I don't "own" my daughter.

She is NOT "chattel" that some fellow needs to "Ask me for her Hand" before they run off an get spliced.

She does not need to promise me that she will keep her virginity for a "special gift" for her wedding night

She's over 18, I don't even give a rat's ass if she gets another tattoo and shaves her head again. It's her life, she can live it as she sees fit.

I just hope I taught her enough compassion and respect for herself that she has a good life.

What *IS* it with all this "Handmaiden" bullshit in the news lately, anyway?

to hit...the offspring of these nuts will probably be our salvation...:hi:

like a Presbyterian quilting bee...

:thumbsup:

But the Church of the Brethren has some real rousin' quilting going on at Annual Conference each year.

Barbara Bush leading all the little ones.

The funny thing is many of the neocons have had their panties in a twist ever since the 60s, they were so mad then.

Think how mad they'll be this time! :o

Of the other kids my daughter knows...

There is a goody two shoes factor going today in most homes that just leaves me completely perplexed...what the hell ever happened to raising children in a reality based environment?

They are so sheltered and blasted with propaganda and whatever else that they'll never be able to cope!

I don't get it --????

And I agree the backlash is goinng to be HUGE!

HAHA

OMG, totally it will be HUGH@!!!!!111!!!!!

Stick to it!

But you should read the Bill of Rights while you are at it. I'm sure the Amish and the Catholics enjoy their religious freedom as much as you do;)

I'm an Atheist, which bars me from public office or teaching position, and would get me run out of some communities on a rail with a coat of tar and feathers or just drug behind a pick-up truck.

Some cultures/religions practice sewing a young girl's labia minora together as a "special gift" for her wedding night. Should THAT practice be encouraged HERE?

And virginity has nothing in common with the mutilation you note. I fail to see how you can even equate the two.

The point is, religious freedom should also include the right to NOT have a religion. I think it would be far better to work toward that end than to condemn religions or people who practice their chosen religion. If you take away choice, you have to be prepared to have some of your choices removed as well. We cannot give more rights to some people and take away rights from others. If you want to take away rights, then you have to be prepared for yours to be taken away as well.

Most other responders find the "purity Ball" or "Oath" or "Pledge" or whatever you want to call it pretty suspect.

Where did you get the concept of these Murkan ceremonies being a religious rite? Is it because they seem to be peculiary popular amongst the Dominionist types? I recall no mention of any rite where young women pledge their "purity" to their fathers.
Careful, now, I'm an Atheist. I actually READ the book, remember....

Whether it's a "Purity Ball" or an act of mutilation, the idea is the same. Your pussy belongs to Daddy, and you don't get to use it until he says it's OK.

yeah, what's the deal with all this stuff? And why are people defending it? Just because Betty Friedan and Molly Yard are dead, we're all supposed to go back to the kitchen and pretend freedoms for women never happened?

I'm used to being in the minority. I belong to a club whose sole right to entry is being in the minority in one respect. Copernicus was in a minority of thinkers too. I'm in great company, actually. And if you think about it, people are most likely to post on a thread such as this if they are in agreement. Who would want to post when they see others who are like-minded being raked over the coals? :shrug: So, your minority theory really doesn't hold water anyway.

I also said the purity pledge deal was creepy. (But no one seems to want to hear that part. I guess it's just more fun to bash someone than to listen/read.) Just because I think something is creepy doesn't mean that other people have the right to do it or have their beliefs. Frankly, I fail to see why anyone cares. They are not forcing their opinion or beliefs upon anyone. Yet many here, who claim to be liberals I might add, want to put the kibosh on this puritan practice. Yes, it is an old way of thinking. Just because something is old doesn't mean it is no longer valid for some people.

Just because YOU have never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Amish, the Catholics, the Jews and too many other religions to note here, are very big on the virginity before marriage issue. It's their right. You want to change that? You want to make this ceremony illegal? If so, you are trying to force your beliefs on someone else. How would you like it if some group tried to force the virginity before marriage deal on you? No one is doing that, yet so many here are acting as if that were the case. You have no idea what these girls have been taught, what their feelings are or anything. Yet you feel you know best.

I object to the "P" word. How crass, IMHO. If you meant for that to shock me, try again. You have no idea who I am or what I'm about. Yes, I am trying to voice an opinion about living and let live and this group of people who are well within their rights. I don't have to subscribe to their way of thinking to support that right. I don't have to subscribe to the idea that abortion is a good thing in order to support a woman's right to have one either.

... amongst astronomers, his heliocentric version of the epicycle-deferent model of the solar system was accepted relatively quickly. It was only the jesus freaks who didn't like it.

But if you DO think the jesus freaks' opinions count, thus puttin Cop. in the minority, then you may as well say that scientists TODAY "are in the minority" in their thinking about global warming, because so many idiots refuse to believe in it.

Hopefully it's obvious to you that that doesn't make any sense. The notion of "in the minority" only makes sense in relation to the most appropriate demographic for the person under discussion. And in Cop.'s case, he was not in the minority within his demographic.

It's actually amazing that he wasn't, since his model didn't yield substantially better predictions than Ptolemy's earth-centric model. It was basically just the elimination of about a jillion epicycles/deferents that made Cop.'s model more attractive.

If you haven't read it, Thomas Kuhn has a wonderfully detailed history of exactly this - iirc, it's called "The Copernican Revolution". Highly recommended - second only to his magnum opus, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".


Just a tangential remark... :)

You have a lovely way of spinning what other people say.

Re: Copernicus... the majority of PEOPLE, not a very small group of scientists at that time! His demographic would be the people living at that time. The people having this conversation aren't all of the same profession, are they?

Opting instead for ad hominem...

That's cool tho - have fun!

... given the obvious inaccuracy of your chosen demographic.

If I've somehow misunderstood, please rephrase and enlighten me.


Edited to clarify... your assumption about today's scientists is completely false. The scientists are, by in large, in agreement about global warning. It's the Jesus Freaks, once more and again, who are putting the kibosh on things... and that includes the current Regime in the White House.

Your assumption about today's scientists is completely false. The scientists are, by in large, in agreement about global warning. It's the Jesus Freaks, once more and again, who are putting the kibosh on things... and that includes the current Regime in the White House.

Sure it's where you want to draw the line.

--IMM

I would never do it. I would look strangely at anyone who did. But I draw the line at calling the participants child molesters.

I think infant circumcision is way more prevalent, and arguably harmful, than creepy ceremonies like these. Yet it happens all the time and few if any people bat an eye.

DTH

that all religious practices should be exempt from criticism, any more than any non-religious practice should be.

If this were about mutilating or raping little girls, I'd be all over their shit. It's not about that. It's about a parent who holds certain beliefs about a woman remaining a virgin until they are married. That ideal is held by very many people in the world and it is there right. It is a parent's right to try and teach their children their own beliefs. That's all I'm saying. Live and let live... it's the liberal way. I object to people thinking they have the right to try and stop this... that's all. Again, if it were about mutilation or rape or other harmful things, I'd be first in line to try and stop it.

That book, "The Handmaids Tale"?

Raise your daughters to think they and their cootchies are some guy's "property".

Sick.

And another thing, where are all the young studs promising their moms that they're gonna keep their Johnnies holstered until THEIR wedding night? Hmmmmm?

Fair's fair.

As the father of a daughter myself, I found the spectacle of that "purity" ceremony repellent, and suggestive of an unwholesome interest, to put it mildly, on the part of the men involved....

suggestive of an unwholesome interest, to put it mildly, on the part of the men involved

While we agree that the spectacle is bizarre and repellant ("creepy" in my words), I do not think it is right to imply they are or are inclined to be molesters.

The mothers and fathers who subject their children to events like these appear to believe that any sex outside of marriage is an offense to God, and to avoid offending God is perhaps the most important thing to them. They undoubtedly believe that premarital sex will lead to teenage pregnancy, disease, and other tangible consequences in which their children will ruin their lives.

While I can question strenuously their strategies and whether their goals are met in any way by their means, I do not question their sincerity.

DTH

...causes of rape and misogyny there is. I'm with you on this. I don't understand how anyone can treat this regressive attitude as a good thing.

Why don't you ask Juniperx, they seem to be cool with it.

I don't quite get their defending the Constitutional rights of Amish and Catholics (they treat their daughters as goods?) in one post, then suggesting it's alright for you to lose rights because you feel girls should be treated as citizens rather than property.

They are trying to make a point (erroneous) that these "Purity Balls" are some kind of religious rite.

Regressive? Just because a tradition is old doesn't mean it's not still valid for some people.

I have a problem with treating humans like property.

A father/daughter dance is fine.

A girl deciding to remain a virgin until marriage is fine.

A ceremony where minor girls pledge their sexuality to their fathers is creepy and borderline incestuous.

See the difference?

I think people are reading too much into that... I just read that piece again and nowhere does it say that. All the pledge is doing is to promise the father she won't have sex until she gets married.

Show me what I'm missing and I promise to have an open mind... something I'm finding scarce around here these days.

This is where the disagreement is. You see this as harmless, the OP and I see this as horrible. It may be innocent on the part of the daughters, but when adults intentionally create a ceremony in which innocent children are expected and/or required to pledge their sexuality to their fathers, it's controlling at least and incestuous at worst. Is it the same as NAMBLA? No. Is it slavery? No. But it crosses lines in the same directions. At least, that's how I see it, and I think that's how the OP sees it.

I absolutely could see harm coming out of creepy ceremonies like those.

But what do you suggest is the remedy? If we tried outlawing every practice or punishing every parent that screws up kids emotionally, then we would have a lot of laws and a lot of folks in jail. If not that, then what? I am honestly curious.

DTH

I'm not out to control what people think or how they behave, as long as they aren't interfering with anyone else's rights. I'll settle for being able to point out why such behavior is creepy and regressive in hopes that people will think about it.

Thanks for the post.

DTH

Where the hell do you get the "pledging their sexuality to their fathers" bit? All I read is that they pledge to keep it to themselves! They are promising daddy they will be good little girls until they get married! They aren't pledging to only fuck daddy until then! Honest to fucking god! No one can show me where that was ever said! I fail to see anything even bordering incestuousness in that! I've flat asked time and time again for some explanation of where that comes from and NO one can seem to do that! If you are going to make inflammatory claims like that you best be ready to back it up!

That one article that made the rounds has several bits of misinformation in it as well, which to me, puts the whole story in a bad light. That story swears there is nothing like that for boys... but as another DUer pointed out... and provided a link... there is something exactly like that for boys and their mothers.

Now show me your proof! Shit!




I don't "own" my daughter either, but I am responsible for raising her to adulthood. I'll be damned if she is going to have sex at the age of these young girls! These kids are 8-12 FCOL! Any parent that wouldn't at least hope to prevent that is fucking bat shit insane! That is why there are statutory rape laws!

Their fathers are the ones who are responsible for this aspect of the ceremony, not the girls (who probably wouldn't even think of that on their own). The pledge is a requirement of the ceremony. Thus, the adult men are requiring a sexual vow from their own minor daughters, disguised as a dance, so that the girls will think it's fun. What isn't creepy about that?

I don't understand why you don't understand.

And not something I would do. But I fail to see the slightest thing incestuous in this. And I fail to see why it is not perfectly well within the rights of the people involved. All I'm hearing is screams of NAMBLA and crap like that.


I don't think it is bad for some people to raise their kids to follow a religious teaching. They aren't forcing this upon anyone but their own children, who are, by the way, their responsibility. These kids are being raised in a religion that believes a woman should be a virgin until they are married. Unless you were raised that way, this is going to sound creepy. Hell, I was raised that way and it STILL sounds creepy to me!

All I'm saying is that I'm sick of professed liberals thinking there is something wrong with freedom of religion and freedom of choice. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

There is something wrong with sexualizing and objectifying your own daughter. There is something wrong and non-liberal about that. You don't have to agree that this is what's happening, but this is where I, and I assume others, are coming from.

We are all sexual beings. Young people start having sexual thoughts very, very early. I don't see this as sexualizing anyone and I think it is far from objectifying. I think it is quite the opposite, really. I see it more as a way to impress upon these kids that they are special and they should be true to themselves. There is a lot of peer pressure for kids.

Am I going to change your mind about it? Are you going to change mine? What do you want?

Yes, we agree it is creepy. I think pierced ears are a creepy form of mutilation, even though I have pierced ears myself. It's my right to choose if I want them or not. If someone forced it on me, that would be very wrong. If I have my baby daughter's ears pierced, is that wrong?

All I want is for people to understand the basic rights of parents. There are no classes, degrees or licenses required to become parents, yet all parents, regardless of their ability, has the responsibility to raise their children the best way they see fit. It is their right.

When people start talking about speaking out against some issue, they really need to think about the people involved. I would hate for one of these kids to hear that other people think this ceremony is akin to incest! Now THAT would be harmful.

I think people have tried to tell you how to raise your kid(s) before, and you get riled by it. That's cool, even if that isn't the case.

I don't see more perspective, even if I disagree with it, as a bad thing. I'm not saying a five year old should be instructed on how to kill another person with their bare hands, I'm saying that parents cannot protect their children from ideas and that, as long as the children can understand the difference between fact, speculation and opinion, there's no reason to worry about it.

And no one can offer one shred of evidence that remaining a virgin until marriage is wrong, harmful or anything close. Nor is a parent enforcing that thought somehow incestuous.

My kids literally grew up backstage and they knew the difference between fact and fiction very well from a very young age. There were still times when they needed a reality check. Peer pressure, emotional maturity... it all comes into play.

Children love their parents unconditionally. I remember my folks being heavily involved in politics (go figure) when I was that age. There were times when discussions got out of hand, things were said that reflected negatively on my parents. It was traumatic, to say the least. It was traumatic for me when I had a music ministry in church and one of the elders said my rock gospel came from the Devil.

Kids can be hurt by words.

give me a break.

It's the virginity that is the gift. Ask any man who married a virgin how that felt to him.

Do women swoon over marrying virgins, too? Why aren't the sons pledging to remain pure to their mothers?

(my trust, my love for him, my support of him as a person, etc.) weren't anything so ephemeral. Getting married is about the present and the future, not the past. Marrying some who's hung up on who you used to date and what you did with them is a recipe for disaster.

in the 'marital bed'.

That was one of the qualities in the list (near the top) of his wonderful attributes.

When we were single (and sometimes now!) and we would fight - a couple of real doozies - when I thought we might break up permanently, I would play out the list in my head, and consider it.

Every time, the sum of his great qualities outweighed the sum of his bad ones, and I knew that I was lucky to have him, warts and all. We are still married.

Who knows - if our great sex life wasn't part of the equation, maybe one of those fights would have been our last.

Young women who make this choice rarely know the person they will marry anyway! That is absurd! They are doing it for themselves!


No one is forcing the entire population of women on Earth to remain virgins until marriage. There are people who CHOOSE to do this and I just feel it is their right to do so.

I guess the husband wasn't "expecting" that, it was just a bonus? I don't see anything wrong with someone choosing to remain a virgin, but taking prepubescent girls to a ceremony to make promises I doubt they comprehend doesn't constitute a voluntary "choice" in my book. It's coercion, however well-intended. If my daughter wishes to retain her virginity until marriage, well and good, but that's her choice, not something I'm going to pressure her into doing.

That is my only argument here... we, as professed liberals, need to live and let live. We don't have to like everything everyone else does, we don't have to do it ourselves, we just have to be open minded enough to say, hey, that is their choice... this is my choice... to each his own... live and let live.

I'm just sick of people saying crap like these little girls are being molested or this is like NAMBLA or boys aren't being made to to it, or the girls are chattel. That is absurd. It's about civil rights. It's about freedom of religion and freedom of choice. If we start taking choices away from people because we don't particularly agree with them, we open ourselves up to having our choices taken away as well. And rightfully so! What's good for the goose... etc.

Yeah, their daddies aren't putting them into chastity belts, but this fucking religious brainwashing and, in many cases, punishments for having sex, are almost as bad.

What if the daughter does have sex? Will they call her a fucking whore and kick her out of the house. Will they ostracize her? Will they beat her? Most of these girls are not making conscious choices to not have sex based on STD information, or pregnancy information or ANY information whatsoever. I'm all for people choosing abstinence if it suits them or for rational reasons. They are being taught that sex is bad, that they will be a bad person unless they wait for marriage (which is absolutely ridiculous), and that their daddy will hate them/be disappointed if they do it.

But the laugh is on their daddies anyway. Cuz chances are they will have sex early anways, and, being completely ignorant about things like protection (like most really religious people are), she will probably catch a std or get preganat anyways.

Evoman

This is one of the many errors in that original blog story...


http://www.belvoir.army.mil/news.asp?id=truelovewaits



Typical. When a person cannot answer a straight question, they answer with another question.


It is very much a love thing. Some of us hoped for Mr. Right and saved ourselves for him. Why bring baggage? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this practice of saving oneself for marriage... it is a choice some people make. It's their right to do so for whatever reason, personal, religious, whatever.

is it acceptable to raise kids to be racists? What if the ceremony or whatever you are talking about involved pledging to never marry outside of race?

I honestly don't have a full opinion on this but I do know that sometimes really bad ideas get perpetuated as "tradition" or "religion" or "parental rights".

But that is still a parent's right, isn't it? Sick as that may sound, it is still their right to teach hate. Creepy.

I raised my kids to not see the color of a person's skin. They were completely confused later on when they couldn't get into certain school programs reserved for "minority students". It caused a big problem. All a parent can do is try their best and stick to what they believe.

You are absolutely correct about really bad ideas being perpetuated as tradition or religion. I fail to see how an attempt to keep a child a virgin is one of those. Kids are having sex earlier and earlier all the time and I don't think they are emotionally mature enough to handle that.

If these kids were being forced to have sex with their fathers, as some posters imply by the incest remarks, then I'd be first in line to try and get the rat bastards thrown in jail. That isn't what is happening here.

But the snide "baggage" comment was unnecessary.

How was that snide?

Funny how people can say anything they want about a parent wanting the best for their kid yet I offer one prime example as to why it just might be a good idea, and I get "snide".

Unfreakingbelievable!

and he didn't see it as a gift, he thought it was a pain in the butt, because she was so inexperienced. Took forever for them to learn to communicate.

I was a little different. ;-)

Not ALL men long for a virgin bride, you know. It's asinine to suggest that they do.

please don't tell me he returned Wife #1 to "The Little Woman Store" to ask for a more experienced model! ;-)

People are so fascinating. They claim to be liberals, yet they can't live and let live. They claim to hate the RW spin machine, yet they find no problem doing it themselves.

No one said ALL!!! You can't say ALL about anything.


Good god.

He DOES care about things that make wavy lines come out of his head, though.

this was your quote,
"Ask any man who married a virgin how that felt to him".

Any would seem to imply all.

Virginity is a shitty gift. Virgins suck in the sack. In fact, I assure you that most guys who want a virgins probably:

a)Have a small penis and they don't want her to compare

b)Suck in the sack, and again, don't want her to compare their lack of skills with that of her old lovers.

c)Are perverts who get off on "despoiling" things or wanna be a "big daddy"

d)Are virgins themselves and are too self conscious to sleep with women who know what they are doing.

and pulled out of your ass. Have you ever been a virgin woman? Have you ever been a man married to a virgin? I'm betting not.

I can't believe how ignorant... sheesh.

Guys who "prefer virgins" are chumps who suck in the sack.

My husband and I were both virgins... horny ass virgins I might add... we explored together and learned together and we RULED together. And I know many other couples who feel the same way.

Never say "ALL"... and never say never...

Please post a few, especially ones with tattoos.

:evilgrin:

Steel-toed ones, too....:evilgrin:

Nice.

There's no handmaidens found here ... whether they be 12 or 42 years old!




Worry about your sons as much Dads, they've got dried up OLD skanks like Katherine Harris wanting to score their young booty. :P :rofl:

<tongue in cheek>

:hi: My daughter left home in '98, and she's doing fabulous :hug:

compassion and respect, that nails it.

...and regifting would be tacky. :+

If some guy asks me for my daughter's hand in marriage, I'll shrug and say "Dunno - ask her"

and I have the right to say it's FRIGGIN' CREEPY.

This isn't about people wanting to deny anyone their religious freedom to promote abstinence until marriage, as far as I can tell.

What's creepy to me about this, and I think I speak for many others, are that 1) it's a public ceremony and 2) it's almost exclusively directed at daughters and 3) it's taking girls so young. Sexuality is private, so why should a child's future sexuality be discussed in such a public forum as one of these Purity Balls? I think that negates the message that sex is sacred and private - and it definitely sends the message that a girl's sexuality is the business of everyone else but *hers*. If you really want to teach a girl to value her sexuality as sacred, involving it in a public ceremony isn't going to work.

I have an 8-year-old son. So far he thinks sex is gross and the only reason people would do it is to have babies. I can't imagine asking him to pledge his future virginity to us now. Aside from whether or not I teach abstinence until marriage (though I don't, I can see why some parents might), he has no interest in sex now so the promise would be absolutely worthless. I have a similar problem with the DARE program. It's easy to get 8-year-olds to promise that they'll never have sex until marriage or try drugs, because at 8 years old you have no interest in that anyway. People can argue until they're blue in the face that it's necessary because kids are having sex at 10 and 12 now, but statistics don't bear that out to be true at all. Sure, you can (and should) discuss sex with your kids before they're old enough to be interested in it because that establishes what you want them to know. But asking them to make promises regarding something they're not interested in means absolutely nothing. It's like asking me to promise that if I ever become a millionaire, I'll do the right thing and help others with it. I can say that now, and maybe I'd even do that, but until I actually am a millionaire that promise means nothing because it hasn't been put to the test and it's based on what is still only a hypothetical situation.

It *is* creepy to me that this is a father/daughter thing. Father/daughter dances are sweet. Fathers taking their daughters out on a "date" and presenting them with jewelry in exchange for vows is too much like the dad acting as a stand-in for the future husband. Regardless of what parents want to teach, a child's sexuality is - and should be - private. If you want to keep your kids from having sex at 12 and being pregnant at 15, it takes a lot more than an exchange of jewelry and vows with Daddy. It takes talking to them and teaching them your values. Kids can make all the promises they want, and they will do so to keep their parents happy - but that doesn't mean they'll follow through on the promise. The kids I knew who remained virgins until marriage did so because they, themselves, believed in it. Their parents gave them a reason to believe that their virginity was special and their bodies sacred. It's that old phrase conservatives love to hate: self-esteem. If you give a girl self-esteem, she's less likely to throw her virginity to the first guy who shows her any attention.

If you want your kids to make responsible decisions regarding their own sexuality, it takes years of honest communication. It takes giving them a reason to want to make that decision for themselves, other than because *you* want them to make that decision. There are reasons that 8 years old isn't the age of sexual consent, and a big one is that kids at that age don't know what they're getting into. The same is true of asking kids that age to pledge to remain virgins until marriage.

I have a HUGE problem with parents extracting "promises" for the future from young children. My mom had my youngest sister "promise" at age 5 that she would tend to her in her old age. Fast forward 50 years, mom has passed over to the great beyond and what has become of my darling sister?
That "promise" was a curse. Mom tried it with me, but as she'd raised us all to consider our word as sacred, even as a child I'd answer, "But suppose I die first? I mustn't a promise I might not be able to keep."

And you said she is 18, she's a legal adult. My daughter is 12 and she and all of my kids do not get to make up their own rules. They follow the rules laid down by me and my husband. Those rules include chores, spending Shabbos at home, and rules regarding dating as well.

If you call that ownership, fine.

If kids were smart and mature enough to make their own decisions, they would have been born without parents.

If I were my kids' friend, as opposed to their parent, I'd let them eat whatever they wanted, do whatever they wanted, and not make any judgements. How is that teaching them about responsibility?

And you are right, if they could make their own decisions with complete understanding of consequences, and they were prepared to deal with said consequences, they would have been born totally independent.

I guess I am just an oppressive overlord.

Yes, I subscribe to that thought as well.

I had a pediatrician tell me something once that stuck with me. He said that children feel secure when parents care enough to teach them right from wrong. Children who are not disciplined feel insecure and they act out for attention from their parents. Children WANT to be disciplined. He told me to never be afraid of disciplining my kids, that they would only hate me for a little while... and he winked.

He was right. I knew for sure he was right when I took all three kids out for the oldest's 21st birthday, the younger two still being teenagers. There was a family sitting a few tables away and their two kids were completely out of control. My kids eyed them disapprovingly. My middle kid leaned over and whispered so only our table could hear... "That is disgusting! We would have NEVER gotten away with that behavior! Those parents must not care about their kids at all!" The other two were in firm agreement.

They are all adults now, and to this day, they are thoroughly annoyed and saddened by unruly children.

All that being said, there were some rough times... kids go through stages, you know? I've been told "I hate you Mom!" and many other things for being strict about anything from sugar content in snacks I wouldn't let them have to bedtime and curfew when out on dates. The only effect it had was that they got disciplined AND I let them know that saying such things is mean and they hurt my feelings. When I remind my kids of that now, it makes them blush:) "You know I always loved you Mom!"

I'd rather have them tell me they hated me at age 7 than at 17...

I raise my kids to behave well, we're concerned about the sugar content of snacks, they have a bedtime, etc. But that has absolutely nothing to do with virginity pledges and exchanging vows for jewelry with Daddy.

I am honestly really annoyed at the seeming argument being made here that concerned parents are A-OK with asking their children to pledge their virginity until marriage. It is extremely possible to be a concerned parent who understands the role of a parent (as opposed to being like a friend), and still think the virginity pledges are creepy.

You want us to lay off the religion aspect in this, then I ask you to stop equating good parenting with the virginity pledge.

I have no doubt these parents are sincere in what they are doing. You don't have to do the virginity pledge to be a good parent and I never, ever said you did! I certainly never asked any of my kids to do that!! I find it creepy too and I've said that a bajillion times but no one wants to hear that! Why the freakout?


I never asked that the religion deal take a back seat... never once. All I have ever, ever said is that these parents are not raping, molesting or mutilating and they have the right to do what they are doing!


I swear, no one reads for comprehension anymore! I'm pretty sick of having words put in my mouth!

As I said below, I am NOT one of the people comparing this to NAMBLA, molestation, mutilation or incest.

Respectfully, I might point out that in your efforts to defend the parents' rights to make their own choices over how they raise their children, it often comes across that you are defending the Purity Balls and virginity pledges. If your argument was strictly the idea that parents have the right to raise their children however they wish, I don't think people would be reacting so much. I'm willing to accept that may be your central premise, but you've mentioned a lot of other things in these threads that lead at least some people (including me) to think that you are defending the virginity pledges themselves.

and tend to undermine the use of contraception, wouldn't "good parenting" not include such a pledge? :shrug:

We're talking about kids who have been raised and counseled for the most part. Sure, there will be some "failures"... you can never say anything is 100%... not even the pill is 100% effective.

Personally, I had the contraception talk vs. the virginity talk with my kids. I even bought a ton of condoms for the boys and offered to take my daughter to get on the pill. That is my right. It's the right of the parents in question to handle the issue the way they see fit. That is all I'm saying.

Funny how people want to be the master of their own lives yet they don't want to admit that others have that right as well.


:shrug:

Teens who make a one-time pledge to remain virgins until marriage catch sexually transmitted diseases about as often as those who don't pledge abstinence, according to a study of the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents.
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/children/articles/2004/03/10/study_questions_effectiveness_of_teenage_virginity_pledges/

That link also says:
"Those who make a public pledge to delay sex also wind up having fewer sex partners and get married earlier, the research shows. One of the problems, researchers found, is that virginity "pledgers" are less likely to use condoms when they do have sex. The analysis found that in communities where at least 20 percent of adolescents pledged to remain virgins, the combined STD rate was 8.9 percent. In communities with fewer than 7 percent pledgers, the STD rate was 5.5 percent."

Another similar link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2122093/
This one says: "The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health shows that...most pledgers don't keep their promises"

I would say that's pretty good evidence that they're ineffective.

I'm not putting words into your mouth, but it seems like you're trying to do that to others. I don't see anyone here saying that people don't have a right to make these decisions, just that they disagree with them. If you've seen posts stating otherwise, feel free to point them out.

I think people have every right to make these choices for their kids. Doesn't mean I personally think it's an effective choice, though.

Having rules does not equal exchanging vows of virginity for jewelry with Daddy. Nor does it mean that parents who don't like these virginity pledges *don't* have such rules for their kids.

My kids have rules much like yours (minus the Shabbos). They will also have rules regarding dating. I do feel that it is my job to be the parent rather than their friend. But I wouldn't dream of asking them to pledge their virginity to their parents in a public ceremony. That is a VERY private matter and completely invalidates the argument that sex is so sacred it should only be saved for one's spouse. I do not believe my children's future sex lives are the business of their parents, much less their community. It's my job to instill values in them so that they'll have the tools to make good choices regarding their sex lives, and I can limit their opportunities to do so as teenagers, but beyond that it is not something I can control. Any parent who thinks they can *control* their child's sexuality is deluding themselves. But that doesn't mean that the parents don't have a right to teach values or make rules.

And I'm not one of the people comparing the Purity Ball to NAMBLA, molestation, or incest, just for the record.

I think people have every right to make these decisions regarding how they raise their kids. I've made some decisions regarding how to raise my own children that have been pretty unpopular and I want the right to continue doing so, so of course I'm willing to grant others the same rights.

But despite thinking they have the right to make those choices, I still think it's creepy (and I acknowledge that you've said it's creepy too, so you can't accuse me of not reading carefully). To me, there's a huge gulf of difference between teaching your kids that abstinence until marriage is the best policy, and demanding that they pledge to you that they'll do so.

That promises aren't meant to be taken lightly. That giving their word is important.

This kind of pledge, which will most certainly be broken, is problematic on several levels for me:
1. It IS creepy. Having the girls pledge to their fathers? Wierd shit.
2. It is done way too early, when girls (and boys) are pre-pubescent and when sexuality isn't a pressing hormonal concern. This promise is extracted under what I would call false pretenses since at these ages, the kids think sex is gross so it is an "easy" pledge to make.
3. It sets them up to break this "promise". That is bad parenting.

I live on a farm. Animals start to become horny very young. My kids know this, understand it, have watched sex acts all over the place. They have seen that the drive to have sex, this biological drive is extremely powerful. Even more than most, in the face of the awesome power of nature, I would never have tried to exact some kind of promise from them while they were still pre-pubescent. My kids would have smelled the horseshit (literally and figuratively) from a mile away since they were intimately aware of what it was all about.

These parents are setting their kids up to break their word. That's just wrong.

And I say it's more wrong to set them up to break their promises than the sex would be.

I also raise my kids to believe that their word means something. And therefore I don't ask them to make promises they might not be able to keep - and similarly, I also don't make promises that I might not be able to keep, myself.

Personally, I am having problems with the whole "live and let live" meme on this thread.

This IS a discussion board where people can articulate their views and share their concerns and hash out their differences. It's possible to take the "live and let live" meme and apply it to just about every discussion on DU if you want to go that route.

But it sure would shut down a hell of a lot of discussion, especially since it is tied in with "as liberal Dems we should...."

On the good/bad parenting priority scale: Keeping one's promises rates higher in my book than pre-marital sex.

"Use condoms" is my mantra.

I want my daughter to be resistant to "everyone is doing it" and "you'd do it if you loved me" messages, yet a Purity Ball where a bunch of little girls are repeating words they don't understand to their Daddies (i.e., men they want to please) utilizes both of these forms of emotional blackmail. Hypocritical much? And stupid, to actively cultivate the compliant response I don't want to see in an older child?

See, I DON'T find that attractive in my relationships. I DON'T want my children to be compliant because they have been emotionally blackmailed (great term by the way).

And I see this whole thing as an emotional blackmail. And it's dealing with a biological urge that is way too outta control - it's setting so many kids up for failure.

I really object to that.

And you are right on encouraging your daughter to be independent and a free thinker.

Peace!

As long as your children live in your house, you have every right to expect them to follow your rules. However, I suspect that you are also preparing your children to become independent adults. When your daughter moves out of the house and is financially independent you are not going to expect her to call you for permission every time she needs to make a decision.

The OP is referring to the strange ceremonies where very young daughters pledge to remain virgins until they are married and they make this pledge to their fathers. Now, parents do have a right to expect that their children will follow the rules of the house as long as they live in the house. But I am not sure that it is reasonable to expect a seven-or-eight-old-child to make a pledge and then expect her to keep it even when she is an adult.

Nothing is 100% fool proof. But that shouldn't stop a parent from trying to teach their kid what the parent thinks is right.

...to see how successful this strategy will be.

The tighter the iron fist, the bigger the jailbreak.

So true. Some social science rock band also is enlightening --> "hold on loosely."

I "provide guidance and closely monitor" RATHER THAN "lord order and spy."

When you lock-down on a teen, you're begging for hell for they'll resist with all their being. :-)

She IS my responsibility. She is NOT chattel, but the fellow who hopes to cross MY doorstep is worth less than the sound in the wind to me unless and until I trust his intent and good will towards my daughter.

She does not need to promise me anything because she IS my daughter. I'll do everything I can to protect her from the world's ills, and I'll try to create a safe space where she can discover the hardships and joys of life at her own pace.

I'd rather she not get a tattoo for a stupid reason, and I'd hate to see her shave her head because she has such beautiful hair. It's my daughter I love, though, so how she chooses to adorn herself is ultimately secondary.

I DO hope she does me the honor of allowing me to hand her away if and when she chooses to wed.

That's not Handmaiden bullshit, though, that's my baby girl.

I'm always happy to hear that some parents are taking their responsibility as a parent seriously.

It's an ugly world out there and we can't protect them from everything, but we can teach them what we feel is important. That's our right.

We don't all have to agree on the details, but the one thing all liberals should agree on is that parents have the right to raise their kids as they see fit. If you can't agree to live and let live, you probably aren't a liberal.

"parents have the right to raise their kids as they see fit."

abusive parents use this kind of terminology and yet the "state" often WILL step in and terminate those "rights"

whether the "ceremony" at the center of this discussion is abuse or not is still up for debate in my opinion. Looking at it as a former preteen daughter, I think I would have sustained real damage from exposure to this sort of thing, but then perhaps not. I tend to agree about the publicity of it all - it feels VERY innapropriate to me, but then so do Quincineras, a totally acceptable cultural puberty ritual...so what do I know?

I was raised in a Fundie church so I know how they feel about the virginity until marriage deal.

And you are right about the parental rights deal... Of course I mean that within reason! I'd be the first to step in if I thought someone was hurting a child... ask my daughter... I'm pretty vocal about such things and have been known to tell off a parent for leaving their baby in a locked car or letting their kid out on the passenger side of the car or giving a 6 year old a can of beer... yes, seriously.

From my post-Fundie perspective, I think these people are sincere. And if the girls were raised in the church, then this all seems very normal to them and it's something they want to be involved with... and they most likely believe they will keep the oath... maybe they will, maybe they won't. They aren't being raped or mutilated, so the parental rights deal holds in my POV.

Quincineras freak me out too... and first communions... and Pacific Island practices of tattooing young kids... and many people who have their baby girls' ears pierced... freaks me out! I have pierced ears and it still freaks me out... I think it's mutilation. It's tradition, it isn't blatantly harmful... live and let live I say.

raising a kid in a fundy church abuse but yeah I guess I can't save the WHOLE world. Still, I wouldn't have any problem outlawing religious indoctrination of minors...

And I do feel that "live and let live" is a good philosophy in terms of law, but I also feel that it's important that if I think something is really screwed up, I'll speak up about it. If friends who get their baby girl's ears pierced ask me if I think it's cute (which has happened), I *will* tell them that even though it's their right to choose whatever they wish, I think it's a horrible thing to put a child through that before they're old enough to even say if they want it. That's the one difference I see with the quinceaneras - that is more of a cultural thing, and the girls involved are usually old enough to choose to participate and many of them are excited to do so. When I lived in Texas, I knew a sizable number of families of Mexican descent that celebrated quinceaneras and even the girls who had one tended to think of it fondly. A 15-year-old knows a lot more about what she's getting involved in than does an 8 or 9-year-old at a purity ball.

So, yes, in the eyes of the law I vehemently believe in the right of people to make their own decisions (excepting literal abuse) regarding how they raise their own kids. Just ask me how I feel about mandatory vaccinations! LOL But when people make decisions that are way outside the mainstream - as I have, myself - I think it's not unreasonable to think that people who disagree with their decisions are going to say so. And I think that's okay. And that's what I'm doing regarding the purity ball and virginity pledges. I'm saying "hey, I don't agree with this, I think it's really messed up, but the law protects your right to do it."

"hey, I don't agree with this, I think it's really messed up, but the law protects your right to do it."


I think we need a little more information than provided in that blog.

I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.
I WILL NOT USE THE VERB "TO OWN" REFERRING TO MY CHILDREN.

I think the concept of ownership should carry with it the notion of responsibility, not in a bad way. It is my responsibility to do my best to raise my children to be the happiest, healthiest people that they can be.

I can't even get mine to clean her room. ;)

p.s. She's heavy into martial arts now for five years, earned her first degree Black belt and halfway towards her second degree. A proud member of the "Fight Club" who's qualified for nationals this summer. Therefore, I'm not worried about her being able to defend herself as well as being *aware* of her surroundings. As awesome as she is, petite and a beautiful NATURAL blonde, I want to be there when some boy decides to step over the line. :-) :nuke: :hi:

On edit: Protect her? Hell no, she's gonna protect me. I'm Taxi Mom and her emotional support.

again. The last (and first) time I read it was for Freshman Orientation at school (1989).

I have a feeling i'm going to scare myself senseless with it's prescience.

I know my parents aren't gonna marry me off to some old rich geezer, so it's cool on that point...

But.....

Oy.

I can only speak about my own upbringing, by rather liberal but Victorian grandparents. The unspoken rule was "wait until you are of legal age". They trusted me to make the correct decision, and because of that trust, I did. If more parents would just care about and love their children, rather than treating them badly, there would be no problem.

Where there is trust, there is respect, and where there is respect, there is trust.

i'm not sure if you are referring to anything specific with the "handmaiden" thing. but it's something that has been around for a while and i hate it.