Daddy/Daughter 7th Annual "Purity Ball" (1 Viewer)

[1069]

I wasn't sure if this was for real when I saw it, but apparently, it is. It's sponsored by that wingnut Leslee Unruh's organization:

Purity Ball


To me, this looks like a pseudo-incestuous Oedipal extravaganza, an embarrassing spectacle that I, as a child, would have run away from home rather than attend, and that my dear old dad probably would've sucked on an exhaust pipe rather than escort me to.

Here's "The Pledge" that the Fathers have to make to their daughters:

"I, (DAUGHTER'S NAME)'S FATHER, CHOOSE BEFORE GOD TO COVER MY DAUGHTER AS HER AUTHORITY AND PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF PURITY. I WILL BE PURE IN MY OWN LIFE AS A MAN, HUSBAND AND FATHER. I WILL BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABLITY AS I LEAD, GUIDE AND PRAY OVER MY DAUGHTER AND MY FAMILY AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN MY HOME. THIS COVERING WILL BE USED BY GOD TO INFLUENCE GENERATIONS TO COME."

link

I'm sure there are forum members here who will find this pageant of patriarchy profoundly moving, and who will find it highly commendable that these gentlemen are sending a message to their daughters that they are valuable because- and as long as- their freshness seals are intact.

Gosh, I mean, I sure hope none of these girls get raped.
Then Daddy would have to leave her at home next year and take her little sister instead.
And anyway, where's the Mother/Son Purity Ball?

Bleh. :2sick1: This concept makes me ill.

Your thoughts?

 

[1069]

"The ball is the brainchild of Randy and Lisa Wilson, a Colorado Springs couple who founded Generations of Light Ministry, which focuses on building healthy father-daughter relationships. The ball is a celebration of love between fathers and daughters and a chance for the girls to commit to abstinence.
What we wanted to do was create an event where they could walk into everything that their femininity is about, their beauty, their dress, their makeup and give them a place to dwell on all of that," said Randy Wilson, who works in the policy department at Focus on the Family. "We want to create a place in this culture where purity is exalted and valued."

Link

What twaddle. These people are clearly deranged.

 

[Apostle13]

I'm sure I don't see a problem with it... Looks as though they are all enjoying themselves... What is wrong with promoting stronger family ties and bringing to light/understanding traditional values? In whatever good way??
Afterall that is what this particular ministry is all about.
Do you want rather they just pass out condoms???
You have to understand these young girls have a true to heart commitment to Christ/God which compels them toward purity.

 

[1069]

I'm sure I don't see a problem with it... Looks as though they are all enjoying themselves... What is wrong with promoting stronger family ties and bringing to light/understanding traditional values? In whatever good way??
Afterall that is what this particular ministry is all about.
Do you want rather they just pass out condoms???
You have to understand these young girls have a true to heart commitment to Christ/God which compels them toward purity.

And can you think of some compelling reason why the focus of this preposterous event needs to be girls' hymens?
Couldn't this be called the "Family Values Ball"?
The "Respect our Daughters" Ball?
Couldn't these dorks pledge to protect and promote their daughters' emotional, physical, and intellectual growth and well-being?
Is there some reason why it's a good idea to send a message to female children that what is important, valuable, and special about them is between their legs and can be- will be- lost?

Like I said, this makes me want to yarf. :?

 

[ngdawg]

And can you think of some compelling reason why the focus of this preposterous event needs to be girls' hymens?
Couldn't this be called the "Family Values Ball"?
The "Respect our Daughters" Ball?
Couldn't these dorks pledge to protect and promote their daughters' emotional, physical, and intellectual growth and well-being?
Is there some reason why it's a good idea to send a message to female children that what is important, valuable, and special about them is between their legs and can be- will be- lost?

Like I said, this makes me want to yarf. :?

I would have to agree on the above. There are better, more complete ways to cement a father/daughter bond involving all aspects of a daughter-certainly a healthier way to keep her 'pure'. And what about the sons? While these 'purity' gatherings are taking place, are they out pursuing the ones that never attend?
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but just seems to me teaching our kids self-respect and focusing on their abilities to make choices and learning consequence goes much further.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Yeah, this strikes me as pretty icky. I applaud the idea that they're encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their daughters' protection and upbringing... but that oath strikes me as encouraging them to take far too much interest in their daughters' sexuality.

Especially given that they're attending a fancy dress ball together.

I am all for increasing the amount of time that parents and children spend with each other-- especially with their fathers-- but there are some social events where I don't think it's quite proper.

"I, (DAUGHTER'S NAME)'S FATHER, CHOOSE BEFORE GOD TO COVER MY DAUGHTER AS HER AUTHORITY AND PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF PURITY."

Never did quite understand the connection between virginity and "purity" in the Abrahamic faiths. It seems to me that they either aren't aware of how they were conceived-- or that they're calling their own mothers whores.

Also seems to me that a father's obligations to guide and protect his children both extend beyond this concept of "purity" and include many far more important concerns. Where is the oath to act as her "authority and protection" in the areas of faith, discipline, or commerce-- or any other area in which a young woman requires guidance?

If a daughter of mine required either my protection-- or that of her husband-- after she's grown, then I have failed her as a father.

And it don't seem to me that any of the girls in those pictures are less than full-grown.

"I WILL BE PURE IN MY OWN LIFE AS A MAN, HUSBAND AND FATHER. I WILL BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABLITY AS I LEAD, GUIDE AND PRAY OVER MY DAUGHTER AND MY FAMILY AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN MY HOME. THIS COVERING WILL BE USED BY GOD TO INFLUENCE GENERATIONS TO COME.[/i]"

Don't see anything wrong with this part of the oath. Frankly, I think this is something a lot of parents need to learn and exemplify-- especially those that are overly concerned with keeping their children from doing the same things that they did as children, and are still doing as adults.

What we wanted to do was create an event where they could walk into everything that their femininity is about, their beauty, their dress, their makeup and give them a place to dwell on all of that.

This makes me ill. Referring to young womens' attempts to market themselves as sex objects as "everything their femininity is about" is positively vile. The fact that it's in reference to an event promoting abstinence is merely ironic.

Hell of a mixed message, there. "This is all you're good for. Now don't do it."

What is wrong with promoting stronger family ties and bringing to light/understanding traditional values?

Stronger family ties? Absolutely nothing. And, as a matter of fact, I do applaud their attempts to do so-- even if I consider this approach to be perverse.

As far as "traditional values" go... that really depends on whose tradition and what values. A lot of "traditional values" seem to relate to treating women more as valuable commodities than as ladies to be respected in their own right.

If raising half of your children to be cattle or slaves is "traditional", then I must argue against it. There are better traditions to uphold.

You have to understand these young girls have a true to heart commitment to Christ/God which compels them toward purity.

If they're training for the nunnery, they're certainly not dressed for it.

Couldn't these dorks pledge to protect and promote their daughters' emotional, physical, and intellectual growth and well-being?

Do be fair. That is precisely what they believe they are accomplishing by protecting and promoting their daughters' virginity; they believe that engaging in pre-marital (or at least pre-eighteen) sexual activity will jeopardize all of these areas of their daughters' development.

I think they're misguided, but they're truly doing the best they can.

 

[1069]

If a daughter of mine required either my protection-- or that of her husband-- after she's grown, then I have failed her as a father.

You sound like my dad.

This makes me ill. Referring to young womens' attempts to market themselves as sex objects as "everything their femininity is about" is positively vile. The fact that it's in reference to an event promoting abstinence is merely ironic.

Hell of a mixed message, there. "This is all you're good for. Now don't do it."

Succinct.

Do be fair.

No. I don't want to. :mrgreen:

 

[Apostle13]

I still don't understand your all's contempt for this little outing.

As far as "traditional values" go... that really depends on whose tradition and what values. A lot of "traditional values" seem to relate to treating women more as valuable commodities than as ladies to be respected in their own right.

Obviously we are talking about the Christian sorts.
Call me old fashioned but I do prefer girls as being, pink and sweet... Feminine.
I see no, not even the slightest, hint of disrespect in this ministries efforts to promote abstinence in this way... To say it is perverse is quite the reach.
What do you suppose that they were only wine'n and dining them as a manner of incestuous foreplay..:roll:
I suspect ya'll morely have contemptuous issues for the Christians themselves. Therefore, are inclined to nitpick even their insignificant efforts to refrain from secularism by your mock inclinations.

 

[1069]

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer girls as being, pink and sweet... Feminine.

It's more than "old fashioned". At the risk of offending someone who seems- on short acquaintance- very pleasant, it's detrimental and damaging.
Straight up.
And I'm not spouting feminist rhetoric, here. I'm speaking from a psychological perspective; any qualified psycholologist would tell you the same.
Please "prefer" your girl to be herself. And please support her in becoming the best, smartest, most ethical, most self-possessed, most assertive, and strongest self she can possibly be.

 

[Apostle13]

It's more than "old fashioned". At the risk of offending someone who seems- on short acquaintance- very pleasant, it's detrimental and damaging.
Straight up.
And I'm not spouting feminist rhetoric, here. I'm speaking from a psychological perspective; any qualified psycholologist would tell you the same.
Please "prefer" your girl to be herself. And please support her in becoming the best, smartest, most ethical, most self-possessed, most assertive, and strongest self she can possibly be.

No... I'm not easily offended... Just a staunch defender of the Faith.
And you are right... A parents love should be nothing short of unconditional. I was speaking in terms of guidance. Rebellion/identity usually begins to stronger manifest at the teen level and is influenced in large by chosen peers. As parents we tend to paint our minds picture as to what our child ought... Surely then we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. Preteens are a bit yet more formidable and good parenting trumps bad peers.
Having said that... I thank God for not giving me girls.

Besides... What good is a virgin without a volcano.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I still don't understand your all's contempt for this little outing.

It promotes moral messages that I do not approve of, and is tied to a number of moral and social beliefs that I consider to be unhealthy. It is generally opposed to the moral values that I wish to teach to my own children, especially daughters should I be blessed with them.

As far as "traditional values" go... that really depends on whose tradition and what values.

Obviously we are talking about the Christian sorts.

Not necessarily. The other Abrahamic faiths share similar beliefs about the value and proper conduct of women, as well as a number of other religions. As a matter of fact, this group appears to be fairly benign-- or else my criticism would be far more scathing.

There are aspects of this ministry that I respect, as I've noted above.

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer girls as being, pink and sweet... Feminine.

I think that's the problem. You see these young women as girls, while I see them as... well, grown women. Where you see and value their innocence and their youth, I'm wondering how they're going to handle a world that's often nasty and how they're going to measure up as wives and mothers-- not to mention, as independent adults.

They can't be children forever, and I think leaving them dependent upon the good graces of a man is to do them a terrible disservice... especially if they're raising your grandchildren.

I don't think of worldliness or assertiveness or even toughness as unfeminine. After all, kittens do not nurture lion cubs-- lionesses do.

I see no, not even the slightest, hint of disrespect in this ministries efforts to promote abstinence in this way... To say it is perverse is quite the reach.

Tell me, what is the purpose of a fancy ball gown? High-heeled shoes? Cosmetics?

All of these things serve to make a young women more sexually desirable. The ball gown lifts, supports, and emphasizes the breasts, and they are often cut so as to narrow the waist and emphasize the hips as well. High-heeled shoes lift the heels, emphasizing the buttocks. Blush is used to simulate the flushed cheeks of sexual arousal; I will leave the purpose of lipstick to your imagination.

I don't think that it's all that unreasonable to call doing these things in the name of abstinence "perverse".

As for disrespect... ball-gowns and high-heeled shoes serve another purpose. They restrict movement. Like long fingernails, they're a sign that a women does not do anything physically strenuous. Indeed, since they make her incapable of doing so... they're a sign that they cannot, and that she may not have ever done so.

I can respect that you see this as desirable and feminine, and thus that it is not insulting. But I see it as helpless and vulnerable-- and by emphasizing her sexual value and de-emphasizing her other traits, I see it as limiting and dehumanizing as well.

What do you suppose that they were only wine'n and dining them as a manner of incestuous foreplay..:roll:

No, of course not. But they're certainly grooming them for how to act with their husbands later-- and that's something I think better learned by watching their mothers than by playing with their fathers.

And I must admit my discomfort with dressing them up as little sexdolls and then placing such strong emphasis on their fathers' role in protecting their "purity".

I suspect ya'll morely have contemptuous issues for the Christians themselves.

No moreso than I have with any other faith not my own, and less than most. It isn't their faith that I am concerned with, here. It isn't their prayers or their relationship with their god.

It is their confusing and-- in my opinion-- misguided approach to sexuality and femininity that I am taking issue with. And, quite frankly, I'm not defending or promoting secularism in this argument because our culture's secular attitudes towards young women, sexuality, and femininity are even more perverse, unhealthy, and confusing.

At least these are women of sixteen, and not girls of six, being dressed up and paraded in this fashion.

 

[rathi]

Are they seriously promoting abstinence? Then why are dressing them up in sex clothes? High Heels and Make-up are designed to increase sexual attractiveness. Are they promoting incest? "Be a good little girl except when you dress up sexy for daddy."


Freud overemphasized the whole Electra complex thing, but sometimes I wonder how much he really did. The ball puts the father as a symbol of who the daughter should have sex with.

You feel like a princess getting to dress up and knowing the person you're dancing with loves you so much. I want to feel beautiful to him more than anyone else in my life.

How your husband loves you and how your father loves you are NOT the same thing. The last sentence sends out the most warning flags. Why should beauty matter to her father? Familial love is not based on beauty. Romantic love is. Not a good association.

Then again, some people think Beauty Pageants don't sexualize little girls.

 

[faithful_servant]

I wasn't sure if this was for real when I saw it, but apparently, it is. It's sponsored by that wingnut Leslee Unruh's organization:

Purity Ball


To me, this looks like a pseudo-incestuous Oedipal extravaganza, an embarrassing spectacle that I, as a child, would have run away from home rather than attend, and that my dear old dad probably would've sucked on an exhaust pipe rather than escort me to.

Here's "The Pledge" that the Fathers have to make to their daughters:

"I, (DAUGHTER'S NAME)'S FATHER, CHOOSE BEFORE GOD TO COVER MY DAUGHTER AS HER AUTHORITY AND PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF PURITY. I WILL BE PURE IN MY OWN LIFE AS A MAN, HUSBAND AND FATHER. I WILL BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABLITY AS I LEAD, GUIDE AND PRAY OVER MY DAUGHTER AND MY FAMILY AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN MY HOME. THIS COVERING WILL BE USED BY GOD TO INFLUENCE GENERATIONS TO COME."

link

I'm sure there are forum members here who will find this pageant of patriarchy profoundly moving, and who will find it highly commendable that these gentlemen are sending a message to their daughters that they are valuable because- and as long as- their freshness seals are intact.

Gosh, I mean, I sure hope none of these girls get raped.
Then Daddy would have to leave her at home next year and take her little sister instead.
And anyway, where's the Mother/Son Purity Ball?

Bleh. :2sick1: This concept makes me ill.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts?? My thoughts are that you've got to be pretty frickin' twisted up in the head to come up with this kind of crap (yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll get dinged for this). A father promising to be a father that his daughter can trust and depend on is a good thing. For you to twist this into some kind of sick event is a reflection on you and nothing else. I know men who have taken their daughters to these kind of events and both fathers and daughters have said the same thing - that is was GREAT. Daughters need to know that in spite of the sick crap that people like you accuse fathers of doing, there are fathers out there who are good, decent honorable men. It's only in the sickness that exists in the minds of people like yourself that this becomes something else.

 

[faithful_servant]

"The ball is the brainchild of Randy and Lisa Wilson, a Colorado Springs couple who founded Generations of Light Ministry, which focuses on building healthy father-daughter relationships. The ball is a celebration of love between fathers and daughters and a chance for the girls to commit to abstinence.
What we wanted to do was create an event where they could walk into everything that their femininity is about, their beauty, their dress, their makeup and give them a place to dwell on all of that," said Randy Wilson, who works in the policy department at Focus on the Family. "We want to create a place in this culture where purity is exalted and valued."

Link

What twaddle. These people are clearly deranged.

So what's your alternative? You think that people who see value in purity is deranged and I find it pretty unbelieveable that anyone would think that way. Purity is a good thing and you think that people support and promote it are deranged. That's pretty screwed up.

 

[1069]

For you to twist this into some kind of sick event is a reflection on you and nothing else.

Indeed? :roll:
Must be a reflection on everybody, then, because the general consensus is that this is perverse.

A father promising to be a father that his daughter can trust and depend on is a good thing.

A father who loves his daughter because of the condition of her genitals is not the kind of father a daughter can trust.
Take my word for it. I had the other kind of father: the sane kind.

I know men who have taken their daughters to these kind of events...

Doesn't surprise me one iota.

...and both fathers and daughters have said the same thing - that is was GREAT.

It surprises me that the daughters actually talk, let alone express an opinion.
How does that work? Do you have to pull a string on their backs, or do you just push a button, or what?

Daughters need to know that in spite of the sick crap that people like you accuse fathers of doing, there are fathers out there who are good, decent honorable men.

Then fathers need to know that girls and women are people, and stop defining them by what's between their legs.
This definition of "femininity", of "purity", is too narrow and constrictive to encompass anything as complex as a thinking, feeling, and maturing human being.
Rather, it's likely to warp, damage, and stunt them.

It's only in the sickness that exists in the minds of people like yourself that this becomes something else.

And what "else" does it become, I wonder?

 

[1069]

..when we finally see traditional conservative religious folks doing something to prevent unwanted pregnancy other than preaching abstinence, you just have to continue dogin their efforts. Shame.

"Something other than preaching abstinence"?
A ritual involving an abstinence pledge from the teenagers is part of the proceedings, according to the website.
You can gild a dog turd and wrap it up in fancy paper, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a dog turd. All the decoration, pomp, and ceremony in the world still doesn't make it palatable.

 

[1069]

So what's your alternative?

Oh... fostering strength, maturity, autonomy, independence, and competence in one's children, perhaps?
Instilling a sense of self-worth in one's children which does not revolve around their genitalia?
Acknowledgement of one's adolescent children as complex human beings whose sexuality is a normal and acceptable part of them- a part that it is not necessary that you, as a parent, have access to- and who you hope will make lives someday independent of you?
Providing them with the requisite skills they'll need to succeed in life?
When children are respected and loved, no "pledge" is necessary; it is redundant to the point of silliness. And "pledges" revolving around one's children's sexuality are intrusive and inappropriate, bordering on deviant and perverse.

 

[Jerry]

"Something other than preaching abstinence"?
A ritual involving an abstinence pledge from the teenagers is part of the proceedings, according to the website.
You can gild a dog turd and wrap it up in fancy paper, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a dog turd. All the decoration, pomp, and ceremony in the world still doesn't make it palatable.

What post did I say that in?

Oh, before you made your response you didn't bother to see that had I deleted my post.

Please be more observant in the future.

 

[1069]

What post did I say that in?

Oh, before you made your response you didn't bother to see that had I deleted my post.

Please be more observant in the future.

Say what?
How did you delete your post?
I didn't know you could do that on this forum.
And why would you?
You must have deleted it after I responded to it.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.

 

[Jerry]

Say what?
How did you delete your post?

I have Jedi-Ninja powers :mrgreen:

***
After you submit a post, click the "edit" button on the bottom right hand side of that post. A window will come up which will allow you to edit the text. On the bottom right hand side of that window will be an option to "go advanced" for more editing options, and an option to "delete".

And why would you?

I realized what I just said and went :doh

You must have deleted it after I responded to it.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Some people rite their responses off site for various reasons, going only off of their e-mail notification. They run into problems when they do not check to see if any changes have been made between the original post and what appears in that post after the 25 minutes to edit are up.

I run into problems with lengthy line-by-line posts, 'cause I sometimes catch a few lines I forgot to run through my Microsoft Word before submitting, after I submit it.

 

[1069]

I realized what I just said and went

Well, okay.
In that case, I rescind my response to your deleted post.
Don't be jumping up my arse for no reason, though... or at least look before you leap.

 

[1069]

"Question in e-mail today asking me what I thought of "Purity Balls," the odd fundamentalist Christian ritual in which daddies take their young daughters to a sort of mini-prom and at the end of it the daughters pledge to remain sexually pure and the daddies pledge to defend that purity. Basically, the reason for the dance is the pledging, which strikes me similarly to Mark Twain's definition of golf: "A long walk, spoiled."

My own thought about these purity balls is that they're really icky -- we could go on all day about what's wrong about dads making their very small daughters think about sex, or indoctrinating them into thinking their sexuality should be contingent on the dictates of the men in their lives -- but given the high holy terror with which fundamentalists regard human sexuality in general and female sexuality in particular, I don't find these mechanisms of control and indoctrination particularly surprising. I feel sorry for the little girls that their quality time with daddy comes at the price of pledging to submit their will to daddy's whims until such time as they equally surrender to their husband's will, but I guess that since they get to wear such pretty dresses, it's a fair trade. So that's all right.

Speaking as a father -- and one of a girl just about the right age to take to a "purity ball" at that -- I'm not going to criticize one of the underlying desires of the purity ball, which is a father's desire to express his commitment to care for and protect his child. I happen to have the same desire. I will note, however, that the expression of that desire can take on rather substantially different forms. These "Purity Ball" fathers think it's best expressed through control; I think it's best expressed through knowledge. I don't want my daughter to pledge her "purity" to me, as if having a sexual experience is some sort of karmic besmirching; I want to inform my daughter so that when she has sex, she knows what she's doing and she has it on her terms, and she comes away from the experience satisfied (as much as anyone comes away from their first experience in such a state) and able to integrate it into her life in a positive way....

>snip<

... All of which signals to you that I have a rather different view of sexuality in general than your average "Purity Ball" father. Which is, of course, all right by me. As I said, I can't fault what I see as the root impulse for the purity balls, but I'm glad that my expression of the desire to keep my daughter safe is not that one. Because if you really want to fetishize sex for a little girl, I really can't think of a more effective way to do it than something like a purity ball. And you know what? Fetishizing sex for little girls is so very much not what I want to be doing with my time."

link

Here's one father that gets it.

 

[faithful_servant]

Oh... fostering strength, maturity, autonomy, independence, and competence in one's children, perhaps?
Instilling a sense of self-worth in one's children which does not revolve around their genitalia?
Acknowledgement of one's adolescent children as complex human beings whose sexuality is a normal and acceptable part of them- a part that it is not necessary that you, as a parent, have access to- and who you hope will make lives someday independent of you?
Providing them with the requisite skills they'll need to succeed in life?
When children are respected and loved, no "pledge" is necessary; it is redundant to the point of silliness. And "pledges" revolving around one's children's sexuality are intrusive and inappropriate, bordering on deviant and perverse.

Have you ever read any o fthe research into what happens to a CHILD who has sex? Have you ever seen the long-term damage it does? A father's JOB is to protect his children and turning a blind eye to destructive behavior is not being a father. You state that a childs self-wroth does revolve around thier gentalia, but by placing them in a situation where they are having sex outside of marriage does exactly that. They see themselves as sexual objects and thier self-worth ends up being defined by their sexual activity. By putting them into this kind of mindset, you set them up for self-destruction. This has all been repeatedly shown to the case in multiple studies. Pre-marital sex is one of the most destructive things a person can engage in. It's not just physically dangerous (ain't no such thing as "safe sex"), it's also emotionally dangerous (check out the suicide rates on young women who have had premarital sex compared to those who didn't, check out the difference in divorce rates between people who had pre-marital sex compared to those who waited). You think that a CHILD is capable of dealing with the emotional burden of having sex with someone who will probably leave them and that's the twisted part of your logic. You want to force a CHILD into a role that they are not ready for. Ths choice is to do what is good for your child or to do what is bad for them. You have chosen to place childen in a place of danger and are laughing at the people who are trying to keep them safe until they are ready to go to that place when it is no longer dangerous for them.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Have you ever read any o fthe research into what happens to a CHILD who has sex? Have you ever seen the long-term damage it does? A father's JOB is to protect his children and turning a blind eye to destructive behavior is not being a father. You state that a childs self-wroth does revolve around thier gentalia, but by placing them in a situation where they are having sex outside of marriage does exactly that. They see themselves as sexual objects and thier self-worth ends up being defined by their sexual activity. By putting them into this kind of mindset, you set them up for self-destruction. This has all been repeatedly shown to the case in multiple studies. Pre-marital sex is one of the most destructive things a person can engage in. It's not just physically dangerous (ain't no such thing as "safe sex"),.

Did you grow up under the Taliban in Afghanistan or something? No offense, but you seem rather sheltered the whole country engages in Pre-Martial Sex. Moral implications aside, in western civilization Pre-Martial Sex is the norm. In fact, most studies today find that only about 15% of Americans actually wait until marriage. Out of that 15%, probably 2/3rd only waited until marriage because they could not get any.

Should you wait until marriage? Yes. Will most teens and young adults wait until marriage? No. Instead of longing for some idealized moral society that never really existed, we have to face reality. The fact is, if you have kids, more than likely at some point in their mid to late teens or early adulthood they will have sex before marriage. That is just the way it is. I have a 6-year-old son and we are currently adopting a little girl from China. I am under no illusions. I hope they will wait for marriage, but the fact is no matter how they are raised, they probably won’t and you know, it is not going to be the end of the world if they don’t either. As to the destructiveness of it, I would like my kids to wait until marriage, but in terms of destructiveness, with proper condom use sex outside of marriage is not nearly as dangerous as you are making it out to be. Proper condom use is over 98% effective in preventing the transition of STDs. The fact is, for teens, driving dangerously and hard drug use are far more dangerous than premarital sex.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Have you ever read any of the research into what happens to a CHILD who has sex?

I have experienced it firsthand. However, I would again point out that there's a significant difference between a girl of six and a woman of sixteen. Our treatment of sexually-mature adolescents as children is a profound cultural idiocy, and it is having consequences for their physical and psychological health.

A father's JOB is to protect his children and turning a blind eye to destructive behavior is not being a father. You state that a childs self-worth does revolve around thier genitalia, but by placing them in a situation where they are having sex outside of marriage does exactly that.

This is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence that pre-marital sex is either physically or psychologically damaging-- and your obsession with it causes proper means of mitigating actual unhealthy sexual behavior, such as promiscuity or unprotected sex, to be neglected.

When you keep proper knowledge of sexual biology and psychology away from sexually mature young adults-- because of your unhealthy and irrational moral beliefs-- you are promoting the exact kinds of destructive behavior you claim to be trying to prevent.

You think that a CHILD is capable of dealing with the emotional burden of having sex with someone who will probably leave them and that's the twisted part of your logic.

I think no such thing. The problem is, you-- and everyone else in this diseased culture-- think women whose reproductive organs have been fully functional for several years are "children" and need to be protected from something that they are biologically and psychologically driven to engage in.

I am not the one pushing unhealthy and morally perverted lifestyles upon people.