Huckleberries Online

A-MR: Purity Balls? Bah, Humbug

Posted by DFO

March 30, 2009 noon • 25 comments

Virginity and purity. America is obsessed with it. The porn industry thrives on virgins, women like Natalie Dylan sell their virginity for millions of dollars and abstinence-only programs preach the importance of virginity. Media, schools, churches and the government all seem to think a young woman’s worth lies in her sexual purity. When I was in high school, my church asked me to sign a celibacy pledge to God — I didn’t. I refused to lie in church. But that was about the extent of the pressure I experienced. Other girls face much weightier pressures. Some fathers will give their daughters a promise ring, others a locket and then there are those lavish ceremonies called purity balls/Anne-Marije Rook, UI Argonaut. More here.

Question: Should teen-agers be encouraged to wait until marriage to have sex?

25 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

scootermom on March 30 at 12:15 p.m.
I find it insulting that women are valued differently by the presence, or absence, of a hymen. There’s a lot more to a woman that a little, itty bitty piece of tissue.
toadman on March 30 at 12:20 p.m.
“Should teen-agers be encouraged to wait until marriage to have sex?”

Yes. But they shouldn’t be ostracized if they don’t…and they shouldn’t rely on abstinence alone. Condoms, condoms, condoms! All for free…
Liz on March 30 at 12:26 p.m.
Perhaps the problem is in the language usage. I do not see anything in the Bible devaluing women who are not virgins. If anything, I see the honor of women such as Rahab, a prostitute, being grafted into the bloodline of Jesus. I also see Timothy encouraging younger widows to remarry. Obviously, these women are not virgins.

It is unfortunate that this whole thing gets framed as “purity” when really, the issue is quite simply this: does sex belong in a lifelong committed relationship or is it OK to indulge with someone with whom you do not share that kind of commitment??? I think we can look around and see any number of societal problems that are a result of removing sexual activity from the sole province of marriage (or permanent marriage-like relationships..I am well aware that there are people who refuse to go through the legalities but are, for all practical purposes, married by all definitions except the legal)

Do I encourage teenagers of both genders to save sex for marital relationships: absolutely. Do I consider them “defiled” and “dirty” if they have a “past”. Absolutely not.

I really dislike the ways in which a lot of these messages are communicated to kids but that doesn’t mean that I think the basic intent is off base.
Cindy_H on March 30 at 12:38 p.m.
I agree with Liz and Toad.
I haven’t seen any value in the purity pledges or promise rings. While I applaud parents who talk with their teens about sex and share their values with them, to embue a ring or any symbol with too much weight, isn’t wise. By the way, purity rings aren’t just for girls, plenty of boys wear them too.
toadman on March 30 at 12:43 p.m.
We’ve all seen what happens when you give a ring too much power…you end up having to destroy it by throwing it back into Mount Doom.

It’s troublesome for everyone involved.
Cindy_H on March 30 at 12:50 p.m.
Precious.
toadman on March 30 at 12:55 p.m.
..also, at the risk of going over the line with our blog host….

Lets face facts, most balls are anything but pure.

;-)
moscow_minidoka on March 30 at 1:01 p.m.
I think that purity balls should be mandated by the state of Idaho for anyone who has a daughter. The balls will be paid for using taxpayer money that is raised by levying a massive tax on contraceptives and rock music.

Please, Mr. Fischer, do everything you can to make this happen!
sue on March 30 at 1:16 p.m.
Silly question, dave. Purity balls just seem creepy.
toadman on March 30 at 1:21 p.m.
“Purity balls just seem creepy.”

Almost as creepy as the people who hold purity balls?

…ahem..

still waiting to be deleted for inappropriate innuendo.
Aliasjax on March 30 at 1:53 p.m.
Depends on who’s doing the encouraging. Churches and religious folks who wish to encourage “purity” (whatever that means) should have to compete in the arena of ideas with secular views on sexuality and sexual activity. States and state agencies should not be involved in the debate.

And Toad, if I were going to a purity ball, my tux would be a symbolic blue hue.
Cindy_H on March 30 at 3:19 p.m.
Your tux?
Whew! For a minute there, I thought you were referring to personal parts. That could be painful.
florined on March 30 at 5:39 p.m.
This whole discussion is so offensive. The concept of “pure” just screams hypocricy and judgemental stance, usually spewing from men (sorry, guys, but I suspect most of you will agree with that generalization.)

If a woman has never had sex, she’s deemed pure? and therefore, it would follow that after that first time, she’s impure? That would mean that everybody’s mother is impure?

Why can a church or other preaching organization teach that promiscuity is unwise (ok, stupid) and that taking a chance on having an unwanted baby (for both sexes) is truly a moral problem to be pondered before the occasion comes up. But no. It’s easier to create a concept of sin, filth, impurity, etc.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.