Purity and passion

This NPR interview of Amy Dickinson and Wendy Shalit is interesting. They discuss the moral sewer you describe and the (self-initiated) movement of girls to oppose it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13896381

Thanks, Rod. I'm not sure if you've been back to visit the earlier thread, but I responded to your post there, and, I hope, clarified my previous comments.

Believe me, I'm not laughing at people who believe in sexual purity. I didn't actually more than briefly glance at the link to Bill Maher's website, because I think mocking "Purity Balls" is a cheap shot, although as I said below I have a very visceral negative response to the concept of "purity." However, if children in Christian schools are truly given the tools they need to resist peer pressure to "hook up" I'm all for that.

But, I really think it is much more important to teach young people (as I said below) not to use other people as objects to advance their satisfaction, and not to allow themselves to be so used. This is a much bigger subject than "just sex" because people use other people for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with sex. I'd like to see the concept of sexual morality put in that larger context.

Perhaps that, in itself, would be countercultural.

Bill Maher and his ilk are deadly enemies of Maria and her girls. And me and my children too.

You had me up until this point. Why is it that Maher and his ilk cannot be allowed to have the culture they want and you and Maria have the cultures you want?

That the culture of individualism is attractive is not an indictment of the culture of individualism. The indictment is that the culture of the narrow path doesn't offer enough to keep everyone in the fold. It cannot be the fault of Maher and his ilk that people past the age of accountability choose a path that they, right or wrong, see as more fulfilling.

The realities of Benedict's assertion that the entertainments of paganism are empty and base and that true greatness lies with enduring suffering are not self-evident. The benefits of immediate gratification are easily "showable." The benefits of denial of the flesh can only be "told." Couple that with the daily trumpeting of the failure of narrow-pathers to live up to their own ideology, and it's easily apparent why purity simply isn't attractive.

For such to become the norm, it needs to be told less and shown more.

I couldn't be more in agreement about Rod's point re: the shift in the culture from shame-based and/or physical punishment enforcing of purity -> encouraging purity -> ambiguity about purity -> hostility to purity, with one note. If parents today have to be more responsible for talking to their kids about sexuality and make extra effort to pay attention to the company their friends keep and include their children and their friends more actively in their lives vs. letting the kids fend for themselves, this is a good thing. And don't leave those gay and lesbian kids to flounder for themselves while the "normal" kids are attended to. (And don't kid yourself that attending to all the "normal" kids will preclude there being any gay and lesbian kids). The last said as a reminder, not as an attempt to steer the thread astray - I've had enough of Larry Craig and the whole topic for a while :-)

Two comments: First, as the Scriptures say, "those in the dark hate the light."

Second, it is much easier to engage in social and cultural pathologies when one has the financial means to absorb the negative consequences. Not that social pathologies don't have detrimental effects on the well-do-to, but rather that the economic consequences of engaging in unprotected sex, serial marriage, having children by different partners, etc. can be mitigated by wealth. To use an admittedly extreme example, Paris Hilton, though a moral leper, has a nice bed to sleep in and can pay for an abortion and her antidepressant medication. To a large extent, she is insulated from the consequences of her reckless behavior by her deep pockets.

For those on the bottom of the economic ladder however, the same social pathologies are utterly devastating -- witness the complete collapse of the two-parent family in the urban African-American community -- a collapse whose pace is increasingly rivaled by that in the lower class white demographic. It is there that we see the true devasation wrought by trendy social ideologies. Ironic, given that the same folks would profess their devout concern for "the poor" while refusing to acknowledge that the only realistic salvation for those communities lies in reinstating the social remissions of the past.

I think the reaction was to the idea of "Purity Dances" and the commidification of purity and virginity in Christian circles. Like the Left Behind books and WWJD bumper stickers, leave it to religious conservatives to commidify religious ideas for the masses. Maher makes his living being sarcastic and poking fun at the culture (liberals are often his sights) because that's what political satirists do.

There is also a concern about "purity" as a public policy goal. To borrow a phrase, "your ilk" tend to want to turn these kinds of concepts into public policy, which results in HHS gutting public health education and instead funding purity dances and rings. As we've learned, when coordinated by the government (and faith-based groups funded by the government) they just don't work. What make work in your maid's streetfront church doesn't work when funded by HHS. We can't toss out everything we know about public health and just pray.

In that sense, you ilk are deadly enemies to me and my children because you insist on turning your religious values into public policy that may ultimately be harmful to my children. I applaud you for wanting these values you for your family, but please don't pour $50 million in HHS to pay for it or spend $300 million and import it to villages in Africa where women are literally dying of AIDS because "just saying no" and being pure doesn't work.

Rod, I read back through the previous thread after you posted this, thinking I must have missed something. But I didn't see any "vehemence and vitriol against the idea of sexual purity," nor did I hear people laughing at the idea. I saw people like Alicia and Franklin expressing genuine concern about crude, exploitive sex, and agreeing with you in many ways. I also saw genuine, and to me valid, concern about the ways in which the idea of purity has been used to punish and control women.

To me, purity balls and similar programs that place emphasis on controlling female sexuality are barking up the wrong tree. Girls in our culture experience relentless pressure to "give it up." Even when they aren't overtly pressured to perform actual sex acts, they are told that their sense of self must be all bound up in their attractiveness to men.

Where does this relentless pressure come from? It's put on them by boys and men. Put the pressure on boys to treat girls respectfully. Put the pressure on adult men to stop sexualizing young girls and exploiting them at ever younger ages. Punish and ostracize men for any deviation from the rules women have been held to. Keep this up for a few hundred years. Then come back and talk to me about female purity.

I couldn't read the whole thing. What I did read was tragic beyond words.

The potential for polarizing the debate of this topic is very large. I don't mind Rod's confusing comment about the other thread, because I've seen quite enough vitriol around this topic over the years to bury any amount of civility.

Hey, Simon. I'm a modern pagan. I'm asking you to think about that when you refer to my ancient, spiritual predecessors. There are some important differences between them and me and my contemporary siblings-in-faith. I have no objection to what you've posted (and alot of praise for much of it, actually); I'm just asking for some conscious thought around it.

I don't like simplistic explanations or approaches. I offer the following as a starting point, not a set of conclusions.

The entire industry around personal appearance is your first and greatest enemy. The foundation of the cosmetics industry is the sending of signals of sexual arousal, and the industry's focus on females makes one wonder: how is it possible to have a moral society if the default expectation for all women (and many girls) is to look sexually aroused and/or have the appearance that men will find sexually attractive. Look up your basic human physiology of sexual arousal. Full, pouty, brightly colored lips. Wide eyes with expanded pupils. When children are not (supposed to be) around, you will also see cleavage (chest and rear), erect nipples and body positions that draw the eye to chest and groin.

I don't want to get into the tangent of how self-esteem and such is also involved. The entire point of raising kids who are sexually responsible is opposed by the constant signals of sexuality. Don't stop with media about this. Sex on TV and in movies is the tip of the iceberg. Look at women's faces, and be harshly objective about which ones you consider pretty, and which ones you consider attractive. I see many pretty women who wear little or no makeup. I see many women who would be pretty without their makeup, but look attractive instead.

If a woman's self-esteem is so closely dependent on using makeup, all that tells me is that she is a prisoner of the societal expectation that all women are judged by their sexuality.

Anyone who wants to raise a "pure" daughter will prohibit her use of makeup of any kind until she reaches the age where courtship is an acceptable part of her life. And it cannot be an arbitrary prohibition. She must understand why, because as an adult, when she is putting on makeup, she is sending sexual signals.

I like looking at attractive women. I am not suggesting we gut the fashion industry (actually, I have axes to grind, but that's for another day); I am suggesting we raise daughters who choose how they look, consent to the options they have, and are conscious of the signals they are sending or not sending.

Hoppin' horny toads, Rod, the very phrase you're using -- sexual purity -- if freighted and ripe for ridicule/antagonism. You're talking about not having sex, which is simply the act of not doing something. It has no inherent good or bad value. Calling it "purity" opens the door to umteen angels dancing atop umpteen pinheads.

And arrrrgh, the straw men you pull out of your, er, DUFFEL BAG. First, just as was the case with your comments about Planned Parenthoof and Bill Maher, there was little if any "vehemence and vitriol" in the comments on the other thread. That's just how you feel about people disagreeing with you on something you care about passionately.

Second, you say "This ... is what you get when you turn your back on any notion of sexual restraint," and "you should well consider who really gets hurt the most in a culture that sneers at the ideal of sexual restraint."

Gosh, that'd be an awesome point if there was anyone out there matching those descriptions. You seem to think there are only two camps, your earnest church-lady one bandying about notions of "purity," and another one where all high schools are sites of syphilis epidemics and people like (your feverish impression of) Bill Maher cackle before their statues of Satan, watching in glee. What nonsense.

The sane (and existent) contrary camp to yours is one which realizes (i) young people are going to be sexually active, period, and (ii) that can be great -- safe, sensible sex is terrific for anyone past puberty*. For them (us), the ideal is to create young people who can engage in it.

You just cannot wrap your mind around the real alternative to your view, can you?

-O

* And by the way, when I say "terrific for anyone past puberty" I'm not tipping my hat that, wink wink, I think 45 year old should be able to have sex with 16-year olds. I think it's fine to declare people under 18 or 19 or whatever to be off-limits to people who aren't in their age cohort.

Hey, Simon. I'm a modern pagan. I'm asking you to think about that when you refer to my ancient, spiritual predecessors. There are some important differences between them and me and my contemporary siblings-in-faith. I have no objection to what you've posted (and alot of praise for much of it, actually); I'm just asking for some conscious thought around it.

?? Can you clarify, Franklin? I haven't posted anything on this thread.

Brad wrote - "Your post is, frankly, a plea to save you from your own weakness in the face of your 'deadly enemies' whom, to others, would only be curious, or annoying, but ultimately irrelevant."

Actually Brad, Rod's plea was on behald of his and Maria's and other people's children. Children are weak in many ways - emotionally, physically, mentally - compared to the majority of adults. They need protection. Yes, "deadly enemies" is, in most cases, hyperbole, but it's not a sigh of weakness on behalf of parents to complain about the effects of much of contemporary culture on our children.

"Where does this relentless pressure come from? It's put on them by boys and men. Put the pressure on boys to treat girls respectfully. Put the pressure on adult men to stop sexualizing young girls and exploiting them at ever younger ages. Punish and ostracize men for any deviation from the rules women have been held to. Keep this up for a few hundred years. Then come back and talk to me about female purity."

Sig,
Duh. I suspect everyone agrees that more pressure should be put on boys/men to stop thinking themselves predators and women prey. But isn't active resistance a form of pressure on that regime? And the choice of and advocacy for purity is resistance.

"I think that what we Christians call 'sexual purity' is actually the sexual equivalent of the 'eat local, eat seasonal' ethic for food. Its all based on restraint, and on waiting until the time is right. Just as we should restrain our appetite for food, so should we restrain our appetite for sex."

Bill,
That's very interesting. I'd add that both are also about truly valuing relationship and living as part of the natural order and rhythm. Also, the content and character of the sneering directed at both is similar.

"As Rieff presciently recognized (this book was published 40 years ago), the spokesman for the old Christian cultural order have little credibility; most of their flock have been deconverted by the culture."
. . . .

Conversions are not a one way street. Some are "deconverted" by the culture, but for others, the culture itself - or rather watching the human cost of it play out over time - were the impetuous for conversions back to the fold. I think there's a tendency amongst christians to view the world with an "us against them" mentality (myself included); while in point of fact, most people have an innate sense about these things and understand - or are coming to understand -what is spiritually corrosive and what is healthy. If we can approach people with a certain generous spirit (but with the requisite backbone in defense of things like "sexual purity," mutual respect), it can have a real impact on people, even if that impact is not immediately apparent . . .

mm,
The consequences are already known. Naomi Wolf wrote an excellent article on the topic a few years ago:

The Porn Myth
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

Rod, you've stumbled onto a modern day taboo; purity. An even greater taboo is this word; holiness.
One of the things I do at church is sing. I'm pretty good at it. The one song I sang that had a very poor response was a lovely song named, "Called to Holiness." The lyrics were great and the melody was like the best of Barry Manilow. But, it went over like a lead balloon. I thought maybe I didn't sing it well. So, I worked to make the vocal perfect, added a drum and electronic synthesizer to the original piano and tried it again some months later. It was one of the best songs I've ever done. It still left them cold. The only thing I could think of was that holiness turned them off. I asked a very smart friend of mine why he thought the song bombed, and he thought the subject matter was a turn off. So, at the middle-of-the-road Baptist church I used to attend, people don't want to hear about leading a holy life. Imagine how the people outside the church feel about it.

Actually Brad, Rod's plea was on behald of his and Maria's and other people's children. Children are weak in many ways - emotionally, physically, mentally - compared to the majority of adults. They need protection. Yes, "deadly enemies" is, in most cases, hyperbole, but it's not a sigh of weakness on behalf of parents to complain about the effects of much of contemporary culture on our children.

I got it that it was for the children. It is always for the children.

My point was why are Rod's, Maria's, and others' moral codes so weak and ineffectual on behalf of the children they would protect--otherwise, where's the problem?--that Bill Maher, for goodness sake, could be posed as a "deadly enemy"? And, of course, why are others' not the case?

If one's moral code is defective to its ends, fix it, or get a new moral code that works, but don't whine that "contemporary culture" (or the state of nature, for that matter)--of which culture your moral code is an inextricable constituent--is somehow responsible for picking up the slack.

That's tantamount to saying one's faith in God is incomplete, defective and wavers, so others, too, must believe in one's God to bolster, complete and insure one's faith.

Maybe you has met the enemy and he is you, not Bill Maher, Pogo. ;-)

Ossicle,
The sane (and existent) contrary camp to yours is one which realizes (i) young people are going to be sexually active, period, and (ii) that can be great -- safe, sensible sex is terrific for anyone past puberty*. For them (us), the ideal is to create young people who can engage in it.

Um... perhaps you're not aware of the ages at which many girls are starting puberty these days? My wife was 9 - that's NINE, as in "less than ten" - at onset. And that was over 30 years ago; I understand early onset has become even more common in recent years.

My daughter just turned 7, and there is no way you can tell me that in two or three years it might be "terrific" for her to be having sex.

Yes, I realize that statistically she is unlikely to be a virgin when she gets married - although her mother was, so there's some hope - but that's not going to stop us from teaching her the value of waiting, and the moral values and discernment that will hopefully guide her decisions in that area (as, I pray, in many others). And I pray that Athena (with whom she has a deepening relationship) may guide her as well.

I grew up in a secular household but waited until I was almost 20 to have sex. Not because I wanted to wait -- I was as horny as any teenager -- but because I was considered an unattractive nerd and guys didn't like me. Growing up in the "sexually liberated" 70s and 80s, I felt like a loser because of it. Now I'm so glad I didn't start earlier, as in my adult (and Christian) wisdom I think that the pornification of our culture harms everyone (especially children) and that sex is cheapened in the context of casual relationships. I would love for my 11-year-old to wait until marriage, and this is what I have been teaching him.

Caveat:

Here's a question for the parents here who know firsthand of the downsides of the culture of sexual promiscuity: When teaching your children the value of abstinence, and waiting until marriage, do you relate to them your own personal experiences? In my case, during my early 20s in college when I was sexually promiscuous, I had one abortion and caught one STD. This was quite typical of my crowd (liberal Ivy League college). There were many heartaches as well. I am torn by question, as I am quite sure that relating these things to my son would make my argument much more persuasive, however, I'm embarrassed to dreg up that part of my life with him.

Anyone have any experience with this?

I guess it will depend on the age and character of the child. I suspect I will tell my boys when they're older that their dad, unlike their mother, didn't enter into marriage a virgin. I won't make premarital sex sound like it's all terrible, because that would be a lie, and not a very convincing one at that. But I will tell them about how I had to dull my conscience, usually with alcohol, to do what I did. I will tell them about how unavoidably cruel I was to the women with whom I was involved (unavoidably cruel, because while I never promised any of them that I loved them, I could tell that for most of them, despite their professed feminism, their hearts told them different -- and I stomped on that). And finally, I will tell them about the time one of my drunken revels caused a pregnancy scare with a girl I hardly even know -- and who told me that she would get an abortion if she were pregnant.

"Wait," I said, "you can't do that?" I wasn't a Christian, but I had become pro-life. She snapped that it was her body and her decision alone. I knew that I'd have no choice in the matter. For two weeks I sweated bullets until we got the all clear. During that time, I reflected hard on the cost of my self-indulgence. I thought especially about going through life knowing that my own choice (informed as it had been heavily by Pabst Blue Ribbon) had resulted in the death of my own unborn child -- well, it would have been torture.

Those two weeks of tormented reflection on the consequences of my own actions was a real turning point in my life.

Not surprisingly, my experience differs from Rod's, although I did benefit from coming of age in a window after the availability of easy contraception and before herpes and HIV/AIDS erupted.

I did not require artificial inducement to enjoy women, although we enjoyed alcohol and marijuana, and did not as the case might have been. I had sex with many women, and many women had sex with me, some for only a night, some for just weeks, some for just months, some for a year or more, living together. We practiced responsible birth control and reciprocal ethics. When we parted, we parted amicably. We taught one another what men and women were and were not and how to have them function together, intimately and casually, and how not to.

I used these lessons to choose the last one, to whom I've been faithfully married for 30 years. We have no living children.

Dear Loudon-is-a-fool, luckily I saw your last love note as I was on the way out to buy groceries. This saved me from an impetuous reply. Our niece is coming to visit, and apparently the food at Annapolis is not very good these days, so I want to give her a good meal while she's here. Menu planning always puts me in a state of kindliness toward the world, so I've decided to present you with the gift of a story.

Once the Buddha was passing through a town. A young man intercepted him on the path and began to denounce him angrily. "You cannot be trusted," he railed. "You give lip service to cleaning up the culture, but really you are enslaved to your passions. You are not a magnanimous man! You are just a dirty, nasty monkey!"

The Buddha remained undisturbed by these insulting words. "Tell me," he said, "if you bring me a gift, and I decline to accept it, who does it belong to then?"

Taken aback at this sudden change of topic, the man stammered, "Well, I suppose it would belong to me, since I bought and paid for it."

"Just so," said the Buddha. "I decline to accept your words, so they must come back to you."

I think Christians can learn a lot from Buddhists.

I blame the flying chickens, jaybird.

Rod:

(Since you opened the door ...)

With all due respect, if you had decided you were pro-life (and therefore, understandably, that was your highest priority), what in blazes (literally) were you doing fooling around with a girl you hardly even knew?

And PLEASE don't use the excuse that it was the Pabst Blue Ribbon talking.

(BTW, I think your story illustrates why there's a world of difference between, "Kids, don't repeat my mistakes, I regret them deeply" -- which is what I gather you're saying -- and "If you do what I did, you're going to H*ll!" Which would invite the inevitable riposte, "So Dad, does that mean when you die ...")

Here's a question for the parents here who know firsthand of the downsides of the culture of sexual promiscuity: When teaching your children the value of abstinence, and waiting until marriage, do you relate to them your own personal experiences? In my case, during my early 20s in college when I was sexually promiscuous, I had one abortion and caught one STD. This was quite typical of my crowd (liberal Ivy League college). There were many heartaches as well. I am torn by question, as I am quite sure that relating these things to my son would make my argument much more persuasive, however, I'm embarrassed to dreg up that part of my life with him.

Anyone have any experience with this?

Posted by: bd_rucker

bd, your past experience is none of your children's business while they are young and adolescent. To share it or not when they are adults is a choice you may make - if there is reason that will help them.

It is fine to say "when I was young many people made the mistake of..." and explaining some of the outcomes you saw. But beyond that, it really isn't appropriate, in my view.

a society whose main religion preaches abstinence and purity but endorses and supports a multi-billion dollar industry that coerces women into looking like they are sexually aroused at all times.

I think you really nailed it there, Franklin. I'm puzzled by the fact that so many Christian women feel a need to dress like pageant queens to be "attractive" even though they don't plan to act on that attraction. It seems to me there are plenty of alternatives for being naturally beautiful, without flashing a big neon sign that says "I want your (sexual) attention!" Some of those alternatives would be good to model for young women--but it takes courage to go against the reigning images.

(Contrary to current appearances, I don't actually hang around here all the time. I've been sitting around with a bad cold today and am currently folding laundry with one eye watching over the brownies with bittersweet chocolate and pecans, while I wait for my husband to bring the Midshipman home from the Navy/Temple game. Hence the too-frequent commentary. : P )

Again, the stamping of impotent feet. The war is lost, irrevocably. One can try to make a case that society may suffer as a result of it, but who is really going to make a decision on the basis of what may or may not be good for the broader society?

Charles, you've said too much or not enough. Please expand on your post. I hesitate to offer a rebuttal, but one thought that comes to mind: my foot stamping is far from impotent. My three children are small victories in my battle.

The US has survived waves of relatively loose sexual behavior and restraint throughout its history. Read "The Way We Never Were" for fascinating numbers. Up to a third of so-called Puritan (really Separatist) women were pregnant when married. Most out-of-wedlock births in the US during WWII were to married women. The 1950s had the highest out-of-wedlock birthrate in history until the 1980s. My mom, married in 1953 at age 20, says none of her (many) girlfriends were virgins at marriage, they just lied to their husbands about it.

All manner of excesses are corrected by subsequent generations- humans have the capability of learning from both experience and observation. In my age group, mid-50s-born boomers, many of us noticed that disapproving, information-free parental attitudes did not result in offspring who acted wisely. My own childrearing techniques were thus inspired in an entirely different direction. We were always open about things of the body, but our parenting lessons emphasized kindness, generosity, respect and self-control. Sex is part of a whole life over which those values need to hold sway and is best talked about in that context.

I agree with Alicia that the word "purity" is loaded with cultural baggage that targets women. In the minds of children, it is easily confused with "worth."

"are only as strong as you and Maria and your shared moral code are weak, Rod"

I think you are missing the forest for the trees, in that what you wrote there is true but also tragically pointing to a false conclusion.

Of course, we are all only threatened by temptations to the degree that we are weak against temptation.

But humans are not perfectable, and as such the answer cannot be to make ourselves so strong as to be immune to the charms of all temptations. Some will be able to come closer than others, but we will fail in this approach, by and large.

I tend to think mathematically. Chosing some numbers just for the sake of example, let's say that I am vulnerable to one temptation out of a hundred billion (which is probably vastly overstating the case!). If I encounter only one or two temptations a day, I might fall, but odds are that I will not. However, if I am surrounded by billions of temptations every day, the odds change markedly. The same goes for my loved ones, including my kids.

They are only threatened by any individual temptation by the extent of their weakness to that temptation. But they are also threatened by the prevalence of temptations in their lives, as am I. And the more people safely tethered, the more people there are to throw us a lifeline if and when we fall overboard.

Elizabeth,

You consistently and nicely illuminate the problem of conflating the moral (a behavior superficially in and of itself) with the ethical (a transaction involving another human being).

It's always a dominating win when one is able to elevate one's mores--eating pork, not eating pork; displaying cleavage, hiding cleavage; eating living animals, shunning live sashemi; singing about butterflies at dawn, not doing so--as proscriptions that define universal human ethics, as does the transreligious, irreligious Golden Rule. Sexual "purity" has always fallen into this same category of political contention for power over others, whether simply to dominate others or whether to dominate all in order to shore up one's own shaky fidelity to a more.

Sexual disease--the syphilis cited above, and the far deadlier STDs that followed--are medical problems, not moral or ethical ones, although the persistence of such diseases has long been cultivated as a useful scourge to shore up sexual "morality", although true sexual ethics would dictate sparing no effort to eradicate such a fundamental human disease, as was done with smallpox, polio, and others.

Similarly with untimely pregnancies: they are a biological, not an ethical, event, although children, born and unborn, wanted and unwanted, have long been hostages in the wars for dominance over sexual mores.

I think there are two major sources of the problems with "contemporary culture"--which of course includes this blog and its potpourri of equivalent variety--that Christians who complain here suffer. One is, quite clearly, they are unwilling to go the distance, to pay the full price themselves, to achieve the morality they claim they want for themselves and their children. They want to have their moral cake and eat from the buffet of contemporary culture, too. The Amish by comparison, to cite an example stark only by virtue of what it measures, put their money where their mouths are.

The second source is an unwillingness to elevate the ethics of the radical Christ Jesus, as infinitely adaptable to changing civilizational mores as it is universal and eternal in its (unoriginal) human ethical validity, above the eternal, baser, universal human drive to bend all others to one's will by scent marking them with one's mores.

Ironically, children and teens, with the innocent acuity of the kid who declared the Emperor naked, see easily through this dichotomy. I think if parents truly wish to raise children toward their moral code, any moral code, they should seek at least the same clarity of vision.

Sexual disease--the syphilis cited above, and the far deadlier STDs that followed--are medical problems, not moral or ethical ones

Sort of like how DWI accidents are medicial problems, not a moral or ethical ones.

Or how slavery is a labor problem, not a moral or ethical one.

Or how wife beating is a relationship problem, not a moral or ethical one.

If one doesn't believe in objective morality, fine, just call "ethics" those things that protect people and society from decay.

And yes, promiscous sex is one of those things that cause decay. It leads to broken hearts, STDs, violence, and destroyed children. Call 'em what you want, these ain't medical problems.

"And yes, promiscous sex is one of those things that cause decay. It leads to broken hearts, STDs, violence, and destroyed children. Call 'em what you want, these ain't medical problems."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that these are not bad for individuals or society. Well, I'm not.

The issue that it seems Rod missed in the earlier thread, which led to this thread, is that some of us disagree about the best way to achieve the good things like faithfulness and healthy, well-raised children, which can lead to both happy individuals and a healthy society.

Some of us don't think that a list of rules, a Purity Ball or a bracelet proclaiming "love waits" are going to achieve those. Likewise, mere exposure to undesirable and violent cultural influences does not cause children to run amok.

I'd like to see some research on the family backgrounds in that school district in the South that Rob references. Find out about the home lives and parenting styles. When Rob first mentioned the documentary, I responded that I knew of almost an identical situation at an expensive Catholic high school in a nearby suburb, and the school administrators refused to intervene because the wealthy, full-tuition-paying parents with out of control children would be offended to hear what rats their children really were. When parents are oblivious to what rats their children are, it stands to reason that the children turned out to be rats, but it probably doesn't include a lack of purity balls.

A lot's been said here, but I'll just throw in my $.02 here.
I'm willing to hazard a guess that people who find the word "purity" to be a loaded term aimed at women with overtones of possession and oppression are over the age 0f 50 or so. Except for the fact that I've heard such things spoken of by the sort of feminists who see the act of sex itself as a form of aggression against women, it would never occur to me to ascribe those sorts of overtones to the word "purity".
As for the argument that people who are morally conservative are complaining about cultural crap because our own case is defective or poorly argued (although I do think it is often poorly argued) that arguement just doesn't hold much water. If there was a strong cultural movement complete with TV shows, movies, music, advertising and more than a few complicite parents as well as a wishy-washy education system aimed to convince kids that homework was stupid and school is meant to be skipped, would the fact that this message is appealling to large numbers of kids be evidence of the weakness or even illegitimacy of the "work hard at school" message? If there were a similar cultural bias against going to work everyday and supporting yourself through employment, would the increased numbers of people on welfare be evidence of the failure of the argument for work? Of course not! The fact of the matter is that when ever you have one argument which says "do what is easy" which is able to shout down the "do what is hard" message, people will tend toward the "do what is easy" road.
Now, if you want to take the easier road yourself and even think it's the better road, fine. However, it's not unreasonable or a sign of one's own weakness for parents to protest when the "do what's easy" message is drowning out and even actively seeking to destroy the "do what's hard" message.
Statistics and polls do bear out the doctor's post above that young people today are actually doing better than before. I would be willing to bet this is the result of them being raised by parents who have seen how overwhelming the cultural garbage is and understood better than parents a generation earlier the need to have a strong counter-message for their own kids. I know that my husband and I have made this a real priority for just that reason - our parents largely didn't understand the world they were sending us into and therefor didn't prepare us for it. I also think that as more of us who grew up in the 70's and 80's and had to live with the terrible fall-out from the breakdown of family and abandoning of any sexual mores become parents, we will see this trend becoming stronger. But the fact of the matter is that even for parents who understand what is at stake, this is a battle which is made even harder than it already would be by the animosity towards the "do what's hard" message.

rebeccat, I don't think you and I disagree too much about this. My point has always been that healthy sexuality, which includes self-control and restraint until one is in a position to handle everything that accompanies sexual involvement, is not something that can just be achieved by a silly, embarrassing ceremony or a slogan and a bracelet. It is the product of an upbringing that includes learning about the potential results of premature, unwise sexual intimacy, the reality that the heart/mind cannot be divorced from the body, and that other humans are a "thou" not an "it."

We can argue about whether or not the term "purity" is useful in any of this. But I am pretty sure that using it does not guarantee a good outcome, and that there are good outcomes where the term is not used.

FWIW, yeah, I'm over 50. Which means my four children were born and grew up in the 70s and 80s. They seem to have turned out all right. They haven't plunged into the chaos of moral libertarianism, nor have they turned against their raisin' to embrace a strict moral code that shocks their parents. They get along well with us, and for the most part, express gratitude for the way we treated them--more so the older and more experienced they get. So, whatever we did, it seems to have worked.

For those of you who are just starting out with young kids and are very confident that you know the drill and will be successful, I wish you well. I hope you'll remain open to experience as you go along. I know I learned a lot from my children.

I think I should add that my brother, the scientific agnostic, has also raised two daughters, and they have turned out very well. My sister, the fundamentalist evangelical, has raised two children, and they turned out well also. And my sister, the divorced Buddhist, has also raised two daughters who are wonderful and successful people. Judging from this small sample, I'd say that maybe it isn't one's ideology that prevails so much as the way one models human relationships, and the way one relates to children as people. But that's just me. Anyway, good luck to the rest of you.

You know, there is an idea which I have seen expressed repeatedly here which seems to account for a good deal of heat and fire, but which I think is just not supported by what's actually going on that people who are morally and especially religiously conservative are operating under the delusion that various simplistic actions and words will automatically result in desirable out comes. For example, this whole "Purity Ball" (which I find rather silly and wouldn't put my kids in); I would be willing to bet that if you talked with the parents who encourage their kids to take part in such things, they know that the word purity and a celebration of the intent to maintain sexual purity are just pieces of a much bigger puzzle. They also know that they're fighting a cause which has a very good chance of not working, but they're going to do their darndest to help their kids along the way. I'm also quite certain that you'd be hard pressed to find a single person there who would claim that not putting your kid in one of these things is the same as putting them on the road towards promiscuous sex.
I homeschool, so I move in circles where it's not uncommon to run into people who seem to be trying to conform to an anti-religious lefty's charicature of religious conservatives. However, I don't think I've ever met a religious conservative who thinks that their actions are guarenteed to result in kids who are exactly how they want them. I even know a woman who honestly thinks that the only explanation her kids need to hear about avoiding premaritial sex is "it's what God wants" and she will tell you that we can't control what our kids choose to do with their lives as they get older.
I hate to harp on it, but I often get the impression that many people who assume that Rod or the people who put their kids in "Purity Balls" or whatnot think they have found the key to obtaining the desired outcome for their kids are older and reacting to things as they were in another generation. I know that my parents were shocked to discover that taking us to mass every week, putting us through CCD classes and telling us not to have sex didn't get them devout, virginal Catholic adults. However, I don't think there are many parents who are parenting today who still hold those same delusions. We know that there has to be substance behind the words, real engagement and honesty and we're all too aware that despite our best efforts, our kids may well fall along the way.
Any how. IJS.

Posted by: Larry Parker,

m_david...In your post about American separatism, you sound like you are actively rooting for the destruction of the United States.

Uh...I see nothing in my post that shows rooting for one thing or another. I was merely making a prediction. I think separatism is a fact of our time, not my personal fetish.

I also predict we will have another terror attack in the next 5 years. This sort of guessing hardly means I am "actively rooting for the destruction of the United States."

How does that make you any less nihilistic, exactly, than Slim Pickens going "YEEHAW!!!" riding the atom bomb in Dr. Strangelove?

Huh? I never saw the movie, it was before my time. But nihilistic, me? Your post seems a little out there and none too relevant to mine.

Dr. Drew Pinsky does a show on MTV and on the radio called "Love Line", BTW. My refering to him as a "bastion of conservative, religious values" is EXTREMELY sarcastic. Just in case the reference is as unfamiliar to any one reading this as the Dr. Strangelove one is to M_David (and myself).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

Sheesh, do I have to do everything? ;-P

M_David and rebeccat,

I think we share a fundamental agreement about the vital role of parents. Successful childrearing is largely about making a safe secure home and providing good examples and productive, wholesome activities for the little ones.

My child-rearing was successful (so far) at least partly due to the luck of the draw. Our son is easy-going and analytical, the easiest type of child to raise from my observations through the years.

I'm over 50 but we had him in our 30s in 1987. Draw your own conclusions about the cultural forces in play - all I remember of the early 90s are Raffi, Curious George and The Boxcar Children. But yes, rebeccat, those of us who remember the Dirty Girl concept and how it played out in our youth are probably recoiling at the use of the term "purity" in this connection.

Let me share what the early 90's were for me. I was a Resident Assistant in college and the head of a ministry program working with boys in a juvenile prison outside of Chicago. At the prison I saw young men who almost to a one grew up in homes with out their biological fathers and a stream of abusive, usually drug addicted boyfriends who moved through their mother's lives. Say what you will about the problems of the past, this sort of thing wasn't common place in any other time in US history. It happened, sure, but there's a world of space between "it happened" and 70% of african american kids being born out of wedlock today.
In the college dorms, I had a steady stream of young men and women coming through my room with almost nothing by sex and alcohol fueled problems. I had the young women who were bragging about their drinking and about being gang-banged while so wasted they could't remember much of what happened. I had the young women who were devestated that the guy they were sleeping with expected them to get an abortion when they wound up pregnant (they usually did because they felt like they had no choice - yey pro-choice!). I had the humiliated young women who had just found out they had an STD and were trying to remember who they had sex with so they could inform them or trying to figure out how to explain to a long term boyfriend how they had gotten drunk one night and slept with some guy they didn't know and picked up the disease. I had several young men who wound up seriously injured (as in extended hospital stay injured) after getting into alcohol fueled altercations including one incident which involved my husband and a resident nearly being hit by a jeep which was aiming for them and slammed into the dorm building. I had the young women who were raped while drunk and the young men who realized that they had raped a non-consenting young woman while under the influence and were ashamed of themselves. I even had two young men who were raped by women while under the influence and were mortified, shamed and emasculated beyond measure. These are not exceptions. These were common place events where I went to school in the early 90's. I'm sure that like the high school with the syphalis outbreak Rod talks about, this was not a universal experience, but neither was it exceptional.
Say what you will about their methods, but any parent who is willing to actively work to prevent their children from dealing with the sorts of things I describe above and sees anything which isn't onboard with that goal as the enemy has my support.

Rebeccat, I think the consensus of several here was simply that, to those ends, continued reflex attempts to manage effects instead of causes becomes, at best, pointless, at worst, self-defeating.

I see so many of the children of the Sexual Revolution continuing their adolescence into their geriatric years, while their children and grandchildren and (not uncommon now) great-grandchildren have been left to parent themselves.

Holy moly, Ron. That's not what I see at all. What I'm seeing is lots of people entering into their "geriatric years" (which I guess must start around 50 by your chronology) who are, in fact, still helping, involving themselves with, and in some cases raising children and grandchildren who now more than ever need a supportive hand up to get started. I see a lot of people who might like to be working on investments for their retirement, or taking it a little easy, but instead are working harder than ever because they are still concerned about their families. I see grandparents contributing to grandchildren's education and helping overstressed parents to care for them. I see older people who might have considered downsizing their living quarters, but instead have maintained the family home as a haven for grown children experiencing reversals of fortune.

None of which invalidates your own observations. If you say so, I willingly believe that you know a lot of old folks who are promiscuously prowling while abandoning their families. But I'm asking for an equal belief on your part that what I see is true, too. All of which just goes to show that no individual's observations are necessarily normative for everyone, I guess.

Ron's reference to people discussing their own youthful conduct raised a question in my mind. Many posters have affirmed the value of virginity until marriage. I just can't help wondering if there are any men here with personal experience of being pure until their wedding night. People have ambitions to raise their sons to be virgins--but has anyone done it himself? Would anyone be willing to share his reflections on how he lived this out, and the problems or benefits of it? I realize this is an awfully personal question, but you could always post anonymously. It seems as if some practical examples would be a big improvement over pure theory.

Posted by: Brad,

"I've never had sex out of wedlock, and I was nothing but faithful to each of my three husbands. I get visitation with my daughter from my first marriage on the first weekend of each month; of course, my second and I split custody of our son and daughter; and my current husband and I decided it wasn't appropriate for us to have any more at our age. Of course, all the kids tell me they're fine!"

Ouch! That's so bad it's good.

brad, for the record, the overwhelming majority of the situations I describe happened with middle to upper middle class white college students. Problems in black America are a whole other discussion, but I just want to make clear that the sorts of alcohol and sex fueled pain and suffering I describe are absolutely not dependant on race.

They can't understand that gated communities, rising home prices to keep the riff-raff away, and more police and larger prisons are NOT the answer.

Goshwow, I think I'm agreeing with M_David! The only thing that gives me a bit of a twinge is that I'm not sure I know who "they" are.

But now I'm having cognitive dissonance because I find that agreement coupled with really, really liking Brad's idea that "controlled beach therapy" IS the answer!

M_David, meet Brad. Brad, M_David. Play nicely while I wander over to the beach chairs and get something tall and cool to drink.

I have friends whose precious daughters are just now reaching their early teens. One of my friends lamented that she wished that mothers in the same boat would get together to discuss parenting issues regarding teenagers. As a result, I'm starting a home ministry this next week just so this group can meet in a comfortable, smaller and less intimidating setting to discuss just such matters, among other spiritual matters. It still interests me, even though I don't have children. I just wanted to provide a forum. After all, I love these kids too. I'm their honorary "auntie."

Aside from the physical, teenagers aren't mentally prepared to deal with sex so early in life. It's an adult's game with adult consequences. Also, pop culture plays a major role in this too. Teens are influenced by their peers, Hollywood, and the lyrics in the music (if you'd call it that) they listen to. I'm not a prude. I came of age in the 80's and listened to some pretty rough music myself (okay, I was a metal head); but I don't recall any of it calling for women to be treated in a demoralizing manner. The main one I recall about sex was Meatloaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights." But even Meatloaf lamented at the end of the song about the situation he had gotten himself into. LOL

I think it is important to tell to boys and girls that their behaviour and emotions most likely will influence their future children, including their physical health.
Maybe it's not right to make an example from ananimal life, but there was such an experiment when several female horses were tried to be crossed with male zebras. And a very interesting thing happened, those horses which didn't get pregnant, but only had love with zebras, long time after that in some mysterious way got striped foals from ordinary male horses. Also bredeers of high quality hunt dogs say that if a female dog had a relationship with not high quality male dog, even if she didn't get pregnant after that puppies from her will not be high quality, at least not the best. They say it's a fact. I don't know how it might happen, maybe having sex with this or that specimen can influence genetics? Anyway church believes that depraved behaviour of mother or father influences 4 generations after them, they will have to fight with consequences, and even physically, might appear ill children or grandchildren. I don't know whether it's true, but examples when absolutely healthy and young parents get a child with hard illness might prove it.

Aside from the physical, teenagers aren't mentally prepared to deal with sex so early in life. It's an adult's game with adult consequences.

Yes and no. Earlier generations of teenagers accepted the challenge of sex only slightly later than the age you describe, played the adult game with adult consequences and for the most part won handsomely: that's why we're here.

We are now forced to deal with something akin to precious monsters of our own creation, biologically engineered (through excellent nutrition and health care) to be sexually interested and functional at earlier and earlier ages and socially and financially engineered (through labor policy and the ever escalating demands to acquire ever more education) to be socially and financially retarded from shouldering full adult responsibility. We have engineered an entirely new human developmental phase of sophisticatedly infantilized subadults packing sexual heat. Thus "My Little Pony" blurs gently into "My Little Rainbow Party."

Something's gotta give.

Maybe the same science that yields IVP will someday offer parents The Hormone Shot, selectively shutting down sexual drive through that long ghost tunnel of extended adolescence; clever and hip churches could even incorporate it into their sacramental rites of passage.

Maybe we will create a new social-labor category, an opposite of the unfortunate and bizarre 20- and 30-something boomerang child, that also incorporates starting and supporting families alongside extended higher education.

Maybe get tough religious moralization is all that's needed, just get tougher, although I have my doubts about that, as much as anything from my own membership in Up With People!--anyone remember that?--back in high school. In that sociology the stud alpha-males that got the most sex were not the star athletes but rather the opportunistic young prophets who could most loquaciously and poetically exegesiate the Bible: apparent divine connection functioned quite well then, as it does now, as a superior panty remover.

Or maybe we will simply go on and on with an acceptable mix of belief, attempt, partial success and dismissible failure according to our various needs.

And, apropos of the topology of the problem, this from today's Dallas Morning News Guide Live/GuideLive.com

http://www.guidelive.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/television/stories/DN-monBB_0903gl.ART.State.Edition1.425c047.html

"TV BEST BETS

12:00 AM CDT on Monday, September 3, 2007

NORMAL ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR This drama about teens exploring their sexuality is realistic and raw, but not explicit or exploitative. Amber Tamblyn (Joan of Arcadia) is superb as one of six friends – three girls, three boys – who have chosen to avoid the drama and trauma of dating and hookups with a six-way "friends with benefits" arrangement. It works for everyone, until a new boy takes a liking to Ms. Tamblyn's character. (CC) (2 hrs.) (8 p.m. LIFE)"

We have met the enemy and, unfortunately, it feeds us and our kids.

m_david:

1. For the record, Dr. Strangelove was made a few years BEFORE I was born. I'm not that old!

2. Yes, I used the word "judgmental." I was judging you; you are judging entire classes of people who can't respond on this blog as you just did, and that was and is the difference.

Wow! Thanks, IBreakCellPhones. I'm in awe of your honesty. I hope a lot of other people from this thread scrolled down this far and got to your post. I didn't see it until today. I think that's a really helpful and thought-provoking story. I don't think you can necessarily assume you're in the "vast minority," because we don't really know what most people's stories are. Maybe there are more people like you than you think!

To the extent that my post was a "challenge," it was meant more for people who found themselves unable to resist the lure of uncommitted sex in their own youth, but now that they're settled down, imagine they'll be able to break the cycle by telling their own children not to do it. You are more in the position of someone who has walked the walk, and therefore might have a better understanding to teach others. I think your children will be lucky to have someone like you in their lives as they grow up.