There’s nothing rebellious about “purity”

puritycross.jpg I’m getting pretty sick and tired of antiquated notions of chastity and purity being touted as “revolutionary.” I’m sorry, folks–there’s nothing cutting edge about believing that girls’ moral compass resides somewhere in between her legs.
In a recent Chicago Tribune piece on purity balls, reporter Dahleen Glanton refers to girls promising their virginities to their dads and dressing “modestly” as “controversial,” a “movement” and “counterculture.”
If girls and women really want to rebel against the sexified pop culture that breeds Britney Spears and The Pussycat Dolls, purity balls aren’t the way. In fact, they’re just more of the same. Pop culture tells women that their bodies are public property and that they have to be sexual in order to be desirable and loved. Purity balls and the like tell women that their bodies are private property (though not our own of course–our bodies belong to our fathers, husbands, and the men in our life) and that they have to be virginal in order to be desirable and loved. In either case women’s sexuality belongs to everyone but women. There’s nothing counter-cultural or cutting edge about that.
Glanton puts a couple of feminist quotes in her article, but seems to really buy into the notion that purity balls are revolutionary. Hell, she doesn’t even seem to question that all of this moral tsk-tsking is directed only at women.

“Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage,” said Janet Hellige, a volunteer who organizes the biannual Father-Daughter Purity Ball sponsored by The Christian Center in Peoria. “Girls have a wonderful gift to give, and we don’t want them to give all of themselves away. What we want them to do is present themselves as a rose to their husband with no blemishes.”

Now if that sentiment doesn’t make you want to start a revolution, I don’t know what will! (Ugh.)
Interestingly, it seems that the purity ball folks are starting to recognize how, well…creepy people are finding these events.

Randy Wilson, who with his wife, Lisa, founded Generations of Light, the Christian ministry in Colorado Springs that held the nation’s first purity ball almost a decade ago, said he never intended to start a trend to promote abstinence, though he is pleased if girls decide to take that route on her own.
“This was birthed out of our home, not the abstinence movement,” said Wilson, who has five daughters and two sons. “It is a fatherhood event, not a virginity or abstinence event. We don’t think it’s appropriate to put that weight on the daughter’s shoulders.”

Oh really? That must be why Wilson had his adolescent daughters pledge their virginities to him and why he gives them a charm necklace with a tiny lock and key–he keeps the key until he can one day give it to his daughter’s husband. Yeah, that’s not about virginity or ownership at all.
Now, I know I’ve been accused of being anti-abstinence so I want to make something clear: I’m all for abstaining if that’s what a gal wants to do. Obviously. But if young women are not having sex because they think they’ll be damaged goods, dirty, and “blemished” otherwise–well, then that’s pretty fucking problematic.
As is purity proponents calling themselves counterculture and revolutionary. The pop culture image of women and sexuality is gross, and it is likely to have girls seeking an alternative. But an alternative that judges women just as much (if not more) on their sexuality isn’t really an option. A real rebellion would be teaching young women that their sexuality is their own, and that their ability to be a moral person is based on their compassion, kindness, ethics and judgment–not their hymen.
Pic stolen from yet another creepy purity ball site.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

89 Comments

  1. UltraMagnus
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Now, now Ladies, lets not get too high strung about the boys and their “roses”. They actually do have something similar to the Purity Ball, it’s called the Integrity Ball, where their mothers take them and teach them not to manhandle (pun oh so intended) what could become other men’s property. Why, you wouldn’t want some other guy plucking the petals off of what may be YOUR future rose, would you? So don’t pluck another man’s flower. [/snark]
    But really, that’s what they’re taught. They might not end up marrying the girl they’re dating, so it’s best to leave her alone, lest you end up damaging some other guys property. I mean, future wife.

  2. dirtybug
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    I would be fine with these functions if they eliminated two things:
    The father’s role. Gross, women should not be owned by their father. Antiquated and counter productive.
    Men’s role. Women should want to remain pure for THEMSELVES, not for their future husbands or for men.
    If you eliminated all of the “remain unblemished for your man” crap, I kind of like the idea of these..
    Too often women (especially those in lower income homes)get pressured into sex for a number of reasons that don’t include actually wanting to have sex. Maybe we should have “wait till YOU want to” balls.

  3. Eef
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    To me there’s something incredibly creepy about the idea of my father having some sort of vested interest in my virginity. And not just that, the idea of him handing over the keys to my virginity on my wedding night as though to say “Heres the keys to my daughter, you’ve got my permission to have sex with her.” I just don’t like the idea of my father thinking, or knowing that much about my sex life let alone giving someone his blessing.

  4. annajcook
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Maybe we could just call them counter-revolutionary, instead?
    – annajcook

    Great term. I may have to use it later this week.
    –anomrabbit
    Just so you know, I didn’t make it up :) . It’s dated in my OED as 18th century in origin, “a revolution opposed to an earlier one or reversing its results.” Maybe this is crediting them with too much influence or power?

  5. Posted December 10, 2007 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    While gross, this article does not surprise me, as I grew up in the bible belt, as well as in a fundamentalist Christian church. To me this boils down to control. While churches can provide great support systems, etc., fundamentalist religion thrives on reactionary extremes. These churches, fathers, and husbands, want to retain control, and ownership over these girls, or should I say chattel?
    On another note, as a high school teacher who deals with the results of parents who do not teach their children about healthy sexual relationships, birth control, choice, etc; the end result is a lot of teen parents, poor self-esteem, and std’s. That always goes well with a nice serving of guilt to go along with your natural desires, actions, and feelings.

  6. Posted December 10, 2007 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    We don’t think it’s appropriate to put that weight on the daughter’s shoulders
    You’ve GOT to be kidding me.
    As someone who was raised to think that her virginity was some triumphal prize to present to a husband on her wedding night (and who was taught that premarital sex means nothing but pregnancy and disease — seriously, I once went to a youth group meeting about sex that consisted in significant part of a projection-screen viewing of diseased genitals), I call bullshit on this statement. Telling young girls that they need to “save it” is the *ultimate* pressure. I can’t describe the number of times I felt like I was a horrible, dirty whore for thinking sexual thoughts. I was convinced I was the only girl in the world who had ever masturbated, and I actually went through a period where I worried that my vagina was going to fall off because I was sinning by thinking such impure things. I wish I was kidding. (But you all have my permission to laugh, because in retrospect it is pretty fucking funny).
    If this dickwad actually thinks this “purity” bullshit takes any pressure OFF of women, he needs a few swift kicks to the brain stem to set him straight, or at least to keep him from talking. Really, either one.
    There are a hundred legitimate reasons not to have sex: you just plain don’t want to (btw, I don’t like referring to this as not being “ready,” as though a woman who doesn’t want to have sex with that particular man at that particular moment is somehow developmentally stunted simply because she isn’t caving to the man’s desires — vice versa/sexes substituted on either side as needed, of course), you are worried about pregnancy, you are worried about stds, you are worried about becoming too attached to the person on the other end and don’t think you can trust him/her enough not to break your heart, etc. We need some kind of Sexual Responsibility movement that says it’s okay to say no WHEN *YOU* WANT TO SAY NO and doesn’t tell you you’re a dirty evil whore when you want to say yes.
    I also hate the words “virginity” and “virgin” and I would love to see them disappear from our vernacular. They are valueless words whose ONLY use, EVER has been to oppress women, period. Seriously, I challenge anyone to find a use of the term that is completely free of anti-woman connotations.
    As an illustration, I watched an episode of Family Guy recently (I’m pretty sure it was Family Guy) where there was some reference to going to heaven and having 72 virgins (or whatever the number is) waiting for you. Then there’s a shot of a guy going to heaven and there’s a cloud full of male computer nerds. It was freaking hilarious. Why? Because even though the technical definition is gender-neutral, everyone knows that “virgin” *really* means an untouched woman. So, see, when you use the *technical* definition literally like that, it’s hilarious! Because no one would ever say “virgin” *seriously* and mean a man.

  7. UltraMagnus
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Because no one would ever say “virgin” *seriously* and mean a man.
    Not unless it’s a teen film aimed at young boys losing it, Law Fairy;).

  8. BeccaTheCyborg
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    I’m close with my dad, we hang out a lot. He’s liberal, pro-feminism and an all-around great guy. When we were out for lunch the other day, I thanked him for not having put me through any of the “purity ball” nonsense.

  9. Persephone
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    I saw this episode of South Park called “Cartman joins NAMBLA” (title basically sums up the entire episode), but there was a scene towards the end of the episode where the creepy pedophile guys are holding a dance for all of the young boys in south park, and everytime I think of purity balls I remember that scene. Something about it just reeks of incestuous pedophilia. It’s so disturbing.

  10. Persephone
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Also, how can it be a trend if 88% of the girls taking the pledges break it?

  11. oenophile
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    I’m very pro-abstinence, but… nnnnooooooo to purity balls.
    I’m all about good father-daughter relationships (and mother-son); it helps (heterosexual) kids figure out what to expect from a relationship and a significant other. Teach her how to play baseball and soccer and watch her games; teach her that girls, too, are great at math; but don’t, please, don’t base your relationship on what she does with her boyfriends. It also sets a bad precedent – she should feel free to talk over relationship problems with her parents, not feel as if they will be disappointed in her. There’s a lot to be said for unconditional and nonjudgmental love.
    If parents want to teach their kids to wait, great.
    But the ends do not justify the means (I think this is some of what Jessica is getting at); this is a horrible way of going about it.
    Why not have a lifelong conversation with your kids, of both sexes, about what you expect from them, what they should expect from relationships, and how you want them to grow as people? If you always teach your kid your morals and values (whatever they may be – religious, atheistic, feminist, abstinent), you aren’t stuck having stupid, awkward conversations at age 16, or crossing your fingers, or off-loading your parental duty to someone else. Your kid isn’t going to think, “Wow, I want to have sex, I feel dirty for it.” Your kid might think, “I want to have sex, physically, but it’s not the right choice for me, now, emotionally, psychologically, or physiologically.”
    My huge problem with the abstinence movement is that it doesn’t give any positive explanations for abstinence. “Don’t do this, or else” is fundamentally different from “Do this, because it’s better for you.”
    IMHO, a lot of women (especially with the subtle social pressures and biological inequity of pregnancy) are more inclined to abstain. If you want to decrease premarital sexual activity, focus on MEN.
    /rant

  12. rosiepie
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    I wish I’d had Jessica’s post to quote back when I was in my mid teens. I used to have quite emotional arguments with my mother about ‘virginity’ and ‘purity’. It used to freak me out that my mother considered girls who had had sex to be ‘damaged goods’, not because it made me feel guilty for wanting to have sex (it didn’t), but because I couldn’t believe my own mother would think something like that. She seems to have changed her mind in recent years; maybe she just feels more comfortable talking to me about sex now that I’m a bit older. She’s actually pretty great now, giving me really good advice when I ask for it. I don’t know why she felt she had to put the frighteners on me when I was younger. I kind of just wish she’d been straight with me from the start.
    I don’t really know what my father’s views are; he seems to change them pretty regularly. I’ve had my fair share of ‘promiscuity is wrong’ talks from him, but I suspect that, like my mother, at his heart he’s pretty liberal. The point is, he would never seek to impose his values on me in such an intrusive and downright creepy way as these purity balls. I’m sure he would find the idea of them as ridiculous as I do. And I’m grateful for that :)
    I’ve got this friend who’s Muslim, and she’s been told all this purity stuff too. One of her older brothers explained to her that she was like a plate of delicious food, that loses value each time someone comes up to take a nibble. I don’t want to belittle her beliefs, because she seems to really hold them sincerely, and that’s obviously great, but when I ask her stuff like ‘what would your family do if you ever got a boyfriend and they found out?’ and she says ‘I don’t know, I don’t want to think about it’, I can’t help but feel something is slightly wrong.

  13. EG
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Any metaphor that compares a woman or a girl to an inanimate object, suggests that our sexuality is a finite resource, that sex is something done to us rather than something we actively participate in, is a metaphor that’s not only inadequate, but also insulting and misogynist.
    For God’s sake! We’re not cut flowers or uncovered meat or plates of delicious food or cars! We’re human beings! Actual living, breathing, thinking, feeling human beings. Why is this so hard for so many people to wrap their minds around? It’s all feeling a bit too much for me today, honestly. It’s really getting me down.

  14. EG
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    Or tape. We’re not tape either.

  15. rosiepie
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Haha! Amen to that. The tape thing is my personal favourite. At least the flower and the food metaphors are vaguely poetic (in an ickish sort of way). When someone tries to prove their point by comparing you to some office supplies they happened to have lying around, you know they’re not worth listening to. I mean, it’s just lazy ;)

  16. Misspelled
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    What’s the tape metaphor? I don’t think I’ve heard that one.
    I’m totally lying in wait for someone in my life to hear about/bring up the purity-ball thing just so I can fully vent my feelings about this sick, sick, horrible, freakish, unnatural trend and hopefully scare said someone away from any warm fuzziness or vague thoughts of “aw, that’s kind of sweet.” Seriously, it’s gonna be great.

  17. rosiepie
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    The tape metaphor I’ve heard is from Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs. It comes from an abstinence-only sex ed class that Levy sat in on. The teacher holds up a piece of tape, introducing her as ‘Miss Tape’. He points out how attractive Miss Tape is, what with being so thin and all- he even wiggles the piece of tape to give it ‘curves’. Then Miss Tape meets someone, and has sex with them. The teacher wraps the piece of tape around the arm of a volunteer to symbolise intercourse. Then he rips the tape off the arm. Now ‘Miss Tape’ is all skanky and scrunched up, covered in the volunteer’s arm hair etc, thus proving that having sex damages girls and makes them undesirable!!

  18. Posted December 10, 2007 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    I think I might call my parents tomorrow and thank them for not pounding massive amounts of purity/virginity/abstinence rhetoric into my head, and instead teaching me to think for myself (and that condoms, birth control, etc are GOOD things!).
    The key thing is just effing creepy beyond all reason. As is the “clothing your father would approve of” line at Modest by Design. Hell, some of their dresses are actually quite pretty, but “your father would approve of”? creepy!!

  19. abra
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    If you only “dance” with your father, that doesn’t cause a “blemish,” right? /sarcasm
    This is just gross. I’m a strong Christian, but when I first heard about these purity balls and father/daughter dates, I just couldn’t see it as anything but incestuous. Some of these fathers might not be molesting their daughters physically, but this amounts to emotional incest, imho.
    When I began teaching my daughters (who are now teens) that no one has the right to rape or molest them, it was glaringly obvious to me that I had to define for them who their bodies belong to.
    If you teach children “Nobody but your husband has the right to touch you there–” then you are essentially saying that her body belongs to some man — a person she has not even met yet. You also set her up to marry someone just because she had sex with him. So the girl who falls for this grows up and marries the first guy who is skilled enough to get in her pants (if he wants to marry her — if not, she has a world of “baggage” they’re talking about, not from sex but from the faulty teaching!)
    It is unnatural to teach “Nobody has the right to touch your privates if you don’t want them to” without acknowledging that they DO have the right if you want them to! Of course I’m not talking about 10yo’s being gang-raped. I’m talking about girls having ownership of their own bodies.
    Carmen used to sing “How can you say ‘no’ till you say ‘yes’?” As a Christian teen I found this to be excellent logic. Unless you have the right to say “yes,” you don’t really have the right to say “no,” either.

  20. Posted December 10, 2007 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    This all goes back to what is now being called the “technical virgin,” becuase it is more likely that these girls (who pledge their virginity) are going to have oral and anal sex then girls who do not pledge their virginity because it is not vaginal penetration. I wonder if the fathers know anything about this?
    devine – This is what happened in my high school. I grew up in a very conservative town with a LOT of traditional Baptists. I dated one such Baptist and, let me tell you, “sex” was OFF LIMITS but his ability to orgasm and my supposed want to make him orgasm was not off limits. We put the privacy of cornfields to good use with a plethora of hand- and blow-jobs. My orgasms weren’t considered, of course, but that has nothing to do with this purity nonsense; rather, bad bad bad sex ed.

  21. abra
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Also… If “girls” are messed up because they are entering marriages with 12 past sexual partners — who the heck are they having sex with? Each other? (Hmmm, would that “blemish” the “rose,” or do these men find the thought of lesbian sex kinda exciting?)
    I love how fundamentalist woman-haters of all stripes discuss a woman having sex and/or getting pregnant as if she just does it all on her own. “She went out and got pregnant.” We see it in Sharia law but it happens here, too.
    I sometimes host a Democratic TV show, and about half the calls we take are anti-abortion rants — but they’re really all anti-woman rants because, you know, abortion only involves women. I don’t how these people think women get pregnant without some man being involved, but I always have to point out that women don’t spontaneously self-impregnate. They think women who get pregnant when a man doesn’t want them to are evil, and women who abort are double-evil.
    Take the case of the 10yo who was gang-raped by 9 men. Some reporter exposed that she had previously asked for condoms and people think, “Ew, bad girl” rather than “Who in the world was forcing sex on a 10yo girl????” I hate how abuse is justified by past abuse. It just goes back to the “damaged goods” crap. Like, hey, it’s not so bad that 9 men gang-raped a 10yo because, you know, she lost her virginity when she was 7.
    Note to self: Teach daughters that they do not own a thing called “virginity” that can be “taken” or “given” once. It doesn’t even exist. It’s a non-entity. What they own is their bodies, and that does not change so long as they live.

  22. abra
    Posted December 10, 2007 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    This all goes back to what is now being called the “technical virgin,” becuase it is more likely that these girls (who pledge their virginity) are going to have oral and anal sex then girls who do not pledge their virginity because it is not vaginal penetration. I wonder if the fathers know anything about this?
    Why does this remind me of “I did not have sex with that woman”?

  23. Posted December 11, 2007 at 12:01 am | Permalink

    Why does this remind me of “I did not have sex with that woman”?
    Oh my God, abra, that’s brilliant. The LAST thing these people want is to be associated with Clintonian parsimony!
    And I soooooo agree about not teaching that girls “have” a “virginity” to give away or some bullshit. If you want to look at sex as a beautiful gift, hey, go for it — but it’s more like intellectual property than chattel (if you adhere to the rights theory of property anyway — i.e., a woman’s right to do with her body as she pleases). Chattel you can only dispose of once. You can re-sell it, but there’s only one “thing” to give. Intellectual property can be copied, recopied, distributed to as many or as few people as the author wants, and no one copy is better than any other, and the first copy is no better than any subsequent copy, because they are all completely identical in content and value.
    God that was a nerdy analogy.

  24. EG
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    Wow, TLF. Now all I can think about is how much I could have gotten for first North American rights (all rights revert to the author upon publication, of course!).
    Your virginity: worth at least five cents a word.

  25. rileystclair
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 12:39 am | Permalink

    TLF, does that mean sleeping around is like…file-sharing?
    oh man, i knew the virginity cult and the RIAA would someday form an unholy union.

  26. verminchild
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    Man, it’s so true, young girls not even knowing what their fathers are talking about when they tell them to remain “pure.” My parents urged me as a teenager to remain “moral” and “right,” usually as an argument against my dating an older guy. I was never certain what they were talking about, cuz I thought they couldn’t possibly be talking about my sexuality, right? I was baffled as to why they thought my body was theirs to regulate and judge. I had no intention of having sex until I was ready, not when *they* were (that is, when I married). They actually are the reason I had sex when I did, because I couldn’t bear them thinking they had any control over my sexuality.

  27. kacey
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    I don’t even know what to say. I…hm. I think I’m so creeped out that I can’t think straight. I think I liked the part about the underwear that said “Notice: No Trespassing On This Property. My Father is Watching.” …how does that NOT show that these fools think that women aren’t property? I like that she’s trying to make abstinence look good, but ends up saying that 88% of virginity pledgers have sex. hahah. Real effective.

  28. Fenriswolf
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 2:58 am | Permalink

    I’m not even going to comment on purity balls because… Eugh. But:

    I’m totally lying in wait for someone in my life to hear about/bring up the purity-ball thing just so I can fully vent my feelings about this sick, sick, horrible, freakish, unnatural trend and hopefully scare said someone away from any warm fuzziness or vague thoughts of “aw, that’s kind of sweet.” Seriously, it’s gonna be great.
    Posted by: Misspelled

    Hahahaha! Awesome. I thought I was the only person who did shit like that lol

  29. ShifterCat
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 2:59 am | Permalink

    Hey, I have a joke for y’all. It’s just too bad I didn’t remember it back when Jessica announced her intention to write a book on double standards.
    A teenage girl is getting ready for her first date. Her grandmother takes her aside and says, “There are some things you should know about boys. First of all, he’s going to try to put his tongue in your mouth. Don’t let him do this, it’ll dishonour your family. Second, he’s going to try to put his hands inside your clothes. Don’t let him do this, it’ll dishonour your family. Third, he’s going to try to get you on your back. Don’t let him do this, it’ll dishonour your family.”
    The girl says, “Okay, I understand,” and goes off on her date.
    A few hours later the girl returns home, looking very pleased with herself. She goes straight to her grandmother and says, “Grandma, you were right — he did try to do all those things that would have dishonoured our family… So I did them all to him and dishonoured his family!”

  30. Jennifer
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 3:40 am | Permalink

    I agree with Mirm. In either direction – hyper-sexed or hypo-sexed – the attitudes are cock-amamie. The approach is that sex (defined here as vaginal intercourse (I hate that word)), is the highest form of self-definition. Sex is placed on a pedestal. It’s just ONE part of all that we do to make this world go round. It’s people with unhealthy attitudes about it who cause emotional and physical harm to others and themselves.

  31. Jennifer
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 3:40 am | Permalink

    I agree with Mirm. In either direction – hyper-sexed or hypo-sexed – the attitudes are cock-amamie. The approach is that sex (defined here as vaginal intercourse (I hate that word)), is the highest form of self-definition. Sex is placed on a pedestal. It’s just ONE part of all that we do to make this world go round. It’s people with unhealthy attitudes about it who cause emotional and physical harm to others and themselves.

  32. Posted December 11, 2007 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    I was an abstainer in my teens – not part of any movement, as that was long before the silver ring crap made any inroads in the UK, and I wasn’t a church member at the time, and for much of the time I wasn’t even a Christian any more. It felt a hell of a lot like rebelling to me, because yes there was a huge amount of social pressure to have sex – and there was no definition of ‘sex’ that I’d ever come across that wasn’t anti-woman, anti-my-body, anti-my-eyes. Saying ‘no’ to the sex culture around me most decidedly was a feminist act. I’m very glad I waited until I found a way to my own sexuality. And while I could do without either, I’ve got more respect for the Silver Ringers than for the Girls Gone Wild.

  33. Vervain
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    “I’m kind of against the notion of virginity as a whole, but if there had to be a way to measure virginity or what “sex” is–I say go with orgasms. If you didn’t have one, it wasn’t sex. :)
    If that was the standard, most of these purity-ball participants would probably still be virgins after marriage–and so would their parents.

  34. Laurie Anne
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    And where would be the lock and key for that male virginity, exactly? These virginity fetishists creep me out sooo much. Ugh.

  35. Liza
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    oh yeah, having someone else own your body is just so incredibly badass.
    in case that didn’t translate into type, read that as dripping with sarcasm.

  36. ShelbyWoo
    Posted December 11, 2007 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Now ‘Miss Tape’ is all skanky and scrunched up, covered in the volunteer’s arm hair etc, thus proving that having sex damages girls and makes them undesirable!!
    Oh, don’t forget that the tape is not sticky anymore, either. That means when your knight-in-shining-armor comes along you won’t be able to “bond” with him because you “gave away” all your stickiness.

  37. EG
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    You know, Shelby, it occurs to me that as long as one bit of tape is sticky, there shouldn’t be any problem. So…clearly the solution is for all those skanky, scrunched-up girls to get together with some nice young virgins next door. Bingo–perfectly sticky lesbian love!

  38. ShelbyWoo
    Posted December 12, 2007 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    HAAAA! Hell yeah, EG!

  39. littlebrave
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    While I agree that the notion of a girl’s body or self being the possession of her father or her husband is fucked up, it is important to bear in mind that most of these purity balls are specifically about and for fathers and daughters.
    Coming from a conservative Christian background, I know that sons are held just as rigidly to standards of chastity as daughters.
    (There are always outliers, of course, but chastity is valued for both men and women…)
    That said, no one should be held to the belief that their entire worth resides in what they do or don’t do with their genitals–that’s just foolish.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

205 queries. 1.290 seconds