Email This to a Friend
Honoring Abstinence vs. Honor Killings
What was New York Times blogger Judith Warner thinking when she compared evangelical fathers at a purity ball to an infamous Austrian rapist?
John Podhoretz called it the most repulsive blog item of the year. New York Times blogger Judith Warner shocked many last week when she compared “fathers, stepfathers, and fathers-in-law-to-be, at the ninth annual, largely evangelical ‘Father-Daughter Purity Ball’” to Josef Fritzl, the 73-year-old Austrian who held his daughter captive in a cellar for 24 years and fathered her seven children. For Warner, the difference between fathers attempting to preserve the innocence of their daughters and one of the most monstrous child abusers in recent memory is “only a matter of degree.”
What was she thinking? Later in Warner’s post, she does backtrack slightly by making it clear that there’s no “equivalency” between raping your daughter for nearly a quarter century and trying to ensure your daughter’s sexual abstinence until she weds. But as for those Christian fathers, she thinks there’s “a kind of horror to their obsession with their daughters’ sexuality.”
Even if one father’s moonlight walk along the lake with his daughters ranks high on the creepiness scale, is it really horrifying? If Warner was in need of some stories to make an analogy to the Austrian monster, all she had to do was open up any newspaper across the country last week. Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of adults who abuse children for kicks.
“Two women arrested in ‘unbearable abuse’ of 5-year-old boy” was the headline in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday. Starkeisha Brown, a 24-year-old mother, is being held on charges of torture, while her 21-year-old live-in girlfriend faces charges of willful harm or injury to a child. The details are truly horrifying:
Police said the women routinely beat the boy, forced him to put his hands on a hot stove, burned his body and genitals with cigarettes, and often would not let him eat or drink.
At a news conference Friday, LAPD Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell said that because of the burns from the stove, the boy no longer can open his hands.
In Macclesfield, NC, a 13-year-old boy died after being tied to a tree for two nights last week. His father and stepmother have been charged with his murder. The details are truly horrifying:
Edgecombe County Sheriff James Knight said the boy’s wrists and ankles were bound with plastic ties and that he was also tied to the tree with some other material. Although a rope was seen dangling from a tree in the yard outside the house Friday, he wouldn’t confirm whether that was used to tie the boy.
Investigators found bruises on the boy’s wrists and ankles, Knight said, declining to comment on whether other marks were found on his body.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Aaron Hanscom is the supervising editor for Pajamas Media.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
77 Comments
1. Ari:The left is adept at drawing moral equivalence to two items that have, well, no moral equivalence, i.e. Christian Evangelicals and Radical Muslims, and apparently, now this. Not that Warner did any investigation into the matter, I’m sure.
Nice work, Aaron. Good facts and analysis.
Jun 18, 2008 - 9:25 am 2. A.M. Mallett:Judith Warner is a member of that twisted and perverted segment of society that cannot distinguish between good and evil, confusing one for the other.
Jun 18, 2008 - 9:32 am 3. Joanna:Whatever happened to “You’re not leaving the house dressed like that, young lady!”?
I wonder what Judith Warner thinks of the Bratz dolls?
Jun 18, 2008 - 10:00 am 4. Awake:Considering what a lack of abstinence has done to several demographics in our country I can only see this as a healthy extension of our culture that is working to preserve our nations social, economic, and yes, spiritual health.
Jun 18, 2008 - 10:24 am 5. Jill Peterson:I have read Judith Warner for years and have found many of her posts to be thought provoking. Her style of writing is not for the individual who cannot think beyond the black and white print on the page. Opinions are just what they are, opinions.
Jun 18, 2008 - 10:38 am 6. newton:However, in this instance her comparison of the these two actions is simply beyond good taste and unfortunately shows a bit of the ignorant egos of the “popular” writers of the age.
To Evangelical Christians out there, especially those with daughters: Where is the Outrage?!?
Maybe it’s time for this woman to learn that fathers who love, not abuse their daughters still have some say in this society, whether she likes it or not. Where are the pastors – and Christian activists, for that matter – banging at the door of the New York Times?
Jun 18, 2008 - 10:39 am 7. Javelin:This is typical right wing blog prole feed, throw out some trivial crap so all the petty little minds can have something to get outraged at. I love how so many simpple minds here can make a gross generalization out of one blog entry. But that is par for the course here.
Jun 18, 2008 - 10:59 am 8. Anonymous:and yet you still come here child
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:05 am 9. David:So, does my father enter in the category of “monster” (in Ms. Warner’s point of view)for being Catholic and don’t want my sister to be a slut?
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:07 am 10. Paul Revere:The Christian Right as a political organization does not exist. Pastors say nothing about what happens in our society because they are afraid of losing tax-exempt status for their churches.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:08 am 11. Zippo44:Methinks the lady doth o’erreach. Either she sucked too deeply on her analogy pipe, or just perhaps she has some serious “Daddy” issues of her own.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:15 am 12. l98fiero:“This is typical right wing blog prole feed, throw out some trivial crap so all the petty little minds can have something to get outraged at.”
Hmm. I’m pretty sure the left has blogs that comments on righty blogs they don’t agree with. I’d post you some examples but the language is too foul. Outrage, indeed.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:16 am 13. Waller:Javelin,
I have just three words for you:
“Nappy headed hos”
The liberal left wrote the book on trivial outrage.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:19 am 14. Ari:“The Christian Right as a political organization does not exist. Pastors say nothing about what happens in our society because they are afraid of losing tax-exempt status for their churches.”
Probably true. Someone should tell the blowhards in the drive-by media that since they, esp at CNN and MSNBC, think the Religious Right controls the GOP—which, of course, is not true.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:30 am 15. Mary Jackson:Hmm. Of course the comparison with Fritzl is disgusting, and the focus on evangelical Christians rather than Muslims, who abuse women (wives as well as daughters) is deeply repugnant.
However, I must say, the idea of a “father-daughter purity ball” makes me want to vomit. And what a double standard. Nothing about sons’ purity – that’s somehow never seen as important, although the Bible requires chastity outside marriage for both men and women.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:31 am 16. politicalreacharound:Austrian molesters aside, it is really creepy for fathers to claim control over their daughters’ sexuality. Especially considering at least 90% of these guys whack off to teen porn on the internet. And what happens when the daughter no doubt breaks her chastity promise a few years later? Will she be permanently shamed? There is no doubt that men created this “virginal purity” myth and their use of it to control women especially their daughters is completely disgusting.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:32 am 17. Javelin:Since I am not a liberal, but someone who thinks for himself, I could care less about nappy headed hoes or any outrage. I love outraging people regradles of sex, race, religion, or lack of sex, race, or religion. Believe, me, I have plenty of fun at liberal blogs getting them riled too, so don’t feel that I am singling you out.
Personally, I was hoping that Imus had the guts to tell that fat pig Sharpton off, instead he and “Dawg” grovel shamelessly at the feet of that poverty pimp. Those women were some ugly monsters if you ask me.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:38 am 18. MikeT:How about hopelessly out of touch with reality? The average bumpkin has a more realistic assessment of the status of women in Christian and Muslim societies than she apparently does.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:48 am 19. Ed Wallis:Mary Jackson: “…the idea of a “father-daughter purity ball” makes me want to vomit. And what a double standard. Nothing about sons’ purity – that’s somehow never seen as important, although the Bible requires chastity outside marriage for both men and women.”
Typical leftist reply: whine that something positive was NOT done for someone else, so the act itself is supposeddly nullified. What a load of cr*p, Mary, particularly in the era of “Bring Your Daughters (what – not the Sons?! – to Work Day)….
PoliticalScratch’n'Sniff: “…it is really creepy for fathers to claim control over their daughters’ sexuality. Especially considering at least 90% of these guys whack off to teen porn on the internet. And what happens when the daughter no doubt breaks her chastity promise a few years later? Will she be permanently shamed? There is no doubt that men created this “virginal purity” myth and their use of it to control women especially their daughters is completely disgusting.”
This loser just doesn’t know when to give up…just keeps on digging his hole deeper. LOOK, kid, it is an outrage to suggest that a vast majority of male parents do what you suggest – seek a psychiatrist for your pathetic obsession. Furthermore, a GOOD and RESPONSIBLE part about parenting is about “control” or “guiding,” whether you know this or not…or did your parents never show you how to wipe your posterior, tell you to look both ways before crossing a street, etc. etc.?!? the IRRESPONSIBILITY YOU PROMOTE is barbaric and repugnant.
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:09 pm 20. AJ:“Austrian molesters aside…”
Leave it to the foolish ReachAround to ignore evil doings and blame fathers who are trying to protect their daughters. Shame on you, sir/ma’am. I hope you don’t have any children. It’s one thing to misunderstand our country and embarrass yourself each day in the comment section here, but this is personal. You basically excused the Austrian and blamed the people trying to raise children the right way.
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:13 pm 21. Mary Jackson:What a load of cr*p, Mary, particularly in the era of “Bring Your Daughters (what – not the Sons?! – to Work Day)
Well, of course, I wouldn’t advocate that kind of a double standard. But if one double standard is wrong, how is the other one right.
Can you, Ed, or any of the evangelical fathers so keen on their daughters’ purity, explain their apparent indifference to that of their sons?
Thought not.
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:16 pm 22. OmegaPaladin:politicalreacharound,
Last time I checked, parenting involved control. Plus, you are basically assuming the absolute worst of these evangelicals. Is it not possible that they sincerely believe what they are doing is the right thing? It’s like saying 90% of liberals secretly have massive envy issues and want to steal money from conservatives under the guise of helping the poor. While both statements are no doubt true of some, asserting them to a majority is just a personal attack
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:34 pm 23. TalkinKamel:There is a double-standard at work here. Warner can write a disparaging article about father-daughter purity balls, because it concerns evangelicals.
Abuses perpetrated on kids by a parent’s live-in boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever, where there are no Christian fundamentalist/evangelicals involved, is usually ignored, because it might be seen as somehow being judgemental about “alternative lifestyles”, or “non-traditional” families.
(politicalreacharound, how do you actually know 90% of these guys look at internet porn? Are you a mind reader? Are you monitoring their PC’s?)
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:37 pm 24. Joe Buzz:I used to know a nice girl that happened to be both a virgin and a vegan. We had a few serious conversations about how messed up her life was. One night I convinced her to join me for a nice buffalo steak dinner. This one meal pushed her over the edge and she now without guilt enjoys the occasional meal of fish or poultry. The last time I saw her she thanked me for helping her get her life back together.
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:40 pm 25. Waller:I actually feel a little pity for folks like Judith Warner that value choices in regards to terminating a pregnancy but loath the choice of chastity. It must be really tough to be a progressive liberal these days.
Reminds me of a guy at work. Said his 14 year old stepdaughter had a sleepover. Had to kick out some boys that the girls had snuck in.
He laughed and said something about having to get her on birth control soon. I guess trying to instill a sense of morality and self-respect is just too old-fashioned and way too difficult.
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:40 pm 26. Ed Wallis:Saint Mary of Eternal Sanctimony: “Can you, Ed, or any of the evangelical fathers so keen on their daughters’ purity, explain their apparent indifference to that of their sons? Thought not.”
The only “indifference” you may imagine is only that – but I’m sure making such bigotted assumptions makes your self-imagined “moral superiority” so much easier to pull over your eyes. Try going parent to parent to learn a bit about reality, and come back when you’ve grown up and learned a bit about ACTUAL “tolerance.”
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:46 pm 27. lee:If I had a son AND a daughter, of course I would discuss sexual purity with my son, but I’ll be extra protective of my daughter. I wouldn’t mind participating in “father daughter puriry ball” as a Christian especially if she was young.
Fathers tend to be more overprotective of their daughter compared to their sons, whether they’re religious or not. The chances of your son getting slipped a date rape drug by some vixen is probably rare compared to the opposite scenario. While men can be just as promiscous, women actually pay a steeper price. I’d expect my son to act responsibly if he impregnated someone, but I DON’T want my daughter to be pregnant when she’s 16 by some stranger at a party. I don’t want that label of “easy” or “teenage pregnant mom” to stigmatize her so early in her life.
Fathers have an intimate relationship with their daughters that cannot be compared to sons. Yes it’s overbearing sometimes, I’ve seen it with my own sister. She’s just as responsible as I am, but my dad called HER if we stayed out past curfew, not me. I personally don’t discern any sexism or double standard in that. If they’re MY kids, then I have a right to parent them until they hit a ceratin age. American dads are portrayed in the media as saying “you’re on your dude” or “when are you getting out of the house” to their sons after they’re 18, but grilling their daughter’s date. Is that sort of reverse sexism?
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:48 pm 28. heather:it seems to me that lefty commentators have an unsettling view of sex within the family. There is nothing “creepy” about a father talking about ‘purity’ with his daughter. Men know all about boys because they were boys too, and fathers would like to pass on this information to their daughters.
Also, I have been confused by the Left’s stance on sex and sexuality: a girl of 13 should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ knowledge, it seems; intense focus on sex and condom use in the public school system (under the guise of the so-called HIV epidemic) while at the same time asserting that abstinence is unrealistic and should not be part of the curriculum; middle school children applauded as they ‘come out’; a pop culture from Bratz dolls to having a high-school sanctioned Halloween theme of “pimps and ho’s”.
and yet, it is “creepy” for a father to take his daughter to a “Purity” shindig.
Odd. The Left is definitely odd.
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:55 pm 29. Alex:Evangelical fathers are not indifferent to the sexual purity of their sons. In my job as a pastor, I am aware of many events, curriculum resources, parachurch ministries, and congregations which emphasize the responsibility of Christian fathers to be positive role models for their sons. I could provide a list of them, starting w/ the well-known (and often reviled) Promise Keepers, but for those who have prejudices about evangelical fathers, the list wouldn’t change their biases – would it?
Jun 18, 2008 - 1:00 pm 30. GM Roper:Saint Mary of Eternal Sanctimony Now that presents an interesting mental image especially to a graduate of a Catholic University.
Aaron, you’ve outdone yourself with not only a well written article, but one which triggered a very interesting interactive comment thread. Well done Sir, damn well done!
Jun 18, 2008 - 1:56 pm 31. Morton Doodslag:In another recent blog post at this site the poster “Mary Jackson” took great umbrage at the “typical American posters” whom she felt painted with very broad brushes when discussing her nation’s growing problem with Muslims. If it’s the same “Mary Jackson” as that above, she had no problem then over-generalizing about American bloggers on that day, and little problem today making overblown statements about evangelicals and their supposed double standards between their sons and daughters.
Perhaps her urge to vomit has more to do with her own internal conflicted craziness and very little to do with what American evangelicals are or are not doing to raise their children. Or perhaps not — after all — “Mary Jackson” may actually be clairvoyant or godlike in her perspicacities. She may, after all, have the capacity to somehow (magically) know what all evangelicals in America are thinking and what they are doing when it comes to parenting their children.
The hatred some have for Christians in America astounds me. Their bigotry is profound. And, for the record, I am a completely agnostic personage, but one who can tell the difference between good and evil, and what is vomit-worthy and what is most defitely not.
Jun 18, 2008 - 2:16 pm 32. aloysiusmiller:In the spirit of the times I am forced to say that Judith Warner should be forgiven and pitied –she can’t help it but her parents are to be deplored and reviled for conceiving and raising this monstrosity.
Jun 18, 2008 - 2:17 pm 33. Mary Jackson:On Father-Daughter Purity Balls, I wonder, too, if such a public display of one’s virtue, is all that Christian.
Jesus spoke against those who made a great show of praying and thanking God for not being like the sinners.
Jun 18, 2008 - 2:33 pm 34. Smarty:What was she thinking? Sounds like she was thinking how most liberal Jews think: Being judged (and coming up short) by Christian values is worse than being killed by an Islamist. They would never go after a Muslim who did this to their daughter, or who held an observant party. Liberal Jews HATE Christians, they only fear Islamists.
Jun 18, 2008 - 2:42 pm 35. Mary Jackson:making overblown statements about evangelicals and their supposed double standards between their sons and daughters.
Not an overblown statement – just going on the evidence. Are their any “Mother-Son Chastity Balls?” Just asking. These Father-Daughter ones have been going a while, yet no mention of sons.
I make no comment about all Christians, still less all Americans. But double standard among evangelical American Christians? Well, show me the boys’ “purity” rings, or the evidence of concern for their chastity.
Jun 18, 2008 - 3:29 pm 36. Mary Jackson:Duh. There not their. Look what you made me do.
Jun 18, 2008 - 3:40 pm 37. TalkinKamel:Mary, a public display of one’s virtue may, or may not be a good way of proving one’s Christianity, (Are you are Christian by the way? And by what authority do you decide what’s property Christian, and what isn’t?)but it hardly seems vomit worthy. And, of course, the article wasn’t criticizing the dance from a Christian point of view, debating its pros and cons, but trying to draw an analogy between Christian evangelicals, and the people who honor-kill their daughters.
This seems to me a bit of a stretch—and the author’s indignation (and yours) seems a bit weird, in view of the very real, and horrendous, child abuse in the world today. If you really need to be feel sick over something, feel sick over that. Better yet, go get some pepto-bismol, soothe your queasy stomach and try and work towards eliminating child abuse.
Jun 18, 2008 - 3:40 pm 38. AJ:“Liberal Jews HATE Christians, they only fear Islamists.”
As a conservative Jew, I admit you are right. Liberal “Jews” are shameful individuals, educated but clueless as to the world and Christianity. I pray for them.
Jun 18, 2008 - 3:45 pm 39. TalkinKamel:Leaving aside, for the moment, the subject of Purity Dances, and are they, or aren’t they, Christian, I wish my brother-in-law had been more protective of his daughter, our niece. When she was 17, she moved in with a man who’d left his wife, and young daughter. She’s had a son with said creep, who is still married to to his first wife, by the way. My niece says they’re engaged, but I doubt there are any wedding bells in her future. Her father, meanwhile, is obsessed with the things which really make up his life: drinking beer, taking care of his pit bull, supporting Barack Obama and going into rages over stuff like global warming—you know, all the IMPORTANT stuff.
I hardly think a father’s protectiveness of his daughter is something to turn one’s stomach. I do find myself being sickened by the way some men ignore their children, and the way other men prey on these children. . .
Jun 18, 2008 - 3:47 pm 40. Joanne Jacobs:I once interviewed a young Mexican-American man who was teaching fatherhood classes to jail inmates. He told me that he regularly took his little girl to McDonald’s for a special father-daughter meal. He said he didn’t want her to grow up thinking that the only way she could get a man’s love and attention was through sex. He thought she wouldn’t be impressed when some guy bought her dinner because she was used to being taken out to dinner and fussed over. I believe he used the phrase “daddy’s little princess.” I thought it was sweet.
He didn’t have a similar ritual with his son, perhaps because he was just a toddler. I’m sure he was less worried about him being seduced by a predatory female.
He’d been raised by a single mother. “I met my father for the first time when I was 16,” the young man said. “He was drunk.”
Jun 18, 2008 - 6:48 pm 41. Gregory:Dear Mary;
Can’t be too long; am on the clock here after all – I should be doing some work for my pay. But…
ARE YOU NUTS?
Sorry. Had to shout there a bit. But seriously.
ARE YOU INSANE?
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/26/Pasco/Author_tells_of_her_j.shtml
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7418688/the_young__the_sexless
You’ll forgive me for not excerpting from from this article; everyone should just go read it. Although, you know, some of its kinda on the wild and wooly side.
If you’re just wondering why only Father/Daughter balls are big, that’s just marketing, blast it.
Speaking as a Christian, an evangelical, and a GUY, I find chastity until marriage of high importance. I look down on men who sleep around; you will not find a single (and I realise this sounds like the No True Scotsman, but!) real Christian, male or female, who regards highly any ’stud’ or ‘playa’ BECAUSE of his promiscuity. But more importantly, you will NEVER find a real Christian father ENCOURAGING his son(s) to go sow his wild oats. NEVER! Jeez, do we actually have to make this plain and clear?
Here’s the thing you’re missing, though, Mary. Guys, as a whole, aren’t really into the ‘ball’ thing. The dressing up, the corsage, the limo, the stately ‘ballroom’ dances – these are all things men do for ONLY one reason – to court potential ‘mates’, so to speak. To make the womenfolk happy, in other words.
The ball experience is something like the debutante experience, which is a ‘coming of age’ event for the young women in question. Do guys have a similar group experience, showing themselves off to a bunch of horny gals who can hardly wait to get into their pants? Aside from a male stripper bar, I really can’t think of anything.
By and large, the way it works with men is on a less emotional, less ’showy’ level. A guy will, maybe while working on the transmission with his son, ask him quietly, “Do you know how?” And when the son says, equally quietly, “Yes”, the father will conclude, “Then don’t. Not until you’re married.” That’s it. Simple. Alternatively, the mother might sit her boy down and ask him to treat other young women like he would like his sister to be treated.
And then, of course, there’s the redneck version, where the father of the young woman lays down the ‘Shotgun Laws’.
In none of these cases is it ever a showy display. I’m sorry, Mary, but you’re barking up the wrong tree because you cannot fathom the fundamental differences between young women and young men. The principles are the same for both, but they’re expressed differently.
Jun 18, 2008 - 7:19 pm 42. Mary Jackson:The principles are the same for both, but they’re expressed differently.
Yeah, right.
Jun 18, 2008 - 7:34 pm 43. AlanABQ:“I don’t mean to imply that there’s any equivalency between Josef Fritzl’s acts and the Purity Ball. Fritzl’s actions were uniquely horrific, and I am not accusing the men who danced in Colorado Springs of any crimes. But there is nonetheless a kind of horror to their obsession with their daughters’ sexuality.”- Judith Warner
What the hell is wrong with this alleged woman? Is it a type of brain defect that liberals have that dictates they have to equate anything moral or conservative with society’s monsters?
Jun 18, 2008 - 7:49 pm 44. joe blough:The thought processes of the left are badly contaminated by generations of left-over pre-war German philosophical conceits that have nothing to do with reality.
These people imagine that noticing superficial similarities in their own minds, between various things they “observe” in the outside world is enough to prove that those things are identical.
Suffice it to say that while all crows are black, not all black things are crows.
This is a logical principle within the reach of most 7 year old children, but which seems to elude most of our college graduates.
Even Freud, himself the father of much intellectual nonsense, admitted that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”, regardless of what its shape might suggest to the lasciviously minded viewer.
When it comes down to cases, ugliness, like beauty, is often in the eye — or perhaps the mind — of the viewer.
The comparison of fathers taking their daughters to a dance to celebrate their condition and prospects, to some slavering brute who imprisoned his daughter in a basement, repeatedly raped her and in effect deprived her of any life of her own, tells us nothing about the outside world (how could it?) but a very great deal about the “mind” of the “thinker”.
There was a time when seeing such disgusting and corrupt intellectual incoherence endorsed by the NY Times would have been a breathtaking shock.
Those days are far behind us.
Quo vadis America?
When will our much abused citizenry actually take some meaningful action about the daily destruction of our public culture?
Believe me, simply quoting scripture and going to church on Sunday won’t do the job. Something more is needed.
Jun 18, 2008 - 8:37 pm 45. colagirl:I’m not Christian myself but I lurk on a site for Christian married couples, and I will say to their credit, from everything I’ve seen, the members there do place just as high an emphasis on chastity / purity for men as they do for women. It’s something that is frequently discussed and talked about; men on that site who have had premarital sex, for example before they became Christians, often express deep regret over their earlier failings, feel that their premarital experiences damaged or tainted them, and often have intense guilt over the experiences. There are also many men on that site who have kept themselves virgin until they were married. (The site in question, btw, is not a sex-negative site at *all* –however, it is a pro-Christian-sex site, by which they mean, sex strictly in the context of a monogamous Christian marital relationship. Once *that* condition is met, apparently, anything goes
)
Re: the whole “purity ball” thing and why there is no equivalent for males: I would guess it’s a combination of factors, starting with the fact that these sorts of events are typed as a “female” activity in our society and that even if guys enjoy such things, they’re not “supposed” to because it’s “unmasculine.” For example, no one would bat an eye at hearing a girl say on Prom Night that she’s been looking forward to her prom since she was a little girl; but if a guy said that he had been looking forward to his prom since he was a little boy I suspect there would be more than a few raised eyebrows. It’s the whole “fairy princess/queen for a day” fantasy thing. Actually it would be interesting to contemplate what a similar “male-appropriate” rite would be.
Another factor might simply be the unfortunate biological fact that teenage girls have more to lose than teenage guys from any possible sexual encounter/pregnancy. One poster up-thread commented that the chance of a teenage girl slipping a roofie into a guy’s drink and taking advantage of him are much less likely than the opposite. Then of course there’s the not-unrealistic fear that your daughter might get pregnant by some guy who would then abandon her and the kid (happened to my grandmother; that’s how my mom was born). The reverse case…not so much, I suspect. And finally, pregnancy itself imposes a heavy biological burden on a woman’s body–even more so on the body of a growing teenager who is still developing. Taking all these into account, it’s not surprising that a parent might worry more about his or her teen daughter engaging in casual sex than his or her son. That doesn’t mean it’s fair or right or good, just sort of…the way it is.
I once interviewed a young Mexican-American man who was teaching fatherhood classes to jail inmates. He told me that he regularly took his little girl to McDonald’s for a special father-daughter meal. He said he didn’t want her to grow up thinking that the only way she could get a man’s love and attention was through sex. He thought she wouldn’t be impressed when some guy bought her dinner because she was used to being taken out to dinner and fussed over. I believe he used the phrase “daddy’s little princess.” I thought it was sweet.
Joan Jacobs, that’s a wonderful story. As someone who was once a young girl herself, and blessed with a wonderful father, I will say in my estimation, a girl’s relationship with her father is perhaps the most important relationship in her young life, and it’s good to see that there are many men today who recognize that.
Jun 18, 2008 - 9:03 pm 46. Laura:Javelin:
This is typical right wing blog prole feed, throw out some trivial crap so all the petty little minds can have something to get outraged at. I love how so many simpple minds here can make a gross generalization out of one blog entry. But that is par for the course here.
Hi “Javelin”….by the way…simpple isn’t spelled correctly…and…don’t end a sentence with a preposition (”at”) as in …”something to get outraged AT….Not the way we “simpple minds” write in English. We learned that in , oh I’d say, the 8th grade. But then again, we are “simpple” minds! Perhaps you are the “petty mind” you are so adamant in condemning! What exactly is your definition of a “petty mind?” Anyone who disagrees with you? Or, perhaps, someone who challenges you to think outside the box? Clever you…coming onto a “right wing” web-site!!! Are you the Left-Wing Deliverer? Let’s see how open-minded you are!
Jun 18, 2008 - 9:03 pm 47. joe blough:Apropos of nothing in particular, while sexual self restraint might have similar (that’s similar, not identical) psychological and spiritual meaning in the life of a man and the life of a woman — I really don’t think that there are a lot of rational people who will suggest that a pregnancy carries even remotely similar emotional or physical consequences for men and women.
As a result, it is really rather childish to suggest that male and female virginity have the same value.
Guys don’t get pregnant from a drive-by drunken fornication, and their parents don’t generally get stuck raising the grandchildren!
And THAT is why mothers don’t celebrate the chastity of their teenage sons — nobody involved on the boy’s side CARES as much. There’s just not as much to lose. Especially now that shot-gun weddings have gone the way of the dodo.
So let’s not get TOO silly about the equality of the sexes business.
I have no doubt that mothers are pleased that their unruly sons are not getting the neighborhood girls pregnant and causing trouble with the folks next door.
That’s nothing compared with the joy of a father who is confident that some suitable, younger stronger man is going to dedicate his LIFE to raising and protecting his daughter’s children.
It’s just not the same folks. I don’t care what the pinhead professors in America’s academic pantomime have to say about it.
Taking her to a dance about the subject might seem a little over-the-top, but in today’s anything-goes, happy hook-up environment?
If I had a daughter I might be celebrating her virginity myself. Hell, I might be thanking her outright.
My brother has 2 daughters and believe me when I tell you that that is EXACTLY how he feels.
Jun 18, 2008 - 9:49 pm 48. mac:Mary Jackson: Well, show me the boys’ “purity” rings, or the evidence of concern for their chastity.
Can’t speak for evangelicals but most of the young Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) men I’ve met wear “CTR” (Choose the Right) rings on their left hands. Their religion also draws no differentiation between the sexes on chastity. For both genders the rules are the same: no sex until marriage and then only with one’s spouse. Any violation of that rule almost invariably gets one excommunicated from the church.
Wider note: it should be apparent to anyone, but most clearly to educated people, why unwed motherhood has traditionally borne such a stigma.
No individual can, by themselves, raise a child to the age of five completely alone. Even with sufficient funds to make paying employment unnecessary, it can’t be done. There are too many competing obligations; child-tending by others, for at least a short period, simply can’t be avoided.
Consequently, the duty that should be on the shoulders of the absent parent falls on the single parent’s relatives and friends. These people have their own lives to live and their own necessities to acquire. They’re not going to be happy about spending their time and money helping out a person who, through poor judgment, acquired an obligation that must be met but can’t be through that individual’s own resources.
People DO help out with such situations all the time but make no mistake, it’s charity because they would almost invariably rather not spend their time and money on that task.
Young women today seem to accept unwed pregnancy as a matter of course. That’s because we’re a richer society than we used to be and the costs imposed by her partner’s absence are easier to afford for her friends and relatives. That doesn’t mean it’s not destructive and deleterious and greatly to be avoided.
I applaud those fathers who are so concerned with their daughters’ virtue. They’re demonstrating real concern and love for them by making sure they keep away from some very real and life-destroying dangers. That’s what LOVING parents do for their children.
People with attitudes like Mary’s wake up one day to find they’ve been hammered by life and they never saw it coming. As an old sailor from Maine once told me, “it wasn’t the things I didn’t know that hurt me, it was the things I knew for sure that weren’t so.”
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:10 am 49. glasses off. / Coup d'oeil: sex edition:Mary has one of those “Ooops” moments in her future.
[...] Abstinence vs. Honor Killings. At Pajamas Media, Aaron Hanscom asks, What was New York Times blogger Judith Warner thinking when she compared [...]
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:56 am 50. Mary Jackson:All those justifying the double standard by talking about pregnancy – there is such a thing as contraception. Perhaps fathers should be teaching their sons about it.
Such an ostentatious display of “virtue” – why in a woman is virtue about what she doesn’t do rather than what she does? – is nauseating. And more than a little creepy. Fathers should be encouraging their daughters to pass exams and achieve things, rather than harping on about their virginity.
Still, if the girls are good, then, according to Heather MacDonald, they won’t get raped.
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:57 am 51. Ed Wallis:“Mary Jackson,” you are a fraud. Ever heard of “chew gum and walk at the same time”?!
No different with “virtue” and “passing exams.”
I’m truly embarassed for you to see how tightly you have to twist your – ahem – “logic,” in order to atempt to refute or make a point.
Your pseudo-moralizing and screeds are “creepy.”
Jun 19, 2008 - 4:53 am 52. Smarty:Mary is one of those feminists who think equality means “if men can be sluts and get away with it, why not women?” She thinks in terms of selfishness, what low entertainment, what selfishness she should be allowed to indulge in because “men can do it”.
This is called “penis envy”
Jun 19, 2008 - 5:41 am 53. politicalreacharound:Does anybody really think that these fathers are teaching their daughters about safe sex? My guess is probably not, they just tell them to say no and remind them of the father’s disappointment should they have sex before marriage. So if one of these girls decides its stupid to wait for marriage she will most likely sneak around, lie, put herself in risky situations and not practice safe sex because she wasn’t taught that. These balls are really gross, sure the Christian men here don’t have a problem with it but I guarantee that most women will. Preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a goal of our entire society not just evangelicals but there is not enough reliable data to suggest that chastity commitments work.
Jun 19, 2008 - 5:59 am 54. Rocketeer:“‘The principles are the same for both, but they’re expressed differently.’
Yeah, right.”
Mary Jackson is, not surprisingly, apparently incapable of understanding and accepting that males and females are socially, biologically, and psychologically different, and therefore have different needs and expectations in each of those areas.
In other words, Mary Jackson lacks nuance and is irrational.
Mary, by your own standards, you should be a Republican! Heh.
Jun 19, 2008 - 6:29 am 55. Lynn:“I promise to God and myself and my family that I will stay pure in my thoughts and actions until I marry.”
Jun 19, 2008 - 7:22 am 56. newton:“until I marry” Did anyone else think that was funny?
At the risk of being attacked, I think the “purity ball” is a little creepy and I get Mary Jackson’s point.
I’d rather see my daughter (now 18 months) flank her daddy at one of those totally unnecessary “purity balls” than to see her in the company of Hugh Heffner or Larry Flynt.
Jun 19, 2008 - 10:44 am 57. TalkinKamel:Mary Jackson and Laura are illustrating, in their rather hysterical posts, all that is wrong with modern-day feminism.
And, talk about being obsessed with sex—they grow furious at the very suggestion that self-control, waiting for marriage, not emulating the sexual promiscuity of the worst sort of men in order to be considered cool, might be good for a teenage girl. They also seem to have a bug up their collective rear-ends about fathers in general. And a touching faith in the power of birth control to solve all problems, and make men and women equal.
Their posts (and their anger) say a lot more about them, and their own strange inner worlds, than they do about men, women, daughters, fathers or anything going on in the real world.
Jun 19, 2008 - 10:57 am 58. Mary Jackson:I’d rather see my daughter (now 18 months) flank her daddy at one of those totally unnecessary “purity balls” than to see her in the company of Hugh Heffner or Larry Flynt.
Well who wouldn’t? But those aren’t the alternatives on offer.
I wonder how many of the fathers so keen on preserving their daughter’s virginity were also keen to rid her mother of hers. Still, it’s “do as I say, not as I do”.
not emulating the sexual promiscuity of the worst sort of men..
I’m not suggesting girls do any such thing. Just that they be judged in the same way as men for exactly the same actions. And no, I don’t have a but about fathers, but then mine was rather more concerned with my happiness and the development of my brain than the preservation of my hymen. I’m pretty sure he never gave my hymen a second thought, and it is not terribly healthy for a man to be thinking so much about his daughter’s you-know-what. Why can’t he think about beer and cricket, like a normal bloke?
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:14 am 59. George Bruce:Mary Jackson:
“However, I must say, the idea of a “father-daughter purity ball” makes me want to vomit.”
Hello again, Mary. I see you are still singing your song.
If the purity ball makes you want to vomit, then I guess child pornography should make you want to vomit 50 times. Child sex slavery should make you vomit 500 times, and genital mutilation another 500 times. So called “Honor Killings” should be good for another 1000.
I hope you esophagus can stand it.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:24 am 60. MHOL:Reacharound wrote: “Preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a goal of our entire society not just evangelicals but there is not enough reliable data to suggest that chastity commitments work.”
Really? If you stay committed to chastity, how would you then be pregnant out of wedlock? In spite of what you are willing to admit to, there are other ramifications to having sex, not just pregnancy. It’s a deeply intimate and revealing experience when done right, why would a person want to give that away to a stranger?
As an expectant father of a daughter, I will try my hardest to instill a biblical sense of self worth and dignity in my daughter as one who was created in God’s image and should save herself for marriage as part of God’s plan. She will know who truly loves her and that fact will never change, in spite of what she does. Yet, as I’ve found in my life, living by God’s plan is far more freeing than the world’s plan, and I will clue her in on that as well. Not that it’s easy or simple, but way worth it.
If we’re blessed with a son, you can bet I’m going to be letting him know what’s expected of him as well. Being a man means taking care of your responsibilities and striving to do what’s right, in spite of what you feel or the odds of success. Life ain’t easy, but it’s easy to make it way harder.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:53 am 61. heather:the strange metamorphosis of the Left: from class warfare to.. “sex liberation.”
Think about it: As far as the Left is concerned, Abortion rights are the central element in choosing a judge and a politician.
The Left, a la John Dewey, supports extensive day care facilities, so that very young children live away from their parents for much of the day. Consequently, fear of pedophilia is on the rise. And the public school system has for at least a generation taken over ’sex education’ from the supposedly incompetent and uptight parents, and now they feature lessons on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ touching. (Now, in my opinion, THAT is creepy.)
Abortion rights are a direct consequence of sexual liberation, ie, sex outside marriage. To many Lefty people “freedom” means “sexual” freedom and nothing more. Christianity keeps insisting that sex should be enjoyed by married couples. Hence Christianity is EVIL, according to the Left.
When a bunch of fathers take their daughters to a “Purity” event it is ‘creepy.’ Is this because the fathers are Christian? Or because the Left assumption is that Christian fathers are toothless hillbillies who bed their sisters and daughters and other living animals in the trailer park???
There definitely is a culture clash here.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:56 am 62. Lynn:Heather: I thought the “Purity Ball” stood on its’ own as being a little creepy to me. It has nothing to do with my belief in Jesus and his teachings. If mothers took their sons on “purity fishing trips” it would be creepy too.
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:11 pm 63. Lynn:Heather: I thought the “Purity Ball” stood on its’ own as being a little creepy to me. It has nothing to do with my belief in Jesus and his teachings. If mothers took their sons on “purity fishing trips” it would be creepy to me too. Of course I am voicing my opinion not about abortion, day care, sex education etc. but the “Purity Ball”.
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:22 pm 64. TalkinKamel:Mary, how do you know these guys were thinking about their daughters hymens? Did you talk to them? Can you read minds? And why is it healthier for them to think about “Beer and cricket?” Why beer? Why cricket? Is there something morally uplifting about beer and cricket? (Trust me, I’m no mind reader, but I suspect most American dads—and moms, too—scarcely think of cricket at all.)
You say some very strange things, Mary.
Jun 19, 2008 - 5:11 pm 65. TalkinKamel:And how do you know all “normal blokes” (blokes? Are you English?) think about nothing but beer and cricket? Maybe they think about T.V. too, sometimes, or the movies. Or politics. Or things besides beer and cricket. Are you suggesting that only British men are “normal”? That American guys who think of, say, beer and baseball, or maybe just beer and beer aren’t normal, that only thoughts of beer and cricket make a man a decent, normal human being?
Jun 19, 2008 - 5:14 pm 66. NB:First, Mary Jackson’s an idiot (how many fathers keen on protecting their daughters virginity were keen to rid her mother of hers). Drivel to which all I can say is, have you thought for one second that the decision to engage one another sexually may very well have been made after being married and with the hope of having said daughter. Ms. Jackson if all you meet are ravenous men whose only goal is to get in your pants I truly feel bad for you. We mostly speak from our own experiences and if this is yours I understand your shallow and condemning view of men.
In other news, and more on topic, the mistake that I think gets made more often then not in issues regarding Christian parenting is this. Non-Christians and liberals tend to describe something like this as a strange and twisted pre-occupation with one’s daughter’s sexuality. In fact, it is simply a pre-occupation with their daughters well being. That it concerns sexuality is secondary to the overall desire to provide a young woman the knowledge and opportunity to make a wise and responsible decision.
Also, the fact that this article is specifically about a Christian father’s role in his daughters life can in no logical way be extrapolated to any inference that said father has no interest in teaching his son to be responsible, faithful and respectful towards women. I was raised by Christian parents and got it drilled into my head that there is no such thing as “consequence free living” as many liberals would say that men enjoy especially with regards to sexuality, and that it was far more important to be the right person then to find the right person. A Christian man raises his son in a way that he understands that any idiot can have irresponsible sex. It takes a much more powerful, intelligent, and emotionally grounded man to do the right thing and either abstain or face the consequences of the decision not to.
In summary to think that a father doesn’t take just as deep an interest in his son’s wisdom, growth and well being as he does his daughter’s shows only a lack of knowledge of Christianity as well as, in my opinion, the concept of fatherhood.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:12 pm 67. Mary Jackson:In summary to think that a father doesn’t take just as deep an interest in his son’s wisdom, growth and well being as he does his daughter’s shows only a lack of knowledge
So where are the purity balls for sons, then?
Jun 20, 2008 - 1:12 am 68. NB:Mary,
As has been pointed out numerous times by other comments, you’re assuming what works for girls will work for boys. Where are the purity balls for sons? How ’bout groups of Christian fathers and sons on camping trips discussing these issues. How ’bout the wave of literature and church programs denouncing “dating” as it stands today and promoting courtship. How ’bout all the single men’s groups that gather in churches all over the country. How ’bout father son retreats. The idea of a “ball” is a uniquely feminine activity that simply wouldn’t work for young men.
Let’s not forget, this article was about fathers and daughters, not fathers and sons or mothers and sons or, in point of fact, mothers and daughters. By your logic I might very well ask you, why aren’t mothers showing an interest in the well-being and emotional and sexual development of their daughters, but I know they are, this article is simply not about that.
Jun 20, 2008 - 2:19 am 69. Ed Wallis:“NB,” good points, but you’re trying incorrectly to use reason with “Mad Saint Mary of Eternal Sanctimony.”
She is the one-dimensional, 1970’s, UNISEX TOILET feminist thinker.
Jun 20, 2008 - 3:29 am 70. Mary Jackson:Actually the point of the article, which I admit I’ve strayed from somewhat, was about false equivalence. Fritzl is a psychopath, so any comparison with over-protective Christian fathers is way out of line. A closer comparison of Fritzl might be with honour killings and Muslim treatment of women. If a Muslim girl loses her virginity, even if it is through rape, she is often killed. In fact she can be killed even for talking to a man. And it is not psychopaths that do this but “normal” Muslims, insofar as anyone brainwashed into believing in Islam is normal.
Judith Warner attacks Christianity rather than Islam because it is an easier target, and Christians will not respond with violence.
Father-Daughter Purity Balls are absolutely not in the same league as honour killings and Fritzl-type behaviour. But I think they are weird, creepy, and demonstrate a very un-Christian smugness and ostentation. They are also evidence of a double standard, which is not part of Christianity itself, but is a common failing.
Jun 20, 2008 - 3:44 am 71. Mary Jackson:“Unisex toilet?” No way. Men would mess it up.
Jun 20, 2008 - 3:45 am 72. Darin:I think Judith Warner needs to find something better to do with her time than compare this with that. We all know that there is not one right way to raise children. Thankfully, there are many right ways.
Jun 20, 2008 - 9:01 am 73. Ed Wallis:Gee, Mary, that’s a snappy answer…especially after offering up so many one-dimensionally ideological repsonses here. YOUR THINKING is what is “unisex toilet feminist” oriented…try re-reading my post, fool.
Jun 21, 2008 - 3:10 pm 74. Lisa:It is without a question the responsibility of any parent to protect his or her children and that should include the imposition of restrictions.. especially with regards to something like immature sexual activity which has such steep consequences.
I do agree with posters that unfortunately the virginity of young males is not valued while the virginity of young females is excessively valued. A girl does not become ‘unpure’ because she has had sex; frankly, I find that term disturbing. And yes, I find the bizarre public ritual of a father ‘covering’ his daughter with his protection (wasn’t covering used as a euphemism for sex at one point?) creepy and disturbing as if his love for his daughter is solely dependent upon her ‘purity’.
There are many many better ways of keeping a child from doing something which can have lifelong consequences. While it is a damn shame that some Christians and some Muslims feel that their daughters only worth is in their ‘purity’, I cannot think of a single Christian girl killed for losing her virginity.
Jun 22, 2008 - 12:11 pm 75. trangbang68:Mary Jackson and the dimwit Warner are typical ideologues. Daughters and sons aren’t integral parts of families that love them and want the best for them in the future. Instead they are part of the almighty State and objects of social engineering and morally bankrupt philosophies that have poisoned the well of Western Civilization since degenerates like Kinsey and Margaret Sanger crawled out of the gutter long e nough to get an audience.
Aug 18, 2008 - 11:08 pm 76. Feffluile:Somebody mentioned it already but its interesting that Jackson wants to vomit and Warner is creeped out ,etc. because they see the daughter’s relationship with her father in anatomical and salacious terms. That’s the inner skank speaking Mary. We love our daughters and don’t want them rutting with some little Lothario.
I remember a number of years ago speaking out against a totally inappropriate sex-ed cirriculum in Tucson. The opponents of the classes were almost unanimously parents. The proponents were homosexual activists, deluded sociologists and probably a few pedophiles thrown in for good measure.
Mary, a theologian you’re not (probably why the Muslims are taking over dear old England) Jesus’ teachings about public displays of moralizing didn’t refer to fathers’ advocating chastity for their daughters. It more referred to nauseating self righteous clowns like yourself.
I wonder how many of those manly blokes are down at the pub getting toasted while their daughters are out running the streets getting shagged by the riffraff. Real men stand for virtue and integrity. Any fool can be led around by …well you know.
excavate such problem. To me frantically seems gracious oral sex, and woman is talented to borrow this at worst in ebrious state. unchanging from kuni became to rebuff, I notion of because self awaits that I wish ask something in substitutions… get by what tactics?
Sep 29, 2008 - 6:38 pm 77. The Scott:first gina lynn sex teacher
?:))
Here is appeared muddle with wife….(dislikes minet)
first mrs saskia sex teacher
&&??
Challenging youth to wait until they are an adult is one thing. Scaring the heck out of them, and telling them a condom is a provision for sin is irresponsible. Did you know the Lovers in the Song of Solomon have sex in Chapter 2, but don’t get married until Chapter 3? The kind of ignorance Church leaders have about this sort of in-your-face premarital sex in the Bible has gone on too long. If you want to know more, go to my website. It’s cheaper than a Purity Ring and a lot more fun than abstinence.
-The Scott
Jan 26, 2009 - 3:27 pm