But, there's more.

Researchers only asked their subjects about vaginal intercourse. They did not ask about oral or anal sex, which recent studies indicate are reported at high rates among teenagers, more and more of whom believe that oral and anal sex can be indulged in without relinquishing one's virginity. In fact, a recent study by the Urban Institute, also funded by the federal government, focused on the sexual practices of 15- to 19-year-old boys and found that two-thirds of the more than 3,000 boys interviewed had experience with oral sex, anal intercourse or masturbation by a female. The first two behaviors put the participants at risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases, though few of the respondents were aware of that. Most of those interviewed said they did not consider their activities to constitute "sex," -- in fact, many felt oral sex qualified as abstinent behavior.

So, the pledgers who, according to the study, jealously guarded their "virginity" for an average of 18 months longer than non-pledgers could well have been having sex of another kind -- every other kind -- for years before "breaking" their pledge.

Didn't we cover this? Didn't we denounce this? Wasn't Bill Clinton guilty of sexual relations with "that woman" even though he personally believed that he was dutifully maintaining his own virginity pledge?

How, oh how, can it be morally acceptable to indulge in sex that involves complicating intimacy, not to mention sexually transmitted diseases, as long as one is "intact" on the wedding night? And why, oh why, would a federal agency conduct a study in such a way as to blindly honor a duplicitous and deeply sexist definition of virginity?

But that, alas, is not the worst of it. That is not the part that makes me want to cry.

The part that I hate most in this study is the unwritten part, the part that pompously assumes that teenagers are not entitled to intimacy, to pleasure, to education or to a sense of self. The part that is dangerous and sad implies that a "virginity pledge" is "effective" in dealing with teen pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases and participation in other "risk" activities like smoking, drinking and substance abuse but fails to acknowledge the role of the pledge movement in promoting oral and anal sex among teenagers while denying them any education about either. The part that is sneaky and amazing perpetuates the concept of "technical virginity," a state that is likely to be just as confusing and burdensome for a 16-year-old as sexual intercourse, if not more so given its uncomfortable and much-talked-about proximity to untruth.

What would be ineffective about a pledge to have safe sex motivated by what feels like love or desire? What could be wrong about acknowledging a teenager's emotional intelligence and need for intimacy? Would it hurt to bestow some respect and sex education on people who are engaging in sex, regardless of what they write on an invasive questionnaire designed to measure their moral rectitude? How could researchers who ostensibly care about adolescents insist that they are incapable of informed decisions? How could they endorse the idea that love and intimacy should be postponed -- not until an unspecific age of maturity has been reached but until marriage, regardless of when it happens?

I agree with the authors of this report when they suggest that teenagers should not engage in unwanted sexual activity. Nobody should engage in unwanted sexual activity. What a shame, though, given the funding and access that these academics enjoy, that they don't expose the "virginity pledge" for what it is: a sexist, guilt-driven campaign of terror that fosters frightened conformity in adolescents, as well as high-risk sexual behavior and dishonesty.

Order "Mothers Who Think: Tales of Real-Life Parenthood" from the editors of Mothers Who Think.