15. i think these "chastity" displays have already morphed

into "i'll do anything BUT penile/vaginal sex", or

"Sodomy, anyone?"

all the while, managing to shove their "religion" in everyone else's face.

hypocrites, all.

[MrPrax]

17. Smart move...

Britain and any country should clampdown on this type of 'political' activity largely imported from the US. No country is required to follow US guidelines on 'religious freedom' especially when it's really a political movement whose larger goal is to eliminate religious and other freedoms, including those of other Christians.

People in Britain should seriously ask themselves whether it is wise to allow the American evangelical movement, which in America is neither religious or Christian, to make a beachhead in your schools or your country.

Why would you?

So Britain (and another other civilized countries) can look forward to debating whether 'rape victims' should carry their rapists' children to term, or whether christain dogma should hung over the portals of your courts?

Do Progressives in Britain really want to look forward to local and perhaps national debates with people demanding that creationism should be taught in science classes?

This religious 'fascism' in America didn't arise out of popular groundswell of religisoity or simply because 15 year old girls got 'jesus' all of a sudden in math class, but was is due to a conscious, well-organized and well-financed extremist campaigns like this designed solely to move forward the agenda of people who want to do away with your rights in favour of a moralistic corportist theocracy. Period.

Keep in mind Britain--there were some very valid reasons for sending Puritans to the Americas in the first place, you know.

(don't reply to this on the grounds of 'religious freedom' because you can clearly see that the poster doesn't think it's a religious nor does the poster believe that individual freedoms are unconditional)

[Posteritatis]

25. "clamp down on political activity?" No thanks. (n/t)

[MrPrax]

28. Bold...

and typical for what passes for Progressive thought these days-- Yes that's right, give wide berth to people that who state bluntly that they want to take away rights under the guise that you are enhancing rights for all...

Funny--why do I think your response would be different, if we we talking about the National Front? ;-)

(Cribbing Old Clash songs don't really cut it anymore as a principle stand , Sparky...it just indicates the level of your programming)

[Posteritatis]

31. You can, of course, think what you want

Just like they would. No, my response pretty much wouldn't be different. Besides, from how you characterize these guys, we might as well be talking about the National Front.

Funny, I like freedoms of speech and association so much, that I think everyone should get them, not just people I like!

(And I couldn't give two figs about the Clash. Not my style.)

[clyrc]

36. My daughters attend a British Curriculum school

I hate all the restrictions. My daughters are not even allowed to wear nail polish to school, although small discreet watches are allowed.

I don't think religious items should be banned from school. I think girls should be able to wear these rings, even though I find the whole talking loudly about virginity thing creepy. It makes me about as uncomfortable as it would to see teenagers wearing shirts saying "I'm sexually active and you should be, too! Ask me about it!"

[tenshi816]

53. How old are your daughters?

At my younger son's (he's 9) Catholic school, girls can wear nail polish if it's clear or a light colour, and watches are OK, but earrings are banned - not because there's anything wrong with wearing earrings, but because it's considered a safety issue. Just what these little girls between the ages of 5 and 11 could possibly be doing where earrings would be unsafe is unclear, but there you go.

At my older son's secondary school - also Catholic - girls can wear what they like, within reason (makeup, earrings, watches, bracelets, etc.). They're also allowed to wear trousers instead of skirts as part of their school uniform.

My big quibble with older son's school is that last year they came down really hard on him and several other lads about their hair (my son's was past shoulder length at the time). My reasoning was that if girls are allowed to have long hair, it's discrimination not to allow boys to have the same thing. I was ready to go to the mat for my boy, and then he went and got his hair cut because he was tired of having it long anyway.

With you all the way about the "ick" factor of the virginity rings. Why voluntarily bring such attention to something that is (or should be) deeply personal?

[truthisfreedom]

40. as long as they keep on their castity belts, they'll be fine.

just watch, they'll make a comeback.

[Megahurtz]

61. Lol!

Hey, a new business idea for South Dakota and Louisiana!:sarcasm:

[hraka]

41. Devil's advocate here

I don't see the problem with the rings, although I liked an earlier idea of putting them on a necklace, like a cross or Saint's medal would be worn. That is, if they allow yarmulkas, head scarves, turbans, and any other number of items that symbolize someone's religious faith or ethnicity. Which apparently they do.

"the research is quite clear that they don't work"? What research?
"the school had told them it was a health and safety issue" It's a freakin silver finger ring!!
"Silver Ring Thing is critical of contraception, suggesting it is dangerously fallible - which critics say only encourages teenagers who do break their pledges to have unprotected sex." What's next people, forcing Catholics to give out condoms?

I don't subscribe to their belief ystem. But I will fight tooth and nail for their right to practice it - as all of you should. We're no better than the Republicans making laws to restrict our reproductive rights, sexual rights, living rights, and privacy rights if we think otherwise.

Please step back and really listen to what you're saying here. The fundamentalists and right wing conservatives don't hold dominion over intolerance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Here's an example of the research

Teens who pledged to remain abstinent until marriage are more likely to engage in other types of sexual activity that increase their risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases, according to a new study co-authored by Columbia’s Sociology Department Chair Peter Bearman and Yale professor Hannah Bruckman.

The article that published these findings, which appears in April’s issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, is a follow-up to a study presented in March of last year at the National STD Prevention Conference in Philidelphia. That study found that teens who pledged abstinence were just as likely to have STDs as their non-pledging peers. The recent study may help to explain why pledgers, who have fewer sexual partners and marry at an earlier age, are still at a high risk for infection.

Although many pledgers abstained from vaginal intercourse, the recent study found that they still participated in other forms of sex that may have exposed them to STDs. The study found that young adults who took virginity pledges were six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledging teens, and that male pledgers were four times more likely to have engaged in anal sex than male non-pledgers who had not had vaginal sex. In addition, the researchers found that abstinence pledgers were significantly less likely to use contraception when they did engage in sexual activity, compared to their non-pledging peers. Male pledgers, for example, were 20% less likely to use condoms during sex than non-pledgers. The study even revealed that of pledgers who have had sex, the vast majority—88%—had done so before marriage.

Both studies were based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which has tracked the health-related behaviors of about 12,000 teens, beginning in grades 7-12.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2005/03/29/News/Abstinence.Study.Finds.Pledges.Fail.To.Protect-2031501.shtml?norewrite200606190609&sourcedomain=www.columbiaspectator.com

I agree "health and safety" sounds like a copout.

"Silver Ring Thing is critical of contraception, suggesting it is dangerously fallible - which critics say only encourages teenagers who do break their pledges to have unprotected sex." What's next people, forcing Catholics to give out condoms?

Wow, that's an unwarranted leap. 'Silver Ring Thing' gives out incorrect information about contraception, and so are not worthy of any respect on this issue. They're a pressure group, and criticism of them is in no way comparable to forcing a religious group to distribute contraception.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. "forcing Catholics to give out condoms"

no, we intolerant progressives would settle for the government not paying religious nuts to go into our schools and lie about condom effectiveness.

[mcscajun]

50. You're not being a Devil's Advocate, you simply disagree.

Holding a contrary position and stating it publicly doesn't make one a Devil's Advocate (One who argues against a popular cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply to make people discuss and consider it in more detail.)

[tenshi816]

54. I've said in another post

that girls at my younger son's Catholic school aren't allowed to wear earrings because it's a safety issue, and the policy extends to rings as well.

You might think that nothing dangerous could happen with a ring. Think again. Many years ago, my father was helping a friend move. Dad's wedding ring somehow got caught on something in the back of the friend's truck as the man drove off suddenly, dragging my dad along and and severing his ring finger (it was successfully reattached, although he can no longer bend the finger). Yes, it was a tragic accident and I would imagine a rare one, but these things do happen. That's the reasoning behind school policies regarding jewelry. It's an effort to avoid freak accidents.

[gorbal]

44. Do they allow freak dancing at purity balls?

Kids these days, wearing their thongs with their purity rings and their ipods.

[Robb]

52. Oh... on their FINGERS...!

:D

In that case... :spank:

[Buzz Clik]

55. Would the school mind if they held the rings between their knees?

It would be more effective in maintaining their chastity. Until they figured out another way. :P

[MissMillie]

58. If it were a pentagram, it would be banned

the rules should apply across the board.

[Megahurtz]

60. So where's the Chastity Rings for the Boys???

}(

:sarcasm:

[HuffleClaw]

63. chastity COCK rings ?

[HuffleClaw]

64. 'genuine religious significance' my ass

more like a claim of moral superiority. abstinance "education" doesn't work, not to mention that that the teenage lothario's are gonna see a 'chastity ring' as a challenge.

[lcruiz]

67. education

abstinance education is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. People want what they can't have. They are being told not to have sex, but the rest of the world seems to enjoy it, you see it on tv, movies, ect. So ofcourse they'll try it, and now they are the stupid idiots who don't know anything about safe sex. The damn south. I think the chasity ring could work, of course depending on the respect and love you have for your parents. Making a promise is a big deal. The lothario may not even get close enough for it to be a challenge.. lol