Virgin Diaries

[christiangirl]

^^Do you save those clips in a file so you can break them out once a year??

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Purity pledges gross me out when they consist of father-daughter purity balls, etc. I think that has been discussed on GC before.

It has and I agreed that makes me wanna throw up a little. I allowed my dad to put my ring on me (standing in our kitchen when it came in the mail) and he kissed my forehead and said he was proud of me. That's the most involvement he has had in my (non)sex life. Anything further would have me creeped the eff out.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

"THE DEVIL IS IN YOUR VAGINA!!! DON'T LET THE DEVIL OUT!"

Obligatory pillow pants clip (nsfw): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLt-YSiz0Y

Originally Posted by DrPhil

mental sex episodes

WTH? People do that? I'm imagining some cross between guided imagery and some kinda sex hypnosis. That sounds....weird.

(no longer directed at Phil) Honestly, there about 100 steps from 0 to sex. A couple can be physically intimate on several levels but people who have had sex seem not to ever think of them because they go straight for the gusto. Then there are those who won't even kiss for fear they'll get horny and skip steps 2-98. It isn't all about finding loopholes--you get to explore each other and find out what the other likes in the simplest, most innocent ways. If you feel so inclined to see what I mean, try it out.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

It has and I agreed that makes me wanna throw up a little. I allowed my dad to put my ring on me (standing in our kitchen when it came in the mail) and he kissed my forehead and said he was proud of me. That's the most involvement he has had in my (non)sex life. Anything further would have me creeped the eff out.

Did your dad putting the ring on you symbolize something?

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

There are several reasons I find these pledges ridiculous:

1. They don't really work. There is some delay in starting intercourse, but not much--and some of that delay can be explained by other factors. The vast majority of kids who take the pledges are still going to have premarital sex. While the STI transmission rates are the same, it seems that the pledgers' diagnoses are made at much later stages--which sets the stage for major problems later on, including cervical cancer and infertility.

There's also the studies out there that suggest that once pledgers are sexually active, they're less responsible. Since that could be a side effect of abstinence-only education, I won't put that solely on the pledges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/us...rely-kept.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...-pledges_N.htm

2. It's a way to control female sexuality. Your father controls your sexuality until he passes it off to your husband. The imagery of locks and keys is a little gross to me as well. I understand parents not wanting their kids to be hurt but this takes it to a whole other level. Like a reverse Electra complex.

Furthermore, it increases the Madonna/whore duality.

This sounds like an extreme case, but check this out: http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life...1/purity-balls

3. It puts the responsibility on girls. While girls are exhorted to "stay pure," there's no corollary for the boys. While I'd imagine that there are plenty of young men who take these pledges, they're geared towards women. There are no mother/son balls--and any woman who organized such a thing would be pilloried.

4. Kids are encouraged to make these pledges when they're too young. I'd imagine the guilt and irresponsibility once sex actually happens is related to this. While there are some fast kids out there, most 11 and 12 year olds aren't thinking about sex. They also have very black-and-white views of the world. It's very easy to get someone that young to make a pledge without really understanding what it means.

It also appears that some of the surveys supporting the pledges only focused on younger kids who had taken the pledges within the past year. I'm sure that made the numbers look better than if they had waited to see what happened 5 years out.

--------

Don't get me wrong--I'm not anti-virginity. I think that boys and girls should wait to have sex until they can handle the emotional and physical responsibilities and consequences.

I agree.

I won't say these pledges are completely not the way to go because I don't want people who have taken the pledge at any age to feel as though they are doing something wrong. I have more of a problem with how many adults (parents) have forced these pledges on their children. It makes it a very strange process that has had a particular impact on how girls and young women view their bodies and view men. Men are viewed as sexual creatures who can't stop themselves so girls need to keep their vagina locked down. Bullshit. And, no, a father (or any parent) does not own a daughter's vagina so he is not who will be giving the vagina to the man (or woman or both) that the daughter will eventually have sex with (if she eventually has sex). That is too close to the ownership of women and the selling of brides that cultures around the world have been chastised for.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

1. They don't really work.
2. It's a way to control female sexuality.
3. It puts the responsibility on girls.
4. Kids are encouraged to make these pledges when they're too young.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Did your dad putting the ring on you symbolize something?

It symbolized how proud he was of me and the fact that I made such a huge decision (for very sound reasons) on my own. He was obviously very pleased that I wouldn't be having sex (what dad wouldn't be?) but moreso that I had really thought through why it was the best choice for me and my life. I didn't want a public announcement or for him to take me to a ball--that was the first and last time we ever talked about it.

[Cen1aur 1963]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Then you should have been here for the CG vs. CG battles of years past. They were Mortal Kombatting it! ROUND 1, FIGHT up in this piece!



How did this thread become THIS? Oh yeah, because cheerfulgreek talked about sexual intimacy without copulation.

Maybe cheerfulgreek is talking about those mental sex episodes that some couples are doing. You lay down together and mentally stimulate each other to the point of physical orgasm. I call it "brain drain." I had a college friend who did this with her boyfriend. She said it was like actual sex without any oral, vaginal, or anal stimulation. Whatever floats their boat.

CTFU! at Mortal Kombatting it. I died.

See, any time a couple has to do some mental shit just to get off, isn't that taking things too far? I would think it would be easier to just go ahead and do it. For real, though.

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

You might want to do a search. If not, here's a couple of recaps.
http://youtu.be/phEhGqsPeK0
http://youtu.be/rWepTvC6y8Y

"Can't the two CGs just get along?" -Rodney King

ROTFLMAO! Looks personal to me, so I'll stay out of that one LOL!

[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?

[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.