Matt Lauer is doing a piece on Purity Balls. Aside from the obvious locker room humor derived by the name of these events, I find the whole concept just so skin-crawlingly creepy. They also said 88% of “pledgers” got down with the sex thang before marriage.
I’m listening to this father blathering on about how it’s about communication and guiding their kids through life. He says it’s not about “controlling” the kids but at the same time says that if the kid falls off the Whoopie Wagon, it’s due to a disconnect between father and daughter.
I’d like to know why the boys aren’t being held to the same standards. I think if there’s going to be a No Nookie Before Marriage pledge, both sexes should be included and held equally responsible for upholding it.
My opinion Kalhoun? - I’m against it. My parents were probably the last catholic virgins to get married (gross over generalization for point) and their marriage was terrible. Ended in Divorce. Not to say this is the norm, ut I do not agree with ‘no sex before marriage’.
To me Sex is a normal, biologic, part of a healthy relationship. Now switch to teenage perspective…I would rather my daughter have the common sense to date another teen with some dignity, and stay away from the sex mongering kids that inhabit every high school in the land. Not everyone in high schools are amoral…there are some good kids.
I had friends in high school that screwed anything that gave any semblence of permission. I was not part of this crowd. I had a steady girlfriend all four years…I didn’t do a lot of dating around, I always had a steady GF.
This Purity ball schtuff is fine for those who want a tether to their child and for those who do not trust their childs judgement. I support knowledge over a leash.
I think that purity balls are targeted towards men who were probably womanizers in their past and have a major fear that their daughters will be “tarnished” by the current generation’s womanizers. Now, of course, these men probably don’t regret their share of whoring around, as, well, there seems to be a sexist element (I didn’t hear of any mother-son purity balls in this) that negates a man’s obligation to strict monogamy in his life.
Plus, it’s a little sick to juxtapose not informing your kids about the realities of sex with having them promise at a young age (and continue to promise on a regular basis) to stay “pure,” whatever the hell that means to a young girl. (A good portion of the girls that were interviewed in another article I had read about this seemed unsure as to what “remaining pure” meant until they were in their mid-teens.) Isn’t it irresponsible, especially considering the 88% dropout rate, to hold a daughter to a promise that she most likely is not well-informed enough to understand?
The whole thing is creepy to me. Read my post up thread…but I seem to remember the fathers saying things like “…I was one of the guys taking advantage of girls…”
That means you make your kid suffer for your own ills? Dick.
purity ball, blech. Sorry, but the vision of teens and preteens in an embrace with Dad swaying to music after a pledge to submit all decision regarding their sexuality to the man, is revolting to me. It sounds to me like these men want to have a permanent say in what happens in their daughters bedrooms, good luck to the future bridegroom.
