Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth, and you should save it for someone you love. –Butch Hancock, country singer/songwriter
_________________________
COLORADO SPRINGS — After dessert, the 63 men stood and read aloud a covenant “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.”
The gesture signaled that the fathers would guard their daughters from what evangelicals consider a profoundly corrosive “hook-up culture.” The evening, which alternated between homemade Christian rituals and giddy dancing, was a joyous public affirmation of the girls’ sexual abstinence until they wed. (from “Dancing the Night Away, With a Higher Purpose,” New York Times, May 19, 2008.)
The photo is of a “Purity Ball” in Colorado Springs, where evangelical dads pledge to protect the “purity” of their daughters until marriage. It’s one of a growing number of such balls from coast to coast. “It’s a huge effort,” said one evangelical father. “A single ball won’t do it. Spreading the message that abstinence works takes a lot of balls.”1
Let’s begin by recognizing my common ground with these evangelical fathers. I too want to keep my daughters from becoming pregnant (and my son from getting someone pregnant) before certain events run their course. “Certain events” for me include education and time getting to know one’s adult self; for evangelicals, it’s marriage. So let’s just say we’re both happier with the idea of a daughter who is pregnant at 25 than at 15. I’ll call that common ground. But then the ground opens up. The Times article continues:
“Fathers, our daughters are waiting for us,” [event host] Mr. Wilson, 49, told the men. “They are desperately waiting for us in a culture that lures them into the murky waters of exploitation. They need to be rescued by you, their dad.”
(”Rapunzel, Rapunzel…”)
“The culture says you’re free to sleep with as many people as you want to,” said Khrystian Wilson, 20, one of the Wilsons’ seven children, including five girls. “What does that get you but complete chaos?”
This is another constant refrain: you have a choice between being Raped by The Culture (one monolithic thing) or being Rescued by the Men of God. Either way, there’s a man on top.
I for one never got the memo that I could sleep with as many people as I wanted to. That’s a bad idea for reasons that go beyond “purity.” The invitation to promiscuity is out there, but so are other voices. How about teaching kids to discern between good messages and bad, even when Dad is not in the room?
For the Wilsons and the growing number of people who have come to their balls, premarital sex is seen as inevitably destructive, especially to girls, who they say suffer more because they are more emotional than boys.
There was a time when I’d revel in the double entendres of that sentence, but I’m far too mature now. Instead, let me point out the continuing message that girls are weak and in need of male rescue.
Recent studies have suggested that close relationships between fathers and daughters can reduce the risk of early sexual activity among girls and teenage pregnancy…Abstinence is never mentioned at the Colorado Springs Purity Ball, but a litany of fathers’ duties is — mainly, making time to get involved in their daughters’ lives and setting an example.
Excellent! Again we overlap as evangelicals find their desires in sync with the research. But as the name “Purity Ball,” the white dresses and the constant pledging make clear, S-E-X in general and abstinence in particular are the unmentioned elephants humping in the corner. As is so often the case in the evangelical movement, any research that is inconvenient to their preferred narrative is simply ignored. The abstinence-only approach, like so many of our well-intentioned crusades, makes things worse:
But studies have also shown that most teenagers who say they will remain abstinent, like those at the ball, end up having sex before marriage, and they are far less likely to use condoms than their peers.
An inconvenient truth.
In a ballroom after dinner, bare but for a seven-foot wooden cross at one end, the fathers and daughters gathered along the walls. Kevin Moore, there with his three girls, told the men they were taking a stand for their families and their nation. Then he and Mr. Wilson walked to the cross with two large swords, which they held up before it to make an arch.
Is it chilling in here, or is it just me? Read that bolded passage again — an amazing condensation of religion, militarism, nationalism, authority, and patriarchy. That’s our favorite soporific, a seductive brew that bubbles up over and over in human history, right before everything goes to flaming hell.
Each father and his daughter walked under the arch and knelt before the cross. Synthesized hymns played. The fathers sometimes held their daughters and whispered a short prayer, and then the girls each placed a white rose, representing purity, at the foot of the cross.
The girls, many wearing purity rings, made silent vows. “I promise to God and myself and my family that I will stay pure in my thoughts and actions until I marry,” said Katie Swindler, 16. Every half-hour, Mr. Wilson stopped the dancing so that fathers could bless their daughters before everyone.
Yeesh. Yeesh.
One of things that most deeply saddens me about all this is the way it demonizes sex. Yes, it’s a powerful thing. It can turn your world upside down in several ways, not all of them good. But I want my kids to know that it’s also beautiful and amazing and fun and good. It’s the reason we’re here, after all. In evolutionary terms, it’s the best thing there is, which is why it’s fun.
Connor and I have talked about the fact that our bodies “want” to have sex for evolutionary reasons as well as emotional ones. Imagine two populations, I said. One is wired up to enjoy sex; the other is indifferent to it. Which one is going to pass its genes along, and which will die out? He got it immediately, even declared it “so cool.” And when his body starts insisting that sex is a good idea, he won’t be blindsided by the feeling (unlike some kids in Schenectady). He’ll understand it, which gives him a better chance of staying in control of it. If instead kids learn that these feelings are evil and inspired by Satan, they’ll spend their adolescence convulsed with guilt and retain a deeply dysfunctional view of their bodies and of themselves.
Equating abstinence with “purity” sends the instant message that sex is not a great good but something that renders us impure. Evangelicals counter that it suddenly goes from purely impure to wholly holy after marriage — but by then you’ve rather insulted and debased it, haven’t you? Just imagine the confusion in these kids’ heads when that coin suddenly flips.
[Thanks to Hemant Mehta, I think, for bringing Purity Balls to my attention.]
________________
1Unfortunately I made this one up.
Visit the new BY THE NUMBERS page for some interesting sex ed stats.
View the documentary Abstinence Comes to Albuquerque on Google Video (2006, 27 min.) The compelling story of a faith-based organization using federal funds to bring abstinence-only sex education into public schools in Albuquerque.
I meant to comment on this when Hemant posted on it, but here’s even better.
I often freak out my relative when they talk about how fast my girls are growing up and how soon I’ll hvae to start watching out for boys! I usually reply, “Well I certainly Hope my girls get to have sex in High School, because I didn’t and I realy think it screwed me up.”
Of course these folks are talking about me being abstinent. I’m a guy. I’m sure there’s a sly wink and nod when their lil boy soldiers for jesus sow a few wild oats before their blessed day. As long as they don’t “spoil” any of the precious little angels in white. I’m sure the lads can find some of “those” kinds of girls down at the public high school.
The other thing I hate about these abstinence nuts is the whole waiting for marriage thing certainly does not take into account people who don’t get married young. Due to, well lets face it, social incompetance on my part, I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 25. I didn’t get married until I was 33. According to these nutjobs I was supposed to wait until I was 33 to have sex?
Trust me, our country does not have strict enough gun control laws to handle a large population of middle aged virgins.
Comment: blotzphoto – 23. May 2008 @ 12:03 pm
P.S.
I’m pretty sure my wife would not have married me if I hadn’t put out by the 4th date or so. Seems to enjoy that sex stuff.
Lucky me…
Comment: blotzphoto – 23. May 2008 @ 12:05 pm
That’s a Gandhi quote, right?
In preparing one of her chapters in Raising Freethinkers, Amanda Metskas uncovered something I’d never thought of before: The average age of first marriage is increasing even as the onset of puberty drops. In 1960, the two events were separated by an average of 8-9 years (depending on gender and other factors). In 2008, the separation averages 16 years. Delayed marriage (a good thing, I’d say) accounts for most of the increased gap. But it makes for an insane amount of time to to do battle with Satan.
Comment: Dale – 23. May 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Most jaw dropping for me in that Schenectady article you linked to was how the message “masturbation feels good” was such a problem for some of them. Do they think this statement is incorrect? Are they that repressed? Or do they think their kids won’t figure it out if nobody tells them? I’m guessing the majority of people figure this one out on their own.
Also…so, they don’t want their kids to engage in pre-marital sex. Fine, I understand that. But they also want to deny them masturbation? Doesn’t the lack of the former lead to the latter?
Comment: Jim Lemire – 23. May 2008 @ 12:15 pm
This creeped me out when I read it at Hemant’s site and now I’m creeped out again. Thanks, Dale
The whole thing just screams of repression,sexism, and denial. Why can’t mothers be involved in protecting their daughters purity? Why don’t boys need to stay pure? Why? . . Wha? . . .How? *head explodes*
Comment: HappyNat – 23. May 2008 @ 12:29 pm
You are anticipating an upcoming post! I dove deeply into the conservative religious parenting literature while working on Raising Freethinkers, and yes, you’ve got it precisely correct. All bodily pleasure is to be hated and feared. Masturbation is explicitly condemned by all three Abrahamic religions in weirdly psychotic terms. Anyone wondering why the priest scandals happened is now free to move on to other ponderings. (More later on this…)
Comment: Dale – 23. May 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Off topic a bit I suppose, but re-reading this made me wonder if these people (not to sound condescending or anything) have dozens of kids and if not, why not?
What is the natural birth rate for a couple having regular intercourse without any protection over the course of the woman’s reproductive life? And shouldn’t it be higher now than in the past given our medical/health advances? So I would expect the families discussed above to be larger than families in previous generations. But is this true? Do anti-contraceptive groups still utilize “natural birth control” and family planning?
Comment: Jim Lemire – 23. May 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Most modern denominations (including evangelicals, I’m pretty sure) are OK with contraception in marriage. Catholics are the exception, and most American Catholics ignore this doctrine of late. Now go back 100 years and nearly EVERY denomination was opposed to any form of artificial birth control. Fortunately for them, there weren’t many.
Comment: Dale – 23. May 2008 @ 1:45 pm
I read this in the NYT the other day, and the first thought that jumped to mind was that the men who inflict honor killings and female circumcision on their daughters have exactly the same motive as these upstanding dads — protecting the purity of their daughters (sisters, etc.) .
Comment: SerotoninZen – 23. May 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Men telling women what to do with their bodies always ends in weirdness.
Comment: Dale – 23. May 2008 @ 3:23 pm
I was going to make a similar comment to SeretoninZen. I’m reading Infidel (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), and there is so much in there (including her genital mutilation) about that follows the same thought patterns we see here (albiet to a more extreme end).
My husband and I have talked about this a lot. We think that his being involved in her life is a one influence that will make her feel better about herself, and less likely to seek out “love” from random guys-I saw that with my friends(maybe even myself) with distant fathers at that age. However also importantly will be my influence. I’ve lived through being a young girl and making decisions about sex.
It really bugs me that the mother and sons aren’t even mentioned. Let’s just protect the innocent little girls from being “spoiled” for their future husbands. That’s what it’s really about.
-Kelly
Comment: matsonwaggs – 23. May 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Is there some evolutionary irony here?
These (undoubted) creationists are doing their best to ensure the parental investment that their daughters make is optimised by being in a relationship in which the father is involved.
Meanwhile, their sons, whose genes’ best interests are served by promiscuity, are left to sow their wild oats as they please.
If only they realised the almighty G they are serving is genetics, not god!
Sphagnum aka Heathenist
Comment: sphagnum – 23. May 2008 @ 4:38 pm
I realize that none of this is to be laughed about, but I started guffawing at the Butch Hancock quote, giggled down to the #1 footnote, past the part about not getting the memo about sleeping with as many people as you wanted to, and couldn’t see the computer screen for the tears in my eyes by the time I was trying to keep myself from filling in all the double entendres I am immature enough to fill in for ya…
all the while humming Onward Christian Soldiers…
Comment: leslie – 23. May 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Hey, no need to ever apologize for seeing the humor. I think it’s crucial to keep one eye on the silliness of it all. I learned that in my last year at the Catholic college when I felt my sense of humor hemorrhaging. I told Becca that I was terrified I was losing that. I forced myself to find it all at least a bit funny–and it saved me. I hate to get all serious about silliness, but it really can see you through a huge amount of bullshit. I’m thrilled that I made you laugh.
Comment: Dale – 23. May 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Normally I love reading this blog, but I feel like people are going to extremes to get offended over what I think is a somewhat weird but generally well-intentioned phenomenon.
No one ever said that mothers have no role in looking out for their girls, or their boys, for that matter. Not all Christian parents teach their kids that sexual thoughts are evil or from Satan (mine certainly didn’t). I’m not sure whether the double “yeesh” was directed at fathers blessing their daughters (the horror!) or girls deciding to make a commitment about the way their own sex lives would unfold. I’m also not sure why a quote from a single young woman is justification for the straw man that evangelical Christians only see the world in shades of “rape by the culture” or “rescue by the men of God.”
While I agree that purity balls are not exactly the coolest invention of Christian subculture, I feel like Dale (and many of the posters) are seeing crazy, repressive, sex-obsessed patriarchs where there are probably (though perhaps not only) just loving dads.
Comment: sarahliza – 24. May 2008 @ 2:52 am
Having been in that crazy, repressive, sex-obsessed patriarchy for 18 years, I’d say Dale and many of the posters are hitting the nail on the head. I know very few people who did grow up in it who have a healthy sex life, married or not, now. I spent my time reading this post nodding like a bobblehead doll.
-Betsy
Comment: ondfly123 – 24. May 2008 @ 10:40 am
I’m really glad you chimed in! I agree completely that this, like most expressions of fundamentalism, is well-intentioned. I make that point in the seminars as often as possible — that it’s important to constantly remind ourselves of the good intentions of religious relatives, etc. But I also think good intentions do not excuse the very sad outcomes of this kind of thinking.
Yes, we must be careful not to overgeneralize. Fortunately most commenters (and the post itself) are talking about this ritual, which does weirdly and tellingly exclude the mothers. As such, it’s typical of the movement: evangelicals firmly place mothers in a secondary role, and I see no reason to hide one’s offense at that. Here’s a characteristic passage:
“The responsibility for bringing children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord rests upon fathers. Although we may delegate this authority to a mother, a Christian school teacher, Sunday school teacher, etc., we cannot escape the fact that the father is fully accountable for the task.” (from “A Father’s Responsibility – Training From a United Front” by Gary Maldaner)
Now now, be careful. A rereading of the post will show that I referred to evangelicals every single time, not “Christians.” You need to be equally careful to notice when someone isn’t using a broad brush.
It was directed at what I see as the extremely creepy invocation of repetitive magical ritual in lieu of reason, including the constant equation of sex and impurity. Others are free to find that charming, but it sends a chill down my spine, and I should be free to express that. (And I’m not alone: Google “purity ball” and “creepy” in the same search and you’ll get 2,700 hits.)
As for the girls “deciding” anything, I can’t say I see any such thing going on.
Surely you don’t think I based that on a single quote. I work very hard to avoid constructing straw men, so I’d be grateful for your help in seeing where I’ve gone wrong there. That claim is based on many, many years of close examination of evangelicalism, and it seems to me precisely the choice rendered by the evangelical movement — black and white, Satan or Jesus, Matthew 12:30. “The Culture” is spoken of as a single vile thing, and evangelical Christianity as the single alternative.
Again, thanks so much for commenting, and let me know where I’m missing connections here. I don’t want to do that.
Comment: Dale – 24. May 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Thanks Betsy. Glad to hear I’m not too far off.
Anybody else out there with first-hand experience want to chime in on accuracy? I *really* do not want to waste anyone’s time with straw men. At the same time, I do not want to pull back from a valid critique of an extremely influential attitude toward sex and sexuality that has found its way into federal policy. Here are some relevant numbers from the by the numbers page:
(Citations here.)
Comment: Dale – 24. May 2008 @ 12:56 pm
There are ostensibly-analagous mother/son events called Integrity Balls. I say ostensibly, because while it’s hard to find information on them, what I have read conveys a very different power dynamic.
Unfortunately, the only detailed source I know of seems to have gone away, and for me google only turns up discussions linking that one source, but this Feministe post contains some excerpts.
Comment: Mercredi – 25. May 2008 @ 11:21 am
Nice link, thanks. Feministe is a damn good blog. The Integrity Ball appears to have been an afterthought of some sort that didn’t take off in quite the manner of the Purity Balls. I’m also finding only the one reference via Dakota Voice.
(Demitri Martin does a standup routine in which he says “Cotton balls is one example of something I’d buy, but wouldn’t want to have as a nickname.” As for Integrity Balls, I think the reverse is true.)
Comment: Dale – 25. May 2008 @ 4:44 pm
[...] favorite blogs – http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/, and I happened to see a post called: “sex and the balls of the evangelical”, and the following quote at the top of the page really cracked me up. “Life in Lubbock, Texas [...]
Pingback: “sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth, and you should save it for someone you love” « Mom’s a religious nut & Dad was an atheist – 05. June 2008 @ 12:18 am
FYI – TLC is showing an hour long special on purity balls this week. I am curious to see how they will present the topic.
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=2.1213.55996.37145.0
Comment: Ryan – 28. October 2008 @ 9:11 am