Netslave, seriously, don't be obtuse -- you look foolish for fighting this point. I grew up going to religious schools. In our sex ed and health classes, the "lock and key" metaphor for vaginal sex was used quite frequently. Not only is it a logical metaphor, it is rather ubiquitous. And I had a few quite fulfilling relationships before marriage that were not chaste (to varying degrees). They were good relationships. I am glad that I had them. These were not "loose" women, we were not being promiscuous. We were sharing meaningful physical contact as part of a meaningful relationship. Yes, I had some relationships that were not nearly so meaningful, but they were the exception, even for me. If I find out that my 20 year old daughter is having a physical relationship with her serious, longtime boyfriend, and they are being careful and not sleeping around, then again, I won't be THRILLED, but I won't be upset either. I don't want my daughter to have hangups about sex. When she finally enters into a lifetime partnership with a man, I want her to be able to enjoy sex and participate fully, enthusiastically, and with no limits. Liberated sex is an incredibly important part of a healthy marriage. Too many women come into marriage hampered by the notion (drilled into their heads) that sex is dirty, or their cooter isn't something they should give up. It is almost impossible, logically and emotionally, to go from "nobody should touch my cooter at all" to "let's get freaky" overnight, which is what the total chastity till marriage ethos would have women do. Women can't make that transition -- sometimes, they can't EVER make it. I think that is behind quite a few of the sexually unfulfilling marriages we all see and know about. I want my daughter to have great, screaming, tear-all-the-sheets-off-the-bed sex when the time comes (yeah, I know -- I will never type that again). I want that because it will make her happy, and will help her have a happy and fulfilling relationship. Pushing ideas of sexual repression and putting MY reputation in the bucket of HER responsibilities is not going to get her there. I look at it this way -- I think my wife is fantastic. She is an amazingly good and decent woman. I also want her to be a hellcat in the sack. I want her to be completely uninhibited when we're together. That ends up making both of us very happy, and helps keep our marriage happy and healthy. I would be a lousy father if I didn't want the same for my daughter and her husband someday. I don't think that walking into marriage with a "locked" cooter is a good start. I think it inevitably is oppressive, leads to hangups and anxieties, and ends up being something that must be overcome. Hell, we all know that women don't go from zero to 60 even in a sesion of bedroom fun, so we also know that they sure as hell aren't going to go from "ultra-pure" to "wow, my wife can really cut loose in the sack" overnight -- or over a year, or over 5 years. All things in moderation. The Oracle at Delphi wasn't full of ****. Sex is an incredible and wonderful part of life. It is an ESSENTIAL part of a happy marriage.
now, that's just ridiculous on the exposure chart. that thing is very underhandedly suggesting that safe and unsafe sex have the same risk and that there is a 1:1 std transfer rate. those are the exact same tactics i was speaking to earlier when i stated that you should not VILLIFY a natural act. the perspective that gives your daughter on normal sexuality and intimate relationships will be tinged with guilt and will not simply disappear on her wedding day.
He's being intentionally obtuse, and I for one don't appreciate it. Only an idiot could miss the symbolism of a key opening a lock that protects a certain opening. That's doubly true given the history of the chastity belt. And I don't believe for a minute that netslave is an idiot. Netslave, if you're going to stand up for these things, then do so. Tell us what you really think--that these things are a good tool to guilt a daughter into not having sex, because having an "impure" daughter (ie., one with a busted hymen) is a dishonor to a father and an indication that he has not fulfilled his Biblical and traditional responsibilities as the protector of his daughter's vagina. Quit feeding us your STD-prevention propoganda, because until these things are renamed "STD-Prevention Balls," your statistics are singularly irrelevant to the present discussion.
I went to high school with a baptist girl. Her parents were in to stuff like this. She took an oath to wait until she was married. She had a ring or necklace that symbolized it. I can't remember which. She's married now. She's also cheated on her husband dozens of times and a few months ago was arrested for sleeping with one of her students.
Although I would hasten to point out that girls who undergo this Purity Ball ******** aren't preordained to be cheating whores after marriage, any more than girls who don't are predestined to be cheating whores. But I dare say that for the reasons Brisket enumerates, kevwun's anecdotal experience is probably not unique.
She was a very nice girl. I would like to think that if she had grown up with a modern view of sex she wouldn't have ended up as a nympho with a felony conviction.
Netslave, The whole idea of these "balls" are sexist. It's saying the male parent has ownership over the daughter's sexuality. Why doesn't the mother carry this key? Why isn't there a lock for the son the father carries a key for? I'm deathly curious. Also, why are conservative evangelicals always obsessed with sex?
i said it earlier, but it went largely unnoticed. the reason this is creepy is that it goes beyond merely imbuing your daughter with a good self-esteem and self-image. look, there is nothing wrong with trying to instill your morals in your children. that's a good thing. good, strong morals are the key to a self-satisfied life, imo. HOWEVER, placing this much emphasis on one aspect of morality makes it larger than life. it speaks largely of this crazy american dimmesdalian hangup we have about sex. in the end, all it results in is self-flagellation and unhappiness. and that's only part of the problem with this. morality is a fabric. it is not defined by a single thread. what these purity balls do is place undue emphasis on one particular strand in the fabric. is a female still "pure" if she is dishonest? what about if she does not fully honor her father and mother? what about if she steals a pencil from her teacher? i can go on and on, but the point is that this idea of "purity" is a farcical one that is rendered from fanciful medieval tradition. even more, the symbolism inherent in these things appears to be gleefully medieval and perverse. a key and a lock? interesting that a lock is chosen for the girl and the key is chosen for her male guardian, given that one must INSERT the key into the lock. gah. even more so, why is the father the guardian of his daughter's sexuality? it bespeaks of a massive insecurity on his part. again, this is not the 1500s. mothers and daughters should be the main touchpoint for biological matters, except in obvious special cases. fathers and sons should be the same. in short, virginity was easy to maintain until marriage in the halcyon morally strong medieval times, because women were getting married as soon as they entered puberty in many cases. now, we are asking them to ignore their body's biological imperatives for a DECADE more, if not longer. better, in my opinion, to teach responsibility and self-image and contribute to self-esteem and instill the independence in your daughter to make her own decisions about her life. you can guide her, but you cannot live life for her. she will make mistakes. to be perfectly frank, if you are approaching this from judeo-christian tradition, you are placing the bane of eve on you own daughter if she slips up and makes a mistake in the heat of the moment with johnny in the parking lot behind the theater. in addition, if she does make this mistake, she might be MORE likely to contract a case of "unwanted babyitis" or an STD, because she'll be completely ignorant as to ways she can protect herself. also, you lay the foundation for a dishonest relationship with your own daughter by placing this much importance on something like this. if she DOES slip up, and knows that she will taint her "pure" image in your eyes, you think she's going to come to you for emotional support? you are creating a HUGE hangup with this kind of expectation. in short, you may be unknowingly sabotaging your own relationship with your own daughter through almost impossible expectations. and if you need help seeing why this is creepy - just look at the pictures. gah. like i said, there is nothing wrong with teaching your child morals. but, in this case, some common sense and a modern mindset might have a bit more success.
they are producing a feeling of uneasiness in me. especially that one pic of the guy all over his daughter.
Look, The case in question is certainly extreme and creepy. But the thrust of what they are doing is not. It is healthy to talk to your children about the pitfalls of sex and of the advantages and disadvantages of waiting.
Lock and key = Chastity belt. Considering what the lock and key represent, it's hard to think of it any differently.
