Virgin Diaries

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Cen1aur 1963

See, this is what I don't like. Why start if there isn't going to be none? I hate that shit.

You're still here?

Let me clarify--I tell them to decide where the line is ahead of time. Not be hot and heavy with someone THEN say "Oh no, I want to stop here. This is where I'm uncomfortable." Of course these young girls (and boys, too) have the right to call stop time WHENEVER they are uncomfortable. But it's important to have a line and communicate where it is before even getting started.

Munchkin--Is there a reason why you think chastity pledges are "God-awful?" Because that's a pretty strong word for something that is actually a nice sentiment (if you're serious about it, which the people you knew CLEARLY weren't). The pledge should be an affirmation of what one has already decided because your signature on the card alone will do precisely jack if you hadn't thought about it before someone handed the card to you.

[Cen1aur 1963]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

You're still here?

Let me clarify--I tell them to decide where the line is ahead of time. Not be hot and heavy with someone THEN say "Oh no, I want to stop here. This is where I'm uncomfortable." Of course these young girls (and boys, too) have the right to call stop time WHENEVER they are uncomfortable. But it's important to have a line and communicate where it is before even getting started.

CTFU! You expected me to leave or something? I feel you on this, though. I misread your first post.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Munchkin--Is there a reason why you think chastity pledges are "God-awful?" Because that's a pretty strong word for something that is actually a nice sentiment (if you're serious about it, which the people you knew CLEARLY weren't). The pledge should be an affirmation of what one has already decided because your signature on the card alone will do precisely jack if you hadn't thought about it before someone handed the card to you.

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. These pledges, however, aren't the way to go.

[DrPhil]

Phrases I have heard people use about "technical virgins":

1. "Everything but slut"
2. "Only takes it in the booty, cutie"
3. "Oral sex is safe sex"

If people are going to engage in sex stuff without "having sex," they are bullshitting virginity. Just do the deed and stop playing with it.

A friend of mine was a born again virgin. She and her husband were abstaining until their wedding day. Or...so we thought until the bachelorette party when we had some liquor and she told us that they do 69s. They gave each other "good head" so they knew what each other had to offer. They did everything except copulation. I was like...well damn...alrighty then.

[KSUViolet06]

Here's my beef with purity pledges, besides the fact that they're usually implemented by a school system in place of effective sex ed and are full of fail (mind you, this is from a perspective of someone who believes in God.)

It attaches unnecessary shame to the act. As if you're not good in God's eyes because you're not "pure." Cue depression.

It encourages that "loophole" behavior (ex: my pledge is still all good even though I went down on Bobby yesterday behind the bleachers. YAY)

I find intimacy to be a personal matter. As such, I generally feel like it's not the rest of the world's business what someone is doing or not doing in the bedroom. So why "pledge" it in front of your school or your parents or your church? It's none of their business. It's yours and God's (if you believe in Him.)

Kids are kids and then there's the whole aspect of "did you hear that Suzy broke her purity pledge last week?! Ew. What a slut." I just find it unneccesary. Kids have enough crap to be worried about being judged over.

.

[KSUViolet06]

^^^Who is giving anyone "shit?"

I think you're being a little ridic.

When people put their lifestyles on TV, it gets talked about. No one is giving Christians "shit."

Also, I feel like I need to address your "everybody gets shit" comments. I tend to LOL when people get on their presecutory complex re: "getting shit" for being Christian.

America is probably the most comfortable place to be Christian. Seriously. Or really any other religion for that matter. Don't believe me? Go on a mission trip. Seriously, a TV show where people make fun of you pales in comparison to imprisonment.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

When people put their lifestyles on TV, it gets talked about. No one is giving Christians "shit."

Yep, these types of shows are meant to entertain. People who want to understand the plight of the Christian Virgin need not turn to TLC.

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

America is probably the most comfortable place to be Christian. Seriously. Or really any other religion for that matter. Don't believe me? Go on a mission trip. Seriously, a TV show where people make fun of you pales in comparison to imprisonment.

It's most comfortable for being a Christian. I have overheard people ridiculing Christianity and instead of getting offended I have reminded myself that almost everyday there are Christians around the world who ridicule agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc. So, BOOM, fellow Christians. We need to get over the fact that we too say and do things that are considered ridiculous by other Christians and nonChristians. Our response should not be "EVERYONE is a hypocrite. EVERYONE" ( @ thetaj) because that type of response to any form of criticism is almost always silly. Plus, we certainly do not consider the "EVERYONE is a..." routine when we're busy giving our Biblical and nonBiblical opinions of Christians and nonChristians whose beliefs and lifestyles we disagree with.

I still find it funny that this has become about Christianity when it was really about virgins who happen to be Christian. The average Christian in North America (and the world?) is not a virgin despite how Christianity has been used as the "model for virginity."

[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.

[DrPhil]

I am watching the kiss episode. This is disgusting. Barf worthy.

Were they doing a tongue kiss without the tongue? Disgusting.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I am watching the kiss episode. This is disgusting. Barf worthy.

Were they doing a tongue kiss without the tongue? Disgusting.

I just figured out what I found so creepy about their kissing - he's keeping his eyes half open.

CREEPY.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

I just figured out what I found so creepy about their kissing - he's keeping his eyes half open.

CREEPY.

Well, some people kiss with their eyes open.

I found it creepy because they looked disgusting. LOL.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by agzg

I just figured out what I found so creepy about their kissing - he's keeping his eyes half open.

CREEPY.

You saw two people try to chew each other's faces off and THAT'S what bothered you?

[glittergal1985]

Does anyone know where I can watch this show online? I keep hearing about it but I never got a chance to see it