OrangeJulius
Member
Not when you're hell bent on perpetrating a persecution complex myth.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Conservative Christian ritual: Purity Ball
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
Not when you're hell bent on perpetrating a persecution complex myth.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
I see, you are right. That's my own personal view. I do think what was socially risky behavior which the rule may have been borne out of, while less of an issue now, is still good practice BUT is clearly a personal call like all matters of faith should be and from my perspective, it is morally cogent but certainly not the only way to achieve the desired result. Now what constitutes as education and who should be educating youngsters and how is a completely different discussion than the one in this thread.
Red Mage
Member
What I've never gotten about these, is where's the sons? Also, wouldn't it make more sense/be less creepy if it was a Mother/Daughter and Father/Son pairing? Like, "As a dad, I'm going to teach my son that there's nothing wrong with saving yourself for marriage."
...what?
...what?
Fenderputty
Banned
I take my daughter to our church's annual Daddy Daughter Dance.
But there's not abstinence pledge like this.
This is where my initial reaction stemmed. St. Lucy, an all girl catholic school in which my HS GF attended, had these.
RSLAEV
Member
Giving that kind of discretionary power to a woman! ha HA thats a good un'
Fragamemnon
Member
Even though the best social justifications for abstinence before marriage are well antiquated at this point, there's enough evidence out there that abstinence when practiced makes a lot of sense, especially for younger teenagers.
It won't always be practiced though, no matter what the upbringing. That's part of life. Hence, the need for quality sex education in the hope the knowledge will empower the teens to make the decisions that have the most favorable outcomes.
(this is the purely secular statement on this-there's more going on if you and/or your teenager are belivers, but even then all of the above is still true and important).
What evidence is that?
Meh, it's an awkward expression of the relevant values, sure, but the reactions here are more than a bit overboard.
I'm always amazed by the calls of "where's the boy's pledge?" or "how dare the young expression of sexuality be stigmatized or shamed?" It's like your knowledge of the human race begins just a few decades ago and regards everything prior as pure superstition. Believe it or not, not every element of conservative morality regarding sexuality arrived out of oppression as a set of arbitrarily harsh constraints and codes of conduct. It was downright necessary and crucial that certain protective values be in place prior to things like the invention of reliable birth control.
Even if you're absolutely convinced that sex is now a purely positive and affirmative experience for all young adults, fully symmetrical in its physical and emotional impact on men and women (both of which remain highly debatable, any discussion of ideals aside), that was objectively not the case for the majority of human history, nor even for the majority of the prior century. Without the recent technologies of birth control, recall that women once faced a consistently high danger of pregnancy in sexual encounters, one that is particularly acute and devastating when considering life consequences for younger women. Couple that with the first sexual act of a woman being a potentially painful experience and requiring tremendous trust and maturity to handle, then even more so than now, and an era when STDs were less understood. It made a hell of a lot of sense to be extremely cautious with sexuality outside of the committed circumstances of marriage that offered a path to security for any offspring, a trusted partner, etcetera. Even when these ideals failed miserably in certain circumstances or were abused, it's absurd to pretend they had no use or logic.
In some areas of the world, maybe even nearby--and this apparently may shock you--many of these older values persist, and parents may, for instance, be very hesitant to let their daughter take pills to significantly alter her hormones and her body's functioning just in order to express herself sexually, or may not be convinced that thorough education on condoms will prevent emotional or physical risk in practice given the realities of young men. It's fine to disagree with all of that, but it's absurd to claim that any value system is inherently sexist and backwards if it doesn't hold all sexual acts to be liberatory and all risks of engaging in them to be strictly gender-neutral, particularly when we're talking about young adults who often have very little sense of consequences for any actions.
I'm always amazed by the calls of "where's the boy's pledge?" or "how dare the young expression of sexuality be stigmatized or shamed?" It's like your knowledge of the human race begins just a few decades ago and regards everything prior as pure superstition. Believe it or not, not every element of conservative morality regarding sexuality arrived out of oppression as a set of arbitrarily harsh constraints and codes of conduct. It was downright necessary and crucial that certain protective values be in place prior to things like the invention of reliable birth control.
Even if you're absolutely convinced that sex is now a purely positive and affirmative experience for all young adults, fully symmetrical in its physical and emotional impact on men and women (both of which remain highly debatable, any discussion of ideals aside), that was objectively not the case for the majority of human history, nor even for the majority of the prior century. Without the recent technologies of birth control, recall that women once faced a consistently high danger of pregnancy in sexual encounters, one that is particularly acute and devastating when considering life consequences for younger women. Couple that with the first sexual act of a woman being a potentially painful experience and requiring tremendous trust and maturity to handle, then even more so than now, and an era when STDs were less understood. It made a hell of a lot of sense to be extremely cautious with sexuality outside of the committed circumstances of marriage that offered a path to security for any offspring, a trusted partner, etcetera. Even when these ideals failed miserably in certain circumstances or were abused, it's absurd to pretend they had no use or logic.
In some areas of the world, maybe even nearby--and this apparently may shock you--many of these older values persist, and parents may, for instance, be very hesitant to let their daughter take pills to significantly alter her hormones and her body's functioning just in order to express herself sexually, or may not be convinced that thorough education on condoms will prevent emotional or physical risk in practice given the realities of young men. It's fine to disagree with all of that, but it's absurd to claim that any value system is inherently sexist and backwards if it doesn't hold all sexual acts to be liberatory and all risks of engaging in them to be strictly gender-neutral, particularly when we're talking about young adults who often have very little sense of consequences for any actions.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
Probably to non-Christians in the same way as a person far removed from a process can state something that's general but someone close closely related to said process would beg to differ. I would even argue that being raised conservative and Christian and going to a church that had a very wide national presence during my adolescence and being heavily involved with Christians of other background and denominations back in the day, I never heard of a "ritual" like this. I felt like my history was being miss-represented. I don't know If me speaking up put really did anything for those who read this thread but I just wanted to distinguish the matter.
stufte
Member
Because abstinence is the only 100% fail-proof way not to end up with an STD or a pregnancy. Not that it's practical, because it isn't, but it's still more reliable than having protected sex.
I guess I just didn't make that association. The only prom photos I still have aren't like that (silly group pictures and the official/professional one where it's me and my date mostly facing each other touching waists with heads leaned in together, one hand around the waist the other holding hands in front), and I think of similar things for typical wedding photos (guy and girl holding hands and/or facing each other for any type of embrace). Honestly if I saw a prom photo like that I'd assume it was a case where the guy and the girl were going as friends because neither had a date (and that while there was a chance, it was unlikely that would change by the end of the dance). Didn't realize that was the common pose.
Devolution
Member
Except this was, completely and utterly.
And if a flying fuck about safety was actually given for the wedded women or shall I say "girls" they certainly wouldn't cast them off so early.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
The sad fact is that some people who become overzealous with keeping their kids "pure" end up not teaching their kids proper sexual education which in turns feeds idiot fringe beliefs that sex is only something that can get you pregnant so oral and anal are fine... out the window goes any benefits to be had.
An extreme of anything is more than likely to have a negative effect.
Spring-Loaded
Member
This isn't that bad or strange.
Fragamemnon
Member
Note I'm referring to practicing abstinence and NOT talking about abstience-only sex education (the latter is insanity).
take two equal populations of teenagers, one sexually active and one not. All other things equal-one will have issues with sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies, the other will not. These have health consequences (both now and down the road in their lives) and social consequences that the other population will not have.
If you don't properly educate teenagers on sex the (initially) abstinent group will actually fare worse than the sexually active group over time because they will make a trainwreck of bad decisions relating to contraception and safe sex practices.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/07/father-taking-girls-virginity/
Not weird at all
Pledge your purity to me if old
I just started watching Shameless (US) and this was a pretty big part of it. Hilarious.
It's all about men controlling women, so of course the mothers aren't involved. In these types of families, the women are pretty much glorified breeding stock -- but only after they're married, of course.
Interesting to see the people in here arguing how this behavior shouldn't reflect on Christianity as a whole. Obviously it shouldn't - these types of purity pledges are practiced by only the most conservative of evangelical Christians, but many people claiming 'persecution' are part of a larger group (Christians as a whole) who have no problems using a planet-sized brush to tar Islam as a religion of suicide bombers and genital mutilators based on a very, very tiny minority of their extremists. You can see why those of us who hate extremism (and hypocrisy) in all forms are getting a little bit of a laugh out of the disconnect.
- Status