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.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: There's nothing rebellious about "purity".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/6470
Can I get an AMEN.
When will people realize that chastity and empowerfulment sexed-upness are two sides of the same oppression?
Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage.
First of all, how many girls does she know that are getting married? Dont' you have to be 18 to do that in most states? Secondly, who says they regret these sexual relationships? Why aren't the men that they are marrying regretting their sexual relationships? Oh yeah, I forgot, guys are supposed to have sex, girls aren't. Although then I'm not sure who they're supposed to be having sex with...Why am I trying to apply logic to this argument?
Yeah, these things are really creepily medieval. Maybe I should consider myself lucky to have a father who I know loves me without these extra stipulations.
You get a standing ovation from me! Thank you! I will quote you extensively the next time I have to talk to someone about purity balls being offensive.
"Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage"
So, as a guy, I suppose my past sexual relationships will not bring baggage and break down the marriage. Instead, it brings health and vitality to the marriage since I was able to prove my virility and sow my wild seeds.
It also better prepares me for bed once I take ownership of my future wife from her father.
Thanks, evangelicals, for explaining this for me! :)
Wonderful post. Their argument is terribly flawed, but it's so tied up with pretty sounding rhetoric that sometimes it's hard to break down exactly what's so gross about the concept. Well done doing just that!
I remember watching some clips on here (I think) of coverage on purity balls, and the girls didn't even seem to know what exactly it was all about, except they were to remain "pure". I'm sure the younger ones don't even know what that means, they just say it.
It's laughable that people in this movement believe being "pure" is a revolutionary concept. Seems to hark back to past times to me, but just because on the surface it is the antithesis to oversexualized pop culture, they believe it is revolutionary. Which, as Jessica pointed out, is just another way to place emphasis on sex (and not even just sex, but the ownership of women by men).
"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."
You know, I wouldn't have such a big fucking problem with these people if they thought boys had a wonderful gift to give their wives (or, God forbid, their husbands) as well. I just don't see why a daughter - or a daughter's virginity - is so much more precious or in need of protection than a son's.
And as for this being a father-daughter event, I say bullshit. The moments that build a lasting father-daughter relationship don't result from a single dress up event, whether or not anything is pledged. It comes from involving yourself in your child's interests, inviting her to join yours, creating regular moments together, and being there to help her with the ups and downs that life is going to throw at her. Putting on a suit, exchanging rings, eating cake, and promising to protect her precious vagina once or twice does not make one a good parent.
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.
I'm sorry, but that's just nasty.
This kinda reminds me of everytime Kidder rants about these things on Sex is Fun (http://www.greatsexgames.com/podcast)
He thinks that responsible people should explore their sexuality, find out what they like sexually and not settle down with one person until they've figured out: sex is fun.
Why do I get the feeling that there will soon be a NYT Style Section article that claims the chastity belt is coming back into vogue? [/sarcasm]
In either case women's sexuality belongs to everyone but women. There's nothing counter-cultural or cutting edge about that.
Maybe we could just call them counter-revolutionary, instead? I'm still working on the REAL (feminist) revolution in gender and sexual relationships, thank you very much.
"Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage,"
This quote pisses me off SO much. Just because a sexual experience occurs before marriage does NOT mean it comes with regret or "baggage". I'm not ashamed or embarassed to admit that I've had WAY more than 12 sexual relationships. I learned something from each of them; something that could be useful in another relationship. How could that possibly be bad? It's like saying that because someone has had several jobs before finding the career of her dreams, she's got "baggage and regret".
P.S. Some people don't WANT to get married! Ever! I've got an absolutely wonderful partner, and we're not going to get married. Ever. We're planning our lives together, but marriage is not included. Why stress marriage so much? (I admit, this is a personal peeve of mine. I think marriage is a really great thing, and more power to you if you want to get married! It's just not for me. I mean no offense.)
Thank you Jessica you can always capture in words what I would like to say to people who just don't get it.
This all goes back to what is now being called the "technical virgin," becuase it is more likely that these girls (who pledge their viginity) 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?
Also, as you said Jessica, this isn't a revolutionary idea. The whole reason that women had to keep thir viringity in the first place was becuase of inheritance and property rights etc... Now that this is gone in the Western world my question is why is it still happening (I generally understand why, but that doesn't make me less angry)? I think the revolutionarty thing is to actually give women a choice!
"Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage."
uh-oh. im screwed. (clearly, i have "questionable morals")
why is it baggage and regret?!?! how about learning from mistakes, valueing what was once shared between you and another person, or what about simply experiencing people, life, sex...?
le sigh. nothing scares people more than the idea of women in charge of their own bodies and minds.
We want them to present themselves as a rose to their husband with no blemishes.
Don't these people have anything better to do than worry about young womens' sexuality? Does the idea of young women out "blemishing" themselves keep these people up at night? I bet it does. There are real problems in this world. Non-virgin women getting married is NOT one of them.
I think that's one of the single most offensive things that I've read in a long time. How could a father look his daughter in the face and have that conversation with her? I'd hate my father if he made me feel like he owned me and that sex would make me bad and dirty.
What really bothers me about these balls is the heteronormativity of the entire thing. Do they define virginity as only being equated with vaginal penetration by some guy's dick? I hate how it appears the people behind this movement devalue all other non-penetrative acts as less and are so concerned with putting a lock and key on a girl's hymen. As devine said, it's the "technical virgin" thing at work.
"What we want them to do is present themselves as a rose to their husband with no blemishes."
At first I totally read this as, "What we want them to do is present their rose to their husband with no blemishes." And I was certainly thinking of another part of the anatomy. *L*
I agree with Manda. Shouldn't boys have something "special" to give their wives too? You know, besides a rash.
I think purity balls for Dad would make a great Father's Day gift. Think maybe an enterprising surgeon in Beverly Hills might offer gift certificates...?
"Girls have a wonderful gift to give, and we don't want them to give all of themselves away.
Silly women! Sex is a gift to men, not something that should be satisfiying to you in any way!
I love my dad, and we're very close. But a purity ball is the last thing we'd ever have done.
Plus, I don't think my dad has ever seen me or my sister as anyone's property...well, maybe on his tax form.
Wow. I recently had a conversation with my dad about this very topic, and let me tell ya, he was DISGUSTED. Granted, my dad is a liberal, atheist, feminist...but he still couldn't understand how a father can have it in his head that his daughter's sexuality belongs to him.
How do these girls stand for this shit?
Fucked up.
YES! 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. :)
Actually, there are some guys who choose to wait themselves. I was surprised to find out that favorite actor(Eduardo Verastagui) talks about his commitment to celibacy often. He said:
“I decided, I will never touch a woman until I marry. I will never kiss anyone until I marry.�
[i]You know, I wouldn't have such a big fucking problem with these people if they thought boys had a wonderful gift to give their wives (or, God forbid, their husbands) as well. I just don't see why a daughter - or a daughter's virginity - is so much more precious or in need of protection than a son's. [/i]
I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist environment and my parents placed as much importance on my brother remaining a virgin as they did me. [Creepily, my brother is now 25 and engaged and my mom recently lectured him about being sure not to be alone in his apartment with his fiance less they be "too tempted."] They really, deeply believe that sex is a sacred thing God meant only for spouses. But they followed that belief to what its logical conclusion should be- your virginity is between you and God, not you and your parents or any other person. My dad ranted about purity balls and how gross they were more than once.
Everyone else, however, was a different story. How can one not end up regretting sexual choices if they are told over and over again that those choices make them damaged goods? I even saw a youth pastor chew gum during an abstinence talk, and at the closing of his speech offer everyone the choice between a fresh stick of gum or his saliva-riddled wad. Nice analogy, huh? Awesomely, my friend took the chewed gum and actually put it in her mouth while declaring, "I find gum with experience is a better chew!"
It makes me sick to think about all the girls who felt like trash because they'd had sex. But the boys felt fine...
It sounds so anachronistic, this "purity" idea... you know like in societies with honor killings.. and a very Third World kind of slant
Ugh. These creepy balls disgust me. It's not the only way to bond with your dad. my dad and I are so close its insane. We do everything together: birdwatching, homework, he paints my nails, we sew sometimes, we have feminist and vegan discussions, and honestly, he thinks this whole thing is creepy too.
And JennD- thats so awesome your friend did that! I gotta remember that.. ;)
I like how you put this that both pop culture and "purity" are two sides of the same coin and everyone who has mentioned that boys have little to no pressure to be pure. This is totally the virgin/whore dichotpmy. Boys can have sex before marriage, but that sex is with whores, and whores are unworthy and unmarriageable. But virgins, they are the worthy marriageable ones. This whole bullshit thing is such a double edged sword. Either women's sexuality belongs to men who are not supposed to respect them or it belongs to men for marriage. It all makes my skin crawl.
This is terribly creepy weird. You know that key thing, it almost had me retching...
Oh and on another note, if people wait till marriage to have sex, they are "saving" for a lot of expectation, little realizing, it gets better the more you do it...
And the rest of the symbolism, its crass.
Jessica: "YES! 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. :)"
I agree. :)
Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage
Well, there's your problem right there. Girls shouldn't be going into marriage at all. Marriage is a serious, adult commitment. Women should be the ones going into marriage.
Seriously, do they have any evidence for this? Anything at all to suggest that marriages break up because the women have had previous sexual partners?
And, excuse me? I don't want to be a rose, blemished or not. Roses are passive, bloom, and then fade without actually doing anything. It's one thing to use a rose as a metaphor for the vulva, and it's another to suggest that it's a metaphor for a human being.
I am so grateful for my own father (with whom I have an excellent relationship). He took me aside to have that talk sometime in middle school, and told me about how sex was an intimate and special thing, that I should never do anything I didn't want to do or wasn't ready to do, and if I ever had any questions or fears that my parents were always there for me, no matter what. And that was it. No sex=evil, no 'wait til you have a ring,' none of that crap. Just--be careful, don't let yourself get pushed into anything you don't want, and let your parents support you in any way you want them to. I wish more parents would take a similar route.
I can't help but think that any father who is willing to hold a 'key' to his daughter's virginity and make a pledge to keep her pure is probably unhealthily interested in her sexuality.
I also don't understand how the idea behind this is any weirder than the same sort of ideas that eventually lead to practices like honour killings, which almost everyone rightly criticises.
How difficult is it for the world to understand that females, like any other human beings, are in charge of their own sexuality and whether they want to abstain from sex for their entire lives or sleep with 70 people a day, it's their individual choice and the only person they ever have to answer to about whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' is themselves, based on how they feel and the impact it has on them? (Providing they're not hurting others).
this comment from one of the fathers says a lot to me, however he may have intended it:
"Fathers, it is up to us to plant that seed early and often. Let us take this opportunity to show our daughters that we care.-Gary 2006"
creepy is right. there appear to be incestuous overtones here, loud and clear.
totally ick.
i have a friend who was raised in a strict catholic family, and who was pregnant when she was 16. she said when she was young her parents constantly stressed keeping her virginity. so it just made her more curious about sex!
This kinda reminds me of everytime Kidder rants about these things on Sex is Fun (http://www.greatsexgames.com/podcast)
He thinks that responsible people should explore their sexuality, find out what they like sexually and not settle down with one person until they've figured out: sex is fun.
-- asrai
This show is great and everyone should listen to it!
Wow. I recently had a conversation with my dad about this very topic, and let me tell ya, he was DISGUSTED. ...but he still couldn't understand how a father can have it in his head that his daughter's sexuality belongs to him.
-- Breeder
The same thing happened to me a few weeks ago -- there was something on TV about purity and the "modesty movement" and I got to explain to my dad what a purity ball was. He was astounded.
I was raised with the same dichotomous thinking as these Christians have, albeit veiled in Muslim garb. The message was "you can either be a good, chase, modest Muslim girl who doesn't date until she's ready to marry (and then still doesn't cross the bounds into anything physical before marriage), or an Americanized slut who throws her body around to anyone who will take it, has no self-esteem, contracts tons of STDs, and eventually bears bastard children and won't be able to find a husband."
There is a middle ground; I'm living it! And loving it, I might add. Maybe sex is something unmarried females do because they like it, not as a cover for self-esteem issues? Maybe women can dress nicely with some naughty touches in order to make themselves happy and feel sexy without necessarily "asking for it"? Just a thought.
I wonder, for the love of whatever higher power, why men can own their sexuality, but women cannot. It doesn't say anything about men staying abstinent. They can have their 12 sexual partners and bring NO baggage to the relationship, right?!
Ah! The double standard of male/female sexuality rears its ugly head... for the umpteenth time.
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.
Now, this could just be me, but has anyone else known girls who were religious and said they were going to wait, and then had sex with a boyfriend that they were convinced they were going to marry? And then the relationship ended and the girl started sleeping with what seemed like EVERYONE, no matter how creepy or misogynistic the guy? Even though she was always really upset about doing it afterwards? Almost like she was convinced that since she was no longer a virgin, she was "dirty" and wasn't worth anything anymore?
If that behaviour is widespread, it adds another layer of unhealthiness to this "purity" crap. And what happens if a young woman is raped? Is she no longer pure? Will she be accused of "tempting" her rapist? It raises so many appalling questions.
Maybe we could just call them counter-revolutionary, instead?
-- annajcook
Great term. I may have to use it later this week.
This piece reminded me of an article from Women's E-News awhile back -- about how some prom dress designers are jumping on the modesty bandwagon.
"Modesty Vogue Spurs Multi-Million Dollar Sales"
http://womenenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3376
Maybe we could just call them counter-revolutionary, instead?
Or, as my lefty parents would say, they're reactionary.
I agree with spikenard and cperry: not only is this purity ball phenomenon a pile of patriarchal property-based bullshit, but the incestuous undertones are extra creepy!
Prairielily-- It's not just you. Something similar happened with more than one of my friends. The over-emphasis on "purity" really does a number on girls.
The lectures I heard from youth leaders almost always had a few side notes about how if one was raped or molested they were still a virgin in God's eyes and all that. But, really, after hearing ad nauseum about all the reasons why sexual activity makes one impure, those few throw-away sentences do nothing to help a victim feel okay. It just made them feel worse.
I can't tell you how many girls I consoled who would be sobbing after a talk like that because they "messed up." I never, never, NEVER saw one guy look even a little bit shaken because he'd had sex already. Even when the messenger's words said it was about all of us, it always impacts the girls more deeply.
"Modesty Vogue Spurs Multi-Million Dollar Sales"
One of the websites they talk about in that article is this one:
http://www.modestbydesign.com/Home/
It has "Clothing your father would approve of" as it catch phrase.
wow. creeptastic!
merichan, that is so disturbing. i don't know about the rest of y'all, but when i was in high school, it could have been the prettiest outfit i've ever seen, but if it was sold under the slogan "clothing your father would approve of", i wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. i was all about breaking the dress code whenever possible--parental approval was the last thing i'd want to accomplish.
What weirds me out (but certainly not the only thing about this crap that gives me icky feelings) is that the "girls" they interviewed (for both the purity ball and modest prom dress article) are 18! 18!!! These are adult women. Women who are old enough to decide who they think should run the country and who are old enough to die serving said country, but they can't be trusted to make their own decisions about their own bodies?!?! These same people would never dare tell an 18-year-old male what he should and shouldn't do with his body, he is a grown man after all. Hell, our government has a history of "providing females" for our young male soldiers during times of war.
And this from the modest prom dress article:
Modesty has no strict fashion designation, but at a minimum shoulders and midriffs must be covered. Cleavage is another no-no.
Hemlines and sleeve lengths vary...Some dresses end at the ankle; none rise above the knee. (emphasis mine)
Shoulders and knees? Seriously? When will these people learn that dressing females in so-called "modest" clothing won't lower the teen-sex rate or stop girls from being sexually assaulted/raped? Asinine.
And, excuse me? I don't want to be a rose, blemished or not. Roses are passive, bloom, and then fade without actually doing anything. It's one thing to use a rose as a metaphor for the vulva, and it's another to suggest that it's a metaphor for a human being. -EG
Word. And for that matter, what does "blemished" mean? I went to a fundamentalist Christian secondary school, and the messages about sex were so convoluted. On the one hand, we were supposed to "save our wonderful gift" for our future husbands, but on the other, sex was a bad, dirty thing that we weren't supposed to think about, let alone do. I still (nearly a decade later) get occasional feelings of shame and regret about not "saving myself" for marriage, even though I've put all that crap behind me. I also feel sympathy for my female friends who had to be terrified on their wedding night. Now that's baggage.
I have a 6yo son and a 21mo daughter. They will never hear the words virgin or virginity from me. I want them to view their sexulaity as something to enjoy for themselves and with others, not something to bestow on someone as a gift and then it's gone.
Linking "purity" to sex is so abhorent to me. To me, purity is connected to violence. I see people as being pure unless/until they rape, murder or beat the crap out of someone. The idea that giving and receiving love and pleasure makes you tainted is twisted.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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;).
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.
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.
Also, how can it be a trend if 88% of the girls taking the pledges break it?
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
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.
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.
Or tape. We're not tape either.
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 ;)
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.
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!!
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not even going to comment on purity balls because... Eugh. But:
Hahahaha! Awesome. I thought I was the only person who did shit like that lol
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!"
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.
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.
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.
"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.
And where would be the lock and key for that male virginity, exactly? These virginity fetishists creep me out sooo much. Ugh.
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.
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.
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!