Hat tip to Christa.
So, purity balls! Purity balls are gross. I don’t think I know a single feminist who doesn’t think that purity balls are gross. It takes what is actually a kind of lovely idea (a dad and his daughter spend some time together at a ceremony that honors their relationship) and turns it into WHAT THE FUCK NO AWFUL LAND.
To wit: having a daughter vow to be pure in front of her dad is really, really fucking creepy. Pseudo-incestuous overtones! Treating sex or any sexual activity or lust before marriage as inherently a bad thing! The idea that your best contribution to your future husband is an unspoiled vagina! The idea that what you do with your genitals is the sum total of morality, as opposed to one aspect of it, no more or less important than whether you buy fair-trade tea!
Of course, the purity ball idiocy also has a fairly crappy view of men.
Think about it. Why don’t we have purity balls for boys? Purity balls are rooted in a conservative Christian morality, and it is not like premarital sex is not a sin in conservative Christian moralities if it’s done by a man. Why don’t we see bunches of dudes pledging their purity to their mothers (or, given the patriarchal nature of a lot of conservative Christian groups, still their fathers)?
Well, certain groups do have male-only ceremonies. In the comments of the article linked above someone mentions a “Warrior ceremony” where men get swords. Yes, really. I can only hope that was a local thing, because that combination of violence and militarism and masculinity is kind of depressing. But even Warrior ceremonies don’t have the sexual overtones that purity balls do.
Partially, it’s because the women’s virginities have value. It is a Precious Gift! A Gem! A Treasure You Are Saving For The One You Love! (Of course, it’s a double-edged sword, because as soon as you have sex you’re a lollipop someone else has licked.) Male virginities, on the other hand, are just kind of like… well, you’re supposed to have one, because this is the Christian abstinence movement we’re talking about and they don’t want anyone to have sex before marriage, but it doesn’t make you a Princess Nobly Waiting For Her White Knight. You have to be a white knight and actually do things to get the woman in the first place.
There is a fuckload more cultural support for virginal women than for virginal men, and the purity ball movement plays into that. If we already have the myth of the Virginal Princess Good Girl, it’s a lot easier for the abstinence movement to play into that then to create a whole new myth of the Virginal Prince Good Guy to replace the myth of the Virgin Nerd Who Is Kind Of A Loser.
The purity balls also buy in big to the myth of uncontrollable, predatory male sexuality. Men are only after one thing; even the good ones have to wage a battle with themselves (and yes, they do use the militaristic imagery, down to the Armor of Righteousness) to repress like a motherfucker that drive to fuck everything with a warm hole. So it’s easier for them to talk to women about controlling their sexuality and maintaining purity; the men are ravenous beasts who are already kind of lost to the cause of purity.
You can also see this in the modesty parts of the Christian abstinence movement. Women are, according to some groups, not supposed to wear immodest clothing (depending on how extreme the group is, “immodest” may be anything from a miniskirt to pants). If they wear immodest clothing, then they’re presenting a stumbling-block. Never mind that none of this is in the Bible and is in fact completely antithetical to Christian morality. You cannot, for instance, get out of loving your neighbor because your neighbor is acting really really unlovable and presenting a stumbling-block and fuck if he would just trim his trees you’d be able to love him like a good Christian.
But think about the view it gives of male sexuality. Because men can take their shirts off as much as they like! That does not present a stumbling-block to women apparently. (“Oooh, baby, take it off, be my stumbling-block, you can leave your hat on.”) That’s because men are ravenous beasts, in this particular cultural myth, and women are innocent princess virgins. So you have to get women to be gatekeepers and not to be tricked into sex by peer pressure and promises of love and Teh Teevee, and then the men won’t have sex either and you won’t have to try to control their Ravening Beast Sexualities.
(Don’t think about rape. Rape doesn’t happen. Or it only happens to unchaste and immodest girls who are, as previously discussed, already-licked lollipops.)
Can you say Knight/Beast Dichotomy? I think you can.
About ozyfrantz
Ozy said, “As a kinky poly pansexual person who has casual sex, I would be equally not okay with hypothetical balls that informed teenagers that kinky poly pansexuality open to casual sex is the only correct choice”
Fair enough but I’ll believe it when I see it. Most times I see people (not just you and not just feminists) freely condemning other people but then get super outraged when someone else condemns them. Me, I see feminists and others getting all bent out of shape with notions of “slut shaming” but them have absolutely zero qualms about actively engaging in “prude shaming”.
Anyway to take a step back, I am not ok with indoctrinating children into anything.
debaser71, quit being so disingenuous. You can’t simultaneously be “not ok with indoctrinating children” and scold Ozy for “being judgmental.” You aren’t contributing anything of substance; you’re arguing just to argue because you think feminists are Teh Evil.
By telling Ozy not to judge, you are defending PURITY BALLS. Jesus, could you be any more skeezy?
Also, Y HALO THERE strawfeminist! “Prude shaming” is invented in your head so you can argue with it, and it has nothing with creepy, creepy purity balls where daughters are encouraged to pledge to their fathers that their hymens will remain intact.
(If this guy is a known troll, I apologize for feeding him.)
“It takes what is actually a kind of lovely idea (a dad and his daughter spend some time together at a ceremony that honors their relationship).”
Yeah, I had a great time with my dad at Girl Scout father-daughter dances. Sex was not involved. Purity ball people, no sex involved in father-daughter relationships, please!!!!
“’Warrior ceremony’ where men get swords.”
Well, this kind of cracked me up. Do they promise to keep the swords clean, and neither sheath them nor over-handle them?
“Me, I see feminists and others getting all bent out of shape with notions of ‘slut shaming’ but them have absolutely zero qualms about actively engaging in ‘prude shaming’.”—debaser71
The online feminist spaces I visit tend to be much more aware and accepting of asexuals/graysexuals/late-bloomers/etc. than the physical world I inhabit. Having spent most of my adolescence feeling sub-human because I had sexual urges, I don’t mind seeing the concept of “purity” lampooned.
If you don’t want to have sex, fine. If you feel that your desire or decision to have sex diminishes your value as a human being, then something has been done to you that I am NOT ok with. If you want to pass that harmful idea on to your children, then you deserve to be shamed.
The L: “My thoughts: As a general rule, two virgins in a bed tends to be one too many.”
My thoughts: those without experience in something (sex, romantic love, kissing, anything) seek someone else who also is without experience in said thing, so they can go through all the “firsts” together.
Abstinence is great, but, as has been written, it’s ridiculous that girls are made to go through this and not boys. And ridiculous that we police what girls can and can’t wear as if boys are horny animals unable to control themselves, and then turn around and encourage boys to play tackle football in the mud in their jockey shorts in the presence of girls because — ready? — “girls aren’t visual.” (Believe that one and I’ve got an invisible double-decker bus to sell you.)
“If you want to have lots of unattached sex, fine. If you feel that your decision to have lots of casual sex has made your a better person or improved your life, then something has been done to you that I am NOT okay with. If you want to pass that harmful idea on to your children, then you deserve to be shamed. ”
I read things like this as “It’s okay to be chaste, just don’t talk about why.” If I applied this standard to people, it would be labelled as ‘slut-shaming’. Thus, I think it’s perfectly fair to label this reasoning as ‘prude-shaming’ or ‘virgin-shaming’.
I believe something very similar to what you think is NOT okay. I believe that I will be more loyal and more committed if I have fewer sexual partners and less experience when I meet the woman I will eventually marry. This is a big part of why I actively choose to be chaste, even though I have sexual desires. Nobody “did” this to me. I am an adult, and I am perfectly capable of making my own choices with regards to this. To say some ‘did’ this to me is to deny my agency. It suggests that I am not mentally competent because I hold the views I do. In fact, I find this to be rather insulting.
Which brings me back to the post quoted in the OP:
When that post is attacking the whole idea of chastity being a ‘gift’ for your future significant other, it is attacking a large part of the reason I am chaste. So, when the post says I’m a bad person for holding this belief, they are virgin shaming.
I’m perfectly okay with people disagreeing with me and attacking my beliefs. I just find it to be a tad hypocritical to complain in slut-shaming while engaging in similar tactics to attack the other side. After all, if I said that it’s perfectly okay to be promiscuous, but doing so because you fell that sex feels good makes you a bad person, it would be considered slut-shaming.
That being said, this doesn’t mean I like the purity balls. Dvärghundspossen absolutely hits the nails the head on what’s wrong about this arrangement. This sort of thing is effectively saying “do this, because daddy told you to”. This is hardly a well-reasoned argument for chastity, nor is it preparing our young men and women to make this sort of decision on their own. Sooner or later, these children will grow up and their parents should be preparing them to function on their own. At best, these purity balls do nothing on this front and at worse they are actively harmful.
No he isn’t. He explicitly said he wasn’t:
D3, those don’t equate at all. The direct equivalent would be “If you want to have lots of unattached casual sex, fine. If you feel that your desire or decision to not have sex diminishes your value as a human being, then something has been done to you that I am NOT ok with. If you want to pass that harmful idea on to your children, then you deserve to be shamed.” Which ought to be an utterly uncontroversial statement.
Also, if your personal belief system is that your virginity is something you’re saving as a gift for the person you marry, cool, it is really none of my business, as long as you accept that other people are different (although you should possibly not marry the ones that are different?) and there is nothing wrong with that and it doesn’t make them used tape or whatever. However, the abstinence movement as a whole has several problematic traits, such as their very strong gendering of abstinence and their tendency to present virginity/purity as The Most Important Thing, both in the sense of “if you’re a virgin until marriage your marriage will be happy!” (not true) and in the sense of “purity is the most important Christian issue, way more important than silly things like helping the poor.”
Virginal Prince Good Guy=Edward from twilight?
@Ozy
What exactly do you mean by ‘value as a human being’? I suspect we are reading that very differently.
I’m reading that as ‘ability to preform the task of being a human being’. To me, that includes being a loyal and dedicated spouse. Now, if I say that making choosing not to do A makes me a better person then it logically follows that choosing to do A would make a worse person. You are asking me to say that all decisions about this are equal. By my reading, this means you are actively shaming me for believing that having many partners makes you less able love one, and only one and acting accordingly. How on earth is that not virgin shaming? How on earth is that different from this post:
If you were intending ‘value as a human being’ as ‘having certain inalienable rights’, then yes, we absolutely agree. I suppose it’s a bit like smoking in my view. It might be healthy, but it doesn’t make you somehow subhuman.
So, your answer to the strong gendering of chastity isn’t to provide some sort of support to young men who choose that, but instead to cut off such support to young women? I have to say, that’s the wrong kind of equality.
I strongly think that waiting until I find the person I hope to marry will improve my odds of having a successful marriage. I don’t think it’s a guarantee of a successful marriage.
I’m not, in any sense of the word, a Christian. Or Muslim. Or Jewish. Or a member any other organised religion.
In mocking the importance of chastity, I think you reveal your lack of understanding of your opponent’s viewpoint. It’s not just about sex. It’s about marriage and family. I can think of no more important issue. Yes, tending to your own marriage is far more important than helping the poor. It’s hard to be in a place to help others when you are worried about your own family.
You know… I’m not sure if this attitude is quite as extensive in conservative communities as you make it out to be. Goodness, even Rush Limbaugh was asking “where are the guys in all of this”. Just like how some young men are instructed “if you get a girl pregnant, you marry her and support her”. Yes, they still think of the man as the primary actor and women as the gatekeepers of sex, but I doubt that most social conservatives would classify male sexuality as being beast-like and uncontrollable. At least, not more so than a woman’s sexuality. Saying the “flesh is so weak” isn’t inherently gendered, even if the rest of sex and courtship is.
On the other hand, we have the Nice Guy (Tm) wars, where it is widely presumed that all courtship and dating are about only cheap sex. If anything, I suspect that this brand of feminist have a whole lot more of the “sex by men is predatory” attitude than the social conservatives.
D3: Well, see, the whole sex-positivity thing is based on a sort of mutual agreement. The agreement is that I don’t go about saying that polyamory is more evolved and anyone who isn’t poly is insecure and unable to communicate and will never have a real mature relationship, and in exchange you do not go about saying that having many partners will make you less able to love one. This is because sex-positivity is based on the premise that different sexual choices will make different people happy, and no single choice is inherently wrong or right, and therefore it is wrong to judge people for their sexual choices (that do not harm other people or themselves). The problem is not that you are a virgin (there are many excellent reasons that people are virgins!); the problem is that you are saying that sluts are less capable of love, which is slut-shaming and therefore breaks the whole “we do not judge other people for their sexualities” thing. Similarly, I have no problems with sluts, and deep problems with “sluthood is empowering and unless you’re a slut you don’t have a liberated sexuality!”
Your safe, emotionally healthy, consensual, honest sex life should be free from criticism by other parties. Your ideas? Not so much.
I would argue with you re: the relative importance of marriage, but I fear we may have fundamentally incompatible moral systems. (I am more-or-less a Millsian utilitarian, with a few minor alterations.)
As regards the Ravening Beast thing, I highly recommend Christine Gardner’s Making Chastity Sexy, a well-respected ethnographic study (by an evangelical, no less) of the Christian abstinence movement which discusses the gender roles within the movement in far more detail. Many of my thoughts on the movement are derived from her work.