I can't do it anymore. I can't possibly keep up with the competition, who are willing to sink to sick, perverse depths to which the real porn kings and queens willingly immerse themselves. And they're so close to me—just a few miles to the west, across that state line.
I'm talking about South Dakota.
They're sick puppies over there. I'm feeling a little tense sitting this close to them; maybe we should put up a razorwire fence or something.
Never in my rather exotic (I thought) imagination would I dream up a scenario like the Purity Ball, where daughters gaze deeply into their father's eyes and promise
…to remain sexually pure … until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. … I know that God requires this of me … that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.
That is just so disturbing. Daddies of the world, keep your hands off your daughter's sexuality, OK? Raise them to be independent and thoughtful and informed and able to make their own decisions, and then just trust them.
Unfortunately, it seems that these South Dakotans raise their daughters to think of themselves as a gift to be given to a man. That might be the source of the problem right there.
Another problem is that they let certifiably batshit insane (this is, I think, a clinically valid term in South Dakota) people speak for them. As one small example, here's how the organizer of these Purity Balls, Leslee Unruh, responds to a comment.
HINOJOSA:
And people might say, "Well, the way you prevent unwanted pregnancies is through contraception."UNRUH:
No. It's wrong. We don't need, we don't have a shortage of condoms in this country. We should not be worshipping condoms. Let's start just telling the truth.
We shouldn't? So the little altar with the Trojan-wrapped dildo in the living room is something I should take down? Somewhere in crazytown that response might make sense to someone who is wearing their underpants on their head, but in the real world, in a state where about 50% of the teenagers are sexually active, pretending that giving good information on contraception is "condom worship" is just nuts.
I don't think Ms Unruh is actually interested in the truth. This discussion of a South Dakota panel to review the evidence is illustrative.
HINOJOSA:
So you had an understanding that this was a panel that was gonna really look at scientific research and analyze this.DR. BELL:
Yes.HINOJOSA:
Is that what happened?DR. BELL:
No, not at all. Very early in the process vi-- it became very clear that looking at scien-- rigorous scientific evidence was not where we were gonna go.HINOJOSA:
Give me an example.DR. BELL:
The blatant disregard for scientific facts, government statistics. They went on and on in the report about the errors that occur at the CDC and vital statistics. Which is-- I mean that's the best in the world. Our CDC gets asked to go to every country in the world to-- to review vital statistics, and this committee disregards government statistics because it doesn't fit their agenda.
So in the world of the real porn masters, they disregard all evidence, the gears of their mind are stripped and spinning like wobbly pie plates, and they promote dances where daddy plays the boyfriend surrogate and daughters promise to wrap their crotch in saran wrap until they are sold in bondage to some equally ignorant conservative farm boy.
I can't match that. I'm going to have to stick to squid in love.
- Log in to post comments
I saw the piece about the Purity Ball, and let me second PZ's sentiment: that purity oath bit was definitely weird.
This is so backwards. Certainly, I am god's gift to women. Clearly the other way around can't be true.
Seriously though. These completely backwards ideas about sex probably drive a good number of people away from these nutty religions (that's what happened with me anyway). As long as we can keep secular culture at large sexually liberal, the number of people willing to fall for this crap will continue to shrink.
"to remain sexually pure ... until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me ... that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness."
How many abortion or teenage pregnancies are there in SD?
This is gross. In all ways. On all levels. Gross.
Talk about gross now:
I don't have the words. It's beyond revolting. It's *&^%$#@! child abuse.
Okay, when my husband mentioned it . . . a father/daughter chastity ball . . . I immediately said . . . "well those fathers better be chaste with their daughters or it's just too creepy for words . . . or rather there is a word 'incest.'"
This . . . and all these other attitudes, pledges, about sex, sexuality, etc. is all about controlling girls' crotches . . . saran wrap indeed.
My son goes to an online school with a bunch of these religios who frequently complain/comment on "the devils" actions. And, apparently hormones have nothing to do with teen sexual behavior . . . only the devil. And, then, they screech that they are glad that my three sons can't go near their daughters, because they've been taught basic biology and to believe in science and not unseen mystical entity that has a huge problem with sex, even though that's the mechanism the entity was supposed to have given us to procreate . . .
It is scary, it is creepy, it's daft, it's whack!
I'm so glad to be able to be in community with you science types . . . even though I'm a humanities/arts girl myself! Viva la Science!
another proud member of the reality based community who thinks that sex is a-okay!
SEX IS ICKY!
I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with a "purity pledge" (though this specific one with the father is a tad on the creepy side) so long as you are still providing the child with the most accurate and complete information possible about their sexuality AND their responsibility. But this is just not how it plays out in the "abstinence-only" crowd.
Take that "Ring Thing" for example. Those seminars are rife with misinformation for the sake of generating fear (not to mention the reinforcing the "be one of the crowd" nonsense).
I'm all for encouraging abstinence, but not at the detriment of education.
Yikes. I hope my baby son doesn't end up with one of these giftwrapped virgins some day. Just imagine the let down...on both sides...on the wedding night. PZ, your advice to fathers of daughters is so right on the mark. What this world needs is more strong, confident, independent women.
That's just sick, sick, sick! I don't blame you for being nervous about living so close to South Dakota...
you're absolutely correct pz---they are perverse beyond mere pornographers. there is just so much sublimated sex in that scenario. roadtripper got it right. not merely child abuse. *&^%$#@! child abuse!!!!!!
As there's nothing impure about sex, I think such pledges are all about control, and as such are wrong.
This is exactly the abortion recovery pablum that I mentioned in another post--"empty cradle!" "victimization!" etc. "If only someone had imposed his will upon me then, and given me the freedom to not make that choice!" blah, blah. You might as well have a damn funeral for all of the millions of sperm and eggs that never get together at all. It's the same result, isn't it?
sun myung moon's words are disturbing beyond belief. i now see why christian conservatives love him. and this south dakota thing? fucking crazy...it makes me sick to share my citizenship with some of the most morally and psychologically retarded people on the planet.
Oh man, that "Purity Ball" thing is disturbing (I wanted to say "creepy", but thelemurgod beat me to it.) Tell you one thing for sure, my daughter (8 mo old now) won't be raised that way--my wife and I are both committed to teaching her the hard facts, giving her alternatives, just plain preparing her to make informed choices--and to protect herself when the time comes (whether before or after marriage).
Purity Ball--ugh--I'll never watch porn again!......Aw, who'm I kiddin'?
As there's nothing impure about sex, I think such pledges are all about control, and as such are wrong.
Well, the word "purity" is a little off (just using common terminology), but I would have to disagree that it is always about control (well, external control). I've known young couples that, by their own volition, make as part of their commitment to each other a pledge to wait until marriage (whether or not they live up to it, is another matter entirely). Certainly this in and of itself is not a horrendous thing.
I initially just skimmed the text of the post, which makes mis-reading easy.
I thought that "Purity Ball" was the name of some pr0n starlet.
An easy mistake to make, since only perverted people spend more than 0.3 neuron-seconds worring about "purity." Healthy people don't think there's something impure about having sex, or even just being female in the first place.
Don't forget the other trend - according to some recent surveys, those teenagers who take purity pledges are a lot more likely than other teenagers to engage in oral and anal sex instead.
Soooo creepy to make your sexuality a part of your relationship with your parents, and you'll notice that there are no sons vowing in front of their mothers to remain chaste.
If these fathers really believe this is appropriate, maybe they should publicly vow to their daughters that they won't molest them or cheat on their mothers...oh, wait, sexual purity and fidelity is only for people who can get pregnant and bring shame to their families.
Or we could define "purity" as "not making quasi-incestuous oath-taking a definition of purity".
Nah. Too self-reflexive.
How about "not lying through our teeth and sabotaging other peoples' health to promote our ideas"?
Nah. Too unlikely.
Second Dan wrote:
SEX IS ICKY!
As Woody Allen might say, "Yeah, if you do it right."
And especially if there are tentacles involved.
"according to some recent surveys, those teenagers who take purity pledges are a lot more likely than other teenagers to engage in oral and anal sex instead. "
Exactly. Isn't that a hilarious result of these pledges. Clearly, the purity plege should be expanded to include all orifices. Because it wasn't creepy enough before. ;)
Creepy, creepy, creepy!!
Just more proof that Christianity is truly one of the most effective STDs out there.
PZ, you need to get your terminology correct if you're going to try and use it.
It's "batshit fucking loco".
Daddies of the world, keep your hands off your daughter's sexuality, OK?
Funny. Why don't you keep your hands off the way people choose to raise their children? Oh, no. You can't do that. You're a liberal. It's your duty to butt in to the personal lives of conservatives, but then condemn them when they do the same to you.
Raise them to be independent and thoughtful and informed and able to make their own decisions, and then just trust them.
And decades of STDs and teen pregnancies has shown us where that thinking leads.
Ugh...When I read that "daughters gaze deeply into their father's eyes" while discussing their sexuality, I immediately thought of the state's "no exception for incest" rule. Creepy!
If I may paraphrase Genesis 19:36: "South Dakota's Purity Ball: Thus were the daughters of lots with child by their fathers."
lee
Unruh's "Abstinence Clearinghouse" has a blog! The posts are all wonderfully inane bits such as:
Studies! Wonderful studies! Studies of "harm" to "culture," whatever that even means. Studies too important to be mentioned by name. Revel in their importance.
After watching only a few minutes of the show, I was reminded of how President Reagan wanted Surgeon General Koop to issue a report on how abortion was harmful to women who had one. Koop told Reagan to get stuffed, the facts said otherwise. How rare such integrity is today!
but in the real world, in a state where about 50% of the teenagers are sexually active, pretending that giving good information on contraception is "condom worship" is just nuts.
And there we have it, wrapped neatly up. The problem with the MRT (materially relativist tyrant) position: "they're all doing it. They can't be stopped. Let's have them do it right."
To you, PZ and the rest of your echo chamber sycophants, the human is an animal, incapable of self-control. They're gonna have sex, they can't help themselves.
But we AREN'T animals. We ARE capable of control. To suggest otherwise is to demean the wonder that evolution has brought about.
So, why NOT strive for making one's sexuality a gift to give to your spouse? Why not strive for the higher, disciplined calling? You know discipline, PZ. You had to engage in it so you could obtain all those fancy degrees that allow you to teach at Morris.
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets, and that ain't happening, not even in uber-liberal compounds like SF and Morris, Minnesota.
"They are marching proudly backwards to the future." That's from the new book The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual. It's at www.homelanddecency.com
Because that would be no fun. Because it's important to know that you and your future spouse are compatible in the bedroom as well as out. Because, in a world with such advanced contraceptives and STD protections, there's no good reason to do so.
Duh.
The American Talaban is alive and well! Women need to have their devilish wanton ways controlled. Maybe a veil to hide them from being looked upon, hey, it works elsewheres......
"spouse"
Compass,
Why, oh why, aren't there Mother/Son balls? Why aren't boys signing these pledges? This is not about abstinence. It's not about preventing pregnancy or keeping daughters from harm. It's about controlling one's daughter's sexual organs. As digby points out, at the same time the father's worrying about the daughter's virginity, he's afraid his son's gonna turn out gay, so he wants him on the football team, with all the girls wanting to go out with.
They want the sons to be manly, attracted to and by the sons' female classmates.
Don't you see something of a problem here?
Wait wait wait, I forgot "Who wants to spend his|her wedding night with a person who's never had sex before?" That strikes me as needlessly stressful.
JMcH:
Are you serious? Teen pregnancy has been continually declining since statistics were first kept in the 1940s. Nice try.
So, why NOT strive for making one's sexuality a gift to give to your spouse? Why not strive for the higher, disciplined calling?, said Compass.
Hey, if somebody else wants to "strive" to make his/her sexuality a "gift," that's fine with me. But don't try to imply it's in any way higher, better, or more disciplined to hold out as long as possible. Studies show (actually, my personal store of anecdotes shows...) that people who wait for marriage to have sex tend to get married younger, hornier and stupider.
My sweetie and I (married ten years and counting) were talking about this the other night, and we agreed it should be illegal to marry the first person you have sex with. Well, maybe not illegal, but exposed as a not-so-good idea.
Everybody's got ya-yas. Get your ya-yas out in a safe, contracepted, condom-wearing fashion... and then you can think clearly about relationships and the ultimate place of sexuality within them. Store up your ya-yas and you get eighteen-year-old dumbshits marrying each other, pumping out a series of dumbshit children and divorcing early.
And, oh yeah...
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets
Replace "sexual appetite" with "excretory urge" and "rutting" with "shitting" and the true absurdity of this statement is revealed.
The problem, douche bag, is that you're not keeping your ****ing hands off of my daughter. You're trying to control her through your attacking sex education and ability to get any sort of reproductive/contraceptive choice in her life.
You're the one interfering in the rights of others. Not the "liberals." Keep your daugher home and locked in a chastity belt for all I care. If your daughter suffers the consequences of your bat-shit stuipid ideas, too bad for the both of you because by the time she gets interested in sex, she'll be able to circumvent your BS and get the right scoop - if she's willing. But we don't want our daughters to suffer with yours, too, because you amoral Christo-facists have locked all the options away.
Are you willfully ignorant? The stats are clear -- the "absinence only crowd" gets more STDs because they (drum roll please) are just as damn sexually active as the non-abstinence crowd -- only their ****ing too ignorant to know how to minimize STD transmission and pregnancies.
Dang, but your a poster child for stupidity and ignorance.
"Studies show (actually, my personal store of anecdotes shows...) that people who wait for marriage to have sex tend to get married younger, hornier and stupider."
Fabulous point. Having grown up with, in, among, and part of a fundamentalist group, I second that observation. I know an awful lot of people who got married at or before the age of 21, in large part because they simply couldn't stand to live without sex any damned longer. Their parents were all for it, because getting married was so much better than the sinful alternative. And as we all know, horny teenagers are completely capable of judging who they'll be most compatible with for the rest of their lives.... did I mention that the divorce rate among 30-somethings in that group is fairly high also?
For those of you who have applied the "shut up" filter to JMcH, he was bitching at us to stop telling him to keep his hands off his daughter's sexuality. I guess that just says it all, doesn't it?
You want creepy? I gotcher creepy right here, honest to goodness photos from the "Purity Ball:"
http://www.abstinence.net/photos/index.php?id=b3ae357887597bf8e32c7a674…
You just know that you're going to be seeing those pics on "America's Most Wanted" someday.
Compass--
Seems to me that you're advocating security through obscurity. Doesn't work in the computer world; doesn't work in real life.
And the stats are clear, indeed--teaching abstinence only leads to MORE STDS and MORE sexual behavior. I think it has something to do with treating teens as idiots---they tend not to trust folks who do that.
If you want teens to treat their sexuality with more reverance and respect, how about treating teens with more respect? Teach them everything, and emphasize the morality--just don't leave anything out.
Can I get that on a t-shirt?
Ah, but you couldn't be more wrong. We ARE animals. That is the point!
However, it isn't about self control. It is about knowledge. It isn't about giving the "gift" of sex to a spouse. It is about learning! It is about sexual compatibility. How many divorces come about because of incompatible sexual drives and desires? Woody Allen has had a career exploring that very question! How would you know if you saved it for the wedding night? Isn't it too late by then?
This isn't about having sex with everyone and everything you can. It is about making informed choices. It is about knowing the difference between "making love" and "f$#*ing."
However, most of all, it is about CHOICE. If you don't educate them on "why they shouldn't" and the media is full of "why they should" then you end up with individuals who do not have enough information to make an informed choice. These are the ones that end up in trouble. In the clinics with an unwanted pregnancy. The stats back this up too!
Ms. Unruh had an abortion which she regrets. I wonder if she felt pressured to have the abortion because of the "shame" of having an illegitimate baby. If so I feel very very sorry for her - having an abortion for the wrong reason must be emotionally painful. She has to realize that she can't unmake her mistake by coercing others to make different mistakes. Increasing girls' shame about not being "pure" can only lead to giving up wanted babies, underground abortions, or bad marriages. That was the way we did things back in the good old pre-Rowe days.
Of course if she's just a garden-variety hypocrite who made a lot of money off an adoption racket, no sympathy at all.
I myself sleep in my daughter's bed every night to make sure she remains pure.
DouglasG, you miss the point the fundies are making. It's NOT about making love or F#%King at all, those are both disallowed, and sins! It's about having a child ONLY. Sex is a beastly, dirty sinfull act in of itself. NOT ALLOWED, god hates sinfull sex for pleasure!
So the little altar with the Trojan-wrapped dildo in the living room is something I should take down?
If you don't want it, I'll take it -- but only if it's ribbed.
Trollboy:
It's your duty to butt in to the personal lives of conservatives, but then condemn them when they do the same to you.
Who's butting into the personal lives of conservatives?
We're only pointing that, as a matter of incontrovertible fact, there are fundies in South Dakota who evidently like to look into their pre-pubescent daughter's eyes and think about their daughter's pussies and who organize bizarre little ceremonies just for that purpose.
Me, I think that's fucked up. But then again fundy nutcases do all sorts of fucked up things.
(shrug)
So... tell me again which bit of the bible says to keep your goolies hidden until they rust? Was that before or after the bit that says you should execute people who work on a sunday?
I don't remember Jesus saying anything about chastity, come to think of it. Admittedly I was right down the back, but I could have sworn he was saying something about being tolerant.
This is less a Christian thing than a "OMG yucky sex!" Puritan thing. Way too many people listening to some poor folk with profound issues regarding their sexuality, as far as I can see. It's a mighty tribute to mental illness, and for that we can be proud, but I doubt it's the best way to develop parenting techniques.
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets.
And Molly responded:
Replace "sexual appetite" with "excretory urge" and "rutting" with "shitting" and the true absurdity of this statement is revealed.
I was going to point out that I don't see people eating food "in the streets" all that often --folks seem to like congregatin' in restaurants and dining rooms and so on to do that better than they do scarfing down food "in the streets," and they adjust their practice of satisfying this particular biological urge accordingly--but Molly's rejoinder is obviously better than mine.
I myself sleep in my daughter's bed every night to make sure she remains pure.
Posted by: J/\/\cH | April 18, 2006 01:11 PM
Oh, how cute. Now you've resorted to lame attempts to impersonate me. And **I'm** the one who's the "troll?"
Now, I'm sure PZ will allow that comment to stay even though he'd never allow a comment from someone impersonating him to remain.
Hey, jinxy, why won't you explain your understanding of 'Biblical inerrancy' to us? Isn't it IMPORTANT to you?
The problem, douche bag, is that you're not keeping your ****ing hands off of my daughter. You're trying to control her through your attacking sex education and ability to get any sort of reproductive/contraceptive choice in her life.
Oh, so that justifies you sticking your noses where they don't belong? So in other words, you're hypocrites.
And no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. "Attacking" sex ed in public schools (which is an absolute joke and deserves to be "attacked") and supporting the abolition of abortion (which is what you actually mean by "any sort of reproductive/contraceptive choice") are not matters of control over anyone but our own children. The world you dream of is where kids are given free reign over whatever they want to do sexually without any heed for their parent's wishes. You probably would be happy with huge bowls of condemns... er, sorry... condoms available in every classroom in a school and the school nurse performing abortions of kids without their parents' knowledge or consent. (Why is abortion the only medical procedure you people don't want parental consent for?)
Oh, let me guess. Having control over one's own children is wrong (at least when it comes to sex).
"But we ARE'NT animals."
Really? What kingdom are we in?
Maybe you should read "The Naked Ape". It has a pretty good section on human sexuality and why humans tend toward monogamy. Notice I said tend.
And recent studies have shown that STD rates and teen pregnancy rates are highest in states that primarily use abstinence only sex ed. (or as I call it "no sex ed.")
I would suggest that the the S.D. abstinence police add another bit of legislation to the books; this time criminalizing divorce. This measure would surely curtail the number of dumb sluts who gave it away to the wrong guy. I can't imagine the horrible discomfort of how any loving father could possibly explain to his pure daughter why mommy gets a pass for having once gobbled another man's cock. So, for the sake of purity, its one penis and one penis only. Screw that up and you gotta become the neighborhood cat lady.
Everybody can go home now. JMcH just won the internet.
I mean, really. I can't imagine anyone out there being either (a) more obtuse or (b) more dishonest than JMcH was in that little paragraph there. We should all just give up and go watch reality TV until our brains dribble from our ears.
And don't say the sexual appetite is like hunger, an unavoidable appetite/instinct. If that were true, people would be rutting in the streets.
Or maybe in their cars. Or in parks.
Like that never happens, dipshit.
Or maybe in their cars. Or in parks.
I prefer the beach, but maybe that's just a Southern California thing...
Trollboy
And no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite.
No, that makes you an idiot (which we already knew).
You seem to be unable to appreciate the distinction between legislation which affects everyone and some people in the comments section of a blog saying that some South Dakotan fundie daddies are pervs who fetishize their prepubescent daughters' hymens.
How dumb does that make you? Piles of dog poop, stumps, and fenceposts come to mind.
Just to throw some empirical evidence (ugly data has such a way of slaying beautiful hypotheses) on the floor (putting a bit of data into the debate):
One paper from a quick PubMed search: Bennett SE, Assefi NP (2005). School-based teenage pregnancy prevention programs: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Adolesc Health. 36(1):72-81.
"Abstract: We compared school-based abstinence-only programs with those including contraceptive information (abstinence-plus) to determine which has the greatest impact on teen pregnancy. The United States has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. Programs aimed at reducing the rate of teen pregnancy include a myriad of approaches including encouraging abstinence, providing education about birth control, promoting community service activities, and teaching skills to cope with peer pressure. We systematically reviewed all published randomized controlled trials of secondary-school-based teen pregnancy prevention programs in the United States that used sexual behavior, contraceptive knowledge, contraceptive use, and pregnancy rates as outcomes."
"Conclusion: Nationwide, over half of teens aged 15 to 19 are sexually active. Most of the decline in the teenage pregnancy rate over the past decade can be attributed to increased contraceptive use, with a small contribution from decreased sexual activity. To reduce the rates of teen pregnancy, programs must either improve teenage contraceptive behaviors, reduce teens' sexual activity, or both. The variability in study populations, interventions, and outcomes of existing school-based trials of teen pregnancy prevention, and the paucity of studies directly comparing abstinence-only and abstinence plus curricula, preclude a definitive conclusion regarding which type of program is most effective. Nevertheless, our results indicate that the majority of abstinence-plus programs increase rates of contraceptive use in teens, and one study showed the effects to last for at least 30 months. Whether abstinence-only or abstinence-plus programs will prove more effective at altering teens' sexual behavior remains an unanswered question. In the absence of strong evidence that either type of program can affect sexual activity, prohibiting contraceptive education in school-based pregnancy prevention programs prevents students' exposure to information that has the greatest potential to decrease the pregnancy rate. However, community attitudes toward teenage sexuality, not evidence-based medicine, may ultimately determine the acceptability of publicly funded, school-based sex education programs."
Compass
why NOT strive for making one's sexuality a gift to give to your spouse?
Do whatever the fuck you like, compass. After you pop your wife's cherry, you can wave the bloody sheet out the window just like in the "good old days."
Then you can go to church and confess your guilt about your uncontrollable anal desires to your priest.
Just like in the "good old days."
Religious conservatives = societal disease.
Just a quick question:
If sex is so "instinctive", why is "practice" needed before the wedding night? Such an inbred behavior need not be rehearsed beforehand.
Replace "sexual appetite" with "excretory urge" and "rutting" with "shitting" and the true absurdity of this statement is revealed. Nice try. Go out on a 3 day hike with men/women mixed. "Shits" MUST be taken. . .but sex doesn't have to happen. Try again.
Ah, but you couldn't be more wrong. We ARE animals. Well buddy, maybe you are. And that, -as I said earlier- explains it all. Liberals generally consider the human race as no better than animals.
Others do not and strive for something higher.
Oh well. Enjoy grubbing in the mud there, echo chamber denizens.
Do whatever the f*** you like, compass. After you pop your wife's cherry, you can wave the bloody sheet out the window just like in the "good old days."
Then you can go to church and confess your guilt about your uncontrollable anal desires to your priest.
Just like in the "good old days."
Religious conservatives = societal disease.
THAT was articulate. /sarcasm
And your point in that hyperbolic, totally unrepresentational rant was. . . ?
If sex is so "instinctive", why is "practice" needed before the wedding night? Such an inbred behavior need not be rehearsed beforehand.
Compass, have you ever seen a newborn nursing for the first time? Hunger is natural; the suckling urge is instinctual; but they still manage to make a pretty fine mess of it for the first few days of their lives.
And no, perhaps "men/women mixed" (hermaphrodites?) wouldn't necessarily have to get it on during a three-day hike. Extend that hike to three years (hell, probably three MONTHS), though, and I can guaran-damn-tee you there's going to be some mutual exchange of bodily fluids.
Hey, maybe you were born without a sex drive. That's cool... I do feel sorry for you, though... but the very notion that sex is not a natural, instinctive, inescapable drive is, well, just about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. They don't even tell you that at fundie-church... the party line these days is that sex is a wonderful, natural Gift as long as it happens in the Marriage Bed with one's Lawfully/Sacramentally Approved Partner.
(wondering to self what could be "higher" than the amazing, mind-blowing, bodies-and-minds-as-one sex my sweetie and I have been known to have...)
I suddenly have even more sympathy for any potential sexual partners you might have.
Ohhhhh, PZ, SNAP!
JcMH is perhaps the most clueless person ever on this blog.
no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. "Attacking" sex ed in public schools (which is an absolute joke and deserves to be "attacked")
why because they work? Every other developed nation uses them succesfully but it's not good enough for us?
The utter stupidity is just overwhelming.
yeah,thats what everyone wants. Build that strawman.
No it isn't, but it is rather bizarre to be so sure that your method of sexual expression is a one size fit all and that your daughter and her vagina is a gift to be given to a man. How freaking medieval is that.
Compass, have you ever seen a newborn nursing for the first time?
I think we can all agree that the average newborn baby is better at foreplay than compass ever will be.
I hacked the de-Jinxing script to say "Troll comment automagically removed." It looks so cool to see that for message after message. (-:
This topic keeps reminding me of the Kilgore Trout line, "We are healthy only so long as our ideas are humane." Does it really matter that one is pure in body if one is perfectly perverse in mind? Judging from the endless screeds on Dobson's "Focus on the Family" website ranting against porn --- "My son is addicted to Internet pornography! How can I save him through the power of Christ?" --- I'd say not. As always, we go back to Bill Hicks, who said fifteen years ago that if God truly wanted us to "be fruitful and multiply", we'd have centerfolds in the Bible. Miss Deuteronomy. Turn-ons: myrrh...
Everybody go now and watch Perversion for Profit from the Prelinger Archives:
http://www.archive.org/details/Perversi1965
I have to wonder: would one rather give one's spouse a wedding-night present of sexual skill, confidence and compatibility, or one of a broken hymen? Gee, when you say it like that, it's not much of a challenge at all.
Everybody go now and watch Perversion for Profit from the Prelinger Archives:
http://www.archive.org/details/Perversi1965
Blake, you rule. Great flick.
"strive for something higher"
Like using legislation to impose one groups religious beliefs about life on others?
Or is it the attack on science and scientist to drive evolutionary theory out of public education?
If sex is so "instinctive", why is "practice" needed before the wedding night? Such an inbred behavior need not be rehearsed beforehand.
Anyone can piss. But, it takes practice to be able to write Shakespeare in the snow.
But wait, there's more! Act now and we'll throw in a free remix:
http://www.archive.org/details/come_join_the_fun2004
Just because you instinctively know (how|that you want) to doesn't mean that you're any good at it, or that it's easy. That shit is awkward the first time or five.
The point isn't that sex is as strong an urge as shitting. It's that a thing's status as a natural urge does not imply that people are necessary doing it in the streets. As you implied with sex.
Honestly, if you want to why not save yourself, please first give us one good reason to do so.
A troll my software kindly blocked for me said the following, quoted by todd:
It doesn't have to happen, but it should.
Actually, I think the tail end of a three-day hike may be one of those rare times when sex should not happen.
If you simply raise the boys to be geeks, you don't have to worry about the girls.
At least, that's how it works with my boys.
And World of Warcraft is doing wonders to keep them away from icky girls, too.
I think what I'm most disappointed by with compass is that his proposed methods is empirically shown to have the exact opposite effect of what he wants.
Perhaps he should slow down and think about things, and not try to pile up persecution points; what's more important---to look like you're being moral and upright, or to be moral and upright?
OK, speaking more seriously (or at least at one-joke-removed), I can definitely sympathize with Todd's viewpoint. The actual attractiveness of the proposition would depend upon whether the fertility rites happen near the end of the hike or earlier, whether tentacles are involved, etc. I would like to point out, however, that our resident abstinence fetishist automatically assumes a hiking party of mixed gender. I'm sure that the thought of sex in any other combination would be even more infuriating.
I think what I'm most disappointed by with compass is that his proposed methods is empirically shown to have the exact opposite effect of what he wants.
I've long thought that the political policies of the religious right have everything to do with punishing people or stifling discussions they find offensive and nothing to do with actually demonstrably improving real-life outcomes. So to the minds of such people, banning all teaching of contraception to teens is admirable since discussing it would acknowledge the existence of sex outside their own accepted parameters not followed by suffering. The fact that banning discussion of contraception actually has nothing but negative consequences in the real world is actually beside the point to them.
Oh, and I should add, been married 22 years April 28th, my husband was a virgin when I met him, but not for long, and I had slept around enough to know what I needed in a partner. So yeah, it does work that way, too, not just when the guy is the "experienced" one.
And I went to father/daughter banquets, but there was never, ever, ANY talk of sex with my dad. Or my mom, for that matter. We learned what we learned in school, including at least some notion of contraception, and the rest from the occassionally poor experience of others. There were more than a few moms in our high school, and I was bound and determined not to have kids outside of marriage. But sex? Please. OF COURSE I was going to know I was sexually compatible with someone. Duh!
If you simply raise the boys to be geeks, you don't have to worry about the girls.
Are you kidding? There's nothing quite as sexy as a guy who can talk science, computer games, and ideas. Warcraft wouldn't be my personal first choice, but I'm not the right generation for your kids anyway. There's probably some nice, geeky adolescent girl out there waiting to jump them the first time that they notice that she's interested. Hopefully, one of them has done some research on condoms before starting anything too serious.
I've long thought that the political policies of the religious right have everything to do with punishing people or stifling discussions they find offensive and nothing to do with actually demonstrably improving real-life outcomes. So to the minds of such people, banning all teaching of contraception to teens is admirable since discussing it would acknowledge the existence of sex outside their own accepted parameters not followed by suffering. The fact that banning discussion of contraception actually has nothing but negative consequences in the real world is actually beside the point to them.
If so, that's pretty much the letter of the law and not the spirit. And that it's close to Pharisee-like behavior is rather striking to me, as well.
Like I said, it's quite disappointing, because it's quite evident to me that it's very possible to be moral and to achieve all that the Christian Right wants without embracing their methods.
JmCH reveals his spittle-flecked stupidity with every breath...
The world you dream of is where kids are given free reign over whatever they want to do sexually without any heed for their parent's wishes.
No, assrocket, we want a world in which people are educated in actual facts about how their bodies work and the consequences of actions. I suppose cretins like you have a "right" to demand your children remain uneducated and as stupid as you. But their ignorance is likely to have negative consequences to others as well as themselves. What is it, exactly, that you fear about the idea of kids growing up as independent, informed thinkers? A great deal, I imagine.
You probably would be happy with huge bowls of condemns... er, sorry... condoms available in every classroom in a school and the school nurse performing abortions of kids without their parents' knowledge or consent.
More straw man histrionics. And you wonder why PZ and everyone else doesn't take you seriously. Besides, even if the above scenario were to happen, proper condom use prevents unwanted pregnancy, you impacted mongoloid. Were you dropped on your head repeatedly as a child?
Oh, how cute. Now you've resorted to lame attempts to impersonate me. And **I'm** the one who's the "troll?
Act like an idiot, get mocked. You reap what you sow, fool.
Donna:
Happy anniversary! A little early, sure, but hey.
Dianne:
Best news I've heard all day.
The best path to good sexual choices in adulthood includes:
A. good, biology-based sex education
B. parental love, trust, and honesty
C. a healthy sense of one's own sexual and emotional boundaries
D. a realistic but positive view of adult relationships, marriage, and parenting
E. the knowledge that a safe, healthy sex life requires maturity and responsibility
F. the complete understanding that yes means yes and no means no.
It's difficult to get this information in a family life in which women's sexuality is scorned, kids are treated like property, sex is considered filthy and sinful, parents are terrified and enraged when their children become informed about their own sexual health, girls are indoctrinated with a bizarre ideal of asexual motherhood at the same time that they're threatened with damnation and parental rejection if they don't find and marry the right man on the first try, boys and girls are held to standards so different as to be mutually exclusive, and fathers pressure their pre-pubescent daughters into parroting vows of chastity by rote.
I don't even know what to say about the father-daughter purity pledge. These people go ballistic if their kids get any information about what sex actually is, but they're still willing to put a little girl through this?
I suddenly have even more sympathy for any potential sexual partners you might have,
Whatever, dude. Just ask my wife. She'll tell you different.
It's sounding more and more like an elementary playground every time I come in here. And with all the EDUCATION and ADVANCED DEGREES that are here!!!! I'm just. . .speechless.
Just randomly wandering around this remarkable echo chamber, and find this:
Like using legislation to impose one groups religious beliefs about life on others?
Or is it the attack on science and scientist to drive evolutionary theory out of public education?
Strawman city. Where have I advocated for anything like that in here? Show me the reference.
It's sounding more and more like an elementary playground every time I come in here. And with all the EDUCATION and ADVANCED DEGREES that are here!!!! I'm just. . .speechless.
You're supposedly speechless, and yet here you are, day after day, blithering on and on. How does that work?
JMCH, compass, et al. - By all means, teach your children to be abstinent if that's your moral belief, but they will make their own decisions about sexual activity regardless of your teaching. This is a fact of life whether you approve or not. Young people have the right to know about their bodies and make decisions based on real information, not superstition and ignorance. You do not have the right to withhold from them factual information about sexuality, stds, or pregnancy prevention. Their lives, their bodies, their decisions. Suck it up.
It's sounding more and more like an elementary playground every time I come in here. And with all the EDUCATION and ADVANCED DEGREES that are here!!!! I'm just. . .speechless.
I believe that says much, much more about you than about others.
compass, what do you really have against teaching kids how sex works? Are you against teaching kids nutrition because it might lead them to eat unhealthy foods? Are you against teaching them the effects of drugs and alcohol? Are you against teaching them sports because they might get hurt or get addicted?
And what happens to "abstinence until marriage" when people finally get married? So you've got two people who are virgins and are married, but don't want to have kids right away. Is that okay? Shouldn't we teach people about sexuality for when they are married and want to control their lives? Or do you think that once people get hitched birth control is still wrong and kids should just come whenever?
JMCH, compass, et al. - By all means, teach your children to be abstinent if that's your moral belief, but they will make their own decisions about sexual activity regardless of your teaching. This is a fact of life whether you approve or not. Young people have the right to know about their bodies and make decisions based on real information, not superstition and ignorance.
I can't overemphasize the likelihood that if their children find out on their own that they've been misled, lied to or made ignorant (even by omission), that the end result is quite likely to be the opposite of what compass et al want to happen. Given that, it seems that they're more concerned with how they look, than in how their children end up.
And if their parenting incorporates misdirection, concealment and omission, how can they claim to have a moral basis for teaching their children?
If sex is so "instinctive", why is "practice" needed before the wedding night? Such an inbred behavior need not be rehearsed beforehand.
That's why babies know how to eat steak right out of the womb... and since walking is instinctive in humans, babies strut right out of the womb... and then there's language... the babies strut out while giving a celebratory oration!
See, the problem is, compass, people like you don't bother with facts and statistics, just figuring you can rely on "common sense" and "logic."
Sorry to say, compass, that that doesn't work when you have niether.
Hey look what my advanced degrees let me do with the deTroll Pharyngula script. I just changed the line var troll = new RegExp("JMcH"); to read var troll = new Regexp("JMcH|compass");, and suddenly the level of discourse in this forum improved.
You know, I would worry that by using a piece of software to automatically exclude voices from a conversation, I am blinding myself to useful information and restricting myself to reading only that which I find favorable. Shockingly, I realized that this argument only applies to civil discussion, and that by stomping the trolls we encourage everyone to express themselves more cogently and courteously.
Nah, personally I think killfiles don't help anything. Either it's impossible to get everyone to put the trolls on the killfile, in which case the trolls still manage to derail the discussion, or it's possible to get everyone to ignore the trolls without a killfile.
Frankly, I'd advise against attempting to engage with people who are displaying classic trollish behavior.
There's no possibility of rational discussion with JMcH; he just drops by to fling the odd unsupported assertion and wave a burning strawman. You can't talk sensibly with someone who considers himself privileged to just make shit up and call it fact.
And, based on previous performances, Compass follows the discussion only to look for an opening to inject some self-important snark. The guy who is looking for something to hang his own superiority on is an awfully familiar type on the 'net.
As Robert Benchley wrote very perceptively back in 1936:
"If we hadn't anything to hang our superiority on we should be sunk. We should be just like the Egyptians, or the Eskimos, or Grandpa."
I suppose it's never too early for the patriarchy to teach little girls that they are sex objects and nothing but sex objects. After all, if they didn't get an early start there wouldn't be any women in SoDak.
Guys, I think we're letting a couple of curmudgeons get us all worked up. They're going to do whatever they want with their kids, so let's not even bother getting into stupid arguements. don't let non-thinkers ruin your tea. It just makes them happy that you're all pissed off. I'm not.
JMCH and compass, we're the echo chamber? That sounds disingenuous to me, since I could go to any right-wing site this very second, especially a religious one, and run into the same mentality there. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit you're echoing someone else's rap sheet, instead of lamely pretending you're not.
I'll take centrism and liberalism over what passes for "conservatism" today. The fact is, your beloved "values" approach to every minute thing is losing you voters. How do I know? I'm a Roman Catholic from a Roman Catholic family that goes back pretty far. Guess what? None of my relatives bought the whole "war on christmas" thing. They thought it was petty and gallingly stupid. They even said so ON Christmas.
This is a secular society, and was set up to be so. I don't care how many old quotes you use with the term 'god', this society gives nobody a free pass. Religions shouldn't get one either because one happens to be a majority. Enshrining any religion into law devalues it, and allows excuses to be made for the actions of fools.
As for that straw man you guys love to put up in your field - the "relativist" - well, you, as apparently "real" Christians, seem to be coping with relativism quite well, supporting a "Christian" president that starts wars and gives to the rich instinctively. For a "Christian", he sure seems to exude knowledge of social darwinism. Funny that.
Look you guys can go on and on about your so-called "values". I know your game, because I was a part of it for many years, indeed all of my youth. I was an altar server for many years, and attended private Catholic preschool, grade school and high school. I was told about the evil rock music, I was told to look down upon casual pot-smokers, I was told to do any number of things that just don't work out in real life. And you know what? I dropped the stupid rules and kept the ones that mattered, like being a good person and loving fellow human beings. I've taken to rock music quite well I think, without doing a single thing to "fall off the straight and narrow".
You seem to enjoy the delusion that you're the only sensible people out there. That sounds like elitism to me. Or maybe hubris? But it's also another part of ignorance.
Lastly, since you both are so anti-science, why not show it by renouncing medical care, the use of cars or other transportation, TV, music, computers...oh, and most of all, national defense. After all, you have to be consistent, no?
I for one thank the scientists of the world, because they have positively affected everything you or I touch, use, etc., on a daily basis. From a Catholic to an Atheist, Mr. PZ, you can go on posting anything you want.
Oh, so queasy. Can you imagine being a daughter whose father was certain that she was an uncontrolable slut who needed to take a purity pledge? How does it feel to know that Daddy loathes you, that you fill him with disgust? Heck, you might as well live in Pakistan, where Daddy shot all of his daughters.
PZ
A hundred comments in a work day! Your demographics say, "Hell, sell sex." Continue being a pornographer.
Huzzah for Blue Independant!
compass, what do you really have against teaching kids how sex works? Not once have I said this.
That's why babies know how to eat steak right out of the womb... and since walking is instinctive in humans, babies strut right out of the womb... and then there's language... the babies strut out while giving a celebratory oration! Strawman. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The original point was that sex is an unavoidable instinct, like eating and drinnking; it HAS to be done; as it is inbred. These other analogies you are drawing are imperfect. Eating steak is not eating. It is eating steak. Walking has never been equated with an instinct similar to eating or drinking. Neither is language.
Shockingly, I realized that this argument only applies to civil discussion, and that by stomping the trolls we encourage everyone to express themselves more cogently and courteously. For purposes of definition, a troll appears to be someone who disagrees with you. I've not seen much else in here. (there have been -few- exceptions. rrt and Indian Cowboy come to mind).
I'll take centrism and liberalism over what passes for "conservatism" today. The fact is, your beloved "values" approach to every minute thing is losing you voters. Congratulations. But who said I was "conservative"? Or I was losing "voters"? (A presumption, I assume, that I am Republican) When did I identify my political affiliation? (Not that it applies to the discussion at hand).
As for that straw man you guys love to put up in your field - the "relativist" - well, you, as apparently "real" Christians, seem to be coping with relativism quite well, supporting a "Christian" president that starts wars and gives to the rich instinctively. For a "Christian", he sure seems to exude knowledge of social darwinism. Funny that. See above. When did I identify myself as a Bush fan?
I dropped the stupid rules and kept the ones that mattered, like being a good person and loving fellow human beings. EXCELLENT!!! Save for one thing; you really didn't drop the stupid rules. Seems you are still clinging to that silly "Love thy neighbor" bit. For which you are to be applauded.
You seem to enjoy the delusion that you're the only sensible people out there. Heh. No way. Just as fallen as you. Yet I have the minimal wisdom of knowing I require assistance in knowing right from wrong. Which I suppose, by the current rhetoric, makes me "weak" and "clueless" and a "following sheep" (pick you epithet).
That's cool.
Lastly, since you both are so anti-science, Again, WHEN did I say this? Find me the reference.
For purposes of definition, a troll appears to be someone who disagrees with you. I've not seen much else in here.
Congratulations. But who said I was "conservative"? Or I was losing "voters"? (A presumption, I assume, that I am Republican) When did I identify my political affiliation? (Not that it applies to the discussion at hand).
See above. When did I identify myself as a Bush fan?
Troll. Pure and simple.
How tiresome.
As I have learned from reading historical books, the Puritans weren't too pure, either. Since I don't have the book at hand, I may get the exact facts wrong, but in A Midwife's Story, which is excerpts from diaries kept by a midwife in Massachusetts in the 1700's, it was more common for a woman to be pregnant when she married then not pregnant. So much for purity on your wedding night.
I promote education. Yes, I would be pleased if my children waited until they were at least adults and out of college before having sex (not because of age..more because it will be easier to support a child with a college degree, and it's much harder to finish college with a baby, especially for women. Doable, but very difficult). Realistically, they may be having it now. My role as a parent is to educate about waiting, the good and bad sides of sex (any consensual activity is good, any forced activity is not), and help them obtain contraception in the event they make the decision to have sex.
Virginity at marriage is over rated. And, as many of the above commenters pointed out, if you are going to have these purity balls for the girls, then there should be the same damn things for the boys. The double standard is unfair.
What I'm trying to figure out is:
Why are you here compass, since you feel Doc Myers is so EEEEEvil.
"Absolutely monstrous. You are growing more evil by the day." - Posted by: compass | April 17, 2006 12:10 AM
Compass, please direct your comments to me here, rather than wasting my bought-n-paid-for bandwidth on your contentless dreck. Let's waste PZ's instead, hee hee.
I am interested, however, in your construction of extramarital sex as somehow "animal" and "not human." How did you come to arrive at this definition, and how else might it play out? Is eating uncooked food "animal?" Sleeping on the ground? Are gays "animal" by definition, since under current law in 49 U.S. states, they are unable to marry and thus can only engage in extramarital sex? What about the 80 or so percent of people who have sex before, after or outside of marriage; are they, too, "not in full humanity" according to your definition?
Look, if you don't want to have Nine Inch Nails sex ("f**k you like an animal"), that's lovely for you. Have fun parading around in your "full humanity" (god, I hope that doesn't mean "birthday suit"). But don't state, imply or suggest to anyone else that s/he is "less than human" because his/her conditions for sex don't include being bonded in holy matrimony (a la Britney Spears... yeah, there's a sacred-ass marriage for you). That's just (a) wrong, and (b) freakin' offensive.
Shockingly, I realized that this argument only applies to civil discussion, and that by stomping the trolls we encourage everyone to express themselves more cogently and courteously.
The trolls are mouth-breathing retards. To the extent they defend the "news" that PZ posts about fundie nutjobs in South Dakota, they keep the thread "alive" to some extent.
I'll put trolls in my killfile when they start trolling with the same off-topic baloney (i.e., "Saddam has WMDs," "Jesus forgives you," etc.) in every thread.
But I expect sympathetic folks to defend fundie baloney with more baloney. Frankly, without the fundie defenders, the fundie bashing gets a bit gratuitous, no?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Molly:
I have been searching for where I made a reference that I consider unmarried sex to be "animal" sex. I assume that you are conflating that with a statement about "fully human": As in; What about the 80 or so percent of people who have sex before, after or outside of marriage; are they, too, "not in full humanity" according to your definition?.
According to "my" definition, (actually taken from JPII), sex outside of marriage simply cuts one off from the full value of it. I would hesitate to call it "not fully human" and absolutely reject the idea that it is "animal."
Sigh. Not that I expect any quotations from the late Pope to be of any value here, as it comes from that thoroughly discarded and irrational Catholic faith.
And for what it is worth, I think SoDak made a mistake here. Surprised? It's true.
Of course, we agree that SoDak made a mistake not for any reason people on this blog and I might agree with, of course, but it's a mistake all the same.
This kind of reminds me of Jessica Simpson's former preacher father discussing his daughter's 38DD's and how proud he is that she was a virgin, and how sick it is that a former preacher is profiting off the sexiness of his daughter. The fact that he KNOWS her breast size is creepy beyond words. The thought that he had any thing to do with the video from the DUkes of Hazzard ----EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW...............
Sigh. Not that I expect any quotations from the late Pope to be of any value here, as it comes from that thoroughly discarded and irrational Catholic faith.
'Discarded'? Dude, I'm no Catholic, but last I heard they had several hundreds of millions of followers. I don't care if your pastor and Jack Chick said that Catholics were evil, if you think they're 'thoroughly discarded', you're simply delusional.
There is a vicious cycle here, which is that just about anyone with a brain in any backward part of the world flees to civilization as soon as they have the opportunity to do so. I wouldn't put a gun to anyone's head and make them go back and help their benighted bretheren, but I certainly admire those who go home to help others deal with the BS all around them.
-jcr
Brinkman's bill would go much further. It would make performing an abortion or transporting a woman across state lines to have an abortion a felony.
From The USA Today Abortion article
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-16-abortion-states_x.htm
Can they do this?????
"The women are the problem in history," he said in 2004. "Women who don't want to have children should cut away their breasts, bottoms and love organ because the purpose for those was first for the children. If they don't fulfill that purpose, then they are not needed."
I suppose by this logic once a man's wife reaches menopause he should cut off his penis.
Won't be needing this anymore since its "first purpose" was for making children...
Bailif, whack off his pee-pee!
if you think they're 'thoroughly discarded', you're simply delusional.
Thank you George. But I was somewhat elliptically referring to these blog readers when I made the claim that it was discarded.
Compass: from your comment on my blog:
"Sex is indeed wonderful. When enjoyed in full humanity.
Instead as animals, as posited on Pahryngula."
Since this is in reference to your "fully human" sex life as a married person, I can only assume pre/extra-marital sex is either not fully human or "animal," whatever "animal" sex is. (Doggie style? Standing Tiger/Crouching Dragon? Frog fashion?)
That is all.
Compass, how would she know? I'm willing to believe you're a loving husband who makes sure things are sufficiently lubricated to be pleasurable rather than painful, but dude! There's pleasurable (meh) and there's pleasurable (oohthatwasgood) and there's pleasurable (dontstopdontstopyesyesdontstopwowthatwasgreatletsdoitagain), mmkay?
I personally got to the second kind with my first two partners, and it was very enjoyable. But it wasn't until my third partner that I got to the third kind, and then he ended up being emotionally retarded. It took me a few more tries before I found the third kind again with a man I wanted and trusted to father my children.
If you're really fortunate enough to have developed a sexual relationship of the third kind in a virgin marriage, good for you. But why would you assume that everybody else would be so lucky?
I am jumping in at what might be approaching the end of this post, but I'll comment on this topic because I have a vested interest:
South Dakota is a small (in population), conservative state. After living there several years, I moved elsewhere for additional job training, after which I will return to SD. Why? It is very very hard to foment change from the outside. It can be done ("I have a dream," talk about one local speech, a resounding cry that resonates widely to this very minute), yes, but to effectively induce change, being in-state can make a difference. South Dakota is physically beautiful. The people I have known there are generally kind, conscientious, and yes, very stubborn and far far more often than not, religious (bafflingly so to me). I am returning to SD because of the family connections I have there, because I love the river, the Hills, the small town pace, the open roads, and so many other reasons. Also among those reasons? I cannot bring myself to abandon the people of SD, my people, to ignorance - willful, religious, or otherwise. It may be that my voice and my skills will be wasted there, but it is to soon to say. I read the news coming out of the state and feel a low-grade (can't rush my current training) urge to get back there, to do something, to be there and try to make a difference to young (and old) South Dakotans . . . I am internally pushing back the whisper of 'before it's too late.' I have to go back. I can't do anything significant from here. And there is quite a lot to do.
It's so pathetic to see you all claim that a woman (or girl) should have control over her own body, yet you condemn these girls for choosing to control their bodies in a way that disagrees with how you think they should control them (or not control them in this case).
How fubar is that?
So the little altar with the Trojan-wrapped dildo in the living room is something I should take down?
No, of course not. But when your mother comes to visit, you might want to throw a sheet over it or something.
I don't see a single comment that condemns the girls.
I see a few comments that condemns the fathers for keeping the girls ignorant... which is a bit of a presumption, but a rather likely one.
I've also seen some comments that assume a meaningful portion of these girls aren't going to follow the pledge... which is faintly insulting to the girls, except in as much as it's almost certainly true...
But then, you are just trolling, aren't you?
He's just trying to bait us, Michael. Got to give him credit; he is a master baiter.
Yep.
Hey Jinx the Troll,
When are you going to answer the question that various people have asked you a dozen or two times?
(I know you finally broke down and answered "yes" to whether you believe the Bible is inerrant, but you immediately negated that by saying it's not what we "misrepresent" it to be, and have evaded the real question a few more times.)
What do you mean when you say you think the Bible is inerrant, if not what we think that means?
Don't play the misunderstood and misrepresented victim if you're not willing to say what your actual views are.
You are an evasive hypocrite.
Don't expect P.Z. to answer all your stupid "gotcha" questions about his views, if you won't really answer even one basic question about your views.
Someone early in the comments ( I forgot who, apologies) asked how SD compared to other states in teen pregnancy rates. That information can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf. Page nine has the data. Also this study http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_09.pdf (which has maps but the data is a couple years older).
New England ranks amongst the lowest along with the central north. No surprise.
South Dakota is higher than the national average.
What is really striking are the rates in the bible belt. Those numbers speak volumes about the efficacy of religious repression in general and sexual ignorance in particular. I think it's also reasonable to wonder if those values are predictors for what SD has to look forward to as the momentum for this nonsense builds.
I'm not sure about this map - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/im_surrounded_by.php. My experiance in MA is of religion expressed purely as habit. I have no evidence after 32 years here that New Englanders allow religion to affect their behavior in any significant way, with one notable exception: The Catholic Church. We can see where that went. Of course, a wag might might suggest low pregnancy rates among partners of Catholic Priests is a powerful argument for an abstinence only policy......
I also don't know what to make of the fact that as we made out way out west this December we saw more porn shops in the south than we had ever seen outside of the pre-Guiliani Times Square, and that like as not they were apt to be under a billboard with the legend "JESUS IS WATCHING YOU".
I must apologise for my quibbling with the map Mr. Meyers displayed on religiosity in the US re: Massachusetts. He posted links backtracking the data and I failed to follow them up.
This map explains the disparity - http://www.lemonhouseproductions.com/images/fsm.gif
I regret the error.
First, replieses.
-JMcH
Good idea--why don't society and the government unilaterally refrain from interfering in (including protesting or criticizing) parents' decisions to teach their children completely pathological and psychologically self-destructive attitudes about sex. While we're at it, let's unilaterally refrain from interfering in (including protesting or criticizing) parents' decisions to completely fail to discipline or guide their children and let them destroy themselves with substance abuse and abusive relationships (*glares at in-laws*); pulverize their sense of self-worth through negligence, unmeetable expectations, and other forms of emotional abuse; get drunk and beat their children up for minor "offenses"; feel up or flat-out rape them; sell them into slavery; use them as strategic bargaining tools via arranged marriage; or cut their hearts out of their chests as offerings to bloodthirsty deities. After all, each of these represents a "way people choose to raise their children" (or have, in other times and places). Yet I'm willing to go out on a limb and say you probably only support the one in the first sentence (and maybe the second one in the second sentence). Why is that? What is the limit to the abuse you're willing to tolerate in the name of parents' choices about how their kids are raised? Where do you draw the line? And the $64 trillion question: what reason do you have for drawing it there, other than a prejudicial disposition in favor of the cases on one side but not the other?
-JMcH
Actually, the rates of STDs and teen pregnancies are MUCH higher in regions where most people aren't raised this way, such as the American Bible Belt (I believe I've seen 3x higher than the national average somewhere, but I can't give a citation for it) and most of the third world. Honestly, would it really kill you to make sure you know what you're talking about before you shoot your mouth off? And if so...wouldn't it be better to just get it over with?
-Compass
Surely the abysmal failure of efforts to prevent premarital sex can't have evaded even your myopic attention. Anyway, with the sort of mental gymnastics you must need to come to the conclusion that advocating personal freedom and responsibility with regards to sex is a "tyrant" position, you might have a shot at the mental Olympics. Congratulations.
-Compass
People can decide not to have sex, but [low blow]as anyone who's ever been in an intimate situation with a member of the opposite sex can attest[/low blow], exercising that control is often extremely difficult in practice. However, the problem is that it's not just a matter of people having the willpower to follow through on decisions not to have sex, it's also a matter of convincing them that they should make that decision in the first place, and unfortunately, intellectual dishonest and unrealistic, uncompromising absolutist positions aren't real convincing to most people unless they're already heavily biased in favor of those positions. The issue is less that people don't have the strength of character to abstain from sex until marriage, than that they shouldn't be made to feel like Bad People for not seeing doing so as desirable.
And of course people are animals. They're eukaryotic, multicellular, non-autotrophic, and have clearly differentiated tissues. Anyway, if you think animals are incapable of control, you've obviously never come home to NOT find your dog sitting blissfully in the middle of a huge rug-puddle.
Possibly because indoctrinating people with the idea that they are evil, depraved sinners for not waiting to expression their feelings for one another in a powerful physical and emotional connection until a guy in a suit or a dress waves his hands in front of them and says some magic words is both unhealthy and far more "tyrant" than anything you've argued against here. But this is a blazing straw man. If people want to do that, they're entitled to. The objection is to attempts to FORCE people to do that, through indoctrination, conformity pressure, and punitive legislation.
And, in this specific instance, to the implication that a daughter owes her father something with regard to her sexuality. I agree that's creepy. More later.
I wouldn't say sex is like hunger. It's more like human contact. A person can live without any sexual release, just like a person can live in solitary confinement, for years at a time in either case. However, the deleterious effects on one's mental state are, in both cases, well-established.
-JMcH
Oh for fuck's sake. I'll agree that was juvenile. I'll also admit that I was very glad I'd just put my soda down when I read it; I don't think my laptop keyboard would like being exposed to a half-cup of soda-and-booger mixture. Anyway, no one with better than 20/200 vision would mistake the /\/\ for the M of your screen name. This is satire, which is legally considered fair use. If he wanted to impersonate you he'd have used an M.
And frankly, if I were you I'd be a lot less worried by the fact that someone satirized you in this fashion than by the fact that, considering your behavior here, that malformed /\/\ is about the only think tipping people off to that NOT a genuine statement of your position.
-JMcH
Singularity-at-the-bottom-of-a-coal-mine-somewhere-in-intergalactic-space to kettle: "you are black."
-JMcH
I'll settle for a world where the relationship between parent and child is one based on genuine respect and love, not on totalitarian control of the latter by the former. In other words, where children are acknowledged as PEOPLE, not walking, talking pets that parents can breed (or, I suppose, spay) as they please, which is basically (if somewhat theatrically) what allowing parents to decide whether or not their daughters will be allowed to terminate pregnancies amounts to. So, given that you support outlawing abortion, and appeal to parents' rights in your argument, what I'm hearing is that you support parents being allowed to decide whether or not their children will breed (or carry their "litters" to term, at any rate), but not women being allowed to decide for themselves whether to carry their pregnancies to term. Somehow, I think that paraphrase can stand on its own without further comment...
-JMcH
The condoms thing sounds like it might be a good idea, except that 99% of those would wind up being used for water balloons, which is pretty wasteful and presents serious environmental problems (they're also preposterously expensive. I know when I was 17 I wished something would be done about THAT fact). I would very much like to have schools NOT handing out "condemns" of sexual behavior. Meanwhile, I certainly wouldn't want school nurses performing abortions, since they don't have the training or facilities to do it safely and effectively.
And yes, having control over one's children when it comes to sex IS wrong in some circumstances. Forcible incest is the most blatant, but there are others (the admittedly hyperbolic, but otherwise deadly serious, "pet breeding" analogy above, for instance). Now, I agree that exercising control over one's teenaged children's sexual behavior is both a right and duty of a loving and competent parent, but with the goal to keep them from fucking up their lives or others' lives. Trying to keep them from fucking at all is neither feasible nor wise.
-donna
The problem is when you raise the girls to be geeks too. My daughter seems to have aspirations of that nature, given her limited interest in anthropomorphic toys and her love of the outdoors, small crawling things, and (pressable) buttons. I wonder if there really is a set of "engineer" genes...
-Blake Stacey
If I had to guess, I'd say he's probably thinking about the availability of soap and water...
-Blake Stacey
Bleh. I can't imagine spending three days alone in the wilderness with a bunch of other guys. Based on most of the guys I've known, I'd be talking to squirrels out of desperation by the end of the hike.
-Various
Oh, come on. Self-righteous little twerps like those two serve me very, very well. If it weren't for them I'd have to go out and BUY a scratching post. :P
-JMcH
Now see this? This is classic trolling. Disagreeing with a cartoonish caricature of an opponent's position, in a flagrantly incendiary and oozingly arrogant fashion, while willfully ignoring an entire armada of relevant but inconvenient facts (did those girls "choose" this? Would they have not been punished either emotionally or tangibly for refusing? Would they not have faced ostracism, harassment, humiliation, and loss of parental affection of they refused? And more to the point, are pre-pubescent girls intellectually qualified to make that kind of "choice" regarding their bodies? [Hint: what's the general range of Ages of Consent specified by state laws?]).
I certainly don't "condemn" them for choosing to participate, partly because I suspect strongly that they did not "choose" in a meaningful sense. I do, however, condemn their families and community for putting them up to this, and their fathers in particular for implicitly claiming ownership of their daughters' sexuality. What you describe is not, and has never been, the issue here.
Now then.
Speaking as the father of a still-shitting-herself future teenaged girl, with a firm commitment not to become the sort of irrational reactionary sociopath girl's-father-stereotype that still bothers me as much now as it did when I was a teenager, I find this Purity Ball thing absolutely appalling. Maybe I'll do some sort of reason-analogous thing with her once she starts dating. "Look, Joey, it's your body, and your life, and I'm reasonably confident you're mature enough and intelligent enough to make wise decisions about what you do with it (and I like to think I've helped you achieve that), but I love you dearly, and I want you to be happy and safe...so please, honey, promise me you Won't Do Anything Stupid?"
And I'm going to make sure she knows that she can come to me for help, guidance, and unconditional love if she does become pregnant as a teenager (or even as an adult), and while I'll certainly do my best to persuade her to choose the option that's best for her (while she's a teenager, that would be abortion in almost all imaginable circumstances), I have no intention of forcing her to choose one option or the other. The only possible exception is if she were still a minor and had her heart set on carrying a pregnancy which presented a major threat to her health or life; I'll have to think about how I would handle that situation.
I have but one rhetorical question: Where are the young boys pledging to their mothers that they will not give up their sexuality to anyone but their married spouse? IT TAKES TWO GAMETES TO MAKE A ZYGOTE! Besides feeling insulted as a human being by the South Dakotans' treatment of the female members of my species, I should also feel insulted as a male that they consider us to be too irrational to even bother reasoning with.
Anyway, I feel that sexuality is a gift that you give to your loved one, whether they were your first or not shouldn't detract from what you share together.
I disagree with the Razorwire fence around SD, don't you realize that that's what they want? A fence would only serve to keep women from escaping.
Since we almost reached the bottom of the barrel, I like to point out: PZ, as long as you can talk about Purity Balls without going on a tangent about male hygine or depilation products your hypothetical career in the adult business is doomed anyway. *doooooooomed*
Compass says he quotes JPII: "sex outside of marriage simply cuts one off from the full value of it" This is merely an opinion - you're welcome to it, but it is not a statement of fact.
Most sexually transmitted diseases have features that make them ideal for eradication efforts, at least judging from the success in eradicating smallpox. Their only hosts are human, and they cannot survive in the open very well.
So why isn't there an effort to eradicate them? At least to eradicate the curable ones like syphilis and gonorrhea.
But I think that certain sorts of people would mourn their eradication, because (to them) there will be all that less punishment for sin.
It's like the eminent theologian who claimed that lightning rods are bad because they keep people from being punished for their sins by lightning strikes.
compass, you can toss out anything I said that you are not. However, you have been making your own generalizing statements (like the whole MRT remark), so don't play the lame Mr. Whatever-Did-I-Do? bit. You gave too, now kindly accept what you asked for.
What this discussion comes down to is control over other people. Yes you are free to teach your kids as you please. They should be taught to abstain of course, BUT know that protection is available and that there are ways to avoid bad and unhealthy situations. All this "no sex pledge" crap is unbelievably juvenile, especially since it really doesn't stop anything. To say nothing of the "second chance virgin status" the church has also tried...
You think you can control your kids every single second, especially after they turn 18? Doubtful. They are afforded their rights at that age, most rights anyhow, and at that point it's your trust and teachings that will ultimately guide them. Anything they do though, is their decision. After all, you instilled in them responsibility, right?
As for requiring assistance to know right from wrong, I'm assuming you are likely referring to the presence of a god providing such assistance. While you or I may believe that one exists to provide this, I find it offensive for you or anyone else to label atheists as inferior morally because they do not recognize one. At this point you are essentially making baseless generalizing claims about a sector of the population that surely contributes positively to this society. To assume they don't for reasons that are entirely your own machinations, is to do what hard-line religious types have been doing for centuries, nay millenia: scapegoating, or in other words, blaming others for perceived problems. And in that sense, how are you any different than hard-line Islamists?
Could we as natural beings NOT receive our morals from our survival instincts? Just about every species has self-preservation as an automatic response. Couldn't this not be the root of morality for an atheist? I'm of course making assumptions for Mr. Myers and other atheists, but you get the idea. I may be Catholic, but I'm at least willing to accept other views of the world.
Most sexually transmitted diseases have features that make them ideal for eradication efforts, at least judging from the success in eradicating smallpox. Their only hosts are human, and they cannot survive in the open very well.
So why isn't there an effort to eradicate them? At least to eradicate the curable ones like syphilis and gonorrhea.
Big problem there is immunity. Syphilis and gonorrhea, at least, don't provoke reliable immune responses (it's possible to get gonorrhea repeatedly, for example, while syphilis is a chronic long-term disease), so you can't take the "inoculate 'em all and let the bugs die out" approach that worked so well with smallpox and is currently working with polio. Gotta deal with behavior instead, which is a much more difficult prospect, as this thread would indicate.
But I think that certain sorts of people would mourn their eradication, because (to them) there will be all that less punishment for sin.
As I recall (may be urban-legendish), this sort of outcry did occur when Paul Ehrlich developed Salvarsan, the first antibacterial chemotherapeutic agent (it was mostly effective against syphilis).
Thats very good of you, and honest. But I suspect your not in lock step with all of catholism's bizarre doctrines either.
Now see this? This is classic trolling. Disagreeing with a cartoonish caricature of an opponent's position,
You know, if your position wasn't a cartoonish caricature in the first place...
Seriously, though, if you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, all of you who are criticizing this event are only doing so because you disagree with the beliefs behind it. You disagree with the way these parents are choosing to raise their children. These parents are teaching their children that they have control over their own bodies and to resist things like peer pressure and pressure from potential boyfriends or girlfriends (I've found there is something similar for boys and their moms). Why, pray tell, is that a bad thing?
Of course, accusing me of "[d]isagreeing with a cartoonish caricature of an opponent's position" is quite laughably hypocritical, since that is exactly what you all are doing in regards to this purity ball. You paint the fathers as perverted, incestuous pedophiles who are obsessed with their daughters' vaginas. If that isn't a "cartoonish caricature," then... Well, it IS a cartoonish caricature.
in a flagrantly incendiary and oozingly arrogant fashion, while willfully ignoring an entire armada of relevant but inconvenient facts
Um... What facts are you refering to? You provide no facts. All you provide are questions and baseless accusations.
(did those girls "choose" this? Would they have not been punished either emotionally or tangibly for refusing? Would they not have faced ostracism, harassment, humiliation, and loss of parental affection of they refused? And more to the point, are pre-pubescent girls intellectually qualified to make that kind of "choice" regarding their bodies?
These, my friend, are NOT facts. I simply don't know why you can't see that. They are, in fact, incendiary questions meant to insult, degrade, ridicule and anger any conservatives who happen to read them, and THAT is exactly what a troll does.
Ladies and gents, a troll is not someone who simply disagrees with the predominant view on a blog or forum. In fact, even people who agree with that view can be trolls, as can be readily seen on this blog. Unfortunately, it seems that you'd all gotten into the habit of falsely condemning any and all opposing opinions as trolling, and you use that accusation to avoid answering legitimate points a person makes. It is intellectually dishonest and cowardly. However, I seriously doubt any of you will open your minds enough to see that and admit it.
JMcH:
There are plenty of substantive disagreements here. It is one of the best blogs on the internet in that degree. To often all your comments consist of is nothing substantive at all. You make a smart- ass remark and thats it.
Of all the blogs I frequent this is the least like an echo chamber. People challenge and generally need evidence to back up what they say here. You fail on these points.
Everyone understands your point. No one wants our kids experiencing something before their ready. But to make a young lady and her sexuality be equated with a 'gift' for her husband is odd. It equates her with property. She is far more than that. I don't have a problem with preaching abstinence as long as your also teaching sex ed.
How is sex outside of marriage different from within? It's the emotions that make the act more meaningful or not. But sex is sex.
Of course much of it is irrational. What makes you think the Pope can be a better moral guide than your mother/father/best friend? What leads you to believe he know God any better than you do.
This is the most humorous aspect of your argument compass. You think you get guidance from God. But how does that differ from the Godly guidance said to be received by the Hindus, Muslims, various and conflicting Christian sects?
In the end your deciding for yourself anyway, or letting another man decide for you. The atheist just cuts to the chase and probably makes as many mistakes as a religous one. But they don't pretend they have God's will on their side when their isn't even 1 coherent view of what that is.
Setting aside the whole sex-before-marriage issue for now, this Purity Ball creeps me (as father to a 20-year-old woman and as a high school teacher) out.
First, we have prepubescent girls all dressed up going out on a "date" with their daddies. Now dads and daughters go out together all the time, but not (usually) with the added romantic trappings of evening wear, corsages and "prom" photos. Whoever concocted this Purity Ball idea undoubtedly thought it would be cute to make it look like "prom." The girls get all dressed up (like Barbie), go out with their dads (Ken) and act all grown up. On one level, sure, that's cute. As outsiders, we see a subtext, that of a quasi-incestual event, with dad acting the part of the girl's romantic interest.
Secondly, we have the dads obviously savoring one of the last times their kids will be "daddy's little girl," and in effect trying to prolong that status with this purity pledge. (She gazed deeply into his eyes, her own eyes welling with emotion, her heart beating against her breast, and whispered, "Dad, I pledge never to have sex with anyone before marriage. Even then, you will always be with me ...") I am not a child psych, but there is a certain sexual component in the relationships between mothers and sons and fathers and daughters. Daughters (up to a certain age) worship their fathers, since up to that age, dad is the primary male figure in their lives. That worship fades away starting with pubesecence, as girls discover boys (or other girls, as the case may be). Dad like it or not starts to become less of a central influence in his daughter's life, and has to face the scary realization that at some time real soon, he will be merely peripheral to his daughter's life. (I speak from experience here, folks.) So, the Purity Ball is a last-ditch effort to prevent or at least delay the normal maturation of the girl away from that father-daughter relationship. The PB panders to the dads' desire to keep "daddy's little girl" under his control, maybe forever.
When a girl is 11 or 12, she would probably buy into the Purity Ball as a romantic interlude or a safe "prom" date. By the time she's 13 or 14, it's too late. An older girl would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the ball. The Purity Ball can confuse a young girl's sense of her growing sexuality and foul up her relationship with her dad. It has a eerie psychological/mind-control aspect to it.
We would be unlikely to see mother-son Purity Balls for a lot of reasons. Principally, few 11 or 12 year old boys would have even the slightest desire to get dressed up to go anywhere, least of all with their mothers. Boys don't daydream about prom. If anything, they might daydream about what might happen after prom, regardless of their religious upbringing. (I am purposefully avoiding speculation about the daydreams of gay boys, since I have no data to support my sweeping generalisations.) There is also less of a stigma attached to boys who have sexual adventures before marriage, so there is concurrently less apparent pressure on them to stay chaste. Also, "mommy's little boy" is not an accepted cultural norm. It brings up images of sissies and scaredy cats, the kind of boy whom bullies taunt on the playground. So, a Purity Ball for boys is a non-starter.
From an anthropological point of view, we could view this whole PB affair like the coming-of-age rituals of some cultures. We can be horrified by some of the more extreme measures taken, like female genital mutilation, but we would feel secure in the knowledge that such extreme measures are not practiced here at home. The Purity Ball offends me (and maybe the majority of the commenters here, too) because it's a psychological mutilation of the girls' sexuality. It also promotes the cultural identity of the girl as the chattel of her father. (Some marriage ceremonies still include the father giving away the bride, after all.) I'd like to believe our culture has progressed past that point.
I would suggest that if the PB included clitoral excision that even our trolls would object to the ball, rather than using PZ's post as an opportunity to pontificate on the (dubious) merits of teaching abstinence. Or maybe they would ...
This makes me wonder what Unruh's relationship to her father was like?
Wow. The lunacy here is mind-boggling. Advocating sexual experementation in order to attain compatibility with a future spouse... The ball is for CHILDREN.
Therefore, there is nothing that you libs are advocating here that makes any sense. If these particular parents are participating in such a wholesome event with their daughters, it affects YOU not one bit.
"Child abuse..." and other such stupid comments are merely projection on your part. Since this event, and any infusion of morality into child-rearing seems to cause you extreme duress, you may want to examine what it is about your empty lives that causes you to be shaken to the core by this.
Why is it that people with names like 'fundiefather' are seemingly incapable of understanding the discussion.
For the slow---no one advocated sexual experimentation. Alot of people advocated education. Alot of people said making a child view her vagina as a gift to be given a man was rather odd.
No one said they couldn't or shouldn't. Just that it typifies a mindset. Girls are gifts to be given and that kids need to be taught about sex, not hidden from it.
Again, abstinence without sex ed simply doesn't work.
FF, it's your authoritarian death grip over the natural functions of other individuals, who have the misfortune to be related to you, and your attempts to turn them into unnatural and disgusting sacrificial offerings. After all, you guys disapprove of parents forcing kids to become nuns and monks too, don't you?
Reading the above seems to confirm the point, the fundies are the American version of the repressionist Talaban. Women are chattle to be controled because of their vile animalistic urges. Even vaginal circumcision was referred to.
Rocky --
Read my post over. I'm not a fundie, thank you.
wheatdogg
-JMcH
My position certainly isn't a "cartoonish caricature," a fact of which you seem to be aware since you're clearly familiar enough with my position to have so far utterly and abysmally failed to argue substantively against any point I've actually made.
-JMcH
Because of the demonstrable failure of "abstinence-only" education programs, the pathological views of sex and themselves this tends to produce, and implication of girls, or at least their sexuality, being the property of their parents. Like I said.
-JMcH
I haven't played up the "incest" overtones, nor have I claimed the fatehrs to be perverted or pedophiles. I find it quite creepy because of the pathological ideas about sex, gender roles, and family relationships embodied in it. Refer to my previous comments about arguing with points I've actually made
Um... What facts are you refering to? You provide no facts. All you provide are questions and baseless accusations.
-JMcH
These are probable complications to any claims about the girls having voluntarily chosen to attend and make this pledge, stemming from my experience with Christian Retrogressives, phrased in an interrogative fashion. Even you should know what a "rhetorical question" is.
-JMcH
Where such opposing opinions have been expressed in a dignified, honest, and civil fashion, we have not condemned them as trolls. I agree that simply disagreeing doesn't make someone a troll, as I said. Disagreeing in a manner that would get your nose bloodied on an elementary school playground, however, generally does. *smirks, waiting for JMcH or some other Retrogressive dittohead to misconstrue that comment as a threat...dance, nutjobs! Dance for my amusement! Mwahahahha!*
Anyway, you haven't made much in the way of legitimate points, and where you have I've argued with them in a fair and honest fashion. Where I've used hyperbole to illustrate a point I've clearly labeled it as such, and unlike you, who, sniveling invetebrate that you seem to be, apparently combed my entire post and picked out the weakest section to attack, completely ignoring the rest, I've done my best to address every point or point-imitation that you've attempted to make. You still haven't answered the question up front. I'm waiting....
Oh, and I've properly attributed you where I've quoted you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
-FundieFather
No one has advovcated sexual experimentation at the age of these girls. You know this as well as I do, and I don't think I've seen a lamer strawman in weeks.
-FundieFather
If the same parents were to beat up or rape their daughters it wouldn't affect us--or you--either. Nevertheless, I don't think you would approve of that, nor defend them on those grounds. Refer to the comments at the beginning of my first post.
-FundieFather
My life, at least, is not empty, as you would know if you actually read anything I've posted, and I have no objection to children being taught morality. I contend that what these children are being taught is not morality, and the manner in which they are being taught it is not moral. And yes, I do consider teaching girls that their moral worth as people, and their worth to the parent as children, is based on their virginity to be emotional abuse. There is no projecting involved here.
Daughters (up to a certain age) worship their fathers, since up to that age, dad is the primary male figure in their lives. That worship fades away starting with pubesecence, as girls discover boys (or other girls, as the case may be). Dad like it or not starts to become less of a central influence in his daughter's life, and has to face the scary realization that at some time real soon, he will be merely peripheral to his daughter's life.
Sigh...not looking forward to that. Mine's not a year old yet, so I've got a long ways to go, but still...
That was a really good, methodical analysis, wheatdogg. I think it dissected the Purity Ball very coherently.
There are plenty of substantive disagreements here. It is one of the best blogs on the internet in that degree.
Are you feverish? The minute someone disagrees with PZ, they are labelled a troll and - now - "killfiled."
To often all your comments consist of is nothing substantive at all. You make a smart- ass remark and thats it.
So what you're really saying is that I fit right in since even in this thread, there are countless smart-ass remarks. (Okay, maybe not literally countless. I just don't want to bother keeping a count of them all.)
Of all the blogs I frequent this is the least like an echo chamber. People challenge and generally need evidence to back up what they say here. You fail on these points.
So you admit that you apply a different standard to my comments than you do to the comments of people who agree with you. There are as many evidenceless assertions made here by "your side," yet none of you have a problem accepting them.
Everyone understands your point. No one wants our kids experiencing something before their ready. But to make a young lady and her sexuality be equated with a 'gift' for her husband is odd. It equates her with property.
No, it equates her body as her property. Did you read the pledge that PZ quoted? "[U]ntil the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband." With emphasis: "[U]ntil the day ***I*** give myself..." It's not, "[U]ntil my father gives me."
She is far more than that. I don't have a problem with preaching abstinence as long as your also teaching sex ed.
And I don't have a problem with sex ed as long as you're also teaching abstinence as the best choice in this age of AIDS and other STDs.
JMcH and compass are wrong about a great many things, but right about the level of discourse in this forum. The use of name-calling, straw-man mischaracterizations, and red-herrings add nothing constructive to this debate. A free-thinking skeptic is able to detect logical fallacies used by his/her allies as well as opponents.
Abstinence-only sex ed, while a bad idea, is completely irrelevant to this issue. This is about using an oath to try to encourage one's daughters to make a certain lifestyle choice, namely, abstinence until marriage. It's reasonable to argue about whether abstinence until marriage is a good idea, or whether such an oath is an effective way to accomplish that goal. Calling people names (see Martin's post above), doesn't really accomplish anything, nor does bringing up completely irrelevant issues like Republican politics, the war, or the (mis)behavior of Christians.
Also, the pedophilic undertones mentioned by many here are completely in the eye of the beholder.
As a skeptic and a bright, I'm a little dismayed at the crap passing for argument here. Our standards need to be higher than this if we are going to win the battle against ignorance.
Setting aside the whole sex-before-marriage issue for now, this Purity Ball creeps me (as father to a 20-year-old woman and as a high school teacher) out.
That's fine. Lots of things liberals teach their kids creeps me out, too. But as long as it's not a matter that hurts anyone else or infringes upon my right to raise my kids the way I see fit, they have every right to teach their kids whatever they want without harassment.
First, we have prepubescent girls all dressed up going out on a "date" with their daddies. Now dads and daughters go out together all the time, but not (usually) with the added romantic trappings of evening wear, corsages and "prom" photos.
"Romantic trappings?" I think you're reading a little too much into it. Evening wear, corsages and "prom" photos are not romantic in and of themselves.
Whoever concocted this Purity Ball idea undoubtedly thought it would be cute to make it look like "prom." The girls get all dressed up (like Barbie), go out with their dads (Ken) and act all grown up. On one level, sure, that's cute. As outsiders, we see a subtext, that of a quasi-incestual event, with dad acting the part of the girl's romantic interest.
As outsiders, you invent an imaginary subtext in order to criticize the event. That is more perverse than anything else.
I'm 7 mos pregnant with a girl, and this type of thing really gives me the heebie-jeebies. I worry about the kind of society my daughter will have to grow up in.
I don't understand how difficult it is for various visitors to this thread that the creepy thing is not that the 11 year old girl has made a pledge to not have sex, but that the 11 year old girl has made a pledge that her virginity is a gift to be given to her husband.
It's like the father is saying to the future son-in-law "As my gift to you, I give you a virgin girl!"
I hope I can instill my daughter with the self confidence to wait to have sex until she's physically and emotionally ready, but more importantly that she's not giving herself as a gift to anyone. The very idea makes me sad.
Best choice for what? STDs are certainly a big issues, and not to be take lightly, however abstinence can have other effects, like making sex tabu, also after married life, which deprives people of a pleasure they might otherwise enjoy.
Abstinence is the safest choice without a doubt, but not necessarily the best choice.
This is way late, but Wheatdog, I wasen't referring to you as a fundie, but was refering to a previous comment. My point is the fundies obviously not only want to enforce their own views on their childern, which they could already easily do as a their own choice. But persons with other views on this issue are immoral or ungodly by their point of view, and need to be rectified either by law or force. No meeting in the middle to respect each others views and life choices, but my way or the highway. The tone above in this WHOLE discussion indicates the wide gulf between persons who believe they should have choice, and others who need to cram it down others throats to
"save their souls", willingly or not.
-JMcH
If you actually read these comments you'll noticed that many people disagree with PZ in a civil fashion, use evidence rather than (perceived) volume to lend weight to their arguments, and generally don't act like spoiled 12 year olds when defending their positions. So far, in this thread, only you and compass have managed to acquire the "troll" label, and in both cases it is not because you disagree, but because you express disagreement in a non-civil and patronizing fashion, use inflammatory and misleading statements (and I strongly suspect you'd be shouting if it were an oral debate) to emphasize your points, and do act like spoiled 12 year olds when defending your positions. These facts have been pointed out to you repeatedly, and by continuing to ignore them (a necessary prerequisite of your repeated claim that you are being labeled a troll for disagreeing at all), you are tacitly admitting, whether you realize it or not, to being either an idiot or a liar (or both). Which is it?
-JMcH
Yes, some of our comments can fall to that level. So, let me put it this way: when you're at your best, you're at about the same level as most people here are at their worst.
-JMcH
Nice example of A->B->X logic. Let me try it on you:
"So you admit that you want to set up a social system where women are treated as cattle and butchered for food?"
No, that interpretation doesn't follow from your comments, and I don't believe you think that (though I'm more certain about the butchering part than the rest). But that's the point. That bit about "admitting to applying a different standard to your comments" is about as logical an interpretation of what he said as my comment above is of what you've said. I guess this is what you'd call a "straw herring?"
-JMcH
If her body is [considered in this scenario to be] her property, why is she making the pledge to her father, in a sort of environment ("prom" setup) that is universally associated with sexual tension, if not outright sex, in our culture? If her body is HER property, why is she making such a pledge to anyone else? If her body is HER property why does the pledge contain language like "I know God requires this of me" (I'm pretty sure that's the exact words, feel free to nitpick it and underscore your lack of a substantive counterargument). And if this is about her, then...well, really, does anything in the fathers' part of the pledge as quoted NOT contradict the idea that this is a free choice of hers that she's making for herself?
And it also treats her sexuality as property, period. Sex is a transaction in this model, it is something given to her husband, not something shared with her husband. I find this objectionable, and in the unlikely event that you actually address this point, I will elaborate on why.
-JMcH
And I have a problem with teaching abstinence as it's currently done, because of the demonstrable results of such programs, both in terms of increased teen pregnancy and STD rates and in terms of decreased self-esteem for girls especially.
And I also have a problem with the fact that you still aren't attributing posts that you quote, and you still aren't addressing anything from my posts except for one admittedly poorly articulated point that you zeroed in on.
I graduated from a fundamentalist Christian school (that my mother made me attend after she caught me, at age 9, reading Origin of Species -- sad but true). We did purity pledges at age 15 in this school. I knew damn well I wasn't going to wait for marriage, so I faked sickness that day to get out of it, and by the time next year's 15 year olds were doing theirs, the administration had forgotten that I never made mine.
My graduating class had eight people in it. Seven of them were married before age 21. I attended all seven weddings, and in every case their primary motivation for getting married was to be able to have sex, FINALLY. They have produced fourteen kids. Six of the seven are divorced.
I, the eighth member of the class, am 27, not a virgin, not married, childfree, and the happiest of all of them.
It's not statistically significant, but I thought my experience was relevant. This Purity Pledge crap causes divorce. Period.
Was my analysis reading subtexts into the PB that weren't there? I doubt it. There must be some reason the Ball resembles a prom. Just looking at the photos of dads and daughters posing for their "prom" photos is enough to convince me something there is some kind of subtext. If the whole intent is a purity pledge, then why add all the prom trappings?
Prom dresses, tuxes and corsages are not romantic? Hm. Worked for me ... But I'll tell my students to wear jeans and T-shirts to the prom next month.
Oh, and to abstain from premarital sex that night. Yeah, that'll work ...
I myself sleep in my daughter's bed every night to make sure she remains pure.