I'm sorry. This comment isn't very intellectual, but Ann - Oedipal Ball? That's hilarious. Good catch.

And I think it went a little something like this.

Sadly, I couldn't get the link to work, norbizness. (Somehow I knew you'd have a punchline to this post...)

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

Man, these people keep outdoing themselves.

This part of the article is also amazing:

"After the meal, Jackie Detweiller spoke to the gathering about her experiences. Detweiller is an attractive 19-year-old young woman who is practicing abstinence. She told the tale of a person who had waited a long time to buy the car of their dreams, but when the day arrived to drive it home, the dealer told them that the steering had problems, that it had a lot of mileage on it, and had been in a few wrecks."

It really is tough when you start dating a girl only to find that she has all kinds of "steering problems" caused by premarital sex. Thanks, Integrity Ball!

men are drivers and women are cars. that's classy. but speaking as a, um, used car, i have to say i'd prefer a driver who's actually, uh, driven a car before.

to completely switch gears (yikes, bad pun), but the people who organize these things don't seem to realize that not everyone has 2 parents. while single parenthood due to divorce or simply not marrying the father is almost certainly frowned upon by these folks, it happens to the best of us, sometimes for the best and through no fault of our own. not to mention that sometimes people die and leave behind dependent children.

They're framing the whole "purity" thing in a way guys can understand. Preserving yourself as a gift to your future wife? Whaaa? Adhering to the honor system that you don't mess with a buddy's girl or sneeze on the whole pizza? Oh yeah, duuuuuuude, got it.

That is to say, they've got the piss-on-the-tree demographic nailed pretty perfectly.

I think that's my cue to go take a shower. *shudder*

so, if you have only slept with 2 people before you are married you are at least a used mercedes where if you are up to 10-15 before you are married your poor husband is getting a hyndai?

I've decided to modify Ms. Detweiller (she's "practicing abstinence", but will she ever perfect it? ... ashes his cigar, or would if he were smoking one right now) slightly:

"She told the tale of a person who had waited a long time to buy the car of their dreams, but when the day arrived to drive it home, the dealer told them that the steering had problems, it was otherwise a lemon and other things that person would have found out about if s/he bothered to test-drive the care first"

*

Actually, some people would prefer a used Mercedes to a new Hyundai. But speaking as someone who's so far gotten his cars as hand-me-downs from his parents, the whole analogy makes me kinda queezy.

This is messed-up, beyond all recognition.

Most very religious communities want nothing to do with this sort of foolishness. Catholics don't do this. Amish don't do this. Orthodox Jews don't do this. But I guess this peculiar part of evangelical Protestantism thinks dating your parents is kewl.

I don't know whether it is the sexualization of the parent-child relationship or its toxic lameness that offends me more.

Let's get old school, if we must, and get back to Adam and Eve, where they leave their parents and cleave to their partner as one flesh, not date Daddy and Mommy. I am not religious, but the snake handling Christians of rural West Virginia just started to look less weird, if they don't do this weirdness.

The idea of a mother-son purity ball just reminds me of Motherboy from Arrested Development.

“If you knew somebody was with your future wife,� Baker asked them, “touching her in ways you wouldn’t like, pressuring her, how would that make you feel?�

Annoyed; it doesn't sound like much fun for her. Now if it were a more enjoyable encounter, good for her.

But it's begging the question to assume his "future wife" wouldn't get involved with anyone without some other beastly man pressuring her.

Wait... so the boys can date? But, but... the purity balls endorse the image that all boys are gross and hormonal and shouldn't be dealt with until one decides you will marry him!

Also for fun, Glamour's February issue has an article on Purity Balls, and the damned things just keep getting creepier and creepier the more I hear abut them. *shudder*

I can't wait till these people start organizing balls about why you should remain pure by not masturbating. But who would you bring as your "date" to that event? And I guess it would only apply to girls, since masturbating would technically be trespassing on your future husband's property.

This isn't mine I'm stealing but here's an analogy I loved, in keeping with the car theme:

"You are told your whole life that driving a car before marriage is dirty and shameful and only bad people drive cars before marriage. You are told to never drive a car, think about driving a car or hell, even touch the car if at all possible, lest you be tempted to get behind the wheel.

And then on your wedding night someone hands you the keys to your prize car and tells you, guess what, it's time to drive it."

We can all imagine what happens from there.:)

So basically what they're teaching boys is "respect for other people's property". And I suppose that's all that matters.

Damn, they got wise to my remote image linking, Ann. Well, wikipedia won't fail us.

Most very religious communities want nothing to do with this sort of foolishness. Catholics don't do this. Amish don't do this. Orthodox Jews don't do this. But I guess this peculiar part of evangelical Protestantism thinks dating your parents is kewl. The Crab

Don't know about the Amish in this regard, but there are elements of both the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish communities that are very keen on aping the religiosity of evangelical Protestantism (because it seems so kewl to the kidz or something), so it's only a matter of time before we have Catholic and Orthodox Jewish purity/integrity balls.

Let's try re-gender on that one:

Baker told the young women that the men they had come with, their fathers, were somebody’s sons, and they meant the world to those parents. She further told them that when they date a boy, he is somebody’s son, and they care deeply for him.
Baker also told them that while they might not believe it at the time, the boy they may date in high school is probably not going to be the one they will marry. “So you’re dating someone else’s future husband,� she told them. She also told them that someone else may be dating their future husband.

“If you knew somebody was with your future husband,� Baker asked them, “touching him in ways you wouldn’t like, pressuring him, how would that make you feel?�

--------------------

I find it hard to believe this whole thing isn't a parody of some kind. If I'd been tasked with writing a caricature of fundamentalist mentality, I can't imagine I'd come up with something this outrageous.

Yikes.

I thought I was pretty cynical about the abstinence movement, but I found this article completely shocking. These people aren't even paying lip service to the idea of boys saving their virginity for their future wives! Or that premarital sex cheapens marriage for boys, just as they say it does for girls! Where is the lip service about being able to give your whole self to your future wife? I really didn't expect such bald hypocrisy. I will trot out this Integrity Ball bs every single time I hear anyone claim that the abstinence movement expects just as much from boys as it does from girls. Barbara P's regendered version makes this abundantly clear.

One other thing -- if boys really take to heart this abstinence message, then they'll think it's basically ok to have sex with a girl who's already been with other boys, because she's already damaged goods. (For you automotive fans, she already has a few miles on, if you know what I mean...good fucking god.) How, then, is this abstinence message really even about abstinence for boys?

Let's get old school, if we must, and get back to Adam and Eve, where they leave their parents and cleave to their partner as one flesh, not date Daddy and Mommy.

Um, if you were a kid of Adam and Eve, the only option you would have was to date your parents. Or siblings.

"Detweiller told another story about a man and woman coming to the altar, about to be married, when another guy comes up from the audience and holds the bride’s hand as the ceremony is performed. More guys come forward, until six are holding onto the bride. When the groom asks her what is going on, she replies, `These are guys from my past. They don’t matter to me now, but I gave them a piece of my heart. What’s left of my heart is yours.'"

Wait, so are they saying you can't love someone and give them a piece of your heart without having sex with them? Thinking back, I'd have to say one of the guys I gave the biggest piece of my heart to was a boy I didn't even have sex with.

Regarding the steering problems, it seems to me that most boys aren't so good at steering anyway and a girl's got to make it happen on her own after he's done, so... I think the 19 year old girl should have addressed the fact that without practice, these guys aren't going to be able to steer very well and a girl wants a guy who can at least find the highway.

Casey, agreed. Intended with irony. Did the mythological children of the mythological Adam and Eve married siblings per Eqyptian royal custom? Hmmm.

With religion, I prefer weirdness that has weathered a full 500 years of existence, rather than the latest, likely more tasteless weirdness, but maybe that's the lapsed Catholic in me.

In light of this purity business, someone will have to do a queer theory analysis of David Hasselhoff and the car that talked from that 80s show Knight Rider.

These people aren't even paying lip service to the idea of boys saving their virginity for their future wives! Or that premarital sex cheapens marriage for boys, just as they say it does for girls! Where is the lip service about being able to give your whole self to your future wife? I really didn't expect such bald hypocrisy.

WOW. That is typical religious misogyny-hypocrisy.

"if boys really take to heart this abstinence message, then they'll think it's basically ok to have sex with a girl who's already been with other boys, because she's already damaged good"

They'll also think it's a-ok to rape her.

On a less serious note, the whole post made me get AC-DC's "I've Got Big Balls" song stuck in my head.

Telling young men to respect young women as they would their own mother doesn't sound like such a bad idea on its own. But of course they have to utterly ruin it by framing the rest of the damn argument in terms of property and ownership:
Don't disrespect girls, because their parents consider them valuable property! Don't tarnish a young woman's virtue because she's another man's future possession!

What's wrong with telling young men to respect young women because they're human beings who have thoughts and feelings just like they do?

Oh, right. These people don't actually believe that.
Nevermind.

The message to these boys seems to be, "When you fuck around, make sure it's with a Jew or a Catholic or a black or somebody else that no good Christian boy would want to marry anyway."

"Don't tarnish a young woman's virtue"

Keep it well polished with lots of slow, steady rubbing with a good lubricant...er.. polishing cream.

" "Don't tarnish a young woman's virtue"

Keep it well polished with lots of slow, steady rubbing with a good lubricant...er.. polishing cream."

Is stuff like this )plus various other funny quips) that make me lurv this site.

So, then, if having sex with young women is totally out of the question, due to tarnishing another's property and all that rot, then what they're really doing is subtly encouraging the boys to take each other for a test drive, so to speak.

*steeples fingers*

Excellent.

"Getting married to have sex is like buying an airplane to get a bag of peanuts"-Jeff Foxworthy

The message to these boys seems to be, "When you fuck around, make sure it's with a Jew or a Catholic or a black or somebody else that no good Christian boy would want to marry anyway."

This is why Jewish girls like me had fun in high school while the Christian girls were having Bible study. I'm perfectly content that my high school boyfriend married the nice Christian girl and not me.

Word UP, One Jewish Dyke. Life was pretty good for this Catholic girl in high school too ... ;-). And I wouldn't take my high school boyfriend back even if someone paid me a billion dollars to do so.

Dating your parents.
I am going to keep any remark involving the word "hillbilly" to myself,though it cost me my life.

While I don't agree with the way they went about this, I will say that this part: “touching her in ways you wouldn’t like, pressuring her, how would that make you feel?�

I see the problems with this world view, the way it marginalizes women, and demonizes sex; but at least it is attempting to do something about one of the side effects of the misogynistic attitudes of the others who believe this way. It's better than the folks who don't do anything about rape at all.

Oedipal Ball, for sure! Yes, it's a little lame but at least it is an attempt. Do we have any other ideas to help? For example, who is teaching the Duke lacrosse players that it's not OK to hire strippers as an entertainment? Let's not judge the right too hard on this. What are we on the left doing about it?

******
Dating your parents.
I am going to keep any remark involving the word "hillbilly" to myself,though it cost me my life.
******

I know a guy who's his own cousin! (I'm pretty sure purity balls were not involved...)

mara jade, that's what I was getting at, too.
It would have been so much better if they could have said, "if someone was touching YOU in ways you didn’t like, pressuring you, how would that make you feel?" instead of that "Leggo my eggo!" bullshit. They're actually telling boys they need not respect the girl, just her family (meaning her father and/or brother presumably) and the man who will one day marry her.
How sick is this? *sigh*
I'm saddened that once again we're seeing young men being taught either to have no empathy at all, or to have empathy only for other men, and I'm stunned at the utter disregard for women these people have. The contrast between the messages makes it painfully obvious. Girls are told "don't disrespect your future husband" and boys are told "don't disrespect the future husband of the girl you want to **** but don't intend to marry." Either way it's all about the man getting to bed a virgin on his wedding night.
They should have just said, don't poke it, 'less you own it.
Would have saved time.

To get the full creep-out you have to look at the picture of the guy who wrote the article.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/images/BobMug200610_sm.jpg

See, I actually like this. It isn't about keeping women "pure;" it's about encouraging young men to respect women in terms they understand.

It's also about karma. Sure, you might not marry her, but how would you feel if someone treats another woman badly - the woman whom you'll eventually meet and fall in love with? So treat this woman right, and hope that someone else isn't pressuring your future wife.

I've dated a few frighteningly abusive men. I've also dated a few really caring men, who are really pissed off that men have treated me this way. They know that I'm very reluctant to get into relationships and am more reserved when I am in them. The Integrity Ball doesn't seem to be about bedding a virgin on your wedding night, so much as also staying virginal (giving good, karmic reasons for it!), too, and then also getting men to understand that they can't run around and treat women like crap in their teens and twenties, then settle down with a nice girl. Want a nice girl? Spend your entire life being worthy of one.

If that's the worst message being sent out, fine. It's not like there's much interdating between modern types and old-fashioned types, anyway.

I think I smell a shitstorm coming...

What struck me is that the language used is all about possession. These girls aren't women, or independent persons, they are "somebody's daughter" or "somebody's future wife". The depersonaliztion of women is par for the course, but still disgusting. It also implies that the women have no real choice in the matter - of course, the man chooses to go out with a woman, to pressure her, to...whatever, and the woman has no choice in the matter (except to do whatever it is that keeps her "pure", of course).

Not really. She posts this ridiculous defense of being treated like a consumer good on EVERY feminist website that covered this. We're all tired of responding to her and watching her stick her fingers in her ears and yell how she's not listening, so frankly I think it's about time to start ignoring it. But then, maybe other people have more patience than me.

It's also about karma. Sure, you might not marry her, but how would you feel if someone treats another woman badly - the woman whom you'll eventually meet and fall in love with? So treat this woman right, and hope that someone else isn't pressuring your future wife.

oenophile, since when is having sex with a woman automatically treating her "badly"? They aren't teaching boys "don't rape because it's harmful" -- they're saying "don't have sex with girls because you don't own them yet." As far as doing this in terms they can relate to -- that doesn't make it okay either. We should be educating these boys out of their sexism, not entrenching them in it. If we're going to teach boys to resist their "natural urges" (gag me), then why not teach them to resist their "natural" sexism too?

awww.. I was hoping for the shitstorm.

to TheCrab:

"The idea of a mother-son purity ball just reminds me of Motherboy from Arrested Development."

I just finished the article in Glamour Magazine about Purity Balls, and, ironically enough, one of the pastors involved with this movement is named Steve Holt!

Law Fairy,

While, for most people, having sex with someone isn't treating them badly, there's a few assumptions going on here. First of all, there is a strong message that pressuring a woman (in any form, whether it be borderline date rape or the mild forms of pressure) is just wrong.

Second, I think (just me! just me!) that the people who send this message are assuming that these boys will be dating girls who are also waiting for marriage. So having sex with her is doing something that she thinks is immoral - and stand-up men don't do that.

Third, the guys are also signing abstinence pledges.

I didn't read ownership into any of those statements. Again, I see karma (but then again, that's how I see a lot of life).

I think that the adults are trying to address a very specific issue with statements like, "You aren't going to marry the girl you're dating in high school, so don't sleep with her." Specifically, a lot of waiting-for-marriage types end up sleeping with someone they think they will end up marrying, and, of course, they don't, with a lot of hurt feelings on both sides.

***
Tabitha, I'm sorry! :( Mea culpas all around. One's Saturday should at least feature some entertainment. :)

If the bible and all the BS it spouts were true, and we all came from Adam and Eve, that would make each and every one of us as inbred as hillbillies.

The idea sure makes things creepy...

Oenophile is adept at only seeing what she wants to see.
Respecting women out of consideration for THEIR FUTURE HUSBANDS! Sure, it's a matter that should be settled between men after all. You wouldn't want to respect women because they're HUMAN BEINGS, do you? But then, oenophile thinks the sexual revolution was a disaster for women, unlike abstinence-only sex ed., which is just wonderful.
I think if my eyes roll back any further, they'll fall inside my skull.

God dammit. I have an idea, screw wearing white dresses at weddings as a sign for purity. How about we make the men wear a tux in colors that coordinate to the number of girls they made "unpure" before their wedding night.

Aren't you supposed to test drive a car before buying it?

Oenophile is adept at only seeing what she wants to see.

The same argument could be equally applied to anyone else who responded to this - seeing what they want to see, which is, despite men also taking abstinence pledges, giving men the green light to mess around. Or, despite saying that a woman has people who care about her and love her (i.e. she's human), y'all get all upset that her father "owns" her. The aim is to develop young men of character and to extend the idea of abstinence to also be a male duty, not just a female one. Yet feminists are up in arms about equal opportunity.

If you hate the abstinence movement, then hate the abstinence movement, but don't read sexism into equal opportunity. ;)

LOL to Rach. Must say, the white wedding dress thing creeps me out - who really wants to advertise to a church full of people that you're about to lose your virginity? >

I was looking at their website for this, and something interesting caught my attention. It is only the fathers who recite their pledge to keep their daughters chaste. Then, the daughter simply signs the contract, along with dad. Now, not that I like this idea at all, but if you're gonna do it, doesn't your daughter at least get to say she agrees? Can't she at least say something?? Teachin' em young to stay silent, eh? It's so disheartening.

I don't agree with the idea of "purity balls", "integrity balls".

I think that instead of teaching these young people to objectify women as "gifts" and view them they same way they view cars, we should be teaching them to respect the other person for who they are, and what they want in their life, sexual or not.

Now, I'm saying this as a male (man implies that I uphold some sort of masculinity, I hate machismo), so I'm saying this with that bias:

Why don't we teach just teach people that they are HUMAN, not that they are the property of their fathers and gifts to their husbands. We should also be teaching the young men that are there pledging to keep the "purity" of their partners to retain their own "purity", and in turn objectify the male population in the same way that the female populations has been objectified for so long.

But that would be logical, and since logic and religion have not met on their respective paths, I am not expecting anything positive to happen here. So instead, I'll keep loving people for who they are and not what they are, and hope that my small contribution might be helpful to somebody.

Slow dancing with your mom -- oh yeah, that's every teenage boy's dream!

As to the car analogy: my brother always buys one or two year old cars, generally former rentals: it's waaaay economical (the major depreciation for new cars is simply driving them off the lot.)

And although each of his cars has presumably been driven by dozens (the promiscous vehicle!), he's had a chance to check up on that model's driver reviews, the shakedown on the model by auto critics -- and each of his cars has then lasted at least a decade.

Which is longer than many fundie marriages. So their car analogies don't even work out for the cars!