This post is to comment on the article I pasted below, which I came across this lovely Sunday morning while perusing the news. It really unnerved me and got things whizzing and whirring in my brain, which is not an easy task on a Sunday morning, let me tell you. These "purity balls" have become quite the thing lately here in the U.S. And it bothers me. To me, it is a huge step back. Just because some of our steps "forward" might not have worked out as well as we would have hoped, do we just step backward? Or analyze what does work about our historical moves forward and change what didn't? We'll get to that. But first, let's look at the definition of 'pure' according to Merriam Webster.
* unmixed with any other matter
* not directed toward exposition of REALITY or solution of practical problems
* being nonobjective and to be appraised on formal and technical qualities only
* ritually clean
* containing nothing that does not properly belong
* free from what vitiates, weakens, or pollutes
* free from moral fault or guilt
* free from harshness or roughness
* free from dust, dirt, or taint
Obviously, there are many implications of what can be considered pure or not. Why we would subject TEENAGE and PRE-TEEN girls to such harsh judgment is beyond me. Those years are difficult enough without adding to it. Did you read all of the article below first? Because this post will seem to come out of nowhere if not.
What term could possibly more subjective, or state/description, than that of purity? What is harsh to me, might not be harsh to you. What is dirty to you, might not be dirty to me. I mean, 'ritually clean,' how can those words NOT disgust you?
Okay, so I am getting carried away with the terminology. And there is definitely more to it than that. Part of what really bothers me about these purity balls, where are the young men and boys? We are just going to leave all of the moral responsibility to the females? That makes NO sense. Attempts to eliminate misogyny in our society, require participation of both sexes, educating both sexes. I had a big problem with this whole school of thought when I was in my teens and still do, so maybe that is why this article really struck a chord with me. You see, I had tighter restrictions on me than my brother, a shorter leash, much shorter. I had an earlier curfew and more restrictions on the when, where, and who of my teenage life. And it was this system of gross inequality that, well, it really pissed me off. Why should I be treated so differently, when comparatively speaking, I was the more responsible one between the two of us. I was told that it was because I was a female and I could get pregnant, and my brother could not. I guess it was less important that he was out busy trying to impregnate half the town, because hey, that was someone else's daughter. I am not trying to come off as harsh on my brother, or make him sound extra promiscuous. He was your average teenage boy is all I'm saying. I am making the point, however, that why are we putting the moral responsibility on the females? Young men need to have guidance as well about how important it is to respect people, men and women. And to teach them that NO MEANS NO. Why is it they are not required to make some sort of vow or promise that they will respect a female's boundaries and also try to make healthy, responsible decisions regarding sexual activity?
- A Purity Ball (also known as a "Father Daughter Purity Ball" or "Purity Wedding") is a formal event attended by fathers and their daughters. These events promote virginity until marriage for teenaged girls, and are often closely associated with U.S. Christian churches, particularly evangelical Christian churches.
Then there is the whole tone of these purity balls. The article mentioned how part of the ceremony talked about men 'rescuing' their daughters, and the use of the swords, roses, and the big, wooden cross. It all just seems so antiquated. And I'm sorry, but I don't need men to rescue me. I have found, at 31, it is usually my girlfriends trying to help me rescue myself from some bad relationship with a man! I don't mean to be a man-hater here, at all. But seriously! Let's empower and encourage young females, not send them the message that a man is there to take care of them. We all know how well that ideology has worked out. These young women already have to endure such mixes messages everywhere and society is asking more of them now than it ever has. I mean, the reality is, women are out there working full-time jobs and still being the primary caretaker in the home, so who's rescuing who here? We expect them to grow up and be Superwoman for cryin' out loud!
They need to learn how to make informed decisions about their lives and how to surround themselves with healthy relationships, not make some promise at eleven in some elaborate, formal ceremony that will not seem very relevant when they are eighteen and in love with their respectable boyfriend who is about to leave for college in another city. We don't want them to feel as if they do falter somewhere that they are forever tainted and dirty, or to have them associate clean and dirty with their sexual selves at all actually. That is such a Victorian, repressive way to look at sex.
And why is it that it's a father/daughter thing too? That seems odd to me. It was your mom, typically speaking, that would tell you about the birds and the bees, and the period talk. So what is with the whole father/daughter undertone as it relates to purity? That's what creeps me out. These girls, some of what I have read, it's like they are promising themselves to their father, even with a ring on their wedding finger, until they get married and then the "duty" is handed over to the new husband. Ugh. What if they don't want to marry when they are young and have a few serious and rewarding relationships until they have met the one they want to commit to forever? What if they decide they are gay? I mean, some of those girls are young. Then does that mean they are no longer pure and that they have broken an important promise to their father, they're now tainted?
- Writer Eve Ensler criticizes Purity Balls for what she sees as the position of inferiority it puts the daughters in: "When you sign a pledge to your father to preserve your virginity, your sexuality is basically being taken away from you until you sign yet another contract, a marital one...It makes you feel like you’re the least important person in the whole equation. It makes you feel invisible."
There's just so much hypocrisy involved here too. How many of the men in that room did NOT wait until they got married and were pressuring their high school girlfriend relentlessly to 'give it up' already? Please...
I think it would be much more effective to have a sleepover with your daughter (the mom), invite your closest girlfriends or female siblings, and have a night of 'girl talk,' except you already briefed your girlfriends and/or the aunts, and conversations will be about sharing your 'first' experiences and relationships. This seems more informal, more straightforward, and more positive. This would be a great female bonding activity and she would learn a lot hearing about the experiences of her older female role models, those who would hopefully educate her about how to take care of herself. But I get that this is a very personal thing and up to each parent to go about it. This is just how I see my version.
I am in no way, advocating sex for teens, or saying that there is anything wrong with making an abstinence promise to yourself. I AM saying that I am uncomfortable with all of the undertones in these ceremonies and what they mean, their legacy to these girls. I do fully believe that young girls need a lot of guidance and support. But all children do, male and female. They need to become well familiar at a relatively early age the consequences of sex at a young age, and how to make informed decisions, how to respect the self. There is nothing wrong in giving your children information that they might need to protect themselves, even though you hope that is not what they will have to face. But withholding sexual education because you think it promotes sexual activity among teens, well that's just irresponsible.
For those of us that weren't interested in getting married soon after college, for whatever reason, well, waiting until you get married is unrealistic. If that were the case for me, hell I would've gotten married just so I could finally have sex! It is a very personal decision and I respect everyone's right to make their own, whatever it is.
And a four year old at a Purity Ball?! That's just gross.
One more thing I just thought of - one of the origins of the word, if you look at the etymology, had to do with new and fresh. We are a culture obsessed with youth! I think we need to change this and value what isn't always "new." We should value age and time, because that is from where comes knowledge and wisdom and experience. You don't earn "new." I wish we gave more honor to experience and those that aren't so shiny and new anymore. It is overvalued in our culture and we spend millions of dollars and heartache in our quest for all things new and fresh and the appearance/projection of youth.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I appreciate you taking the time to comment!