Purity Culture is damaging and idolatrous

[Greta]

No you did not, he STOLE something from you. He took trust and so many other things that I'm sure I don't understand since I haven't gone through it. You did not sin and you can still freely give yourself to someone else, that would be intimate. That horrible man stole many things from you. It was not intimate. I am so, so sorry.

I just wanted to say how strongly I agree with this, and that I too am very sorry.

[Bluegoat]

I don't equate any "purity" ideals with virginity, if that's what you mean. I don't think advocating virginity before marriage is inherently oppressive, and I'm not sure, but I wonder if that's how you read my post. I say this because you asked me to clarify my comment about these purity ideals as oppressive, but then went on to explain how you feel teaching sex is "sacred" and best used only within the parameters of marriage was a positive thing for you. To me, ideals of purity and virginity before marriage are not correlated other than one incorporates the other (purity incorporates abstinence, but abstinence does not inherently incorporate purity ideals). 

 

But you know, now that I think about it, I find it an interesting concept. Does abstinence inherently incorporate even a little bit of purity ideology? The idea that virginity is somehow valuable is interesting to me. I rather dislike the concept of virginity as a thing that has its own label and identity. We don't talk about first haircuts or first time to the dentist or really any other first experiences with the same value. Now I'm curious why virginity is such a big deal, and if we can't help but incorporate some of the purity ideas in there, and that's why it's such a big deal. I understand the practical reasons behind it ("sacredness" isn't practical, but avoiding divorce is), but I suspect those practical reasons are met in other ways as well, making virginity but one variable that has been unreasonably elevated to The Most Important One. Why would virginity take on such epic value if it weren't somehow more "pure" or "virtuous" or valuable than any (every) other variable? 

 

Hmm... interesting. I want to ponder this some. 

 

From a historical perspective, you tend to see the idea of physical purity most strongly in dualist religious systems, or systems that are influenced by them.  In those systems, they tend to think of the "real" things as being immaterial or abstract forms, or spiritual, mathematical realities. these real things come from some sort of first cause or god or thing like an ultimate equation, and are "good". These realities become instantiated in matter, which in these systems have a different origin, but matter is not good", Souls become in some way trapped in this prison of flesh, and the goal for us is to escape that and return to our proper place as free spirits.

 

Those kinds of systems are very focused on all kinds of physical purity, from sex to food, even avoiding touching things that are seen to be more fleshly.  There can be very extreme asceticism, things like fasting or flagellation.

 

So that is one place you can see it come from, and there are quite a few religious movements that to some extent or other are of that kind - Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, maybe Buddhism sometimes.  It also seems to be something that easily arises in belief systems that don't behave that way, you can see it sometimes in our culture among people who get really into serious exercise and restrictive diets.

 

In the Christian tradition in the west you tend to see it come up, in orthodox belief anyway, as a response to the Fall.  The idea goes that in and of itself, our appetites are good and healthy, but because we have become separated from God, they can be unhealthy in various ways.  One way to combat this can be to restrict in some way, or sometimes even totally give up, those appetites. (Though for some people this is not recommended.) That is, if you cannot say, just eat whatever appeals to you without being a glutton, you might restrict yourself to eating foods that are very plain, and only small amounts.  So in this case the idea is that the thing itself - food -  is good, but the way we use it or respond to it often is not - that is, we aren't pure.  Some of the early Christians felt that sex in particular tended to be very prone to this kind of problem, plus unlike food you can actually entirely give it up.  In addition to that, sex and marriage and having children is a really basic human activity, so giving it up, permanently, in pursuit of holiness was seen to be a very elevated, and difficult, calling.

 

So you can look at Augustine for example, who pretty much though that no one could be sexually active without sinning because sex was just so prone to what you might call ego satisfaction (more a reflection of himself than anything else perhaps), and that everyone should be celibate if they could, saying at the same time that rape entailed no loss of purity and said that  women that killed themselves after because they believed they were defiled were sadly mistaken.  It wasn't the physical act itself that was really a problem, even for a guy who was pretty negative about sex in general.

 

The purity movement in evangelical Christianity as far as I can see doesn't actually come so much out of that particular way of thinking - it seems to me to come out of a kind of dualism, almost the opposite view which says only the spiritual is pure, and the physical is corrupt. 

 

[Greta]

But aside from maybe the micro-penis, I guess my experience has been that these things can easily come up in a marriage even if you try things out before hand. I wasn't celibate before I married, but over the period of my marriage my libido has gone through really significant variations. My husband refers to the period when I was nursing babies as "the seven year drought". And things like premature ejaculation, or inability to have sex at all due to things like illness, can happen easily enough as well, and at some point I daresay they will happen to every couple that stays married for long.

 

Ultimately, if you marry with the intent to stick with it through normal bodily changes and misfortunes like illness and accident, you are signing a blank check. The only kind of insurance that I think is realistic is talking frankly beforehand about your expectations and feelings. I kind of think that the idea that you can take a test drive to check for compatibility tends to obscure that reality for many people.

Good points. I know this is uncommon, but I do know a couple whose sex life was brought to a screeching halt because of the development of a rare medical condition. The test drive did nothing to prepare them for that eventuality.

 

Also, one problem with the test drive is that it's usually performed during the "lust stage" of the relationship: early on, when you're crazy, giddy, head over heels in love. That's actually not a very good indication at all of what your sex life is going to be like for the next 30 years!

 

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong about that. That's the way it went for me. I fell in love first, then had sex, and then got married. I guess what is more common now is sex first, love later, marriage last? Quite a contrast to the days when it was marriage first, then sex, then love last if ever.

 

ETA: And I am in no way trying to say that the way that I did it was the "right" way. I was not a Christian at the time. I wonder how my life and my marriage might have been different if I had held to the Christian ideal of waiting until marriage. But I will never know, of course. It is what it is.

[fairfarmhand]

Yes, this is a very good reason to not equate the two.

 

Another reason is that if the definition of purity is physical virginity, then that means that marriage is impure. And I cannot accept that. I find that to be a pretty unChristian idea, actually.

 

If there is to be a healthy definition of purity, I think it has to be more about a state of mind than a state of body.

 

YES!  And those who have been previously married can be pure as well.

[Guest]

There is a middle ground between sexual lasciviousness and virginity as currency. I would hazard to say that is where most of us Christians fall. Purity is an attitude of worship, not a state of a hymen. And again, I say that as someone with a very checkered sexual past - consensual and otherwise.

[TechWife]

 Purity is an attitude of worship, not a state of a hymen. 

 

I really, really want to put this in my Facebook status, but I am refraining. I love it! 

[Guest]

Not to wax all historical, but that wasn't the case even when you go back in time (that people waited because they knew they'd get married young). In our own colonial american history the trend was try the girl out, see if she got pregnant, and if she did (proving she could bear you children), THEN marry her.

 

At least that's what I've read. :)

I haven't read that, at least not as it pertains to women of the New England Colonial period. For most women, the only ticket to any hope of prosperity and "God's Favor" was to marry young and choose well. It was a really bad idea to be "sullied" by a man who might not marry you. It was also excruciatingly difficult to keep any impropriety on the down-low because women in village life during that time were serious busy-bodies. Without benefit of Orange County Housewives, they had to snoop around the village to dig up juicy stories.

 

I'm basing my opinions on what I read in the book "Good Wives: Image and Reality in New England 1650-1750."

[Aelwydd]

So assuming that 2 people were otherwise wonderfully compatible and were likely to have an excellent marriage, how long should they "try out" their sexual relationship before marriage? Sexual relationships tend to evolve over time, even years. After a couple months of trying it out, should they abandon the relationship because they are compatible in every way except the bedroom? Should they wait a year before they decide they just can't work it out? Two?

 

The other problem I see is that people don't usually tend to enter a sexual relationship only AFTER they've decided the person is otherwise marriable (is that a word?). Our culture tends to be rather liberal with sex even in early stages of a relationship. So I think it might be easy to blame a failed relaionship on sexual incompatibility than to recognize or admit certain character flaws or other areas that the couple isn't really compatible. I also think that some issues in the bedroom are a symptom of underlying problems in the relationship.

There is no formulaic prescription here. I pointed out that waiting until marriage to have sex can lead to scenarios of incompatibility and divorce. Different couples will have varying ideas of when or how long to experiment before getting married.

 

As far as failed relationships, they can have many causes. One is sexual incompatibility. You may believe it's a small matter, but I have a front row seat, unfortunately, to one such marriage in the family. Some facts are undeniable, even when they go against one's professed doctrine.

[albeto.]

I do wonder how people who believe in purity see this kind of situation, which isn't at all rare. Is having sex outside marriage a sin if it wasn't consensual? I don't mean whether it is a sin to rape, which is clear, but is it also a sin to be raped? Do rape victims also turn into chewed, taste-deficient pieces of gum (an analogy I have heard often)? Or is that just if the sex was consensual? If the latter, why? What's the difference, exactly? Sex happened all the same. Even though rape isn't necessarily about sex at all, intercourse still happens.

 

Your comment exposes one of the problems with the concept of "sin." A behavior in and of itself may or may not be considered sinful based on different circumstances. The problem is, the context of that behavior and of those circumstances evolve with society. What was considered a "sin" two hundred years ago is justifiable today. We can explain human behavior so much better, with more meaning and more usefulness than "sin" precisely because "sin" is utterly subjective and its meaning shifts with the given contexts. No other behavior is given this leeway. OCD, for example, means the same thing today, tomorrow, in this town, or in that. "God's will" on the other hand, means something different to each individual, and so defying that is as subjective as identifying it.

 

Because of this, it should come as no surprise to find cultures that do assign culpability of rape to the victim in one way or another. That may not be popular today, it many never have been universally popular, but there is historical president for such beliefs. When I was Catholic, Maria Goretti's story bothered me. Now I see it as a despicable message that illuminates an unsettling element of xian theology - the idea that virginity is and always has been correlated with purity. As I understand it, the Jewish scriptures xians refer to as foreshadowing of Mary refer to the mother of the messiah as a young woman, xians translate this meaning to virgin. Nor is this unique to xianity (stories of demigods born to virgin mothers were known long before Paul came along with his Good News). 

 

According to Pope Pius XII who cannonized Saint Maria Goretti (bold mine), 

 

...It is well known how this young girl had to face a bitter struggle with no way to defend herself. Without warning a vicious stranger burst upon her, bent on raping her and destroying her childlike purity. In that moment of crisis she could have spoken to her Redeemer in the words of that classic, The Imitation of Christ: "Though tested and plagued by a host of misfortunes, I have no fear so long as your grace is with me. It is my strength, stronger than any adversary; it helps me and gives me guidance." With splendid courage she surrendered herself to God and his grace and so gave her life to protect her virginity.

 

The thing about this whole purity ideology is that it is in perfect conformity with xian theology in general. I think we respond with horror when faced with the stuff Bill Gothard says, but he didn't invent this concept, he just took it and vamped it up to 11 by placing new value on an ideology that had been slowly rejected over time. There's no reason to assume our social expectations with regard to sex won't be interpreted in coming generations as unnecessarily "legalistic," and things society thinks of as "sin" today will likely be another flavor of "normal" in the future (homophobia, I'm looking at you). 

[albeto.]

Another reason is that if the definition of purity is physical virginity, then that means that marriage is impure. And I cannot accept that. I find that to be a pretty unChristian idea, actually.

 

What do you do with Paul's thoughts about marriage (1 Corinthians 7)? He was pretty clear that a man shouldn't touch a woman (he says so right up front), but if he can't help himself, it's better to be married than to fornicate. The Roman Catholic Church interprets this in part to consider celebacy in the priesthood(and nuns) as a profound sacrifice - the "calling" to remain untouched, and refrain from touching others for life. They equate one's relationship with the church as a mystical marriage (a priest is married to the church, a nun is married to christ, essentially), but that doesn't diminish the practice of abstaining from sexual relationships for life, or considering that to be a virtuous deed. I know not every xian sees it this way, and not every catholic does, but the fact remains, this was a significant belief for many centuries for most xians. 

[albeto.]

From a historical perspective, you tend to see the idea of physical purity most strongly in dualist religious systems, or systems that are influenced by them....

 

From the outside, one can see the same trend within xianity's many sects. Xianity leaves room for the progressive Quakers who are also Buddhists, Anglicans who are also Muslim, and Gothardites who are also living in modern society with 18th century gender roles. I think that's why it can bubble up here and there and never really goes away, but never really takes too many people with them, either. 

[albeto.]

There is a middle ground between sexual lasciviousness and virginity as currency. I would hazard to say that is where most of us Christians fall. Purity is an attitude of worship, not a state of a hymen. And again, I say that as someone with a very checkered sexual past - consensual and otherwise.

 

Trying to identify the middle ground of anything in the xian religion is like trying to herd cats. Perhaps you forget those xians who fall on the liberal side of you, and those who fall on the conservative side of you, believe they are solidly on the real middle ground. I think people tend to forget in conversations like this that people on both sides are reading silently, thinking to themselves if they shared what they believe to be the real deal, they'd get dog piled so quickly it would make their heads spin. So they're quiet. But they're there, and they exist on both sides of your fence, and they genuinely believe their understanding is closer to the mark than yours. Even with regards to sexual lasciviousness and virginity as currency. 

[Guest]

No, what I'm saying is that very few Christians fall on either extreme. Period. Being closer or further to a side is a doctrinal discussion, but only a very small handful of self identified, practicing believers would throw all sexual morality out in favor of total, self determined sexual liberty OR in total locked down virginity-above-all-else-at-any-cost patriarchy.

 

The rest is up for in house discussion with everyone bringing their evidence and hermeneutic.

[sewingmama]

:confused1: a culture like what? (the chewed gum story was a public school teacher

Yeah...and the teacher was probably LDS....I was told that story a few times in my Young Womens classes...it's disgusting to teach young girls that.

 

I had a best friend who got pregnant at 15. She tried many times to come back to church but in the end left for good. She felt so bad about herself " being used" and felt like no LDS guy would want her and she was probably right. A few times I asked some of my guy friends why they didn't ask her on a date and the answers I got. " I don't want someone who is used goods". So I am guessing they teach the guys similar things in Priesthood.

 

That kind of mindset is very much alive in the LDS church. I had a few friends get pregnant before marriage and the times they dated LDS guys...well they all told me that the guys mothers hated them and tried like crazy to discourage their sons from dating them.

 

It's little wonder they leave the church for good...I would too if the people made me feel like dirt.

[DesertBlossom]

Yeah...and the teacher was probably LDS....I was told that story a few times in my Young Womens classes...it's disgusting to teach young girls that.

 

I had a best friend who got pregnant at 15. She tried many times to come back to church but in the end left for good. She felt so bad about herself " being used" and felt like no LDS guy would want her and she was probably right. A few times I asked some of my guy friends why they didn't ask her on a date and the answers I got. " I don't want someone who is used goods". So I am guessing they teach the guys similar things in Priesthood.

 

That kind of mindset is very much alive in the LDS church. I had a few friends get pregnant before marriage and the times they dated LDS guys...well they all told me that the guys mothers hated them and tried like crazy to discourage their sons from dating them.

 

It's little wonder they leave the church for good...I would too if the people made me feel like dirt.

I'm not saying it's not taught sometimes or that a lot of people don't believe it. But I don't believe it to be doctrinally sound. I guess I know enough people who have still been welcomed with open, loving arms, to believe it's a blanket issue in the church. I would sincerely hope that anyone who found themselves in that position could truly understand that their standing with God is far more important than the opinions of others. It

[EmseB]

Not totally on the topic of purity, but I've heard people say that waiting until marriage can cause sexual incompatibility problems which cause the dissolution of the relationship after marriage, but in my experience I've also seen not waiting for sex cause a lot of problems.  The scenario being that two people would get together and have amazing physical chemistry and have sex relatively soon into seeing each other, but have a horrible dysfunctional relationship.  They would often keep coming back to each other because of the great sex, but in all other areas of their relationship they were wholly incompatible, to the point of horrible fights and even domestic violence in some cases.  The worst was when these people had children. :(  Eventually these types of relationships would have an ultimate demise, but not without doing a lot of damage first.  I had a pretty varied peer group and the situation of great, fantastic sex and physical attraction being the only reason to stay in a dysfunctional relationship seemed somewhat common.

 

In either case (waiting or not waiting or everything in between) I think that the real problem is not sexual incompatibility per se, but the unwillingness of one or both partners to communicate, grow or change or sacrifice for the other.  In the case of waiting until marriage, this can manifest itself in the bedroom.  In the case of not waiting and having fantastic sexual compatibility, this manifests itself outside of the bedroom.

[sewingmama]

I'm not saying it's not taught sometimes or that a lot of people don't believe it. But I don't believe it to be doctrinally sound. I guess I know enough people who have still been welcomed with open, loving arms, to believe it's a blanket issue in the church. I would sincerely hope that anyone who found themselves in that position could truly understand that their standing with God is far more important than the opinions of others. It

Of course it isn't doctrinally sound but that doesn't stop people treating others horribly. Most 15 year olds are still trying to find their worth and being treated like a leper is not going to help their self esteem. I've seen first hand how COMMON this is in the church...it isn't a few isolated people doing it.

 

I knew a girl who was raped ...someone broke into her house while she slept. Plenty of people said aloud " Oh it's not her fault, she is still pure". and then had secret words with their sons discouraging them from dating her because ..you know...." She did leave the window open in the first place".

[albeto.]

No, what I'm saying is that very few Christians fall on either extreme. Period. Being closer or further to a side is a doctrinal discussion, but only a very small handful of self identified, practicing believers would throw all sexual morality out in favor of total, self determined sexual liberty OR in total locked down virginity-above-all-else-at-any-cost patriarchy.

 

The rest is up for in house discussion with everyone bringing their evidence and hermeneutic.

 

Saying there are very few people who take an ideology to the extreme (besides being redundant), is not the same as saying there is a middle ground between sexual lasciviousness and virginity as currency, and it has nothing to do with what I said about identifying that middle ground. You identify "sexual lasciviousness" and "virginity as currency" as extremes, but you don't identify what you mean by them. Is homosexuality "sexual lasciviousness" in your opinion? Having multiple partners? Sex before marriage? Using leather and lace? Pulling hair? What do you mean by "virginity as currency"? Is lack of virginity an excuse to break off a marriage? Is virginity related to purity unjustified? Is virginity reason to toast the pure couple at a rehearsal dinner? What do these mean to you? And what do they mean to others? And who determines what the middle ground is here? I ask because it's not the same today as it was when I was younger, and it's not the same as it was when my mom was younger, and it's not the same as it was when my grandmother was younger, and it's not the same as in Brazil, or South Korea, or Hawaii.... kwim? 

 

 Purity is an attitude of worship

 

Can you explain what this means to you?

[Bluegoat]

From the outside, one can see the same trend within xianity's many sects. Xianity leaves room for the progressive Quakers who are also Buddhists, Anglicans who are also Muslim, and Gothardites who are also living in modern society with 18th century gender roles. I think that's why it can bubble up here and there and never really goes away, but never really takes too many people with them, either. 

 

The history of ideas in Christianity, just like the history of ideas in other systems of thought, has a logic and a history in time and space - it isn't some kind of random bubbling up here and there. 

 

To say you can discern the same trend in Christian groups and dualist groups is just to lose significant meaning.  Ritual purity of the kind found in Manichean religion or Gnosticism has a real logic in those systems, and so it is characteristic, and behaviors associated with it are characteristic - even when it seems like there is no other connection historically speaking.  That logic doesn't apply in the same way in a unitarian system, at best there is a tension, and the characteristics of that are different. It is weighted the most heavily against the material world in the Calvinist and radical reformations, which as it happens are where the American evangelical movement has most of its roots.  There are also some particularly American twists on it, from the same period that brought out groups like the Shakers and even the LDS and the JW, and you can see some common threads moving through those things.

 

At a certain point though, it just doesn't make sense to call a group or set of ideas by a title, even if it is claimed.  A Muslim Anglican is either a Muslim with Anglican cultural roots or a syncretist.  A Christian who has really embraced a dualist metaphysics is probably crossing that line.  There is a reason we don't just call Christians Jews, or Muslims a syncretic Christian sect, though there could be plausible historical arguments for doing either. 

[Bluegoat]

Of course it isn't doctrinally sound but that doesn't stop people treating others horribly. Most 15 year olds are still trying to find their worth and being treated like a leper is not going to help their self esteem. I've seen first hand how COMMON this is in the church...it isn't a few isolated people doing it.

 

I knew a girl who was raped ...someone broke into her house while she slept. Plenty of people said aloud " Oh it's not her fault, she is still pure". and then had secret words with their sons discouraging them from dating her because ..you know...." She did leave the window open in the first place".

 

I find this kind of horrific, and I have to say it makes me wonder what sort of church that could be.  I'm Anglican, I have Lutheran and Catholic roots, and I have in the past worked closely with the Baptist and Orthodox churches and some others as well in my neighbourhood.

 

I can't even imagine any of those people thinking that, let along saying it to someone.  If someone did, the pastors and priests would all put a big stomping foot down on it before you could blink an eye.

[albeto.]

The history of ideas in Christianity, just like the history of ideas in other systems of thought, has a logic and a history in time and space - it isn't some kind of random bubbling up here and there. 

 

No doubt. 

 

At a certain point though, it just doesn't make sense to call a group or set of ideas by a title, even if it is claimed...

 

It may not make sense to you or me, but it does make sense to those who embrace it. Because there exists no objective means by which one can determine with any accuracy if they are closer or farther from the reality of the very claims that are understood to be true solely by virtue of faith, there's no way you or I can say they're wrong to do so. We can argue which beliefs are more reasonable, but not which ones are true. How does one argue against divine revelation? How does one argue that a Truth revealed by divine, superior, omniscient being is wrong? Who are you or I to question the mind and will of a god? ;)

 

 A Muslim Anglican is either a Muslim with Anglican cultural roots or a syncretist. 

 

It's called Christlam, and whether or not it becomes popular and increases the size of its community or is slowly neglected over time, every religion formed by synchronizing old beliefs with new. 

[Frances]

An interesting study to be published later this month in the American Journal of Sociology looked at divorce rates on a county by county basis in the US and found that one of the strongest factors predicting divorce was the concentration of conservative or evangelical Protestants in the county. Early explanations for the differences in divorce rates between red and blue states primarily concentrated on economic factors. The new study shows a variety of factors contribute including earlier ages at first marriage and first birth and lower educational achievement and income for conservative Protestant youth. Interestingly, the higher divorce rates also held for those not affiliated with a conservative religion but living in a county with a high concentration of religious conservatives.

 

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on-regional-divorce-rates/

[Samm]

I have to ask a very naive question.  All I have learned about  Purity Culture is what I have read here.  Apart from the rings, is there money to be made ?  Like is there a syndicate for the dances, or are there "accountability partners" who get paid to mentor girls?  My gut feeling is that anytime a basically good idea gets magnified in a grotesque way (e.g. education), someone is making a lot of money off of it.

[FaithManor]

I have to ask a very naive question.  All I have learned about  Purity Culture is what I have read here.  Apart from the rings, is there money to be made ?  Like is there a syndicate for the dances, or are there "accountability partners" who get paid to mentor girls?  My gut feeling is that anytime a basically good idea gets magnified in a grotesque way (e.g. education), someone is making a lot of money off of it.

There are a couple of organizations that organize very large events. Parents pay decent money to attend these things, and like proms, there are the other "add ons" such buying the gowns, etc. The purity "balls" that I am aware of show the girls dressed in white gowns reminiscent of wedding gowns, decked out in nice shoes, jewelry, etc. with professional photographers snapping shots so parents can buy picture packages. The rings probably vary in cost according to what the family can afford or is willing to pay, but entrance fees are substantial, and there are activities where the father "woos" his daughter's heart before she pledges her virginity to her father in a ceremony that mimics a traditional church wedding.

 

I have gotten the impression that the purity balls that Doug Phillips attended with his own daughters were lavish affairs that probably cost a good bit of money.

[Veritaserum]

I'm not saying it's not taught sometimes or that a lot of people don't believe it. But I don't believe it to be doctrinally sound. I guess I know enough people who have still been welcomed with open, loving arms, to believe it's a blanket issue in the church. I would sincerely hope that anyone who found themselves in that position could truly understand that their standing with God is far more important than the opinions of others. It

It will vary from region to region and ward to ward. I grew up in SoCal and when one of my fellow young women got pregnant, she got mixed reactions from people in the ward (congregation). I had already left for college (a year early, so she was my age peer), but when I came home for Christmas my mom mentioned that the other young women had kind of dropped her. I invited her and the other girls out for a movie and sat by her at church. After I went back to school, the other girls kept contact with her. I think they just didn't know how to handle it given the frequent and strong teachings against sex outside of marriage. Seeing me treat her like our friend (which she still was) helped them relax about her pregnancy. She wrote me letters for the next year or so and said that she really appreciated what I did. She kept the baby, too, despite pressure from church leaders to give him up.my

 

I can't imagine the last ward I was in (Utah) handling a similar situation with grace and compassion. Even in the adult women's class we got sex shaming messages. My oldest dd says it was also bad in the classes for young women. Our current ward (next city over) would probably handle such a situation with grace and compassion. The people here are the only reason I started attending church again.

[Greta]

What do you do with Paul's thoughts about marriage (1 Corinthians 7)? He was pretty clear that a man shouldn't touch a woman (he says so right up front), but if he can't help himself, it's better to be married than to fornicate. The Roman Catholic Church interprets this in part to consider celebacy in the priesthood(and nuns) as a profound sacrifice - the "calling" to remain untouched, and refrain from touching others for life. They equate one's relationship with the church as a mystical marriage (a priest is married to the church, a nun is married to christ, essentially), but that doesn't diminish the practice of abstaining from sexual relationships for life, or considering that to be a virtuous deed. I know not every xian sees it this way, and not every catholic does, but the fact remains, this was a significant belief for many centuries for most xians.

Maybe I miscommunicated before, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you now, but believe me in no way did I intend to belittle celibacy as a path to holiness. I have a tremendous and heartfelt respect for those who choose that level of asceticism.

 

But marriage is also a legitimate calling, and a path to holiness. Paul was certainly . . . exuberant in his promotion of celibacy. But he says very clearly in that passage that sex within a marriage is not sin. Purity culture puts such a heavy and unhealthy emphasis on virginity and on abstaining from even fleeting sexual thoughts ("lust"), etc. that, as has been mentioned in other threads on this topic, people who have been raised in this culture can have a very hard time switching from that mindset to a healthy happy sex life within a marriage. Sexual shame within the context of marriage is not a Christian ideal, as the Christian view is that God created the institution or marriage, and blessed it.

[PeterPan]

I don't want to write too much because I don't want to get too graphic. But incompatibility is definitely a thing - sometimes things just don't fit together like they're supposed to. I had a boyfriend once and when things turned more intimate, I almost recoiled in fear because of how, um, well endowed he was.  

Ok, I'll just ask, and y'all can shudder.  Doesn't size correlate to something else visible anatomically on the male, so you could just figure it out?

[PeterPan]

I don't know anyone who thinks a victim of rape is guilty of sin. Sin is willfully choosing to break the commandments of God. A rape victim didn't choose any of that.

 

There are OT bible verses about a woman crying out (which actually probably have a different context than rape) that preachers have used for years to impute guilt to women.  It was standard process at a christian university, in counseling women who were sexually abused, to ask them if they felt *pleasure* and tell them they needed to repent if they did.  

 

So yes, preachers and teachers have done hideous things to victims in the name of christianity.  Just because it's not what you think doesn't mean it's not what has been done or that it's not STILL being done in certain circles.

[itsheresomewhere]

Ok, I'll just ask, and y'all can shudder.  Doesn't size correlate to something else visible anatomically on the male, so you could just figure it out?

 

Unless something has changed recently, a study proved that was a myth.

[itsheresomewhere]

There are OT bible verses about a woman crying out (which actually probably have a different context than rape) that preachers have used for years to impute guilt to women.  It was standard process at a christian university, in counseling women who were sexually abused, to ask them if they felt *pleasure* and tell them they needed to repent if they did.  

 

So yes, preachers and teachers have done hideous things to victims in the name of christianity.  Just because it's not what you think doesn't mean it's not what has been done or that it's not STILL being done in certain circles.

 

I know several who were taught this.  Sadly, some of them were told this not too long ago.  

[Aelwydd]

Not totally on the topic of purity, but I've heard people say that waiting until marriage can cause sexual incompatibility problems which cause the dissolution of the relationship after marriage...

 

 

No, that is not what I said. Nowhere did I say that waiting until marriage causes sexual incompatibility. I stated that waiting until marriage may lead to cases of missed incompatibility. And that some incompatibilities pose an insurmountable hurdle to those marriages, resulting in divorce.

[albeto.]

Maybe I miscommunicated before, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you now, but believe me in no way did I intend to belittle celibacy as a path to holiness. I have a tremendous and heartfelt respect for those who choose that level of asceticism.

 

I didn't read your comment as belittling in any way, fwiw. :)

 

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just wondering how xians respond to this. 

 

But marriage is also a legitimate calling, and a path to holiness. Paul was certainly . . . exuberant in his promotion of celibacy. But he says very clearly in that passage that sex within a marriage is not sin. 

 

No, marriage is not a sin but it's not the ideal, either. What do you do with that? What does anyone do with that? As a catholic, I accepted the idea that celibacy was the more honorable path, being married to the church, or being married to christ himself being more virtuous and sacred than being married to a mere mortal. At the same time, I accepted it as a great sacrifice for the very reasons you give - marriage is created by God, blessed by God, that's how one goes forth and multiplies, etc etc, kwim? I don't know what protestants do with this. It seems maybe they kind of brush off that part because it doesn't resonate with most people. They don't relate to this as a moral truth, or sound advice. Or anyway I should say, I don't know how it resonates with the protestant. 

 

Purity culture puts such a heavy and unhealthy emphasis on virginity and on abstaining from even fleeting sexual thoughts ("lust"), etc. that, as has been mentioned in other threads on this topic, people who have been raised in this culture can have a very hard time switching from that mindset to a healthy happy sex life within a marriage. Sexual shame within the context of marriage is not a Christian ideal, as the Christian view is that God created the institution or marriage, and blessed it.

 

I agree, and yet I'm finding myself having a hard time separating "purity culture" from the idea of virginity being a special thing, to be "given" ideally under certain circumstances (within the context of lawfully wedded bliss). It seems to me this purity culture is just taking "virginity culture" and turning it up to 11. It's not like people who aren't immersed in this purity culture (however we define it) are safe from the same sexual dysfunction and anxieties like shame, or addiction, or whatever negative thing one might associate exclusively with ATI. And it's not like people who do not identify as being a part of the purity culture don't advocate many of the same ideals. I think there's a problem with assigning a moral or ethical value to virginity in general, and I think it's for the same reasons I don't like the purity culture, even if it is less dysfunctional and more socially acceptable overall. 

[CaffeineDiary]

Earlier in the thread someone said that virginity wasn't "idolized" because "virginity" wasn't an actual "idol" by the dictionary definition and I choked on my tea because a major world religion maintains an idol whose central attribute and signifier is "She didn't get laid."

 

[Greta]

I didn't read your comment as belittling in any way, fwiw. :)

Okay, good. :)

 

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just wondering how xians respond to this.

 

 

No, marriage is not a sin but it's not the ideal, either. What do you do with that? What does anyone do with that? As a catholic, I accepted the idea that celibacy was the more honorable path, being married to the church, or being married to christ himself being more virtuous and sacred than being married to a mere mortal. At the same time, I accepted it as a great sacrifice for the very reasons you give - marriage is created by God, blessed by God, that's how one goes forth and multiplies, etc etc, kwim? I don't know what protestants do with this. It seems maybe they kind of brush off that part because it doesn't resonate with most people. They don't relate to this as a moral truth, or sound advice. Or anyway I should say, I don't know how it resonates with the protestant.

It's probably good to challenge me and put me on the spot every once in awhile. :) I guess I've just not been part of a Christian church that ever promoted the idea that marriage was "not the ideal". I'm Orthodox so wouldn't be able to help you out on the Protestant perspective. But I can say that in the Orthodox Church, the view that I have heard expressed again and again is that both (celibacy and marriage) are equally valued and respected. I'm not sure there is one ideal that's right for everyone, it's more of a belief that some people are called to monasticism, and that's the ideal for them, while others are called to marriage, and that's their ideal. I've even heard people point out that if we were all monastics, then there would be no one left having babies and making more monastics! It was said light-heartedly and with humor, of course, but it is true that the church would have died out a long time ago if celibacy were the only option.

 

 

I agree, and yet I'm finding myself having a hard time separating "purity culture" from the idea of virginity being a special thing, to be "given" ideally under certain circumstances (within the context of lawfully wedded bliss). It seems to me this purity culture is just taking "virginity culture" and turning it up to 11. It's not like people who aren't immersed in this purity culture (however we define it) are safe from the same sexual dysfunction and anxieties like shame, or addiction, or whatever negative thing one might associate exclusively with ATI. And it's not like people who do not identify as being a part of the purity culture don't advocate many of the same ideals. I think there's a problem with assigning a moral or ethical value to virginity in general, and I think it's for the same reasons I don't like the purity culture, even if it is less dysfunctional and more socially acceptable overall.

Yeah, I share your concern. I wasn't raised Orthodox, but Jehovah's Witness, and I remember being told that my virginity was the most precious gift that I could give my husband. I was just a young teen at the time, and I didn't think through all of the implications of this statement, but it absolutely revolted me. Just on an emotional, "gut" level, I was repulsed by it. It did not have the intended effect, but rather it made me feel that I didn't want to marry a JW man if he thought that was the most precious and important thing about me.

 

Now, as an Orthodox Christian, while obviously we do make much of the fact that Christ's mother was a virgin, I simply don't hear people talking about purity and virginity in that kind of context. I hear the phrase "marriage as a path to holiness" a lot. And there definitely is an awareness of the importance of chastity - but this is different because it's about the state of the heart not the state of the body, and it is lifelong and something you strive for before you're married, and while you're married, and after you're married (if you get divorced or outlive your spouse.)

 

Well, I'm tired earlier than usual because I didn't sleep well last night, and I'm not sure if I've managed anything approaching a coherent sentence, much less paragraph. :) But I'll check in again tomorrow. Good night!

[DesertBlossom]

It will vary from region to region and ward to ward. I grew up in SoCal and when one of my fellow young women got pregnant, she got mixed reactions from people in the ward (congregation). I had already left for college (a year early, so she was my age peer), but when I came home for Christmas my mom mentioned that the other young women had kind of dropped her. I invited her and the other girls out for a movie and sat by her at church. After I went back to school, the other girls kept contact with her. I think they just didn't know how to handle it given the frequent and strong teachings against sex outside of marriage. Seeing me treat her like our friend (which she still was) helped them relax about her pregnancy. She wrote me letters for the next year or so and said that she really appreciated what I did. She kept the baby, too, despite pressure from church leaders to give him up.my

 

I can't imagine the last ward I was in (Utah) handling a similar situation with grace and compassion. Even in the adult women's class we got sex shaming messages. My oldest dd says it was also bad in the classes for young women. Our current ward (next city over) would probably handle such a situation with grace and compassion. The people here are the only reason I started attending church again.

I agree it totally depends on the ward. And sometimes a couple outspoken stupid people can ruin the efforts of the rest. There is a girl in our ward who recently had a baby. As far as I know everyone has been kind and welcoming and she's still active. We do have a wonderful ward.

[Tsuga]

I have such mixed feelings about this...

 

I can see why in the days before reliable birth control premarital sex would be wrong... but these days? Consequences, yes, but I'm not sure I would have waited if I had it to do all over again.

I can name the men I should have, could have, would have "lost" my virginity to, instead of my ex-h. Three gentlemen in particular, I regret not sleeping with. Who knows if they were compatible? Who cares? They were respectful, loving young men and I could have learned a lot from them.

 

I doubt I would have married ex-h if I would have let myself love and be loved by, those people. :(

[DesertBlossom]

This is an odd tangent, but I remember as a kid being asked if I believed in the Virgin Mary. I had never heard Mary, the mother of Jesus, referred to that way. So I told her no, I had no idea who that was. (I realize now what was meant by that question)

 

I know that for many, it was Mary's virginity that made her pure. I was taught that she was not yet married, and also followed God's commandments, which yes, meant she was a virgin. But in my mind, her virginity was primarily important because it removed any doubt about the paternity of Jesus. But there was no reason to believe that Joseph and Mary didn't go on to have a regular marital relationship.

[albeto.]

It's probably good to challenge me and put me on the spot every once in awhile. :) I guess I've just not been part of a Christian church that ever promoted the idea that marriage was "not the ideal". 

 

Does it make you wonder why? Why, if Paul said this was best, do churches not promote that? Why do churches not suggest to young men and women to remain untouched their whole lives and serve the church? Why do churches not challenge their youth groups to pledge to wait until they're 30 to see if they can't remain untouched? Why not have Purity Balls for single church members in their 30's and 40's and 50's and so on? Why ignore this thing that Paul said was best? 

 

 I'm Orthodox so wouldn't be able to help you out on the Protestant perspective. But I can say that in the Orthodox Church, the view that I have heard expressed again and again is that both (celibacy and marriage) are equally valued and respected. I'm not sure there is one ideal that's right for everyone, it's more of a belief that some people are called to monasticism, and that's the ideal for them, while others are called to marriage, and that's their ideal.

 

Does the bible mention anything about being "called" to one way or another? I was catholic, so I do understand the concept, but I can't recall any scripture that talks about being "called" to one vocation or another, personally, individually called by god. 

 

Yeah, I share your concern. I wasn't raised Orthodox, but Jehovah's Witness, and I remember being told that my virginity was the most precious gift that I could give my husband. I was just a young teen at the time, and I didn't think through all of the implications of this statement, but it absolutely revolted me. Just on an emotional, "gut" level, I was repulsed by it. It did not have the intended effect, but rather it made me feel that I didn't want to marry a JW man if he thought that was the most precious and important thing about me.

 

I was raised as a Quaker but my mom suggested the same idea, albeit much more vague and with no real pressure. She suggested my marriage would be more special, my relationship would be more special if I maintained my virginity. She was awfully vague about it and couldn't articulate any reasons to answer my questions (like, "but why?"), and I didn't press. 

 

Today I think I see virginity at marriage in the same way I see getting to know the gender of your baby at your ultrasound. Some people really like to stretch out the mystery, and they genuinely enjoy the anticipation of waiting. Others like to know right away and don't feel any sense of being let down at the birth. There is no "right" way, and there is no moral value assigned to it. Both options can be supported by practical reasons, but ultimately, it's a personal opinion and no one really suggests persuading others how to do it. I don't think we as a society would tolerate that. We care for our autonomy and personal liberty too much to be told what to value.

 

But not when it comes to virginity.

 

Not only do we deny personal liberty by conditioning children to value one opinion from the time they are old enough to know what "purity" is, but we allow others to promote and support a certain moral value to it. Heck, we even incorporate it into public education. Education. Like the water cycle. Facts. Information. 

 

That's messed up.

 

Now, as an Orthodox Christian, while obviously we do make much of the fact that Christ's mother was a virgin, I simply don't hear people talking about purity and virginity in that kind of context. I hear the phrase "marriage as a path to holiness" a lot. And there definitely is an awareness of the importance of chastity - but this is different because it's about the state of the heart not the state of the body, and it is lifelong and something you strive for before you're married, and while you're married, and after you're married (if you get divorced or outlive your spouse.)

 

Is virginity before marriage important in Orthodoxy? 

 

Well, I'm tired earlier than usual because I didn't sleep well last night, and I'm not sure if I've managed anything approaching a coherent sentence, much less paragraph.  :) But I'll check in again tomorrow. Good night!

 

Quite coherent.  :)

[albeto.]

This is an odd tangent, but I remember as a kid being asked if I believed in the Virgin Mary. I had never heard Mary, the mother of Jesus, referred to that way. So I told her no, I had no idea who that was. (I realize now what was meant by that question)

 

I know that for many, it was Mary's virginity that made her pure. I was taught that she was not yet married, and also followed God's commandments, which yes, meant she was a virgin. But in my mind, her virginity was primarily important because it removed any doubt about the paternity of Jesus. But there was no reason to believe that Joseph and Mary didn't go on to have a regular marital relationship.

 

I don't think it's Mary's virginity that makes her pure (at least, I would not have supported that claim as a catholic), but her purity was illustrated in part by her virginity. Catholics do not believe she ever had any kind of marital relationship with Joseph. She is known as "Mary, Ever Virgin," and this theological belief was the mainstream belief of xians for most of xian history. As an aside, I recall one online conversation in which I argued that her womb was so special, containing the Word of God, the Priest of God, and the Bread of Life (reminiscent of the Ark of the Covenant with the ten commandments, Aaron's staff, and manna). To have relations with the Ark of the New Covenant would have been like using the Ark of the Old Testament Covenant to store Chinese Take Out Menus after the Israelites found a place to settle. These days I have no dog in this fight, but I can't help but feel a bias towards the theology that holds Mary as ever virgin. It just seems more consistent to me. But my sister, a born again evangelical, explained to me once that she couldn't imagine Mary being a virgin for her whole life. She just couldn't imagine it as a reality. Of course Mary would have had a bunch of dirty, dusty, scruffy, barefoot kids running around the house, catching snakes, teasing their sisters, learning their lessons, and generally living the life of a regular, first century, Israeli family. Until that conversation, that image had never crossed my mind! 

[goldberry]

 

So yes, preachers and teachers have done hideous things to victims in the name of christianity.  Just because it's not what you think doesn't mean it's not what has been done or that it's not STILL being done in certain circles.

 

This is very true.  I think it takes place in many faiths, although obviously some more than others.  I know that I was raised that engaging consensually in the activity was the sin, not the losing of virginity part.  And yet others I knew in my same faith were taught the virginity-is-a-gift approach, and fight to the death rather than be raped.

 

I had to have a small surgery when I was a child that would have compromised whatever hymen I had.  I remember reading about how they used to have to show the bloody sheets, and how people would check young women to see if they still had their hymen, and thinking, wow, I'd be out of luck!  

[mommaduck]

It will vary from region to region and ward to ward. I grew up in SoCal and when one of my fellow young women got pregnant, she got mixed reactions from people in the ward (congregation). I had already left for college (a year early, so she was my age peer), but when I came home for Christmas my mom mentioned that the other young women had kind of dropped her. I invited her and the other girls out for a movie and sat by her at church. After I went back to school, the other girls kept contact with her. I think they just didn't know how to handle it given the frequent and strong teachings against sex outside of marriage. Seeing me treat her like our friend (which she still was) helped them relax about her pregnancy. She wrote me letters for the next year or so and said that she really appreciated what I did. She kept the baby, too, despite pressure from church leaders to give him up.my

 

I can't imagine the last ward I was in (Utah) handling a similar situation with grace and compassion. Even in the adult women's class we got sex shaming messages. My oldest dd says it was also bad in the classes for young women. Our current ward (next city over) would probably handle such a situation with grace and compassion. The people here are the only reason I started attending church again.

 

My husband's aunt (by marriage) had her first baby outside of marriage (teenage pregnancy). The LDS church excommunicated her when she refused to give her child up for adoption. She later married my husband's uncle and had two more children and uncle loved her son as his own. After she married, the LDS tried to get her to come back. She refused to have anything to do with them. They still kept knocking on her door for years.

[Bluegoat]

No doubt. 

 

 

It may not make sense to you or me, but it does make sense to those who embrace it. Because there exists no objective means by which one can determine with any accuracy if they are closer or farther from the reality of the very claims that are understood to be true solely by virtue of faith, there's no way you or I can say they're wrong to do so. We can argue which beliefs are more reasonable, but not which ones are true. How does one argue against divine revelation? How does one argue that a Truth revealed by divine, superior, omniscient being is wrong? Who are you or I to question the mind and will of a god? ;)

 

 

It's called Christlam, and whether or not it becomes popular and increases the size of its community or is slowly neglected over time, every religion formed by synchronizing old beliefs with new. 

 

You know, whether you take an internal, theological perspective, or an external, comparative religions perspective, or a metaphysical perspective, no one discusses religion in these terms.  I know people here have told you this many times.  THis has nothing to do particularly with being a religious believer - I have known many people quite capable of understanding and even teaching on these things without being believers - and if they didn't no one would take them seriously as thinkers.

 

You might want to ask yourself why you are so determined to hold onto these kinds of ideas that it is not possible to have rational or objective discussions of metaphysically/historically based belief systems , as well as theological ideas that are simply factually untrue - like truth claims being decided solely by virtue of faith (an idea which you seem completely unaware how it is actually understood as a religious concept).  I've met creationists less determined to hold onto obviously contrived explanations for their own position.

[albeto.]

You know, whether you take an internal, theological perspective, or an external, comparative religions perspective, or a metaphysical perspective, no one discusses religion in these terms.

 

Sorry, in what terms?

 

You might want to ask yourself why you are so determined to hold onto these kinds of ideas that it is not possible to have rational or objective discussions of metaphysically/historically based belief systems , as well as theological ideas that are simply factually untrue - like truth claims being decided solely by virtue of faith (an idea which you seem completely unaware how it is actually understood as a religious concept).  I've met creationists less determined to hold onto obviously contrived explanations for their own position.

 

I've had countless rational and objective discussions of metaphysically/historically based belief systems, as well as theological ideas. I have never suggested it's not possible. We're having one now. 

 

Perhaps I don't understand what you're getting at. Care to try explaining in different words? 

[Veritaserum]

My husband's aunt (by marriage) had her first baby outside of marriage (teenage pregnancy). The LDS church excommunicated her when she refused to give her child up for adoption. She later married my husband's uncle and had two more children and uncle loved her son as his own. After she married, the LDS tried to get her to come back. She refused to have anything to do with them. They still kept knocking on her door for years.

It's completely understandable that she'd want nothing to do with them. Adoption can be a wonderful thing when it's truly what a woman believes is the best option for her and her child. It's an evil thing when it's coerced. I'm glad the church got out of the adoption business because I'm aware of many single women who were pressured into giving up their babies to two-parent LDS homes. Unfortunately, some people are unable or unwilling to comprehend that loving, healthy families come in all shapes and sizes. There are doctrinal reasons that the LDS church pushes one type of family as ideal (married man and woman plus children). I am hopeful that more people within the church will be open-minded and accepting of all types of families even if that doctrine isn't officially expanded to include all types of families. (But I hope the doctrine will be expanded.)

[Greta]

Does it make you wonder why? Why, if Paul said this was best, do churches not promote that? Why do churches not suggest to young men and women to remain untouched their whole lives and serve the church? Why do churches not challenge their youth groups to pledge to wait until they're 30 to see if they can't remain untouched? Why not have Purity Balls for single church members in their 30's and 40's and 50's and so on? Why ignore this thing that Paul said was best?

But I don't think that it is being ignored. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches have long traditions of encouraging celibacy, and of holding monastics in high regard. Not big on pledges and purity balls, though! :D

 

ETA: I think it's being interpreted differently than the way you are interpreting it. I don't think it's being ignored.

 

Does the bible mention anything about being "called" to one way or another? I was catholic, so I do understand the concept, but I can't recall any scripture that talks about being "called" to one vocation or another, personally, individually called by god.

Well, I hate to have to admit it, but I honestly don't know. My Biblical knowledge could use some improvement. But I will say that maybe I should not have spoken of it in those terms. Perhaps it doesn't need to be a calling, but it can simply be a choice.

 

I was raised as a Quaker but my mom suggested the same idea, albeit much more vague and with no real pressure. She suggested my marriage would be more special, my relationship would be more special if I maintained my virginity. She was awfully vague about it and couldn't articulate any reasons to answer my questions (like, "but why?"), and I didn't press.

 

Today I think I see virginity at marriage in the same way I see getting to know the gender of your baby at your ultrasound. Some people really like to stretch out the mystery, and they genuinely enjoy the anticipation of waiting. Others like to know right away and don't feel any sense of being let down at the birth. There is no "right" way, and there is no moral value assigned to it. Both options can be supported by practical reasons, but ultimately, it's a personal opinion and no one really suggests persuading others how to do it. I don't think we as a society would tolerate that. We care for our autonomy and personal liberty too much to be told what to value.

 

But not when it comes to virginity.

 

Not only do we deny personal liberty by conditioning children to value one opinion from the time they are old enough to know what "purity" is, but we allow others to promote and support a certain moral value to it. Heck, we even incorporate it into public education. Education. Like the water cycle. Facts. Information.

 

That's messed up.

As a parent, I am going to teach my daughter what I believe to be moral (on this and other topics, of course). As an American, I recognize that I live in a pluralistic society, and so I have no expectation of having my beliefs and morals taught in the public schools. But is this really being taught in many schools? I would have guessed that promoting virginity is not the norm for public school sex ed.

 

Chewed gum and licked cupcake analogies have no place in any sex education program. That's just beyond inexcusible.

 

 

Is virginity before marriage important in Orthodoxy?

Yes. But not to the same distorted, unhealthy extent that it is important in Gothard's sect and those like it, and I think also not even for the same reasons that it is important in those groups.

[albeto.]

But I don't think that it is being ignored. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches have long traditions of encouraging celibacy, and of holding monastics in high regard. Not big on pledges and purity balls, though! :D

 

ETA: I think it's being interpreted differently than the way you are interpreting it. I don't think it's being ignored.

 

I think I'm interpreting it differently than xians generally do, but I wonder why. If Paul was trustworthy enough to hang the belief of the Last Supper on, how is he not trustworthy enough to hang the belief of celibacy on, kwim? Why isn't more effort made to convince young people of the virtues of life long celibacy? 

 

Well, I hate to have to admit it, but I honestly don't know. My Biblical knowledge could use some improvement. But I will say that maybe I should not have spoken of it in those terms. Perhaps it doesn't need to be a calling, but it can simply be a choice.

 

It's considered a "calling" in the RCC anyway, so somewhere, lots of xians are teaching it to be understood in this way. I never wondered about the biblical support for such an idea before. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this idea. 

 

As a parent, I am going to teach my daughter what I believe to be moral (on this and other topics, of course). As an American, I recognize that I live in a pluralistic society, and so I have no expectation of having my beliefs and morals taught in the public schools. But is this really being taught in many schools? I would have guessed that promoting virginity is not the norm for public school sex ed.

 

Chewed gum and licked cupcake analogies have no place in any sex education program. That's just beyond inexcusible.

 

Chewed gum and licked cupcake analogies are despicable messages, imo, too. And yet, all across America, young children are being taught this by xians who are quite sure they've got their finger on the real middle of the road understanding, and people like you are what's wrong with society.

 

And yes, this is really being taught in public education, most popularly in the bible belt with predictable results.

 

Yes. But not to the same distorted, unhealthy extent that it is important in Gothard's sect and those like it, and I think also not even for the same reasons that it is important in those groups.

 

So here's where I'm finding myself changing my mind about the question asked yesterday. If virginity is somehow correlated with purity, then we're really talking about the difference being related to the intensity of the teaching, not the fundamentals of the teaching. In other words, if your church community advocates the idea that virginity before marriage is somehow more ideal, more desired, more advantageous than prior sexual experiences, your church community is promoting a [milder] purity culture. It just doesn't share the same emotional manipulation for those who don't comply with ideal standards, but it does share the belief that virginity somehow contributes to purity. So, no chewed up gum, but still, not as desirable. 

[bolt.]

I'm having trouble quoting, but I want to respond to this bit:

 

"if your church community advocates the idea that virginity before marriage is somehow more ideal, more desired, more advantageous than prior sexual experiences, your church community is promoting a [milder] purity culture."

 

I value your intelligent outside/objective analysis of this, and I want to ask whether you also see elements of purity culture in a religious context that values "unmarried chastity" with reference to the current/ongoing sexual practices of unmarried people.

 

I tend to advocate that it is not good (beneficial) for people to be sexually active if they are unmarried. I consider it a positive good for the individual to be sexually chaste, not related to eventual marriage. (I have reasons for that, but they are not water-tight. It's just an inclination, based partially on logic/evidence and partially in trust in the Bible as revelation.)

 

However, I do not advocate that it matters whether one 'was ever' sexually active or is a virgin. I do not consider virgins better people or think that it is better to marry one, or beneficial to the marriage.

 

It matters to me mostly that someone can claim a compatible faith, own it, understand it in compatible ways, and walk it. I would consider someone who didn't claim Christianity a less than ideal spouse for a Christian believer, and I would hope for personal strength, conviction and commitment to accompany that claim... Which would be evident in choosing not to be sexually active (if we are talking about a faith and understanding-style that is compatible with 'mine'.)

 

Anyhow: is that connected with purity culture from your perspective? If so, in what ways?

[Greta]

I think I'm interpreting it differently than xians generally do, but I wonder why. If Paul was trustworthy enough to hang the belief of the Last Supper on, how is he not trustworthy enough to hang the belief of celibacy on, kwim? Why isn't more effort made to convince young people of the virtues of life long celibacy?

I don't think it's a matter of not trusting his teaching on celibacy. I think it's more a matter of seeing in the light of context. A man who had chosen celibacy was extolling the virtues of that choice and explaining why he thinks it is the better choice. I'm seeing that as a validation of celibacy, which if my feeble knowledge of history is correct, was something very uncommon in that culture at that time, and therefore would have been in need of defending/explaining. I am absolutely not seeing it as an attack on marriage, or in any way negating everything else that holy scripture, holy tradition, and the life of the church have to say about the importance and validity of marriage.

 

 

 

Regarding what you said about purity culture....

 

I think it is more than just a matter of degree, more than just the intensity of the teaching. The motivation for the teaching is also different. And that different motivation leads to entirely different ways that this is lived out and practiced.

 

But I just realized the time, and I have to go for my morning run before it gets any hotter. More later!

 

I messed up the quoting. Sorry for the confusion!

[Greta]

oops

[albeto.]

I'm having trouble quoting, but I want to respond to this bit:

 

"if your church community advocates the idea that virginity before marriage is somehow more ideal, more desired, more advantageous than prior sexual experiences, your church community is promoting a [milder] purity culture."

 

I value your intelligent outside/objective analysis of this, and I want to ask whether you also see elements of purity culture in a religious context that values "unmarried chastity" with reference to the current/ongoing sexual practices of unmarried people.

 

I tend to advocate that it is not good (beneficial) for people to be sexually active if they are unmarried. I consider it a positive good for the individual to be sexually chaste, not related to eventual marriage. (I have reasons for that, but they are not water-tight. It's just an inclination, based partially on logic/evidence and partially in trust in the Bible as revelation.)

 

However, I do not advocate that it matters whether one 'was ever' sexually active or is a virgin. I do not consider virgins better people or think that it is better to marry one, or beneficial to the marriage.

 

It matters to me mostly that someone can claim a compatible faith, own it, understand it in compatible ways, and walk it. I would consider someone who didn't claim Christianity a less than ideal spouse for a Christian believer, and I would hope for personal strength, conviction and commitment to accompany that claim... Which would be evident in choosing not to be sexually active (if we are talking about a faith and understanding-style that is compatible with 'mine'.)

 

Anyhow: is that connected with purity culture from your perspective? If so, in what ways?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "compatible faith" unless you mean two people who are married ought to have compatible faiths, but then that gets thrown out the window when one notices successful interfaith marriages. There's more than faith that contributes to a relationship, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. I do find it interesting that virtues like personal strength, conviction, and commitment are somehow correlated with faith. That's also thrown out the window when one notices people who have these virtues but do not believe in a religion, or the "right" religion. It makes me wonder what the function of moral behavior is, because it almost sounds like it's related to pulling one up by the bootstraps, but that doesn't make sense coming from you. So in short, I'm not sure what to make of that part.

 

With regard to "unmarried chastity," I'll tell you the first thing I thought of was the RCC liturgical calendar and the relationship between Lent and Advent. Lent is of course the 40 days of preparation before the holiest day of the year (Easter), and Advent is likewise the time of preparation before the feast day commemorating the birth of the christ. Both are times of preparation, times of abstinence, times of reflection and anticipation. Advent is sometimes called "little lent" because it's duration is shorter and one abstains from certain privileges to a lesser extent. Both are important, but one is really the Big Event, if you will. Your "unmarried chastity" reminded me of that with regards to being a reflection of the Big Event (losing virginity). It's a kind of homage to virginity by expressing the same virtue of purity that is somehow illustrated (revealed?) in abstaining from sex. So yes, I do see elements of purity culture in a religious context that values "unmarried chastity" with reference to the current/ongoing sexual practices of unmarried people.