Purity balls: Sweet or creepy?

[missroserose]

I've been reading a both fascinating and horrifying article entitled Contra-Contraception, which traces the upswing in religious conservatism in both regular society and the political arena, and the (oftentimes worrisome) public-health-policy results of misinformation spread by various groups, both religious and non (equating the upswing of birth control usage with the "spread" of abortion? Throwing out scientific evidence of the effectiveness of Plan B because it "might be an abortifacient"? WTF?).

Anyway, most of the issues brought up in the article are ones I've pontificated on at length in the past, so I'm not going to repeat them here. However, I found myself having an oddly strong reaction to the following paragraph:

Besides "Girls Gone Mild," she sponsors "Purity Balls," which fathers attend with their teenage daughters. "We think the relationship between fathers and their daughters is the key," she told me. At the purity ball, a father gives a "purity ring" to his daughter — a symbol of the promise she makes to maintain her virginity for her future husband. Then, during her marriage ceremony, the daughter gives the ring to her new husband. Abstinence Clearinghouse's Web site advertises the purity ball as an event "which celebrates your 'little girl' and her gift of sexual purity."

I realize I might be coming at this from a somewhat skewed perspective, given my relationship (or lack thereof) with my father, but this strikes me as just plain creepy. Not in the Electra-complex-daughter-lusting-after-father kind of way, although the overtones are certainly there, but in how the symbolism of "purity rings" seems a direct evolution of the idea that daughters are the property of their fathers until married.

But let me backpedal a bit. My father, as I've mentioned here before, had a lot of maturity issues while I was growing up. By the time I hit teenagerhood and started exploring my sexuality, my mother had already divorced him, but I was still required to spend weekends (and in one case a whole summer, which ended up being slightly less than a month because my mother could see how badly I was doing) with him. And the fact was, he couldn't deal with the concept of me as a fully-formed, sexually aware adult - or even sexually-explorative teenager - which resulted in his treating me like a child and trying all sorts of emotionally manipulative BS to make me act like a child again (which, unfortunately, often worked).

Admittedly, some of this had to do with his own personal issues, but I've heard from many folks in the same boat that it's not easy for a father to come to terms with his daughter's sexuality. Given that it was only fairly recently in our culture (historically speaking) that women haven't been considered property, this is perhaps understandable; but if women are ever going to achieve equal status, we have to leave this mindset behind.

Given all this, I feel at least partially justified in being creeped out by "purity balls", especially given the quoted description. A teenage daughter is no longer a "little girl", and her "gift of sexual purity", especially if she is of age, is none of her father's damn business. He does not have the right to keep her sexuality under lock and key, through physical means or through emotional manipulation; and she is certainly not his property until she marries. She belongs to herself, and herself only. If she has a good relationship with her father and he is able to pass on his value system to her, which she then chooses to follow of her own will, that's fine. But using a marriage-like ceremony to 'cement' her promise to him just smacks far, far too much of "you're my daughter and my property until I choose to relinquish you to another man who will keep you under control".

I realize, however, with my history and relationship with my father, I'm probably not the best person to judge. So I'm curious - does anyone else find this a little creepy? Or am I just overreacting based on my own emotional history?

Comments

[sigma7.livejournal.com]

Male, with no kids, but yeah, that's tangibly creepy. Seems more like psychological warfare than a genuine celebration.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

That was quick. =)

I was asking folks in general, so your social status doesn't bother me. I was just wondering if it seemed like emotional manipulation to folks who were less sensitive to such things (especially from fathers) than me.

So, thanks.

[sigma7.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this is me not having a life avoiding work er, at lunch....

I had an awkward adolescence (doesn't everyone?), but other'n that, decent parental relations (mainly due to a lack of interference on their part), and this still sounds squicky. (And I did have a girlfriend who hysterically exploded at the mention of her father, so I can only imagine what she'd say....)

And I'll just nod quietly at Slate's affirmation that this is probably a huge waste of time anyhow. If I said anymore I'd just get in trouble....

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Avoiding work? No, I wouldn't know anything about that...*ahem*

I saw that article on Slate. Dan Savage (author of "Savage Love", a hilarious sex advice column) took it one step farther and recommended (snarkily) to a 17-year-old who was upset that his Catholic girlfriend wouldn't put out that he get her to sign a virginity pledge, since that apparently meant a 50-50 chance that he'd get into her pants sometime over the next year. =D

[epa-flip.livejournal.com]

I'd definitely class this as "creepy." I mean, I can understand having rules for children of school age who live under your roof, but that's just...odd. Then again, I find a lot of the double-standards of this society tooth-grindingly annoying (male promiscuity/sexual exploration vs. female, male appearance standards vs female, etc), and it confuses and baffles me that there are women who help perpetuate this apparent lunacy. Eh bien, this is turning into a different rant for a different time and ideally in my journal.

[syonyk.livejournal.com]

Taking the flip side here: Can anyone honestly argue that our society would be worse off with less sexual promiscuity? Given the abundance of teenage pregnancy/single parent homes/etc, fewer people having kids before solid marriages would be a good thing IMO.

Honestly, I don't find the "purity ball" that creepy, but I also exist in a social group where that's the norm (no sex before marriage). And I don't expect any of the marriages from within this group that I've seen to end in divorce.

-=Russ=-

[epa-flip.livejournal.com]

While I would readily agree that less reproduction would be fabulous, and there's no arguing that a two-parent family unit (backed by a small community) is the best way to raise the wee blighters if you're deadset on making them yourself instead of taking one of the multitude of unclaimed ones that are statistically prone to become eternal drains on my tax dollars, I fear that I do not share your convictions. Now, I would love to see less irresponsible sexual promiscuity, but due to the nature of the human animal that's a hard enough goal (and infinitely more realistic). Then again, I fail to see much of the appeal to marriage in general, and have seen too often the psychological toll that it exacted when people stay in marriages they are obviously unhappy in. Its good that you have such a strong faith, and I'm sure it suits you well, but it doesn't work for me. As long as you don't try to get any on me its all good.

[likable-lemur.livejournal.com]

That's appalling.

Sexual promiscuity - or lack thereof - isn't the issue at all. It is tangentially related to the issue that in this country (The United States, although the Internet gleefully crosses international borders) sex education is in many places simply nonexistent, or built on the idea of abstinence-only models, which are possibly even worse than no education at all.

Teenage pregnancy is a valid concern; but one that I firmly believe would be ameliorated somewhat - perhaps extensively - with more prevalent access to education, contraceptives, and if necessary, counseling and pregnancy termination. This country has gotten more and more uptight about sex since Roe V. Wade, which I've always goggled at, unable to wrap my head around.

Furthermore, I find the implication that single-parent homes being somehow "less good" than a married couple - whether or not that couple is, say, happy with one another - unconscionable. Implying that married parents are somehow better than ones that are on their own - either through death of a partner, abuse, or simple independence - is almost stunningly short-sighted.

The idea of the "Purity Ball" galls me in a way that few things have lately; with the state of women's rights all over the world in varying states of "despicable," the US should be, as the remaining socioeconomic superpower, the role model. We should be the guiding light; we should be the Goddamn good guys. Making it "okay" for this kind of emotional manipulation of women - or men, for Chrissakes - is absolutely unbelievable. This absolutely is a form of treating women as property; of controlling them and their bodies in a way that is totally unacceptable for what is supposed to be a developed, enlightened society.

[epa-flip.livejournal.com]

Well said, though I'm willing to spar with you over the single-parent vs. two-parent model, that would only be an exercise in rhetoric. Just because two-parent family models have more resources than a single-parent one doesn't mean the children get any benefit from them (and in some cases, like wealthy suburban families that don't actually rear their children, its a detriment.) It seems vitally more important that children get a consistent, clear, fair adult presence to form the framework in which they can safely figure out who the heck they are and how they can best interact with the rest of the world.

It bugs the Hell out of me that the US refuses to opt into the UNs womens rights manifesto.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say that I'm an advocate of promiscuity - people need to find what works for them, and in the vast majority of cases, promiscuity is emotionally damaging. But promiscuity (thanks to the miracle of the Pill and condoms) does not automatically equal more teenage pregnancies. Just look at the Netherlands - they start teaching their children "Double Dutch" (condoms + Pill) at 13, and their abortion rate is 9 per 1000 women. By contrast, the U.S. rate is triple that. Teen pregnancy rates follow a similar pattern.

I'm honestly curious - you don't think the whole exchange-of-rings thing is emotionally manipulative? I remember being 16-18, and parental approval was very important to me - if I'd had a better relationship with my father, and he'd asked me to do something like this, I probably would've. Now that I'm older and able to see it in a different light, exacting a promise from your daughter over something that traditionally men have tried to control as a means of controlling women for centuries? That's pretty reprehensible.

[syonyk.livejournal.com]

"...people need to find what works for them, and in the vast majority of cases, promiscuity is emotionally damaging."

The problem with that logic is that if, in the vast majority of cases, promiscuity is damaging, and people need to "find out what works for them", the vast majority of people will be emotionally damaged by the finding out process. If you think that's a good thing, then... *shrug* OK.

As for it being manipulative, parents are called to take care of their children. Eventually, that may involve kicking them out of the nest, but at ages 13-18, that doesn't apply, and it's within the father's right (and mother's as well) to do what is best for their children. It's within a parent's right to say, "If you don't stop smoking weed, we're not going to help you at all with college funding." It's also within a parent's right to offer advice on premaritual sex. In no way is the ring forbidding it, it's just making it clear that giving away one's virginity isn't something to take lightly.

Proverbs 22:6 (New International Version)
6 Train [a] a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Parents are called to be parents. That includes training a child in what is right and wrong. When a child is raised with absolutely no value system, the result is not terribly surprising.

Regarding single parent vs two parent families, I accept that there are cases when a single parent is able to do a better job than both parents. However, in the vast majority of cases, a two-family unit can do a better job of raising children. I also don't think the "both parents working, kid in daycare" is a good method of raising children. I fully expect when I get married that my wife will be a stay-at-home mom (after we have children). Tossing kids into the world and saying "Figure it out yourself, I'm busy" leads to a lot of really badly broken children.

-=Russ=-

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Promiscuity is only damaging because our society makes it so.

Proper sex education, wide access to contraceptives, universal medical care, subsidized child care, and decent welfare for pregnant women and new mothers would make it non-damaging. Both because lots of sex would then not necessarily lead to lots of babies, and because the babies that were born would have better support. And they would all be wanted children. There's little more damaging to a child's psyche than knowing that he or she was not wanted.

If the objective is reducing the harm done, this plan is one known to work. Moreover, the "abstinence-only", punitive treatment of young women for being sexual and for having children plan is known NOT to work.

[syonyk.livejournal.com]

Universal medical care, subsidized child care, and decent welfare for pregnant women and new mothers?

Money for this comes from...? Yet more government programs that serve mostly to keep the administrators very well funded?

Also, we have welfare for single mothers currently. It seems to encourage being baby factories to get more money.

I'd be glad to hear a proposal for a way to make this system work properly, but the current evidence is that it doesn't really work.

-=Russ=-

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Your reply makes me doubt that you're arguing in good faith, but I'm going to assume that you are, for the moment.

We have welfare, but it does not provide nearly enough support. Current evidence is that the system under Republicans and conservative Democrats is designed less to actually help, and more to show that the system doesn't work. Elect people who are convinced government can't function, and they will give you a government that can't function.

As for the "baby factories" stuff...umm, yeah, right.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Money for this comes from the insane amounts of cash Halliburton and other war profiteers are making on a pointless and unwinnable war while thousands of our own people have no decent health car. But hey, maybe I'm just bitter.

[epa-flip.livejournal.com]

http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/

http://www.who.int/countries/can/en/

http://www.who.int/countries/dnk/en/

Based on a strict numerical comparison it would appear that Canada does indeed have the more effective health care system. Oddly enough, its socialized. They do have a tax burden of almost 20%, but as you point out, the money has to come from somewhere, and looking at the number, please notice that Canada spends almost half as much per person for better overall effect. Sure, its not perfect, but that's the very nature of the human condition.

I do not know how they're doing it in Iowa, but at least in Illinois they've heavily revised welfare for single mothers, namely by putting very clear restrictions on the aid so that it is harder to abuse (not impossible, but some people make getting out of work their vocation of choice and put much more time and effort into it than I do actually working). The baby factory syndrome seems to come more from poor education and a value system that seems to stress having no value, but I don't have any good research into the unwashed masses on hand. I'm sorry, but its hard, cold fact that the United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in quality of life (as well as many other fields, including education). Obviously we are not doing something right, and we need to identify it and fix it.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

*health care. But often not a healthy car, either. =D

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Re: promiscuity, I don't believe that to be true. Most children learn early on, either from their parents or society at large, that having lots of sexual partners isn't looked upon favorably. (Whether or not it should or shouldn't be is beside the point.) There are plenty of things my parents never told me not to do that I was able to figure out were destructive on my own, usually with minimal or no dalliance in them myself.

While your quote from Proverbs certainly has a lot of truth to it, it's certainly not gospel (if you'll pardon the expression). Plenty of children who come from loving and supportive backgrounds turn out badly. Sometimes it's due to a failure on the part of the parent, but more often it's simply because children have their own minds and can (and do) make their own decisions, bad or good.

And I think that's where our big break is happening. You (and a lot of people from your background) seem to believe that children are obligated to obey their parents' wishes until they are legally independent beings. I come from a somewhat different background, and while I was going through my own awkward teenagerhood, my mother treated me less like a young child and more like an adult. With specific regard to sex, she advised me on the dangers (physical and emotional), and encouraged me to wait, if not until I was married, at least until I was in love so it would be a worthy experience. I had my own sexual experiences, used protection of various forms to avoid disease/pregnancy, and decided what did and didn't work for me - and am now happily settled down. Most importantly, though, I respect my mother much more than my father - in large part because instead of imposing her will on me as my father tried to, she allowed me to learn for myself and gave me the tools necessary to keep myself safe.

Young adulthood is a troublesome time, and parents absolutely need to offer their children guidance and love and support. But I don't think asserting ownership should be part of that, and that's where the whole ring question galls me - it's too closely related to various historical rituals that did just that.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm gonna go with "creepier than a Fred Phelps Christmas album".

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Am I a bad person for laughing at that? =D

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes you are. But you're in good company.

Hast thou IM, perchance?

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

MSN Messenger, roseneko at hotmail. Though I should warn you that I'm honestly trying to do some work this afternoon. Really. I haven't spent half an hour since lunch arguing with people on the Internet at all. >

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Hmm...I can probably access MSN with Pidgin. Maybe I'll see if you're on later tonight.

[epa-flip.livejournal.com]

There is no probably, there is only can ^^ Pidgin rocks, I've even got it set up for LJtalk and google chat.

[alexmegami]

Intensively creepy.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's deeply creepifying in ways Radiohead can only hint at obliquely.
However, one caveat.
she is certainly not his property until she marries. She belongs to herself, and herself only.
Until she marries, no. Until she is eighteen, to the extent of some social, legal connotations, she is his charge and his responsibility and thus under his control.
I do notice that his son is not invited to a Purity Ball wherein he promises to keep his gift of sexual purity in his pants until legally bound to a single wife, and then dances a particularly immaculate tango with his father.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Hm. Ian and I had this discussion (does responsibility = control?), which was exacerbated somewhat by the fact that the legal age of consent in Alaska is 16, two years before legal independence kicks in. I think the position I came up with was while she may legally be under her father's control, morally speaking, he has a responsibility to both teach her the consequences of her actions and let her make her own mistakes so she can learn for herself. However, I stand by my statement that once she's reached the age of consent (even if it's lower than the age of independence), her sexuality is none of his business. If he's been a good father, then he should've passed on his value system to her, and hopefully she will respect him enough to listen to his advice on the subject. (If he's just particularly authoritarian, he is well within his right to make "not under my roof" pronouncements, but I'm certain we all know how well those work.) But sooner or later he's going to have to come to grips with the fact that she's a different person from him, and he has no right to interfere in her sex life, especially through emotional manipulation like this "purity ball" crap.

But then, I have a pretty libertarian view towards children (teenagers = young adults rather than older children, and should be treated as such), which seems to be pretty at-odds with the view that children = children until the day they turn 18 (which seems to be what Ian and syonyk believe).

Also, very good point about sons. I think, in retrospect, that's a large part of what bothered me - stuff like "True Love Waits" doesn't leave half as bad a taste in my mouth, because it's aimed at both genders. Whereas everything (at least, everything mentioned in the article) by these folks seems distinctly skewed ("Girls Gone Mild"? Give me a break). Hence why the overtones of control and ownership worry the crap out of me. To paraphrase something a friend of mine (who also had a very immature and controlling father) brought up - "That attitude of ownership is a large part of the basis for all sorts of sexual and emotional abuse...this sounds like a perverted wedding ceremony."

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

However, I stand by my statement that once she's reached the age of consent (even if it's lower than the age of independence), her sexuality is none of his business.

I stand by it too.

he has a responsibility to both teach her the consequences of her actions and let her make her own mistakes so she can learn for herself.

Personally, again, behind you 100%. I think that, sex or not, if kids learned more about actions and consequences they would be far more functional adults.

children = children until the day they turn 18

This is, to my mind, a dangerous view which leaves the children dangerously unprepared to make that transition. By the time they get to be eighteen, they had better be very young adults with the legal and social protections afforded children.

That attitude of ownership is a large part of the basis for all sorts of sexual and emotional abuse...this sounds like a perverted wedding ceremony.

Because, essentially, it is. If you're given in marriage, you're not allowed to have sex with anybody else. If you're married to Jesus as a Carmelite, or to your father as a Purity Baller, then you can't have sex until a marriage with more 'power' supercedes it. (And who has more power than Jesus?)

I'd have a lot more respect for these things if Celibacy Training seemed to actually... you know... change any behaviors. But so far as I can tell, it's a lot of words the kids say before they go and do whatever they were going to do anyway. If they were going to wait, they wait anyway. If they were going to have hot pre-marital sex, then they don't send me any pictures.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I guess I was sort of assuming that most folk who read my blog know that according to every, y'know, peer-reviewed and unbiased study, the promote-abstinence crap doesn't work (and abstinence-only education only leaves kids woefully and dangerously unprepared for sex). On that note, however, I was looking through the Abstinence Clearinghouse's website to see if I could figure out if they really were as female-oriented as the article makes them sound. I wasn't able to find anything on their current programs during my cursory search, but I did come across this little gem:

The Clearinghouse is a non-profit educational organization that promotes the appreciation for and practice of sexual abstinence through distribution of age-appropriate, factual and medically-accurate materials.

I'll let you guess as to how many of their "factual and medically-accurate" articles were the same scare-tactic fear-spreading bullshit "studies" on Plan B/condoms/the Pill/the HPV vaccine/etc...

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

And that's really the thing about living in these times that's killing me a little inside every day.
Facts and The Truth aren't what they used to be. The Truth is whatever you believe in really really hard, enough to overcome contradictory evidence. There's always, admittedly, been a strain of this, but the vein is growing wider and deeper and more pure until pretty much it's the only thing you can mine out of current popular discourse.
He says, in a sweeping generalization, without citing support.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

I actually did a post on something to that effect a while back - the fact that we live in an age of widespread information dissemination means, concurrently, that we live in an age of widespread misinformation dissemination as well. Pretty much anyone with five minutes and halfway decent Google-fu can come up with a news story or a "study" in support of whatever halfassed theory they believe in - which is why critical thinking is even more important these days. (If you haven't seen Thank You for Smoking, I recommend it - it's a hilarious satire on exactly this problem. I don't think the previews did it justice - they made it look like it was about smoking, when really, it could've been about abortion or birth control or gay marriage or any other subject about which people spread/believe misinformation. I don't think I've seen such a cheerfully cynical movie since Chicago.)

I can only hope that the sheer bulk of conflicting information available these days will convince fence-sitters on any given issue to be skeptical about what they hear from one side or another, and (perhaps less likely) that they will apply that same skepticism to things they hear that they *are* on one side or another about.

(Do I win the Internet Award for Most Parenthesis Used Per Paragraph yet? =)

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Also, if you haven't seen this one (http://xkcd.com/c258.html) yet, you should. =D