Distinguishing causal factors

Via AWSH:

thoughtcatalog.com I Waited Until My Wedding Night To Lose My Virginity And I Wish I Hadn’t  11 August 2014

Wei Hong: The idea that husbands do not have the "same responsibility" as wives in regards to extramarital sex is actually contrary to the Bible. The most distinguishing feature in this woman's account is neither her virginity pledge nor her religion, but rather that she was so prideful in her pledge that it consumed her "entire identity". I feel it is most likely this unusual personality issue, rather than just virginity or religion, that lead to her unusual experience.

AWSH: And hers is the experience that gives this story its validity. Note the proviso that she provides with regards to ones choice in abstaining: 'If you want to wait to have sex until marriage make sure it’s because you want to. It’s your body; it belongs to you, not your church.' Take note also of the many comments to the article attacking her faith and how these attacks resonate with how she came to feel the way she does. Take note also on how these responses do no more than recycle the dogma that became the root cause of her conflict in the first place. I'll say her closing statement is the one line that is golden: 'Your sexuality is nobody’s business but yours.'

Wei Hong: Although I'm not sure what you exactly mean by the "validity" of a story, I agree with the writer's truistic statements that one has ultimate ownership over their body and sexual choices. Such ownership does not conflict with the presence of sexual advice in society, from school sex education to adult self-help books and internet memes. My comments are only for the clarification of gross untruths and to prevent erroneous inferences of causality. I do not bother with anonymous internet article comments as such efforts tend to be unfruitful.

AWSH: On the contrary, I'd say anonymous internet comments are just as telling as the article to which they are directed as it adequately demonstrates the discourse around a given topic as a whole. And as for validity, I refer to the causality detailed in her story that you seek to debunk. Where I will agree that anecdotal stories such as these are downright impossible to generalise across society at large, the causality she points out in her story is valid (rather than untrue or misleading) in as much as they relate to her personal experience.

Wei Hong: I disagree. Anonymous internet comments by their nature select for a non-representative section of society and attract a disproportionate element of "trolls" and opinions from unqualified people, grossly failing to be a reliable representation of intelligent discourse.

I do not seek to debunk the writer's online testimony as these are "undebunkable" by definition. Rather, my comments are to show the reader that the most superficial inference one can make is not always the correct one.

Consider this (albeit exaggerated) analogy:
A man has a background of schizophrenia. One day, he commits a crime because he believes TV commanded him to do so. One cannot "debunk" his personal account that had he no TV, he would not have committed the crime. However, there's nothing distinguishing about having a TV (or religion, or virginity), while there is something distinguishing about having schizophrenia (or another personality issue). While the TV is technically part of the causal chain, one should not misinterpret it as the main element.