So, basically if you are a girl and have sex with one guy before you marry that makes you a used up slut? Wow.

*thinks*

OH MY GOD WHAT DOES THAT MAKE ME.......

I'd think more highly of them as educators if their website didn't have so many typos and other such issues.

Of course, I'd still think they were crazy people. Refusing to see that sexuality has many levels? That's just nutty.

And next year's theme...

Abstinence is Good: Because if You Have Sex Before Marriage, You're a Dirty, Rotten Whore Who Deserves to Die from Cervical Cancer or AIDS or Have Your Future Destroyed Because You Got Pregnant and We Don't Want to Help Support Your Bastard Child

They could have chosen a better graphic. This one just screams "throwing away my hymen in the wind!"

Am I the only one who thinks 'black and white' might be inappropriate on even more levels?

Or am I reading too much into their word choice? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, just that it didn't occur to them to think too hard about it.

Yeah, that graphic is quite odd. What exactly does the red fabric symbolize? Is the woman waving her "fertility flag" or some such? Why is she clad in all-white?

Also, does the theme of "Black & White" have anything to do with race?

Hmmmm...

Why is it always a woman that's the face of abstinence? That just shows how backasswards they are. Only women can be whores, don't you know!

It looks like an AIDS ribbon.

Which is *really* confusing.

I think it represents the blood that's supposed to come out of your vagina after your new, ignorant Christian husband rips apart your hymen on your sweet little wedding night.

"They could have chosen a better graphic. This one just screams "throwing away my hymen in the wind!"

Hahaha!!!

In terms of the graphic, I'm going with the red cloth symbolizing the awesomeness of getting your period every month. Dirty whores who have sex and who might worry about missing their period can't wave around their used pads and tampons in the air like this woman can!

Lindsay – ah! Yes, I get it now.

I figured it was the bloody sheet she has to wave around the morning after her wedding night to prove her hymen was intact, so that her husband wouldn't return the dowry and send her off to be stoned to death.

Or maybe I'm confusing it with something else.

Cheers,

TH

Damn, Tom beat me to it!

Welcome back Tom, btw.

I just realized this in in Mpls, where I (sadly, today) live. Perhaps I should infiltrate...I'm dying to see the Wizard of Oz theme. Abstinance, whores, munchkins, Toto. Its a natural match.

I guess that puts me on the side of promiscuity. Oh noes! I'm always fascinated by the idea that if you've had sex, you're somehow impure. Do they think that those of us getting some don't shower?

Well, it could be my tinfoil hat, but black and white photo with the bright red sash made me instantly think of Julia and the Junior Anti-Sex League from 1984.

damn. i guess i'm promiscuous. it must have been that damn cervical cancer vaccine. or the media. if only i had gone to church more . . .

Gah! The virgin/whore dichotomy is disturbingly pervasive among conservatives.

When debating about abortion, it's always "promiscuous sluts" who have abortions. Do they not realize you can get pregnant the very first time you have sex? Who told them it was necessary to have casual sex with 50 different men in order to get pregnant?

Those cleaning crews at the Minneapolis Crowne Plaza are gonna be workin' overtime!

Well, of course they have to make it black and white, if they had the courage or the eyes to see the millions of shades of gray they would lose their tiny little conservative legs to stand on. If they see everything in black and white, then they do not have to see the women themselves. If they saw the women themselves they would have to admit that every women is somewhere between their definitions of pure and promiscuous. If they leave no room for us to move and grow, then they assume we will lose our voices which we can use to argue against their ideals.

I agree that this "theme" has interesting (if non-intentional) racial implications.

Who ARE these people who get together and talk about not having sex, obsessively? It's so weird.

I'm with you, Sarah (and Bowleserised, I think).

Whiteness = purity, blackness = sin. Gee, guess that works out pretty well for the white people.

It's funny how this is one of the first problems that comes mind for some of us, but most of the earliest comments, and the original post, just focus on the virgin/whore dichotomy.

I would like to see some of the white writers on the blog tackle racism and classism, and their connections to sexism, more consistently. Y'all do it well sometimes, but mostly it's Samhita and Celina who regularly talk about race (or profile folks who talk about it), and even then, there's rarely any discussion about white privilege. It's like racism is only a POC problem.

standpoint333, i think all the writers here try to bring up the racism/sexism/heterosexism/classism intersections in posts. in fact, just looking at the stuff on the front page there seems to be a lot...and we've def all written about privilege. but point taken that you feel differently and i'll of course keep it in mind.

Ever since I read "Their Eyes Were Watching God" in high school, I've been struck by how racist our "black/white" talk really is. In TEWWG, the sky takes on black flesh--the night is embodied and a safe-time. It was so beautiful and I thought about how "black" is used and how "white" is used commonly. I try to avoid such language as best I can.

Consciousness in terms of language and our multiple meanings is an art that most of the religious right willfully ignore. Pat Robertson the other day said how horrible it is that the new Episopal leader, a woman, used Mother language when speaking about God. God for him can only be expressed in masculine terms (though there is feminine language in the Old and New Testament for God/dess).

Conservatives are the first to throw out "whore" and "slut" langauge for rape victims, sexually active adult women, and prostitutes. There is little nuance (by the way, having worked with recovering prostitutes, I am deeply offended by off-hand comments about sex workers and their sexual voraciousness, hence dirtiness. No one is ruined by commerical sex work, although they can be traumatized, raped, and invected with deadly diseases, but the "ruination" is mostly brought on by the isolation and hatred of society at large for them).

The image and message above is disturbing on many levels. White woman in white waving her symbolic bloody sheet. Also, notice that she's not a teen or even a young adult--she's at least 30. 30 isn't old, but if one waits until 30 to discover her sexuality (with or without a partner) I truly feel sorry for her. I first had sex at 19, but didn't really discover orgasms until I was 20-21 when I got my first vibrator. I think that I had a pretty healthy sexual development--I was safe and in the context of good relationships. I hope more women can discover their sexuality in just such positive ways, but to wait until marriage is a kind of sexual retardation that seems to me a disservice!

awesome. i'll be in town, and ready to heckle.

Heather, I hope you didn't mean to offend with the comment about waiting till marriage, but I had to jump in. I think waiting until marriage (or at least a committed monogamous relationship) is a valid choice for those who view their sexuality as inherently linked to emotional intimacy and vulnerability. I'm not saying that's a better choice, but it's preferable for some people. That's different from viewing sex outside of marriage as exclusively the province of promiscuous sluts. It's also different from telling others that they must also wait for marriage.

That said, this conference poster is ridiculous. And so it abstinence-only education. But we need to remember that any worldview that declares perfectly healthy sexual drives and behavior as somehow defective and wrong (or as "retardation"). And monogamy and abstinence are healthy behavior, they just aren't the only acceptable options.

I just realized I did a little accidental moralizing of my own: I didn't mean to say that only monogamous sex can include emotional intimacy and vulnerability, only that some people don't feel comfortable expressing those things outside the context of monogamy.

Just wanted to commend the forum commenters here for being not just civil, but thoughtful and self-reflective, listening to one another and actually taking note of and considering alternate opinions. It's so important to maintain that level of discussion in the sorts of political issues (like this one!) that are also deeply personal. When we can simultaneously advocate for those who (on their own) want all kinds of great consensual sex with all kinds of partners, and for those who (on their own) decide to have sex only within a marriage--when we can support both types (and of course there are more than just two types!) without judging or excluding either, we have a good thing going on.

"When debating about abortion, it's always 'promiscuous sluts' who have abortions. Do they not realize you can get pregnant the very first time you have sex?"

Do they also not realize you can get pregnant after you and your husband are already done having all the babies you want? I've seen this pop up on other forums, with antiabortion teens going on and on and on about teen pregnancy and I'm the only one who remembers that abortion laws apply to 40-year-olds too.

"And monogamy and abstinence are healthy behavior, they just aren't the only acceptable options."

Good point. It also helps to remember that while we're concerned with access to contraceptives and abortion, some girls and women out there still don't even have access to abstinence (think of forced marriage and other rapes).

"When we can simultaneously advocate for those who (on their own) want all kinds of great consensual sex with all kinds of partners, and for those who (on their own) decide to have sex only within a marriage--when we can support both types (and of course there are more than just two types!) without judging or excluding either, we have a good thing going on."

Yeah. :)

Saying it's "a black and white" issue only means that, to them, there is no middle ground. Nothing to do with race in this instance. You'll notice that nowhere on this poster is black associated with promiscuity or white with purity. In fact, if you were going by the order in which the words were written (black and white, purity vs. promiscuity), the opposite would be true. These people are ridiculous and dispicable for many reasons; we don't have to invent more.

legallyblondeez, I'm glad you added your caveat that you don't think that emotional intimacy and vulnerability can happen outside of marriage. I am concerned, however, that advocating sex only until after marriage retards sexual development in those who seek out higher education (or spend time getting to know themselves as adults) or it rushes young people into marriage--and early marriage has a very HIGH divorce rate. My mother married her first husband while still in college because she really wanted to have sex and that seemed the only way. Her first husband was a bit of a disaster (he even committed suicide, leaving her two young children). When I became sexually active, she was very pleased because she wanted me to know that sex wasn't the be all and end all--it was part of one's life experiences, but only part and when experienced in safe ways and with pleasure in mind, sex can be a lovely part of our embodied experiences.

My mother, and many women of her generation, were trapped by the sex only in marriage framework the religious right wants to bring back--and it was not good for her and I don't see it better for my nieces or my children.

I do recognize that their are some who may only feel "safe" having sex in the context of heterosexual marriage because of their religious beliefs--and I'm not saying, "start screwing retards!" But, systematically, a public policy that seeks to either render people sexually ignorant until their late twenties-early thirties OR that encourages early marriage (18-24?) IS disturbing as a denial of he beauty of sexuality as its experienced by the individual, in her life (let's face it, we're mostly talking about women) or it serves to potentially curb professional attainment (once again, among women--whose supposed to sacrifice her career for the strenght of the marriage? Whose supposed to support her husband's education/career for the sake of the marriage?). These controlling trends that are now becoming PUBLIC POLICY and supported by MY TAX DOLLARS are based on a religious view of sexuality that I do not hold. Those repressive and patriarchal responses to human (and especially female) sexuality ARE offensive to me. So, if I have offended you, I am sorry that you are hurting, but you are hurting because of the cultural conditions in which you live and in which you seem to believe are vital for your own sexual fulfillment (though, have you tested them? Are you married? Are you heterosexual and therefore can marry? Are you a virgin? Have you ever had an orgasm? Have you ever given a partner an orgasm?)

Peace

Sorry, I meant:

legallyblondeez, I'm glad you added your caveat that you don't think that emotional intimacy and vulnerability can only happen inside of marriage.

Heather, I don't quite understand your comment. Legallyblondeez has said that abstinence-only education is bad propaganda and that that abstinence and monogamy are not the only health choices. She agrees with you that this nonsense is a poor excuse for public policy, and damaging. It doesn't seem like you disagree with each other about this.

But I don't like your quizzing her about her personal choices. If she were sexually active, we wouldn't be asking her if she'd "tested" her beliefs about what would make her happy by abstaining from sex. Who would know better than she what works for her? Why assume that she's speaking from a position of ignorance?

i have to agree with Heather Nan concerning the racist bent of the banner. having come from a southern evangelical-fundementalist background, i can comfortably say there are likely some racial overtones that, of course, the promoters of this event would deny, but just happen to make the conference evn more attractive to certain groups they target. so many of the southern religious movements have spend so much time "othering" people of color,and those who advocate for sex rights, that often, just mentioning something like abortion conjurs a very specific mental image of someone who is black, female and living in an urban area. it's incredibly difficult discussing issues of sex rights or race with people from these groups because they are so intertwined in many peoples' minds.

Heather,

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I am not advocating that everyone wait until they are married to have sex. I agree with you that a culture that demonizes and pathologizes sex outside of marriage, or forces young people into marriage because they feel it is their only sexual outlet, is harmful in many ways. I think that guilting people into monogamy does everyone a disservice. I understand that some of my personal discomfort with the idea of casual sex *in my own life* is caused by my upbringing and society's views of sexuality. But I try not to criticize anyone else's sex life, unless you count encouraging people to take precautions against stds and unwanted pregnancy as criticism.

My parents also married young, probably in large part because they believed that sex outside of marriage was not acceptable. They were lucky and have stayed together. My parents were not very happy about my choice to live with my now-husband (and therefore, presumptively, have sex with him) on and off while we were dating. However, they recognized that my choices and the social context in which I made them were different, and that I was no less responsible about my choices than they were.

I happened to marry the only person I have chosen to have intercourse with, but that was not important to me at the time I first decided to have sex. What was important at that time was that I loved and trusted him. And if it's important for you to know, I had (and still have) a satisfying sex life for seven years before I got married, and we delayed marriage because of my education and career choices. I have a non-traditional marriage in many ways, and I wouldn't have married someone who didn't respect and support my feminism. If anything, part of my hesitation to have sex when I was a teenager was the lack of respect I felt from many young men--it wasn't exactly a turn-on to be called a feminazi every time I expressed an independent thought. Hopefully others have had a larger number of respectful suitors.

I mostly spoke up because there are a number of people on this site, some without any religious impetus at all, who have chosen to practice abstinence and/or monogamy (within or outside of marriage) and have felt that their life choices are lumped in with the conservative religious abstinence-only crowd when abstinence-only education is being discussed. I just want people to realize and respect the diversity of sexual and relationship choices that can be made without preaching or forcing a particular choice on others.

One last thing: monogamy is not the same as marriage. There are plenty of same-sex couples who are (unjustly) denied the right to marriage but nonetheless practice monogamy. In addition, if you are in a sexually exclusive romantic relationship, you are practicing monogamy--it isn't necessarily a lifetime commitment.

Good points, LegallyBlondeez.

I think that the sex-positive crowd (how's that for a positive term? better suggestions, anyone?) forgets that they have a strong majority which does, occasionally, trample on the minority of the pro-abstinence crowd. I've lost count of the number of times that I've been dumped for not having sex after three weeks of dating, been criticised for my choices, been told that no man will wait for me, or that I'm frigid, or I don't know what I'm missing, or sex is fun so I should try it, or you wouldn't buy a car without test-driving it first, so why would a guy marry me without screwing me beforehand? (Please note that it's basically "No man will want a used woman" in another form.) Oh, let's not forget the fact that all women who have a healthy sexuality have lots of sex.

Those are things said to me, directly and personally. I have a hard time really feeling badly for anyone in the sex-positive crowd, considering what I've encountered.

The abstinence crowd desperately wants waiting to be seen as a valid, healthy choice made by sane, rational, sexual, and healthy people. Societal pressure to have sex when I don't want to isn't exactly a vindication of feminist principles.

The reason for this rant is that I really, really understand why people feel the need to promote abstinence beyond their own lives. Until it is seen by society as a valid choice, those who choose to remain abstinent (or even refrain from sex outside of long-term, serious relationships) will have a really tough time. It's not like "live and let live" is really working for women who don't want to have sex.

Rant over. Please disagree with anything I've said or modify it or propose alternatives.

Two things:
1)Racism - Given that the words Black and White stand out so prominently, and that black women are portrayed as highly sexualized in the media, it's hard not to see an implicit "how to keep white women pure" subtitle to the conference

2)Abstinence- Being abstinent is a valid choice. It's something that a person has a right to do. Not having sex doesn't make you sexually "ignorant" and it's wrong to criticize people for making informed choices about what they want to do with their own bodies. However, framing abstinence in terms of purity and pollution, as the conference planners do, is wrong. Just as it is wrong to frame it in terms of ignorance and enlightenment. Choosing to be abstinent isn't wrong, even if you choose abstinence without ever having sex. The truly sex positive know that sexual behavior exists along a continuum, and are capable of looking at the various ways people express their sexuality without making judgments about the people who choose different portions of the spectrum.

oenophile,

Although I am the quintessential "bad girl", I can sympathize with you about being judged due to personal sexual choices. I think that either end of the spectrum is judged as not "normal" or "healthy" by society. As a young adult, I was having fun finding myself and I really enjoyed sex. I enjoyed it with many different partners and in many different ways. I personally feel as though I learned something from every one of my lovers, I have kept these experiences with me throughout my life and they have helped to shape the person I have become. I do not regret what or who I did. The only thing that hurt me was the judgmental attitudes of others who took it upon themselves to try to police my sex life.

It seems ridiculous to me to even try to tell people what to do when it comes to sex. Whatever two or more consenting adults decide to do or not to do in private (or semi private ;) should be respected and not seen as deviant or weird.

Oenophile, you're both right and wrong. Yes, there is a lot of pressure on women (and, to a lesser degree, on men) to have sex, sex, sex. But there's also a lot of pressure in the other direction. It just depends on what part of culture you scrutinize. Certainly, the pressure to have sex is very obvious (turn on any teen show, and there it is), but the pressure to remain "pure" is more pervasive.

Also, regarding the racism bit, I don't think that the planners were consciously (and possibly not even unconsciously) intending to send a racist message. These are people who know, in their heart of hearts, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with race relations today. They're the same ones who were insisting that they treated their Negroes fine in '60s and everything would be great if it weren't for outside agitators.

Also regarding race, it's not so much that black women are portrayed as hypersexualized, as the way that the hypersexualization is used. For white women it's often seen as a good thing, but since black women are poor (in the media), they shouldn't be having more children. Thus, abstinence programs, welfare reform, etc.

For all the "chastity" they seem to represent these folks are sure hung up on sex- AND the rather weird, weirder and weirdest connotations they represent. The "young" lady is a rather ambivalent grey, isn't she?

For all the "chastity" they seem to represent these folks are sure hung up on sex- AND the rather weird, weirder and weirdest connotations they represent. The "young" lady is a rather ambivalent grey, isn't she?

BearCat,

I personally happen to think that the pressure to have sex is trivialised as "pop culture," which completely misses 99% of the pressure. If you could spend a few weeks in my shoes, I think you'ld understand how truly pervasive the pressure to have sex is, and the real need for abstinence awareness.

Agreed, SassyGirl.

The "purity" part of abstinence reflects the fact that those who abstain from sex are able to go into a marriage without any memories of that act with other people. I do think that there's too much focus on physical purity, which ignores the emotional side. Certainly, many women can have sex and still enter into a marriage as healthy, self-aware, confident women who can offer their souls to their husbands. That's a far cry, though, from saying that anyone who even thinks about premarital sex is a whore.

I would also like to see more attention paid to how men enter into marriage. There's a lot of guys who screw around in their 20s, then decide that they want a nice girl that they can take home to their mammas. Well, a lot of "nice girls" don't want them, a lesson which is learned far too late.

Rant over. :)

"I would also like to see more attention paid to how men enter into marriage. There's a lot of guys who screw around in their 20s, then decide that they want a nice girl that they can take home to their mammas."

Most of that attention I've seen narrows the focus to how Third World men enter into marriage (pretty much "there's a lot of guys who screw around in their 20s, then decide that they want a nice girl that they can take home to their mammas, this is how virgin brides and faithful wives get AIDS").

For all the "chastity" they seem to represent these folks are sure hung up on sex- AND the rather weird, weirder and weirdest connotations they represent. The "young" lady is a rather ambivalent grey, isn't she?

oenophile, I respectfully disagree :D

Last year, when I went to public school, there was definitely a sense of "erring on the side of caution" from the school teachers; i.e. there are these weird things called condoms but it's better safe than sorry, so just don't do it and if you do don't let us know about it, and by the way you get AIDs from buttsex. I'm still a virgin, and while I prefer to date girls I have dated boys and even considered having sex once or twice, but have always decided against it. The only time I felt even vaguely pressured to have sex was when we were talking about virginity at the study hall table and, after learning that I was the only virgin at the table, my then-boyfriend put his arm around my shoulder and said "I'll fix that." Needless to say that relationship didn't last too long after that. Other than that, I can't say anyone's really cared either way who I was or was not in bed with.

The point I'm trying to make is that I've never felt any major disrespect my way because I have chosen so far not to have sex with guys. I'm not discounting your experience, just adding that not everyone has been so criticized just because they don't want to "give it up". The whole thing just boils down to people insisting on telling us--young people of both sexes--how we should act, who we should love, and how far we should go whether or not we feel ready. Pressure=bad news, no matter what direction it's leaning.

Funny thing is, I fit the technical definition of the purity end of the dichotomy--young unmarried virgin who doesn't voice her opinions except online--and yet I'm so open with the right gender ;)

Since each of us only has his or her experiences to rely on, does it make any sense to argue whether or not there is stronger pressure to abstain or have sex?

I think one thing that we can all agree on is that it is not right to condemn anyone for making informed decisions about if and when to become sexually active. Personally, I would like both public policy and pop culture to see a shift from "you should" or "you shouldn't" to one that respects individual choices and beliefs and fosters a strong sense of respect for oneself and one's potential partners.

Kalisiti, I think the pressure to have sex increases with age. I know that a lot of people I knew in high school were virgins until they graduated, hell my brother probably will be, but once you get a few years into college people find it very shocking if you haven't had sex. More so if you're not a very "religious" person. I've only been sexually active with two people, both times within a long term relationship, and I'm somewhat unusual in the fact that I don't like the idea of casual sex or random hook ups for myself. For people who enjoy that sexual lifestyle I think they should have all the freedom to enjoy it without judgement, just like people who choose to remain abstinent for any reason should be comfortable without judgement for that choice.

Frankly, I've always believed that as long as sex is between legal and consenting parties, it's no one's business what ANYONE'S sex life consists of. I don't care if you're having sex with a man, a woman, both, neither, or several all at once. It's not important and it doesn't make you a better or wose person. Campaigns like this reduce sexuality to a very simplistic thing when really, it's wonderfully varied.

I meant "somewhat unusual" for my university. Not overall. Sorry.

Oenophile, did I ever say that pressure to have sex was "just pop culture?"

First of all, pop culture is incredibly strong. Second, it's not just pop culture, it's peer pressure and other sources. But the idea of the virgin bride is much more pervasive than the idea that every woman wants sex all the time. IMO, the most influential manifestation of the virgin bride is in fairy tales. I was terrified of Snow White when I was little because of the witch, and now I am terrified of it because of its power to influence young girls.

Bearcat:

You're correct about pop culture, but I think you are completely missing the personal aspect of sexual pressure. I don't think there's an idea running about that every woman wants sex all the time, but there is an idea running around that sexually healthy women put out after a month. I pay zero attention to pop culture (comically so, in fact), but sexual pressure is incredibly pervasive in my personal life.

Kalisti: I'm glad that you've been relatively free from peer pressure so far. I do, however, agree with Genny that it gets worse when you get older. Once I hit 25, men expected that I would sleep with them on the first or second date. That was really rough and is pretty much the reason why I don't date anymore. Comparing that when I started dating when I was in college and I could get away with kissing only for several months... the difference is huge (and frightening).

I'm not missing the personal aspect, I just think that the personal pro-sex pressure is more obvious and the personal pro-virginity pressure is more pervasive.

For example, my family is incredibly secular (I had a children's Bible, but I read it a grand total of two times, and I have been to church three times) and very open about sex, but my mom and grandma still reinforced the idea that sex is for marriage, even though they didn't intend to (my mom joked with her sister that they were going to stuff condoms in my cousin's and my pockets starting in elementary school, so that once we knew what they were for we would be safe).

I imagine that someone who went to church regularly (or even more than once every few years), or had more normal parents (that don't want to even think of their kid having sex at least until late high school), there would be much more pressure to be "chaste."

BTW, even if you say you pay zero attention to pop culture, you're still influenced by it by the memes that get spread from person to person.

Bearcat:
Don't conflate racism with classism. Many people think poor people have no right to sex regardless of race (see ghetto queen, trailer trash, pregnant border crosser stereotypes).However, even when the risk of bearin children into poverty isn't considered, the media image of the "good girl/girl next door" is still a white one.

Oenophile: Your "nice girl" terminology reflects the pressure for purity that Bearcat is describing. Implying that someone with many sexual partners is somehow less desirable for a long term relationship really underscores the idea that people are somehow tainted by not choosing to remain abstinent and that sex is polluting, and therefore those who are sexually active are polluted. In that case it really is a black and white issue, and those who don't believe that being sexual active makes you dirty are going to come down pretty strongly on the other side of the issue.

Isn't the virgin/whore dichotomy one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations? I mean, it always seemed like there was pretty incredible pressure from both ends. On the one hand, women are expected to be chaste and pure and not have sex until they're safely married. If you have sex or even look like hte sort of girl who has sex, it's seen as something that is fair game to insult you with. "Nice girls don't do that." On the other hand, there's also strong social pressure to have sex. Most pop culture sends a pretty clear message that "healthy, fun, normal people have sex. Probably lots of it." If you go on dates, there's an expectation that you're going to "put out" sometime before the third date, and if you don't, the guy isn't going to want another date. If you're in your mid-twenties or older, and you're a virgin, then there's obviously something wrong with you. In other words, even though there's this pressure to be a "good girl" coming at you from all sides, there's this equally strong assumption that you're not going to.

So, yeah, it always seemed to me that the pressure was coming from both sides. You're either a dirty slut, or a frigid bitch, and you can't win, either way.

=/

"In terms of the graphic, I'm going with the red cloth symbolizing the awesomeness of getting your period every month. Dirty whores who have sex and who might worry about missing their period can't wave around their used pads and tampons in the air like this woman can!"

HAHAHA that made me so happy to read that. whoever decided that having sex made you an immediate slut is an idiot. Don't people realise that this is 2007 not 1804?

roymacIII: "Put out before the 3rd Date"--seriously? Earlier oenophile stated: "I've been dumped for not having sex after three weeks of dating."

Both of these comments (though they may indeed come from personal experience, I'm not denying that) sounds like the person (man?) you were dating were very commodity/exchange thinkers--that if they buy you dinner, you then owe them a blow-job, etc. I'm sorry, that's awful, but guess what? They were assholes and you probably wouldn't have wanted to date them long anyway.

In my earlier comments about sexual retardation--its not a judgement, I literally meant that sexual development would be retarded (delayed or prevented from developing). Retarded not by personal choices, but by government policy. I'm mostly concerned with the government trying to dictate exactly under what conditions persons first experience themselves as sexual beings. I'm in Divinity School and I'm a Unitarian Universalist (a liberal denomination). I was in my Feminist Theology class last semester in a discussion section and we got onto the abstinence only education stuff in chat. Well, interestingly, I was the only person brought up with the license to explore my sexuality as an individual, not only within the context of marraige (by the way, my Church and the UCC offers a sex education course called Our Whole Lives (owls) and it address the broad spectrum issues of sexuality, including a GBLTQ inclusive policy...so some churches, liberal church seeing the lack of sex ed are making sure that their kids aren't lied to by the government without first learning comprehensive information). Anyway, the point is that two of the persons who were brought up by conservative parents got married in college (to have sex, there was no other way) and now both couples are on the verge of divorce, one with a child. Also, the guy in our section (yes, he's very cool and takes lots of gender/feminist classes...he's now a liberal Christian and Vegan), anyway, lots call him "John" talked about how as a fundie kid he and the other boys would talk about how great sex would be in marriage because God has given you the perfect girl as your bride and you are supposed to fit together as if God made you for each other (ah, well sweet) the problem is, you have two bumbling virgins at 20 who have no clue--lots of tears are shed (his version) and it takes a while to learn and for some, the women may never experience orgasms in their marriage because God gives you orgasms (apparently its not about knowledge of the body or eroticism?). So, again, my concern isn't with people individually making choices to abstain from sex (though that doesn't make them pure),but rather policy that is funded by my tax dollars to encourage early marriage (bad for women especially) or abstain until 30ish (which seems to me to deny a big part of young adult development).

Now, in terms of those who feel pressure to have sex within three dates or three weeks, that sucks--yet, I've never had that problem. Despite my sex-positive values, I've never had sex with anyone without dating for 3-4 months and until I feel something for the person. Now, I may have made out with a guy (does kissing equal sex?), but if a guy is pressuring me, I dump him. If I vibe a guy to be a jerk or questionable on the first date, I don't go out on the second, so maybe that's why I haven't had this problem. Also, many of the guys that I've been involved with for longer-term relationships started out as friends first. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I would say, pressure to have sex is NOT good, but pressure to stay "pure" is equally bad. I think that getting all the information and having sex-edu in very conversational and non-judgemental ways is the way to go; comprehensive information and secular--that's the way to go. Then people can actually make decisions, not follow a party line.

peace

Heather: Both of these comments (though they may indeed come from personal experience, I'm not denying that) sounds like the person (man?) you were dating were very commodity/exchange thinkers--that if they buy you dinner, you then owe them a blow-job, etc. I'm sorry, that's awful, but guess what? They were assholes and you probably wouldn't have wanted to date them long anyway.

I'm not arguing that guys like that are the sorts of guys that women should be dating- I'm suggesting that these are pretty common attitudes, though. Many (most?) people have some pretty unhealthy views about sex, and I don't think it's at all uncommon to find men who feel entitled to sexual favors. What I'm suggesting is that there are strong social forces at work that tell women that they should be both chaste and pure but also that they should "put out" and that men won't like them if they're not having sex. These same forces tell men that they should be pushing to have sex, and if they're waiting, there's something wrong with them.

It's not about "vibing a guy to be a jerk" it's about the social and cultural forces at play. It's fantastic that you've had generally positive experiences with sexuality. As a guy, I can tell you that there was tremendous social pressure to be sexually active. Men who are still virgins by the time they're in their twenties are the subject of scorn and ridicule. Not every individual will be, obviously, but there are still patterns that emerge. Whether it's three dates, or three weeks, there is a general expectation that a woman will sleep with a man after a certain number of dates. If she doesn't, we're taught to think that she's either frigid, or not interested.

pressure to have sex is NOT good, but pressure to stay "pure" is equally bad.

That's basically what I was trying to get at. As it stands, women face pressure from both sides, and neither is particularly healthy. People should feel free to explore or not explore their sexuality as they see fit, without excess pressure from outside forces.

Is race ever NOT an issue? Whether it's used symbolically (as Heather Nan pointed out) or literally, we white people have to start seeing race and uses of racial language instead of just seeing a picture of a white woman and mumbling to ourselves, "...someone who looks like me...of course, since all advertising is geared towards me...nothing special about that...no race there."

White people, we do possess a race! As an exercise, white people, start looking at ads and commercials and movies. When and how are white people used? and when and how are people of color used? Make a checklist of every time a white woman is doing something either domestic or purity-reinforcing on TV. Make another list for every time a racially ambiguous, so-called "exotic"-looking woman is featured sexually. Then look at how words about whiteness and cleanness are used, versus how words about darkness/impurity/dirtiness are used. Then write a 20 page report on your findings. I promise you'll find at least one interesting thing. In fact, it could be a blog-wide project to post ads and stuff that show how race is used.

I'm not the one that's conflating class and race--that would be racists and conservatives. Classism is often a facade for racism.

I was terrified of Snow White when I was little because of the witch, and now I am terrified of it because of its power to influence young girls. --Bearcat

You're terrified of the message of abstinence for girls? It annoys me but certainly does not terrify me.

White people, we do possess a race! As an exercise, white people, start looking at ads and commercials and movies. When and how are white people used? --Louise

On the x-country machine last night at the gym, I was watching Sanjay Gupta talk about healthy living on CNN but on the back teevee I saw the latest bachelor or bachelorette show. Is it just me, or was everyone lily white?

Okay, I just checked and at least 90% of the bachelorettes are white. About 66% of the US population is white. The latest bachelor or bachelorette show is extremely racist!

"You're terrified of the message of abstinence for girls? It annoys me but certainly does not terrify me."

Er, no. I'm terrified of the message of "the only way to be a woman is to live with your guardian until a shining knight comes and sweeps you off your feet." Plus the dwarfs creep me out a little.

Why does the message that young girls should stay at home until their knight in shining armor terrify you? It's extremely annoying to me but it certainly does not terrify me at all.

As you can see from the lovely image above, Abstinence is a Black & White Issue: Purity vs. Promiscuity.

That is an appalling image.

Back to bachelors or bachelorettes. Looking at the ABC website, the seven out of the twenty-five white women who are not white or possibly not white are light-skinned, part white or of ambiguous race.

Did anyone notice that this is not about men at all.. Abstinence is a feminine virtue... Damn and I thought that the US was a "free" country...( it is and I am just getting overtly dramatic) but seriously abstinence as the "duty" of the female is so weird DARK AGES. Men, well they have conquests.. women are "dirty whores" Lets take away the vote from them also and make them talking baby machines, while we keep them ( rather their vaginas) under lock and key and peddle their "purity" to the highest bidder. Another hymen intacta sacrificed in the noble cause of breeding the human race...

"Back to bachelors or bachelorettes. Looking at the ABC website, the seven out of the twenty-five white women who are not white or possibly not white are light-skinned, part white or of ambiguous race. "

Oh, don't even get me started on that show. It's bad enough that women can't escape the Madonna/Whore labels, but now that show enforces that we are all airheaded bimbos with no personalities who will do anything to get a guy's attention, and are only happy in life if we marry some random guy who happens to be a doctor and is in top physical shape.

That show should have stopped years ago. I can't believe people are still watching.

Oenophile: Your "nice girl" terminology reflects the pressure for purity that Bearcat is describing. Implying that someone with many sexual partners is somehow less desirable for a long term relationship really underscores the idea that people are somehow tainted by not choosing to remain abstinent and that sex is polluting, and therefore those who are sexually active are polluted.

No kidding, bitch. Do you really think that I'm unaware of that while I'm criticising people who hold that viewpoint?

Get out of auto-condescension mode, LionTamer.

It may not be intentional, but there is arguably an undertone of racism in the choice of "Black/White" as a theme (and indisputably an undertone of cluelessness!). The following message was posted by "the_becca" in response to a post on Bill Maher's Purity Ball commentary: "I just came across some really interesting analysis of the purity ball thing here: http://barkbite.blogspot.com/2006/04/purity-ball.html"

The linked article is cogent and fascinating; for me, it rings disturbingly true on some gut level.

When the tag line of this conference ("purity vs, promiscuity") was selected, was there ever any doubt that it would be a woman who was depicted on the poster? It seems the concept of "purity" only exists in relation to women, as it means that they are acceptable for the duties assigned to them by the GOOD BOOK. While some lip service (no double entendre implied, honestly!) is paid to young men abstaining from sex, you know that the drive behind this movement is to make sure that young women have their sexuality controlled and judged by the society at large--a society organized around men, but which includes those god-fearing women who think it only right that men should make these decisions for them.
If there was ever a perfect depiction of the repressive nightmare that fundamentalist Christianity must be, especially for women, this poster (and the conference it advertises) is surely it.

"Why does the message that young girls should stay at home until their knight in shining armor terrify you? It's extremely annoying to me but it certainly does not terrify me at all."

Meanwhile, isn't it a Taliban message too? I just find it closer to a terrorist-sympathetic attitude than to a terrifying attitude.

It looks like Christian and Islamic fundamentalism have a lot in common.

It's teachings like this that creates problems for women from conservative families. If from a young age they are taught that sex is a horrible evil thing, how can they come to realized that given the right situation (whether in marriage or outside of marriage-depending on what is right for the individual woman) sex is a wonderful thing? The belief that sex is bad and you are "not pure" if you have had sex creates a certain sense of shame and can even be unhealthy both emotionally and physically for the woman. This is emotionally unhealthy because there is no learning of what is normal in sexual relationships, questioning, talking, or getting emotional support. The shame could also lead to not reporting rape for fear of being viewed as "tainted". This idea is unhealthy because without the proper health education certain precautions such as condoms or other contraceptive methods may not be used. This view can also be physically unhealthy because the possiblity that a woman may be afraid to have the proper tests (pap smears, STD testings, pregnancy testing) done to ensure her safety and her partner's safety out of fear that others will find out that she has been sexually active. All of these things point to the fact that putting such a definate line between acceptable and unacceptable is ridiculous...Every woman needs to decide for herself what is best for her own body.

Lastly, the whole racial aspect of white=good and pure VS. black=bad and impure is down right offensive. If they wanted to say that there was no middle ground one would think they could have found a better slogan.