One wonders if all the dads taking their daughters to creepy father-daughter “purity” balls, know that by denying them comprehensive sex education and having them sign virginity pledges, they’re just making it more likely that they’ll engage in unprotected anal sex?
update: I should point out that I didn’t mean to suggest that the unprotected anal sex is taking place during the father-daughter purity balls, or, for that matter, that the fathers are in any way involved in said activity. I’m sorry if I gave that impression.
68 Comments
Just in case it’s not clear, the “they’ll” at the end refers to the daughters, not the fathers.
And I should add that I completely empathize with parents that don’t want to see their daughters get sexually involved at a young age. I just think that abstinence only education doesn’t work, that virginity pledges are ridiculous, and that purity balls are really creepy. (Did you see those photos of the made-up daughters dancing with their dads?)
This is all so OBVIOUSLY creepy, ESPECIALLY because the mothers apparently aren’t screaming bloody murder about all of this! Reminds me of the Ramsay’s and Jon Benet’s “beauty” shows.
My question is: Why are American mothers (and women in general) so bamboozled by male shenanigans like this? Why aren’t women of all stripes just saying “NO!”? Why?
As a follow-up to the above … it will be interesting who comments further … father protesting their attitudes about turning their daughters into runway scarecrows … or mothers, defending their daughters ever-younger descent into the dangers of “dress-up” play.
I find purity balls to be creepy.
Abstinence only education has proven itself to be ineffective.
Being ugly works.
I believe that my big balls should be held every night.
Women of all stripes are just really used to this stuff. Any measure of male outrage is very welcome, however. It would be nice to see the focus go away from valuing ‘virginity’ and towards choosing partners well and respect for the body and boundaries.
Women are “used to this stuff.”
An honest and factful response, IMHO.
Most American women I have known have been subject to this “stuff” and the mag racks at the Kroger’s checkouts confirm all of this.
I’ll go so far as to say that this embedded fear of men is why American mother’s have never stood up to men in our society and said “NO” to an unjustified war or to other forms of violence … in society … against women in general … against themselves.
Few men, myswlf included, are asking for a Utah approach to male-female relationship … on the other hand … I think many of us could do without the heavily made-up plastic image sold to women in the press, on television and in the stores.
And when it comes to the littlest of our ladies, the “abuse” is so damn obvious, it creeps me out. And yet, at least on this blog, the silence is deafening. Yikes.
The article also credits the easing of social mores as a contributing factor several times.
Social conservatives can turn this one right back around atcha and start advocating TV/movie/music censorship, or the enforcement of anti-sodomy laws, if you want to argue that it’s society’s job to cure this problem through legislation.
But maybe you weren’t arguing that. Maybe you just wondering if the Dad’s knew they were making it more likely. I wonder if those who advocate the easing of social mores do.
I’m just being devil’s advocate here. I don’t consider other people’s sex lives my problem or responsibility, generally.
We should also teach responsible use of firearms and explosives in highschool, since we know that some kids are going to use them anyway and aren’t being taught how to use them properly at home.
The abstinance-only rout in regards to firearms and explosives clearly isn’t working.
I’m not being ironic, but am aware that an inconsistancy in many people’s reasoning/worldview will cause some to have a big problem with that, and to think I only said that to get a rise out of people, which, of course, I kind of did.
But also because I genuinely believe it’s a great idea.
The inconsistancy in other people’s thought processes that would cause an angry reaction to that is not my fault, and should be dealt with constructively by the sufferer. Verbally abusing me is not a constructive way to deal with something that is not my fault, by the way.
The silence of women in this blog is deafening.
Mothers and women have been putting up with a lot if shit from men for generations.
Psychologists have had a field day with this.
Come’on ladies … speak out.
Why are you sacrificing yourselves and your daughters to men and why are you sacrificing your sons to violence?
Hmmm?
Aren’t you the guy that’s all about the “sex workers?”
Freedom from exploitation … whether from your own mother and father, if not from society … yes, to answer your question.
I’m ranting here about personal abuse of our children.
When I talk about sex workers, I’m discussing the freedom of adults to practice in a physically safe environment .., free from abuse and free from the ravanages of preventable disease.
Ah.
Hmmm. I think both sides on this issue could meet in the middle.
For example, if unprotected anal sex is so bad, would protected anal sex for virgin girls be okay? What about oral sex?
Egpenet, man, have you ever met a woman?
I am glad I have boys.
What about anal cybersex? Anal phone sex/sexting?
Wait. Here is the answer; revirginization.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23254178/
I just find the Purity Ball thing disgusting. If your objective is to encourage your daughter not to grow up so fast, then don’t make her up to look like an adult woman when she’s still a kid, and go on dates with her like she’s a younger version of her mother. Instead, why not get her involved in sports, or some activity that would actually increase her self esteem? Focusing on their beauty and their virginity, to me, seems to only increase the perception that their value lies in such things… Creepy and ineffective.
The photos look like prom with dads – and it’s the dads that make it look creepy, not the dresses and makeup. Many girls love fancy dresses and makeup. And there is nothing wrong with that.
What strikes me the most is an attempt to have an event for girls from 4 years old to college age. That seems crazy- a conversation about purity is one thing with a teen, but with a 4-year-old? Father-daughter dances with 4-year-olds can be cute and fun, and purity doesn’t need to enter into the equation. It makes me think these dances are really for the adults, not for the kids.
Did anyone read the article? The paragraph about the girl who had been assaulted, and then had to deal with massive guilt (for no longer being ‘pure’) on top of everything else, broke my heart.
Abstinence is very effective at eliminating unwanted pregnancy and preventing the acquisition of incurable STD’s. Comprehensive sex education promotes condom use as safe sex, even though both herpes and HPV are easily transmitted when a condom is used and condoms are only 70 – 75% effective in preventing pregnancy. You might think it’s O.K. to have premarital sex and risk herpes, since it won’t kill you, or syphilis or gonorrhea, since they are treatable, but HPV and HIV can kill. HPV is the leading, and possibly the only cause of cervical cancer. The earlier a woman has sexual intercourse and the larger the number of partners, the greater her chances are of getting cervical cancer.
The sexual revolution of the 60’s has not benefited families. More than 60% of African American children are now born out of wedlock. Single parent families are far more likely to be impoverished and put children at risk. Sexual promiscuity has increased the divorce rate, frequently leaving women alone to care for dependent children. You’ve come a long way baby… now you can work and raise children without the financial support of fathers!
The value of purity balls and abstinence education is to teach young girls to value their bodies and emotional health, to date men who will respect them and wait till marriage. This eliminates the negative consequences of disease or unintended pregnancies and preserves an opportunity to experience intimacy with one husband for a lifetime.
What I think is creepy is to consider how many dozens or hundreds of sexual partners your wife had before you. How many performed better and left your wife more satisfied? Who does she think about when she’s in bed with you?
Where are you getting your stats on condom effectiveness, “Wish I Had Waited”? And you might not that a pledge for abstinence is hardly the same as being abstinent. The pledge is what we’re seeing, not so much the latter.
And speaking of creepy, your last paragraph is way off the creepometer. You sound like a guy thoroughly into the whole patriarchal cult that purity balls symbolize.
All the women I know have been mocking purity balls for years. Then again, I’m not a fundamentalist Christian.
And anyone who thinks American mothers are particularly “bamboozled” is as full of sexist shit as the purity ball defenders. I think one reason purity balls are still around is because the media gets such a prurient interest in them.
er, not is supposed to be “note”
Also, maybe women aren’t commenting because we aren’t “sacrificing yourselves and your daughters to men and why are you sacrificing your sons to violence?”, egpenis.
I believe in abstinence-only driver education. I think that everybody should be soundly prevented from even riding in a vehicle until they day they drive. Then at age 16, unleash hell. We could have Pedestrian Balls where fathers walk their little girls to the dance. Girls could dress in driving gloves and scarves and those old-timey goggles. You know, just tease the car into *thinking* that they’re going to drive it. Then, they can secretly go off behind their fathers’ backs and drive their cars… backward. ‘Cause that’s not really driving at all.
The key is to really work those purity balls until purity comes spraying out all over society.
I think Curt’s is the funniest so far.
What I think is creepy is to consider how many dozens or hundreds of sexual partners your wife had before you. How many performed better and left your wife more satisfied? Who does she think about when she’s in bed with you?
Grace abounds, man. And if you aren’t performing well enough, you need to step up your game. Start by better communication, then maybe read some books on the side to surprise her. Depending on the book. Is there a more powerful market force than a dissatisfied wife to motivate a man towards excellence? I think not.
Thanks BA,
Your comment was very encouraging. By the way, would you mind stopping and picking up a gallon of milk on your way home tonight?
No way man. Doing small, not very inconvenient, necessary favors for people who ask nicely is where I draw the line.
Whoop-pah!
“Wish I had Waited’s” comments actually point out the importance of comprehensive reproductive health education in schools. Lessons that should include condom lessons and risk reduction. The thing with condoms is that they are most effective when used and used correctly, hence the importance of lessons. Knowledge matters and is a matter of life, disease and death.
The data is very poor on abstinence promises. They break their promises and do not prepare or prevent.
Am I the only one thinking that it would be fun to bring a young-looking woman (of legal age) posing as your daughter, and then make out during the whole thing?
Hey egpenet, how do you know we’re not *all* women who comment on this blog? Anyone can call herself Ed on the internet.
Maryd-
Have you studied the comprehensive reproductive health education curriculum? Use of condoms is considered safe sex and taught to kids in Middle School. However, they prevent the transmission of HIV only 85% of the time when used correctly. It’s comparable to telling your daughters to remove 5 of 6 b*llets in a handgu* before they start playing Russia* Ro*lette. Yes there is risk reduction – but what loving parent would encourage their kids to play with loaded gu*s? What’s wrong with teaching girls to save sex for marriage? There’s a large group of physicians who are suing the CDC for misrepresenting the facts concerning the use of condoms for disease prevention. Pla**ed Pare*thood promotes sex because it’s good for business. How many deadly infections transmitted among youth will it take to raise the collective consciousness?
“We should also teach responsible use of firearms and explosives in highschool, since we know that some kids are going to use them anyway and aren’t being taught how to use them properly at home.
The abstinance-only rout in regards to firearms and explosives clearly isn’t working.”
The people, the politicians, and the dictating forces in our society determine acceptable losses and injuries for most mainstream activities. The line is not necessarily always drawn where it should be, but we can change that.
I do dislike the double standard that is often below the surface: men should sow their oats; women should stay pure for one man.
>I do dislike the double standard that is often below the surface: men should sow their oats; women should stay pure for one man.
Thank you for saying this.
I think a lot of guys don’t use condoms because wearing a condom totally sucks compared to not wearing a condom. Someone had to say it. Imagine making out with someone wearing a balloon over your head.
I imagine that goes double for men who breath through their penis, Ditch.
I like it when people talk of the “sexual revolution” and imply that people did not have sex before 1960.
What crap. People just didn’t want to talk about it.
The photos from the above purity balls make me think of several things:
1) The photographers sifted through all the tons of photos they took and picked the absolute creepiest child-molestery ones on purpose.
2) Two of my best friends were sexually molested as children, one by her dad and one by her uncle. It makes me want to rip these father’s faces off and feed them to the dogs.
3) The men in these photos might be child molesters or the best fathers ever, and you can’t tell from the photos.
4) Most journalists I’ve encountered deserve to have their faces ripped off and fed to the dogs.
Just some thoughts.
Speaking as a mom, I really hope, when they are ready, that my daughter and son will have great, pleasurable sex lives with partners (yes, plural) who respect and love them. I hope that each respects and loves his/her body. I hope they will understand that no means no, no matter what. I hope they are sensible, informed, responsible and self-possessed enough to navigate our culture’s mixed signals about gender and sex without hazard. I hope that, if they encounter such hazard, they will feel free to talk to me or someone about it without fear of reproach.
Come to think of it, I hope the same for myself. Why would my wishes for them be any different?
I really don’t understand why people are surprised by ‘purity balls’… have you seen the Disney channel? I am way passed outrage. I am very much way passed imagining this is a subject that really and truly interests men beyond prurient impulses. All love to the boys, but most women past the prime age of sexual attention (what is it, about 22 these days, maybe 19?) just can’t get worked up by this stuff anymore. We live our lives. We live in our bodies. What the majority culture thinks of us matters less and less. We hope to pass this hard-earned wisdom onto our children.
Any hot chicks here? I’m not going to say anything sweet and/or inspiring unless there are.
I like the term “purity balls”. It makes me think of my own.
It is funny that kids hate the idea of their parents ever having or continuing to have sex and that most parents hate the idea of their children growing and up becoming sexually active. They forget so soon what it was like to be young.
Any discussion of exaggerated failure rates and suggesting condoms are not effective in reducing the risk of HIV and other STDS may discourage teens from using condoms but it will not discourage them from having sex, placing them at increased risk of an unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV, when they do become sexually active.
Condoms continue to be one of the most effective prevention tools in the fight against HIV/AIDS, STDs, and unintended pregnancy. It is a violation of public health principles and human rights for programs to be promoting these half-truths to students. Sexuality education must contain comprehensive, medically accurate information that informs all students how to correctly and consistently use condoms in order to protect themselves and their partners from HIV, other STDs, and unintended pregnancy.
What moron would ever suggest that condoms are not effective in preventing HIV infection? Do these idiots really exist?
I’ve been told that I have purty balls. Is that kind of the same thing?
The “morons” work for NIH.
Some claim that condoms will cut down on the spread of many sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. However, a July 20, 2001 report from the National Institutes of Health, Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, concluded that scientific evidence does not support condom use as a means to prevent infections of genital herpes (HSV), human papillomavirus, chlamydia, syphilis, chanchroid, and trichomonas.
The NIH report did say that consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by about 85 percent. But that is not very good for a uniformly fatal disease. The NIH study did not address other potentially fatal diseases such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. And the study was based on adult use of condoms after extensive instructions, not teen use in the back seat of cars.
The width of the head of a normal human sperm is 2.5 to 3.5 microns,3 but viruses are much smaller. In a 1998 article in Rubber Plastics News, C. M. Roland of the Naval Research Laboratory Chemistry Division and M. J. Schroeder of the U.S. Naval Academy Department of Chemistry stated the following:
“The defining feature of viruses is their diminutive size. For example, the AIDS virus is only 0.15 microns, and the hepatitis B virus is even smaller. Given the presence in rubber of intrinsic defects two orders of magnitude larger in size, the ability of a condom or surgical glove to prevent transmission of viral particles is problematic.”
Roland and Schroeder tested samples of rubber taken from two commercial latex condoms, one about 50 microns thick and the other about 90 microns thick. In both cases, they found that more than one million particles having a diameter of 0.1 microns passed through a square centimeter of condom latex within 30 minutes and, during the same time span, ten times larger particles of 1 micron in diameter passed througat a rate of about 1000 per square centimeter.
Get your head out of the sand and acknowledge that reduction of risk is not the same as elimination of risk. The use of condoms does not make sex safe, just a little safer than bareback.
Well, if people are going to be fucking anyway, 85% is pretty good for a fatal disease and a lot safer than bareback. I don’t have my head in the sand, you have yours in your ass.
To claim that anything is 100% effective is foolish and, more often than not, wrong. To be honest, abstinence is not 100% effective in preventing HIV infection since you can still get it from sharing needles and contact with infected blood and fluids which may not happen through sex.
The NIH’s report seems reasonable, but I seriously doubt that they intended to support that populations should ot rely on condoms to prevent the spread of disease. There is no 100% solution and never will be.
People are going to be fucking. Better somewhat safe than not and better to promote something realistic than some stupid, unrealistic moralist nonsense. When did you start fucking?
Oh, “Wish I Had Waited,” how about a line from the journal Family Planning Perspectives, which covered the report: “The response to the report was immediate and polarized. A group of physicians held a press conference to proclaim that the report demonstrated the ineffectiveness of condom use.[9] These advocates saw themselves as exposing the “fact that condoms are ineffective in preventing transmission of most STDs, thus challenging the notion of `safe sex’ as championed by the CDC.” Unfortunately, by inferring that absence of data meant condom ineffectiveness, the group did exactly what the report cautioned readers not to do.”
Your numbers don’t jibe with those in the report, and you make the mistake of inferring from a lack of evidence.
Condoms have a failure rate, when used properly (according to the study) of between three and four percent. Not only that, but the biggest failures for condoms, taking them down to your “75%” is when they’re simply not used! That’s the very definition of an educational problem!
As for your question regarding abstinence, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it DOES NOT WORK. People wanna keep fuckin’, and hey, making it SAFER (because, yes, you’re right, they aren’t perfect) is important.
But man, if you have this much trouble with simple odds, I want to play poker with you!
By the way, the article I quoted is here or here.
…and they want to fuck without condoms, cos it feels way better.
Why not sex ed for the parents instead of for the kids? What could either side hate about that?
JS-
The NIH report conclusion was that there was no evidence to support that condoms were an effective barrier to disease prevention. To conclude that condoms are not effective because they found an absence of data to prove their effectiveness would be a logical fallacy and I concur with the author’s statement. However, the study I cited in Rubber Plastic News was scientific evidence that demonstrated the porosity of latex condoms to virus particles. I disagree with your statement that I was inferring from a lack of evidence since I cited a publication that provides that evidence.
I’m not at all opposed to sex ed for youth, provided that the information is accurate and age appropriate. I am opposed to public school education that encourages minors to engage in sexual behaviors as long as they are using condoms, and very much opposed to teaching youth that condoms prevent diseases. They should be taught that condoms help reduce STD’s and lethal infections, but are not 100% safe even when used correctly. Abstinence is the only safe option and a very good choice for unmarried partners. Because some youth will engage in sex regardless does not justify distorting the facts given to all youth.
In case anyone is starting to dig the trance-inducing sciencey-sounding stuff from our friend WIHW, here is a link to the CDC’s statement on transmission of viral particles through latex condoms:
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Whatever, medical science is messy and everything has to be checked empirically. There are risks, caveat emptor, your mileage may vary, etc.
To inject a wee bit o’ science, think about this for a second: a molecule of nitrogen is about 0.1 nanometers in length (virus particles are about 10-300 nanometers according to wikipedia), and your latex baloon has no problem containing air for weeks despite have comparably gigantic holes. It turns out that diffusion through tiny holes (“effusion”) is not a very efficient process.
Readers of this site might like to note that despite its technical-sounding name “Rubber Plastics News” is not a peer-reviewed journal and the article to which WIHW refers is not indexed in the Web of Science–the de facto standard catalogue of all technical literature. Though it is clear the authors are definitely legit and have published extensively in the polymer literature, that does not mean they are right about this particular aspect of viral particle transmission.
Also, WIHW copied large portions of his post from this page (without citation):
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10184
This has all the makings of an information vortex. If enough web pages link to something, it eventually becomes difficult to distiguish from the truth.
I just wanted to say how cool it is that there’s an actual real scientist in the audience. This is great.
My feeling is that Wish I Had Waited is actually EoS in disguise.
For the record, “ineffective” cannot be defined as “not 100% effective”. By your definition, flu shots are “ineffective” but it can’t be denied that they are certainly effective in reducing mortality due to flu and pneumonia.
Condoms are cheap and effective in preventing many cases of disease and pregnancy, that can’t be argued, regardless of what links you find on the internet and how you decide to misinterpret them.
What always kills me is when morons in the US decide to impost “abstinence only” policies on the developed world, specifically in places where women don’t necessarily have the power to make all their sexual choices.
Teach the facts about both for shit’s sake, then move on to firearm safety/marksmanship in gym class. Problems solved.
Rubber and Plastics News is also not indexed by PubMed, which is the de facto indexer of life sciences research.
Another red flag should be the description of the small size of viruses as the defining feature.
Finally, there’s this BBC investigation into the Catholic whitepaper that was issued a couple years back claiming that condoms don’t stop HIV. They pretty much demolish the claims, including those of Roland, which did not hold up upon retesting (which may be why he wasn’t publishing those claims in a peer-reviewed journal).
So, basically, you’re wrong and you don’t understand probability, and you’re engaging in the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
I feel bamboozled. What does Rubber and Plastics News know about medical research? That’s like using Highlights as a pediatric journal.
In fact, it appears that she got it off some pro-life site (http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10184) since it appears you need a subscription to read Rubber and Plastics News.
That’s got to be EoS, the tactics are so similar.
My daughter and I routinely play “purity nuts.”
The essence of the game is that she learns to kick anyone who treats her like nothing more than a fuck in the nuts.
We’ve gone through three elmo dolls and a half-dozen David Hasselhoff cut outs so far.
That’s not creepy, is it? I mean, I’m a good dad, right?
Frenchfries,
You make a valid point with the balloon example. I’m not sure the balloon would last for weeks, but it certainly lasts longer than one would expect based on latex porosity.
The CDC defines “effective” as a reduction in the incidence of disease. They would call condoms effective against STD’s even if they only provided 5% more protection than using nothing at all. Yet the only STD that the CDC site lists that condoms are effective against is HIV.
I previously made a claim and backed it up by citing the published studies that supported it. So you (and others) want to chide me for not citing the web page I found the studies on? And you want me to cite peer reviewed journal articles for this audience while js resorts to BBC articles to refute the NIH?
I apologize for diverting this discussion into a debate on condom failure, which is clearly tangential to the original post. Sorry that you consider a reference to a widely published NIH study to be “trance-inducing sciencey-sounding stuff”. Time for Ditch Digger to show his bravado by announcing he doesn’t use condoms at all.
I think Dude is really Rosie O’Donnell, the tactics are so similar.
I don’t use condoms at all. I’ve also engaged in coitus with no one but my wife, so there.
“You’re honor, I’d like to draw your to the back of the purity pledge, to the anal clause.”
Speaking of Anal Clause, I can’t believe he’s only a few days away!
“And you want me to cite peer reviewed journal articles for this audience while js resorts to BBC articles to refute the NIH? “
Dude, you clearly read neither my comment nor the linked article. That’s bad faith, and you should be ashamed.
I’m sorry to say that I missed you comment, but the quote you mention was not uttered by me.
No, no, I’m sorry. That was, like, an exasperated expletive. Like, saying, “Man, you didn’t even read my comment…” Only with “Dude” instead.
Apologies, Dude, for the laxness.
And there’s a new study out today showing that teens who pledge abstinence are more likely to have unprotected sex.
There is a huge media conspiracy and religious and scientific community collusion-type thingie against the fine art of hetereosexual butt-humping. And I, for one, don’t like it.
Am I the only one here who remembers what it was like to be a teenager?
When I was young, I had the benefit of truly complete sex education. Her name was “Roxy” or something like that.
A quote from your article Mark;
“Previous studies found that pledgers were more likely to delay having sex than non-pledgers,” said study author Janet E. Rosenbaum, a post-doctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “I used the same data as previous studies but a different statistical method.”
In other words, a person with fancy schmantzy college degrees can make the study results say whatever they want. She didn’t even need to do the legwork that a new study would require. Isn’t it wonderful how politics is the driving force behind all science now? It is so much better than say, religion or money.
I am a single, employed, middleaged man looking to take a young woman to a purity ball. I am respectful and gentle. I have all of my teeth and hair. I would make a great stand-in for an incarcerated father, etc. If you are interested, please let me know by leaving a comment.