Virgin Diaries

[Cen1aur 1963]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

eta: I've never researched it, but I'm hearing that oral sex causes throat cancer or something.

I read something like this, but I call bullshit on that, though. Folks think everything gives you cancer. Too much of anything is going to make you sick. A good example of that was the Super Size movie about fast food. If somebody gets cancer from having oral sex, they got it from something else. Sorry, but I'm not buying that. I've known healthy people who didn't drink, smoke, do drugs, eat unhealthy food, and still died from cancer. I don't buy a lot of the cancer stories people talk about.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Cen1aur 1963

I've known healthy people who didn't drink, smoke, do drugs, eat unhealthy food, and still died from cancer. .

I don't eat fast food, so I'm not going to comment on that. I also don't know if getting cancer from having oral sex is entirely true, so I won't debate that either. However, avoiding cigarette smoke, harmful chemicals, unhealthy food, etc. are all causes of cancer, so I don't disagree with you there. But that's not always the case with cancer. Cancer is just abnormal cell growth which is the result of mutations in certain genes. It's just that cancer cells have the ability to break free from the tissue of which they are a part. Most normal cells stay put, stuck to each other and their surroundings. Unless they are attached to something, they cannot grow and multiply. If they become detached, they pretty much commit kind of like a suicide by a process known as apoptosis. But in cancer cells the normal self destruct instructions do not work, and they can grow and multiply without being attached to anything. This allows them to invade the rest of the body, travelling via the bloodstream to start more tumors elsewhere (metastasis). You also need to know that some people are born with an increased risk of cancer because they inherit a mutation in a gene important for cell growth or for repairing damaged DNA. This means that all the cells in their body have already taken one step down the multistep pathway that turns a normal cell into a cancerous one, so just because a person doesn't smoke, eats healthy, doesn't do drugs etc, doesn't mean she/he is exempt from getting cancer and dying from it. I know because I deal with cancer patients at least twice a month. They're animals, but it invades the body in somewhat the same fashion.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Again, all of these things really speak more to the people behind the pledges than the pledges themselves. The pledge does not make a person see sex as something dirty or bad. If the young person has immense guilt after having sex, they would very likely have that guilt whether or not they had signed that little card. I say this because, if the person did not already feel that premarital sex was something they shouldn't do, they would not have sworn before God not to do it. If the church and/or family is pushing the young person to make the pledge, then that church and/family were likely attempting to control these kids (read: girls) way before the pledge was thought of and would continue to do so after. The vow of purity is like a marriage vow in a sense--one can make it when they are not ready or totally skew the meaning of the words to control another person (usually the wife). But the amount of power the words have depends entirely on the person saying them and the ideals that have already been instilled in them prior to the vow.

I think there is something wrong with the actual purity balls themselves and not just with the people behind the purity balls. Therefore, I also think it is possible for there to be something wrong with certain types of purity pledges beyond just the people behind the purity pledges. There are purity pledges (not all of them, there are different types of pledges) that are designed a particular way which is why there are similarities in the outcome of some of these pledges.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

FTR I am not a fan of churches or families encouraging kids/teens to take the purity vow. It's a deeply personal decision that no parent can make for you and the choice to make it/keep it/break it is up to the you. If you have been raised to make the decision for yourself and stick by whatever values you have that make this the best choice for you, then the pledge is really just a nice afterthought to a decision already made. If it's the opposite scenario, the pledge itself isn't the cause of a sort of sexist shame--that would be there because of a sexist, shame-fostering environment.

I agree and this is a problem with certain types of pledges that are designed to remove the personal decision making from this. For these types of pledges, it would not matter which people are involved. The outcome would be the same because there is a problem with the design of the pledges because those who designed it were hoping for a particular outcome.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

BTW Munchkin, I have seen photos from mother-son purity balls and I feel the same about them as the father-daughter ones--they were slightly vomitatious and the boys looked WAY too young.

Yes, it is gross. These are much less common (even more relatively rare than father-daughter purity balls) for a reason. One such event is the mother-son Integrity Ball http://www.dakotavoice.com/200701/20070115_1.html. I wonder whether this has become an annual event.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

He was obviously very pleased that I wouldn't be having sex (what dad wouldn't be?)....

Is this a dad-daughter thing or just a concerned parent thing?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Cen1aur 1963

I read something like this, but I call bullshit on that, though. Folks think everything gives you cancer. Too much of anything is going to make you sick. A good example of that was the Super Size movie about fast food. If somebody gets cancer from having oral sex, they got it from something else. Sorry, but I'm not buying that. I've known healthy people who didn't drink, smoke, do drugs, eat unhealthy food, and still died from cancer. I don't buy a lot of the cancer stories people talk about.

It is probably safe to say that most people who engage in certain forms of sex around the world do not get cancer, at least not directly and immediately linked to those forms of sex. It is also important to note the difference between correlation and causation. There are a number of things that are correlated with health outcomes but do not cause them--doing these things in and of themselves will not cause the health outcome more often than not.

People who do not want to engage in certain forms of sex have every right to do with their bodies as they choose. Whether they think it is gross, cancerous, or whatever...those who are getting married in cultures that encourage some level of (consensual) sexual liberation and openness with a spouse need to disclose their reservations prior to marriage. If the future spouse is fine with certain sexual restrictions then there is no problem. Perhaps they will eventually get curious and want to try it, perhaps the spouse will eventually want to engage in that sexual act...who knows but the couple needs to work that out through communication and understanding.

[summer_gphib]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I don't eat fast food, so I'm not going to comment on that. I also don't know if getting cancer from having oral sex is entirely true, so I won't debate that either. However, avoiding cigarette smoke, harmful chemicals, unhealthy food, etc. are all causes of cancer, so I don't disagree with you there. But that's not always the case with cancer. Cancer is just abnormal cell growth which is the result of mutations in certain genes. It's just that cancer cells have the ability to break free from the tissue of which they are a part. Most normal cells stay put, stuck to each other and their surroundings. Unless they are attached to something, they cannot grow and multiply. If they become detached, they pretty much commit kind of like a suicide by a process known as apoptosis. But in cancer cells the normal self destruct instructions do not work, and they can grow and multiply without being attached to anything. This allows them to invade the rest of the body, travelling via the bloodstream to start more tumors elsewhere (metastasis). You also need to know that some people are born with an increased risk of cancer because they inherit a mutation in a gene important for cell growth or for repairing damaged DNA. This means that all the cells in their body have already taken one step down the multistep pathway that turns a normal cell into a cancerous one, so just because a person doesn't smoke, eats healthy, doesn't do drugs etc, doesn't mean she/he is exempt from getting cancer and dying from it. I know because I deal with cancer patients at least twice a month. They're animals, but it invades the body in somewhat the same fashion.

Thank you. Cancer strikes many people who live "healthy lifestyles." And as an advocate for Pet Cancer Awareness thank you for the work you do. My Forrest is still hanging in there. 10 weeks ago they told us "days not weeks, but it's Forrest, so who knows."

[DrPhil]

I guess the conclusion to this oral sex causing cancer discussion is that there is limited evidence, it probably is not true, and therefore the topic has shifted to a general discussion of cancer.

[Tulip86]

Oral sex aids in the transfer of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) to the throat, and the presence of HPV is thought to be a virus that can cause over 60% of all types of throat cancer.

In a 2007 study at the University of Malmö in Sweden they found that over 35 % of people with throat cancer (the test group) had the virus, while of the control group (people without cancer) only 1% carried the virus.

So (as far as they know) there isn't a direct link between oral sex and cancer, there is however, a direct link between oral sex and HPV.

HPV is linked to several kinds of cancer (cervical cancer is a main concern), and is transferred by unprotected sex. Higher numbers of sexual partners correlate with high risk of HPV.

Over half of all sexually active people will have a HPV but most kinds of HPV (there are over a 100) are harmless and without symptoms and go away on its own. Some HPV types cause genial warts etc.

There was an interesting article in the New England Journal of Medicine on this topic.
I find this a very interesting topic as in Dutch schools they started to educate on this issue along with other STDs in health classes and the government is contemplating nationwide vaccination among teenagers. There is supposedly a vaccine that could prevent 90% of HPV cases, if vaccinated before the first transfer.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Tulip86

Oral sex aids in the transfer of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) to the throat, and the presence of HPV is thought to be a virus that can cause over 60% of all types of throat cancer.

In a 2007 study at the University of Malmö in Sweden they found that over 35 % of people with throat cancer (the test group) had the virus, while of the control group (people without cancer) only 1% carried the virus.

So (as far as they know) there isn't a direct link between oral sex and cancer, there is however, a direct link between oral sex and HPV.

HPV is linked to several kinds of cancer (cervical cancer is a main concern), and is transferred by unprotected sex. Higher numbers of sexual partners correlate with high risk of HPV.

Over half of all sexually active people will have a HPV but most kinds of HPV (there are over a 100) are harmless and without symptoms and go away on its own. Some HPV types cause genial warts etc.

There was an interesting article in the New England Journal of Medicine on this topic.
I find this a very interesting topic as in Dutch schools they started to educate on this issue along with other STDs in health classes and the government is contemplating nationwide vaccination among teenagers. There is supposedly a vaccine that could prevent 90% of HPV cases, if vaccinated before the first transfer.

(General response that is not about cheerfulgreek. I think this is an important discussion for the different reasons behind abstinence.)

Your post is what I had read about, including the controversy over giving North American high schoolers HPV vaccines with or without parental consent. And your post is how the information should be relayed (since this was not just a discussion of safer sex and STDs that can be transmitted through oral, anal, and vaginal sex).

Over the years, a number of things have been rumored to cause cancer. It is problematic when adults believe this (they may not know whether it is true but the mere belief guides their actions) and tell children this. I remember middle school and high school when adults were saying that only non-virgins and loose women use tampons; tampons cause cancer; certain sexual acts cause AIDS and cancer (these were acts that people thought were, at that time, associated with homosexuality); and so forth. This was before the Internet search engines, etc. of today. Even today people around the world are given incorrect or exaggerated information--most people either do not have access to studies or do not read the studies that they have access to.

There is a difference between keeping people informed about the correlates and possible risks versus passing down information, especially about unproven causes, that can lead to unfounded fear. There is also a difference between caution and safety versus being afraid. Also, (1) people need to be informed about what "aiding" and "being linked to" means; and (2) the "safer sex" movement of the past 20 years has stressed using condoms and dental dams so that people can make an informed decision about whether to have sex and how to have sex.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

^^^^That's the part about not kissing that I don't get. You haven't done ANYTHING except hold hands and then BAM, you're going from zero to EVERYTHING in 24 hours. That's enough to cause a panic attack itself.

I remember reading on a SUPER evangelical blog about a girl who wouldn't even allow herself to hold hands or ANYTHING with her fiance until marriage. They had a "purity" ruler that they used to make sure they were at least 12 inches apart at all times. Like, they couldn't even sit next to each other and hug while watching a movie. Her reasoning was that "it's too tempting."

For the life of me I do not understand what is so potentially tempting about sitting next to someone. If you're seriously tempted to lewd thoughts by sitting next to someone, you have bigger problems.

I get the point of not having sex. Really, as a Christian, I do. I just don't get what is being proved by being extra with it and cutting out other things that in themselves aren't tempting (ex: kissing or holding hands.)

I also don't get the general rush into marriage that comes with abstinence (yes, I know that's not everyone but that's just been my experience with younger couples living.) Like, you think Suzy is being "unGodly" by having premarital sex and living with her boyfriend. Yet couples rush into a LIFETIME commitment with the primary goal of it being so you can do the same thing? Hmm.

I guess what I'm saying is that the point of your abstinence shouldn't be ZOMG I NEED TO FIND A HUBBY AND GET LAID BEFORE 25. I think it's meant to be something more meaningful than that. Otherwise why bother? (does that make sense?)

But then again, I'm also a pretty big hippie as far as Christians go and I go to a church full of the most non-conservative people you will ever meet, so you have to take my crazy opinions with a grain of salt. I've also lead youth groups before so as you can imagine, I've spent a whole lot of time talking about sex and God (more than I would like to.) lol.

Was it Katrina? I follow a few "fundie" blogs. It's a very interesting culture. The infamous Duggars (of 19 kids and Counting) preach no kissing/hugging/sex before marriage. Their TN friends, the Bates, just had their oldest son enter into a "courtship" and nope, not allowed to touch. At All.

And yes, they are expected to go from 0-60 on their wedding night, get pregnant right away and keep reproducing. Many are part of the "Quiverful" movement (though some refuse to accept the label) but the basic theory is to allow God to open and close your womb. The name comes from the bible scripture that says blessed are the men whose quivers are full (of arrows? Children? It's all so interesting.)

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yeah I said that in the other post.



Purity pledges gross me out when they consist of father-daughter purity balls, etc. I think that has been discussed on GC before. Just typing about it makes me want to vomit. The problems with those types of pledges are about the concept and something being wrong with the pledge, which is correlated with something being wrong with the adults who urge those types of pledges and the trickle down effect on the children who are encouraged to do those types of pledges.

I am also grossed out by purity pledges that are essentially about people being afraid of their own bodies. "THE DEVIL IS IN YOUR VAGINA!!! DON'T LET THE DEVIL OUT!"

I also consider it ridiculous that chastity pledges are more common for girls/women than boys/men. If this is truly about (insert whatever it is about), why is it more encouraged for girls/women?

I see nothing wrong with virginity and, for the people who are old enough to know about sex in the first place, I think it should be based on an understanding. It should not be based on scare tactics whether religious, bodily, etc.

What skeeves me out is that these "balls" are a public transference of the girl's own "purity" to the authority of her father. I've seen photos of 6-year olds attending these things. It makes me shiver.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Again, all of these things really speak more to the people behind the pledges than the pledges themselves. The pledge does not make a person see sex as something dirty or bad.

No, but the culture that has allowed the pledges, purity balls, and other such things to flourish thrives off of making sex something dirty or bad. The kid who's most likely to take a pledge like that probably has a family and lives in a community where female sexuality is tightly controlled.

My junior year in HS (PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL!!!), several of the Christian organizations put together a True Love Waits rally in front of the school one morning. The amount of peer pressure to attend was through the roof--all the "popular" kids did it, even when they weren't virgins (technical or otherwise). I was a heathen raised by heatheny heathens so I didn't feel the pressure.

[Cen1aur 1963]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I don't eat fast food, so I'm not going to comment on that. I also don't know if getting cancer from having oral sex is entirely true, so I won't debate that either. However, avoiding cigarette smoke, harmful chemicals, unhealthy food, etc. are all causes of cancer, so I don't disagree with you there. But that's not always the case with cancer. Cancer is just abnormal cell growth which is the result of mutations in certain genes. It's just that cancer cells have the ability to break free from the tissue of which they are a part. Most normal cells stay put, stuck to each other and their surroundings. Unless they are attached to something, they cannot grow and multiply. If they become detached, they pretty much commit kind of like a suicide by a process known as apoptosis. But in cancer cells the normal self destruct instructions do not work, and they can grow and multiply without being attached to anything. This allows them to invade the rest of the body, travelling via the bloodstream to start more tumors elsewhere (metastasis). You also need to know that some people are born with an increased risk of cancer because they inherit a mutation in a gene important for cell growth or for repairing damaged DNA. This means that all the cells in their body have already taken one step down the multistep pathway that turns a normal cell into a cancerous one, so just because a person doesn't smoke, eats healthy, doesn't do drugs etc, doesn't mean she/he is exempt from getting cancer and dying from it. I know because I deal with cancer patients at least twice a month. They're animals, but it invades the body in somewhat the same fashion.

This is interesting, and I know you know what you're talking about based on you being a veterinarian and all, and that's all good, but I'm talking about people trying to tie cancer to damn near everything, and in this case, oral sex. I've had relatives who smoked, drank, really didn't eat all that healthy, and didn't have cancer in past family generations, but lived an old age, eventually dying from cancer. My grandpa is a good example of this. He died of cancer at 96, and smoked all his life, and never really had any serious health problems from his unhealthy habits, or being born with cancer causing problems as you stated. How do you explain that? With the oral sex, the article I read was talking more about HPV causing cancer, not just having a lot of oral sex (assuming that being what you meant). It's a virus so I can see an actual virus that folks can live with causing cancer in somebody else, but to say having oral sex in itself eventually causing cancer just doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It is probably safe to say that most people who engage in certain forms of sex around the world do not get cancer, at least not directly and immediately linked to those forms of sex. It is also important to note the difference between correlation and causation. There are a number of things that are correlated with health outcomes but do not cause them--doing these things in and of themselves will not cause the health outcome more often than not.

People who do not want to engage in certain forms of sex have every right to do with their bodies as they choose. Whether they think it is gross, cancerous, or whatever...those who are getting married in cultures that encourage some level of (consensual) sexual liberation and openness with a spouse need to disclose their reservations prior to marriage. If the future spouse is fine with certain sexual restrictions then there is no problem. Perhaps they will eventually get curious and want to try it, perhaps the spouse will eventually want to engage in that sexual act...who knows but the couple needs to work that out through communication and understanding.

I agree with all of this. I think that's what it all boils down to, is communication, instead of folks telling their partner one thing and then doing another, or thinking they can change that person after the fact.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

(General response that is not about cheerfulgreek. I think this is an important discussion for the different reasons behind abstinence.)

Your post is what I had read about, including the controversy over giving North American high schoolers HPV vaccines with or without parental consent. And your post is how the information should be relayed (since this was not just a discussion of safer sex and STDs that can be transmitted through oral, anal, and vaginal sex).

See, this is what I was thinking from the original post about the cancer. I was thinking of an STD that can potentially cause the cancer, not just having oral sex, like she said originally. I'm not trying to get off topic from this post or what not, but if waiting to have oral sex after marriage, or sex period, because of being afraid you'll catch something from doing it, then folks might as well not engage in any kind of sexual intimacy at all. There are couples who marry, then one or both fuck around and then bring back an STD. I don't see the point of waiting, unless there's some kind of religious reason. I respect people who want to do that, but doing that doesn't mean 'My chances of getting an STD, or cancer of the throat' are slim to none.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by summer_gphib

Thank you. Cancer strikes many people who live "healthy lifestyles." And as an advocate for Pet Cancer Awareness thank you for the work you do. My Forrest is still hanging in there. 10 weeks ago they told us "days not weeks, but it's Forrest, so who knows."

No problem, and thank you for all you do, too, summer. I mean, doing what you do with pets is just as important as what I do. Thank you for that. And I'm so happy to see that Forrest is still with the family and doing well. I love hearing and reading amazing pet stories like yours. Keep up the good work, and keep doing what you do, by making pet owners aware.

Originally Posted by Cen1aur 1963

This is interesting, and I know you know what you're talking about based on you being a veterinarian and all, and that's all good, but I'm talking about people trying to tie cancer to damn near everything, and in this case, oral sex. I've had relatives who smoked, drank, really didn't eat all that healthy, and didn't have cancer in past family generations, but lived an old age, eventually dying from cancer. My grandpa is a good example of this. He died of cancer at 96, and smoked all his life, and never really had any serious health problems from his unhealthy habits, or being born with cancer causing problems as you stated. How do you explain that? With the oral sex, the article I read was talking more about HPV causing cancer, not just having a lot of oral sex (assuming that being what you meant). It's a virus so I can see an actual virus that folks can live with causing cancer in somebody else, but to say having oral sex in itself eventually causing cancer just doesn't make any sense to me.

I was referring to doing it too much could cause cancer to develop. The article I read didn't mention anything about any STDs. Like I said, I don't know if it causes cancer to develop or not, but I'm also not going to rule it completely out, either.

The ageing process all comes down to the steady accumulation of genetic damage. It doesn't matter how well someone did or didn't take care of themselves, what they ate or didn't eat, although that can play a role in developing cancer. Apart from brain cells, most of the cells that make up a normal person's body are constantly replaced, as existing cells multiply to make new ones. But every time a cell divides, the ends of its chromosomes (telomeres) become shorter. Once they reach a certain length, the cell stops dividing and eventually dies. Apart from germ cells, like I said earlier to you, the only other cells that can multiply indefinitely are cancer cells. As more normal cells are lost or damaged, signs of ageing start to develop, including possible cancer, whether you've taken care of yourself or not. Your body is made up of 100 million, million cells, and cancer can start when just one of those cells begins to grow in an uncontrolled way. When you're young, your body is able to keep this under control by repairing most of the damage. But as you get older, the repair process isn't as efficient as it once was when you were younger. Cancer is usually the result of genetic damage acquired during a lifetime, which is why most cases occur in people over 60 years old. Again, I don't know anything about the "STD" or the "oral sex" part of it.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Was it Katrina? I follow a few "fundie" blogs. It's a very interesting culture. The infamous Duggars (of 19 kids and Counting) preach no kissing/hugging/sex before marriage. Their TN friends, the Bates, just had their oldest son enter into a "courtship" and nope, not allowed to touch. At All.

And yes, they are expected to go from 0-60 on their wedding night, get pregnant right away and keep reproducing. Many are part of the "Quiverful" movement (though some refuse to accept the label) but the basic theory is to allow God to open and close your womb. The name comes from the bible scripture that says blessed are the men whose quivers are full (of arrows? Children? It's all so interesting.)

That may have been her.

The "not ever allowed to be alone together before marriage" weirds me out too. Ex: one girl I read about has to be chaperoned at all times by her parents or a sibling until the wedding.

Not even that they want to be alone so they can have sex, but sometimes you might want to have an important marriage related conversation without other people around.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I think there is something wrong with the actual purity balls themselves and not just with the people behind the purity balls. Therefore, I also think it is possible for there to be something wrong with certain types of purity pledges beyond just the people behind the purity pledges.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Is this a dad-daughter thing or just a concerned parent thing?

My other concerned parent was not a subject in the post so she was not mentioned. (Stereo)Typically, it is the father who would rather gouge his eyes out than think about his little girl having sex than the mother (or she hides her panic better, either one).

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

No, but the culture that has allowed the pledges, purity balls, and other such things to flourish thrives off of making sex something dirty or bad.

True at times.

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

The "not ever allowed to be alone together before marriage" weirds me out too. Ex: one girl I read about has to be chaperoned at all times by her parents or a sibling until the wedding.

This weekend, I found out this is what it was like for our pastor and his wife during the entire TWO YEARS of their relationship (2005-2007) before they were married. If they were ever alone together, his parents were constantly calling to ask when he was coming home because it's getting to be too late to be out with his girlfriend. I don't get that but it's not mine to get, I suppose.

So I'm back from my retreat with my "holy heathens" (who actually aren't that heatheny at all ) and I was shocked at how many of the older teen girls actually want to wait till marriage but didn't want to discuss it with their parents. One even said she wanted to buy a purity ring but didn't want her mom to know about it because of the huge deal her mom would make. I thought of this thread and asked if they felt pressure to keep the boys at bay like not having sex was only the girls' responsibility--the YES was epic. They didn't feel that message from the church but just from the world in general and were resentful. The girls felt that the decision to have sex or not have sex shouldn't be about their "responsibility as young ladies," but rather an independent decision--and whatever they choose should not be a reflection of everyone who has helped raise them but rather earn them respect as individuals who can make decisions for their own lives. That amount of decision-making and taking control of their own lives and behavior was way more impressive to me than the waiting itself. I was proud of them all.

I wish stuff like this was on TV. We were bantering about this till 2am and it would have made for GREAT ratings. These girls are hilarious.