The Purity Movement & Patrick Henry College

[Seneschal]

Two loosely connected discussion points:

Part 1:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life ... 793419.ece

I saw part of the documentary mentioned in this article earlier today (unfortunately I can't find an uploaded version of it on the internet). My question is, to what extent is it possible to morally justify what these fathers are committing their daughters to? Can the attitude towards sex in scripture be of any relevance in the modern world?

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdFZG8lYJE

The link(s) to the next part(s) can be found in the sidebar.
My main issue here is that the Christians in this school take the approach that children should not be exposed to anything that might be un-christianly, or anything that might contradict their religion. Now, I'm of the opinion that for Christianity to have any weight behind it all, it needs to be exposed to contradictory arguments, so that Christians can try and defend their religion instead of taking this approach. I'd be much more inclined to believe something that tried to support its claims with arguments and proofs than something that is deaf to any arguments against it.

Discuss.

[squibbles]

spread the good news

Slightly off topic here, but what /is/ the good news? I've heard that phrase so many times, but nobody has ever been able to identify any specific parts of their beliefs which is that.

[Kablizzy]

That's gonna suck. I picked Rylgaumthaug, Keeper of the Fire as my personal saviour. ;___;

[smartalco]

I picked Rylgaumthaug, Keeper of the Fire as my personal saviour. ;___;

Damnit, I picked Kablizzy -_-

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I picked The Great Juju Up The Mountain, even though I don't really believe in it.
But, you know, Pascal's Wager.

[Skyling]

Why is sex inherently impure? What is "pure"?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Let me begin by saying that I see religious reasons for any behavior or lifestyle to be utterly empty. The reasons why chastity is important to God is its own ridiculous quagmire that I am simply not interested in getting into, but am secure enough in my views that I am confident in casually dismissing religious motivation for remaining chaste.

The conclusion of the first article you linked to is retarded, primarily because of this bit of ignorance:

For now, the purity movement is too young for anyone to assess whether it leads to happier marriages or fewer divorces.

This is total and obvious bullshit. Our obsession with adultery and purity has existed ever since we first changed from hunter-gatherers to patriarchal societies. Before we had much of an understanding of biology, the only way to verify that an heir was legitimate was to restrict women to use by one man. So it became a disgraceful thing for a woman to have sex with a man she wouldn't spend the rest of her life with and for whom she would bear a child, and especially disgraceful for her to sleep with another while the man who claimed her was actively trying to churn out heirs, as the possibility that one of the children he thought to be his own could be a bastard was unthinkable. So it became the responsibility of women to keep themselves pure for their husbands, and failing to do so was serious business. If you want a glance several hundred years in the past, take a look at the Middle East today, the cultural values of which are still stuck in the fucking Dark Ages: when a woman is raped, she is the one punished for it, and that's because the lunatics thence and yonder think it's the woman's responsibility for keeping herself pure.

I wish I could convey to you how completely underwhelmed I am when presented with an instance of outdated, nonsensical, and evil social values endorsed by a religion that was established around the time that these values were the norm. Organized religions are necessarily bound by the culture in which they originated, and the culture that gave us Christianity was one of our first and worst attempts at making a fair society. What I am surprised to see is that people don't realize the blatant anachronism in movements like these.
Sometimes I even think I was brought up sheltered in some kind of Utopian environment where everyone was sensible, because I remember how totally confused I was when I was first told that there are people out there who honestly believe that women are so different -- through some fundamental distinction by gender, of all things -- that they should not be afforded equal rights as men. Naturally, I believe that women ought to be allowed to behave in society the same way that men are, because there is zero meaningful difference between men and women in the set of qualities that could possibly disqualify either from any rights that the other enjoys. It's as arbitrary and stupid to me as the belief that blonde people can vote but brunettes can't, or that only tall people can own property. Human women are just as sapient, experience the same range of emotions and for the same reasons, and share the same perspective of society, as men. In fact, aren't women typically more socially aware than men? Arbitrarily restricting their influence on society is beyond preposterous.

And that's the foundation that my revulsion of chastity movements is built on. From my perspective, they're the contrived products of someone trying to kludge outdated and evil values into a modern, more fair society -- the classic attempt to shove a square peg into a round hole. Powerful, influential people who were misled to believe that the values of a perfect society are those of a society idealized thousands of years ago try to reconcile the inherent unfairness of those ancient values with modern ones, and the result is a dilapidated cultural movement that has been divorced from its only sensible purpose. Worse yet, the hoops it needs to jump through to be acceptable in modern society force it to produce values that were counter-productive to that purpose. So they become their own little beasties, their own little runts and confusing messes of inconsistent values in a tangled, schizophrenic ball that rolls around and swallows up the sheeple with the same kind of mental fragility that predisposes them to religiosity.

A careful examination of reasons for remaining chaste until marriage will reveal that there are effectively none. Throw any you got at me, and I'll give you a more compelling reason to be sexually active (although responsibly, of course). It seems to me that the chastity camp only see two extremes: throwing caution to the wind and fucking everything that moves, or showing temperance by saving that honor for a magical evening with a person they love. It takes an acute sort of ignorance, honestly, to fail to see the more common, the more mentally and emotionally healthy, and more socially fair and beneficial, range in between those two. People can fall in love multiple times, and having had sex with those people does not in any way demean sex with yet another husband or wife, or girlfriend or boyfriend. Having frequent sex does not erode its emotional weight.
Sexual experience, in fact, leads to more stable partnerships. Lack of experience in handling the emotional subtleties of a relationship, the magnitude of which become massive as soon as sex enters the scene, leads only to frustration, confusion, and anger. If that experience isn't present, any intimate partnership is doomed to flame out in short order, and is the classic source of romantic tragedies that end in violence. Unless you find yourself in some kind of magical fucking fairy tale marriage, 99.99% of which marriages in the real world are not, that lack of emotional maturity will end up costing you a relationship you were told all your life was supposed to be sacred and perfect. And that'll probably do some damage.

Besides which, I don't know what you people are expecting, but first times are embarrassing as hell. Is that really how you want to remember your honeymoon?

Rant over. I need to eat.

[otters~1]

That was a candidate for PotY, especially the word "kludge."

<3

[Rose]

Suki, surely whomever you first had sex with still holds a special place in your heart. It's human nature. With this in mind, how much better is it to have sex with that same person for most of the rest of your life (obviously not all the way until death, due to E.D. and heart conditions, etc.)? I think it's silly to not /kiss/ until marriage like the article in the original post states, but as long as they're choosing it, so be it. Whom does it hurt?

My main issue here is that the Christians in this school take the approach that children should not be exposed to anything that might be un-christianly, or anything that might contradict their religion. Now, I'm of the opinion that for Christianity to have any weight behind it all, it needs to be exposed to contradictory arguments, so that Christians can try and defend their religion instead of taking this approach. I'd be much more inclined to believe something that tried to support its claims with arguments and proofs than something that is deaf to any arguments against it.

Couldn't agree more. As someone who was raised in private Christian schools until midway through junior year, I can sum up what I learned in four words.

They're doing it wrong.

[SkyPanda]

My main issue here is that the Christians in this school take the approach that children should not be exposed to anything that might be un-christianly, or anything that might contradict their religion. Now, I'm of the opinion that for Christianity to have any weight behind it all, it needs to be exposed to contradictory arguments, so that Christians can try and defend their religion instead of taking this approach. I'd be much more inclined to believe something that tried to support its claims with arguments and proofs than something that is deaf to any arguments against it.

But the problem is that often Christianity doesn't stand up too well against contradictory arguments. So from the point of view of the leader of a religious school, wouldn't it make perfect sense to ensure that your pupils aren't exposed to anything that might give them doubts about their faith? I can understand why Christians need to be able to defend their religion, but they don't need to know /too/ much about alternative viewpoints in order to do that. Perhaps the most suitable compromise for the school's heads would be to teach the kids enough so that they can defend their views, but not so much that some of them move on from Christianity in the same way that some people have moved on from the sixteenth century? If I were the head of that school, i'd have a programme where students are taught something along the lines of, for example, "non-believers think that it's okay to abort a baby to save a mother's life, but here are a list of good reasons why that's not true..". Or "some people think that contraception is okay, but abstinence is best, here's why..." and so on. That way, the students would feel justified, secure, and ready to kick some serious atheist ass, but without ever being exposed to alternative viewpoints in a way that could actually challenge their belief. It would be all about getting to them while they're young, and making sure their belief is set in stone well before they are seriously exposed to alternative viewpoints. Good compromise?


Also, I think that the Bible doesn't require belief in God to be justified, in order to be 'saved'? (please correct me if i'm wrong). So if you are told as a child to believe in God, and you do so, it doesn't matter whether your belief is justified or not. So long as you actually believe, you're going to heaven.

Furthermore, any contradictory viewpoints to Christianity are the product of the devil, so it makes sense to protect people from them.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Suki, surely whomever you first had sex with still holds a special place in your heart. It's human nature. With this in mind, how much better is it to have sex with that same person for most of the rest of your life?

A lot of firsts are special to me, but like I said, that does not necessarily devalue all future occurrences. For example, I remember the day I first had pizza: I thought it was weird, resisted trying it at first, and then got an exciting surprise when I was pressured into taking a bite. It was truly a magical moment. However, I happen to have enjoyed the shit out of some pizza just the other day. It was one of those Papa Murphy's heavily meat-based pizzas with an extra pizza layer hidden beneath the surface, and it was fucking delicious. However, I don't think I'd have enjoyed it any more if it had been my first pizza ever, or even if it was my first pizza in a long time. My past pizza-eating experiences did not meaningfully influence the fulfillment that that pizza brought to my soul.

There's obviously a case in pointing out that I wouldn't have enjoyed that pizza as much if I had been on an all-pizza diet for the last seventeen years, but what it really does is make a separate point entirely: so long as you don't go overboard, it's easy to preserve the magicalness of any emotionally fulfilling or craving-satisfying experience. And when the activity is especially enjoyable, fulfilling, satisfying, whatever, then it's easy for it to be enjoyed as if for the first time after only a short while of going without it. For example, if I go, I don't know, two weeks without pizza, I will probably savor the next one I have. And for another example, I haven't gotten laid in, like, half a year, so I'll probably think the next time's amazing, even if it's comparatively sub-par.
I'd go on to say that falling in love is no different, that it's just as special and magical every time, but I don't rightly believe I've ever been in love, so I can't really say that from personal experience. It does seem to be that way, though, from the way I've heard other people talk about it. See also that Madonna song that goes, "like a virgin / touched for the very first time."

And so it goes with my first slice of what is now my favorite pie (lemon meringue), my first laptop, my first successful use of a fake "sudo" binary I wrote myself, and even my first kiss. All of these firsts were magical moments, but they all continue to kick ass each time they happen with different pies, laptops, noobs, and girls, because I don't do any of them often enough to get sick of them.

I think it's silly to not /kiss/ until marriage like the article in the original post states, but as long as they're choosing it, so be it. Whom does it hurt?

Sexual chemistry is a vital component of any successful relationship, otherwise it rapidly falls apart. Many couples are perfectly in sync when they meet, but their relationship quickly falls apart if it doesn't work out as well in the bedroom. The importance of that element of a relationship is enormous due to the level of trust and intimacy involved. So for me, a long-term relationship is a combination of those two things; if we don't relate like close friends, we're nothing but one-night stands to each other or fuckbuddies at best, and if we don't work out in the sack, we'll mutually excommunicate each other into the Friend Zone and eagerly look elsewhere for a good more-than-friend fit. And for that reason, it seems to me to be completely impractical, even futile, to pursue that level of commitment without some assurance of compatibility. It's like... shit, I don't know... it's like spending $50 on a cable to connect your camera to your computer without verifying first that it's the right kind of connection, and instead hoping desperately that it is. Except that in the case of chastity before marriage, you're risking far, far more than $50, and you've squandered the entirety of your adolescence, to boot.

And as I finished my last rant with, if you do go in with some misplaced expectation of a Happily Ever After and are mercilessly bitch-slapped by life, as life is wont to do, then you'll take it harder than the rest of us would. You're taking a huge, unnecessary risk, slamming the door on foresight, and willfully blindfolding yourself as you take a leap off the steepest cliff you'll ever have to descend in your life. My point is that it's better to use a rope and rock-climbing lessons beforehand so that you know you can say "fuck this cliff, I'm finding a better one" if it doesn't work out. And you could climb triumphantly back to the top of the grossly overextended metaphor and open the door you slammed in foresight's face, and invite him into your home which was apparently next to a huge fucking cliff for some reason, so you can treat him to pizza, and lemon meringue pies, and laptops, and makeout parties. And then he'll be your friend and rock-climbing buddy who helps find the perfect cliff face for you to bone for the rest of your days.
Or whatever.

[Rose]

I was thinking about this thread while I was waiting at the bank (don't ask why). College also started today and I spent about 5 minutes on this post, so my apologies if it's poorly worded:

My point was that both sides have logic behind them. I'm not trying to tell anyone else to abstain, I'm saying that it's justifiable to do so. Honestly, I don't care how other people live their lives. I think as long as you're being responsible about it, sex before marriage is fine, if that's your choice. But to say that it's the objectively wrong choice to not have sex is a little silly.

[15:54:51] <@POTPIE> yeah so anyway, i think it's safe to say that no one here besides me is christian and thus no one here besides me follows the bible. therefore, for you guys, there is no guideline that says that you should wait. do what you want, i don't care.

And after I said the above on irc, it occurred to me that 99% of these arguments just go in circles and neither side ever budges. I think I'm just going to stop coming to the debate forum since I have much less free time now and I generally just leave with a headache anyway :/

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

My point was that both sides have logic behind them. I'm not trying to tell anyone else to abstain, I'm saying that it's justifiable to do so... to say that it's the objectively wrong choice to not have sex is a little silly.

Right, so that was basically the point I've been vehemently denying. I've been 'splaining myself, but I haven't seen you talk in very much depth about anything I've said. If you're trying to play it off like both sides of the issue have adequately presented themselves and are at an impasse, you are living in a different reality from the rest of us.

Honestly, I don't care how other people live their lives. I think as long as you're being responsible about it, sex before marriage is fine, if that's your choice.

Yeaaah, to be honest, all this chastity business only really bothers me when someone I'm interested in abides by it. Can't help people being dumb.