Purity Culture is damaging and idolatrous

[Hyacinth]

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. 

 

For many people, virginity until marriage is not about a "more ideal, more desired, more advantageous"

choice. It's about obedience. Obedience to God and their understanding of the Bible. That's all.

[bolt.]

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.

I know that there are certainly successful inter-faith marriages, but I think that having a common faith (or reasonably similar) would reduce some significant points of conflict.

 

Therefore, if you imagine a religious group who is Christian, who generally accept a way of interpreting the Bible, resulting in an understanding that unmarried people should not be sexually active -- for their own good. If various members of that general group of people were considering one another for marriage, I would tend to think that the people in that group who actually are sexually inactive are showing more character / less hypocrisy than perhaps others. I would rather marry someone sincere that didn't follow my faith than a hypocrite who spouted my own doctrines and failed to live by them.

 

If past virginity/non-virginity is not important, and the ongoing ideal of chastity is oriented towards ideals like personal health, emotional stability, wisdom, patience, and non-risk-taking -- for one's self (not 'purity' and not 'for your future spouse')... Is it still 'purity culture'?

 

I understand that it is possibly debatable (a matter of subjective opinion) whether chastity might actually be related to personal health, emotional stability, wisdom, patience, and non-risk-taking. What I'm getting at is that it sounds like one could value premarital sexual restraint for reasons other than 'purity' reasons. I hope so, because I don't want to purity-message my kids, and I don't want the artificial social construct about 'virginity' to be a big deal to them -- but I do want them to have reasons for choosing chastity. I think there are reasons that their lives will be better as young adults if they refrain from sexual activity... But it's not about purity. Unless it is. It's hard to see one's own errors.

[albeto.]

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.

 

That would make sense if Paul defended celibacy as a viable option, but he didn't do that. He agreed with the church in Corinth that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but because they couldn't stop themselves he suggested marriage as a kind of safety net against fornication. Then he goes into that whole thing about the woman's body not belonging to her, but to her husband, and vice versa. It seems as if both spouses are allowed to use the other as sexual objects in order to avoid fornication (it's okay to use your spouse to service your libido, but god forbid you find a partner to mutually satisfy each other outside the parameters of marriage), but that's a personal opinion clearly. In any case, I think the context you're talking about is looking at people and relationships in a secular (non religious) way. People are sexually and personally attracted to one another. Biology provides an often overwhelming drive to have sex, and Paul's ideas simply aren't realistic. So they're dismissed, they're ignored and forgotten and pulled up when they may be comforting (like when one finds themselves without a sexual partner but wanting one). 

 

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!

 

I what way is the motivation different? I see all purity ideas as being motivated to avoid sexual "impurities," as this is related somehow to one's relationship with god. At the extreme end, that relationship indicates one's state of salvation. 

[albeto.]

For many people, virginity until marriage is not about a "more ideal, more desired, more advantageous"

choice. It's about obedience. Obedience to God and their understanding of the Bible. That's all.

 

Why? Why does your god demand (or request) obedience of this nature? What is the function of this obedience? What does it serve? 

 

Is it not in some way beneficial for the individual (ie, more ideal in some way)? Or is it a random, arbitrary demand?

 

You see where I'm going with this, right? It's expected because it's somehow better. Otherwise, it would reveal an awfully awkward, arguably perverted obsession with sex. 

[poppy]

I've been following this thread and thought I would share a different perspective ..... my church, UU, has sexuality education for kids starting in kindergarten and first grade.  At that age, it's pretty much "what does a family look like", body parts, safety, talk about how babies are made (but not the mechanics of it, obviously).  It gets explicit down the road. Much of it is about how families work, how to stay safe, how your bodies work, relationships, pregnancy/parenting, contraception....... there is also a section on abstinence as a completely viable choice, and ways to have a healthy and expressive relationship in that context.

 

Here is an article by someone who took that programming plus the abstinence only public school teaching (where the teacher says stuff like "The only thing I'm allowed to tell you about condoms is that they are not 100% effective").  http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/owl-sexuality-education

 

Purity culture seems so strange and foreign to me- this thread has been useful - so I'm trying to chip in, in my own way :)

[EmseB]

Why? Why does your god demand (or request) obedience of this nature? What is the function of this obedience? What does it serve? 

 

Is it not in some way beneficial for the individual (ie, more ideal in some way)? Or is it a random, arbitrary demand?

 

You see where I'm going with this, right? It's expected because it's somehow better. Otherwise, it would reveal an awfully awkward, arguably perverted obsession with sex. 

 

I think you're moving into "what defines good" territory.  In which case, "better" or "beneficial" is defined by the person making up the rule system.  In a system with an all knowing, holy, ominpotent creator, obeying said creator is objectively better simply for the sake of obeying them.  It sounds like a tautology, but the person or entity who designs the system is the one who gets to decide what is good, bad, awkward, perverted, etc.  In your system of ethics you get to define those things as you see them.

 

But, ETA, I would say that if there is no god, then either way, it's all arbitrary and based simply on chemical reactions of matter in our brains.  In other words, someone may have synapses fire to make up or follow rules about chastity, while someone else may have their synapses fire in a way that tells them those rules are awkward and perverted.  But, either way, those synapses firing are largely (if not totally) out of our control.

[albeto.]

I know that there are certainly successful inter-faith marriages, but I think that having a common faith (or reasonably similar) would reduce some significant points of conflict.

 

Therefore, if you imagine a religious group who is Christian, who generally accept a way of interpreting the Bible, resulting in an understanding that unmarried people should not be sexually active -- for their own good. If various members of that general group of people were considering one another for marriage, I would tend to think that the people in that group who actually are sexually inactive are showing more character / less hypocrisy than perhaps others. I would rather marry someone sincere that didn't follow my faith than a hypocrite who spouted my own doctrines and failed to live by them.

 

With regards to the bold, I gotcha. I think the rest can be explained outside religion, but I do understand your point. 

 

If past virginity/non-virginity is not important, and the ongoing ideal of chastity is oriented towards ideals like personal health, emotional stability, wisdom, patience, and non-risk-taking -- for one's self (not 'purity' and not 'for your future spouse')... Is it still 'purity culture'?

 

Physical and mental health aren't matters of purity, better morals is. So long as morality is infused into the equation, purity is, imo. 

 

I understand that it is possibly debatable (a matter of subjective opinion) whether chastity might actually be related to personal health, emotional stability, wisdom, patience, and non-risk-taking. What I'm getting at is that it sounds like one could value premarital sexual restraint for reasons other than 'purity' reasons. I hope so, because I don't want to purity-message my kids, and I don't want the artificial social construct about 'virginity' to be a big deal to them -- but I do want them to have reasons for choosing chastity. I think there are reasons that their lives will be better as young adults if they refrain from sexual activity... But it's not about purity. Unless it is. It's hard to see one's own errors.

 

Your reasons sound secular, and they're common enough reasons. There are reasons for supporting the opposite (I though CaffeineDiary introduced some good ones). The difference in my opinion comes from infusing a moral value on one behavior or the other. If your kids get the impression that abstinence is morally superior in addition to more effective practically, then they're being influenced by the ideals of purity. The "culture" we're talking about simply focuses on this more than the mainstream population. 

[albeto.]

I think you're moving into "what defines good" territory.  In which case, "better" or "beneficial" is defined by the person making up the rule system.  In a system with an all knowing, holy, ominpotent creator, obeying said creator is objectively better simply for the sake of obeying them.  It sounds like a tautology, but the person or entity who designs the system is the one who gets to decide what is good, bad, awkward, perverted, etc.  In your system of ethics you get to define those things as you see them.

 

I find it ironic that the god of the bible encourages people to ask him for wisdom but then warns them against trusting their thinking. The answer to that logical problem is that wisdom is understood to be obedience without benefit of reason, which is why your answer is a tautology. I find that problematic in that we as a society have essentially evolved away from Might Makes Right as a moral code, but the bible advocates it, relies on it, and xians actively promote it, and somehow it's applied to our culture (in defiance of other values and virtues we honor in our culture). The reason it's so problematic is that it not only allows for tyranny and injustice, it is the perfect environment for such abuse. Reason and logic are the antidotes to such things, but reason and logic are suppressed in favor of obedience. 

 

To infuse moral goodness on the whole virginity/purity equation is therefore problematic in that it's a matter of securing one from the potential punishment of an omnipotent being who can do anything he wants, and theology teaches he wants to punish unrighteousness (lack of fear and obedience) with temporal and eternal damnation. This requires one to impose a fear of disobedience, a fear of autonomy for their own security, and the security of their community. It is to make certain thoughts dangerous and ultimately outlawed. You know when people say, "I have the right to think what I want"? This kind of belief system denies that right by applying a constant infusion of fear [and subsequent hope, based on obedience without virtue of reason]. It turns people into their own thought police. When fear is a profound motivation like we see in purity cultures advocated by ATI, the Duggars, Focus on the Family, etc, it's oppressive in a subtle but important way. It's shameful imo, to condition a child to be afraid of something when the only reason amounts to, "Don't make him angry. You don't want to see him when he's angry." It's shameful because it raises people to be vulnerable to abuse, and to embrace it, and accept culpability for the injustices against them. That goes against the genuine compassion of so many xians. They actively work against the very things they value most - compassion, empathy, brotherly love. Shots of dopamine ("mountain top experiences") take care of that cognitive dissonance by making this discrepancy one of those things that one needn't worry about. Just... obey. 

 

But, ETA, I would say that if there is no god, then either way, it's all arbitrary and based simply on chemical reactions of matter in our brains.  In other words, someone may have synapses fire to make up or follow rules about chastity, while someone else may have their synapses fire in a way that tells them those rules are awkward and perverted.  But, either way, those synapses firing are largely (if not totally) out of our control.

 

That's not how neurology works, nor does it explain human behavior accurately. How do you think other cultures figure out any moral codes without having heard the story of baby Jesus? Or do you think all non christian cultures are barbaric and utterly dangerous? 

[EmseB]

 

 

 

That's not how neurology works, nor does it explain human behavior accurately. How do you think other cultures figure out any moral codes without having heard the story of baby Jesus? Or do you think all non christian cultures are barbaric and utterly dangerous? 

 

Well "synapses firing" was obviously an oversimplified explanation, but I'm operating from the perspective there is nothing but matter in the universe.  Any moral code would have to be derived from activity in the brain, no?  Regardless of cultural interactions and such, I'm not sure where else a moral code would come from besides various synapses, chemical reactions, and hormones in our own bodies?  In that context, barbaric and utterly dangerous doesn't enter into it.  I'm not sure about your last two questions because I'm not speaking about it in terms of Christian cultures or the story of Jesus.

 

ETA:  I think when talking about whether or not something is good or bad, problematic, awkward, perverted, etc one has to set up a system of moral absolutes.  I'm not sure why, but I was under the impression that you were more of a strict materialist, and perhaps that was a wrong assumption, in which case we'd be talking past each other here.

[albeto.]

Well "synapses firing" was obviously an oversimplified explanation, but I'm operating from the perspective there is nothing but matter in the universe.  Any moral code would have to be derived from activity in the brain, no?  Regardless of cultural interactions and such, I'm not sure where else a moral code would come from besides various synapses, chemical reactions, and hormones in our own bodies?  In that context, barbaric and utterly dangerous doesn't enter into it.  I'm not sure about your last two questions because I'm not speaking about it in terms of Christian cultures or the story of Jesus.

 

 

Barbaric and utterly dangerous must enter into it if you believe morality is derived from divine revelation alone. Those without access to that revelation, or those who reject it, would exhibit the opposite of morality - barbaric and utterly dangerous behaviors. And they'd be fine with it, not knowing there is an alternative. I'm asking if you see evidence of that.

 

As far as human behavior is concerned, the neurons in the brain work like an on-off switch. Each neuron is either activated, or dormant. You might also think of it like a biological binary code - like your computer that uses 0's and 1's exclusively. Think of all the things computers can do with just those two options. The trick is in getting the right combination of on/off switches (both with computers, and with brains). Computers are programmed to perform specific functions through "languages," whereas humans are programmed through sensory perception (internal and external), experiences, memories, intelligence, language, etc. The "function" of the human is to exist long enough to procreate. Humans are social animals, and so we have developed certain acceptable behaviors that are more or less agreeable to members of a community. This contributes to our existence, our security as individuals and as a species. As these things are varied and complex, so too is the development of behavior, from "muscle babbling" of the infant to profound and articulate scientific lectures at Oxford. Moral behavior is as biologically driven as sexual behavior, eating behavior, sleeping behavior, and learning behavior, and well, every behavior. 

[albeto.]

ETA:  I think when talking about whether or not something is good or bad, problematic, awkward, perverted, etc one has to set up a system of moral absolutes.  I'm not sure why, but I was under the impression that you were more of a strict materialist, and perhaps that was a wrong assumption, in which case we'd be talking past each other here.

 

Why does one have to set up a system of moral absolutes to discuss if a particular behavior is good or bad, problematic, awkward, perverted, etc? As we've discussed earlier in the thread, any given "sin" is determined within the context of the greater situation. This requires one one discern whether or not the same behavior was good or bad in that context, whether or not the same behavior was problematic in that context, whether or not that behavior was awkward, perverted or whatever, in that context. There doesn't exist any moral absolutes even in the xian community or the individual, so clearly even those who refer to supernatural explanations rely on the same methodology as those of us who do not (and yes, you are right in your assumption). 

[Guest]

I've been following this thread and thought I would share a different perspective ..... my church, UU, has sexuality education for kids starting in kindergarten and first grade. At that age, it's pretty much "what does a family look like", body parts, safety, talk about how babies are made (but not the mechanics of it, obviously). It gets explicit down the road. Much of it is about how families work, how to stay safe, how your bodies work, relationships, pregnancy/parenting, contraception....... there is also a section on abstinence as a completely viable choice, and ways to have a healthy and expressive relationship in that context.

 

Here is an article by someone who took that programming plus the abstinence only public school teaching (where the teacher says stuff like "The only thing I'm allowed to tell you about condoms is that they are not 100% effective"). http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/owl-sexuality-education

 

Purity culture seems so strange and foreign to me- this thread has been useful - so I'm trying to chip in, in my own way :)

FWIW, i considered going to a UU church when I was becoming disenchanted at the Evangelical church, but this "sex education" aspect was the main reason I did not pursue it. I have no idea why the UU church has a comprehensive series of sex and family teachings. To me, it is as out-of-place as ATI-type Purity balls and open discussion of never using b/c. I don't understand why a parent wants teaching about family life to take place at church, whether it is a UU church or something uber conservative.

[poppy]

FWIW, i considered going to a UU church when I was becoming disenchanted at the Evangelical church, but this "sex education" aspect was the main reason I did not pursue it. I have no idea why the UU church has a comprehensive series of sex and family teachings. To me, it is as out-of-place as ATI-type Purity balls and open discussion of never using b/c. I don't understand why a parent wants teaching about family life to take place at church, whether it is a UU church or something uber conservative.

Every church teaches about family life- is there one that doesn't?

The sex ed program for UU started in the late 60s when parents (raised in a different era) were just not equipped to talk to their teens with the sexual revolution. It was kept up because it's just really well received by kids /families who've attended over the past 40 some years.