I’m a guy, but I got the creepy visual that all of these kid’s Moms were zoned out pre- Betty Ford alumni or ‘Stepfords in Denial’. That, or the new second-wives are disinterested in the kids.
…you mean that isn’t what Newt meant by ‘family values’…?
Sort of an…All your vagina are belong to us…deal?
I’m still taken with the way you put it last year:
Four thoughts;
-
Yes, I do find it really creepy. I do try and keep an open mind if the only thing I don’t like about something is my visceral reaction; that said, while I don’t get any creepy incest-y vibes from this, the concept that a girl should have to pledge to keep their “purity” to their fathers does smell of old-fashioned control issues like others have said.
-
The girl Randy’s thought in the quote earlier - she’s saving her first kiss for marriage? Sex, at least, I can understand someone wanting to wait for, if not agree with. But kissing? We-ird.
-
While i’m all for Slut Balls (from Annie’s link), pledging one’s sluttiness to your father seems if anything much creepier. Methinks the blogger in question has no clue.
-
Randy can be a girl’s name?
I don’t see anything wrong with this. Have any of you ever heard of those “Daddy-Daughter Dances” that a lot of communities and schools throw? Do you consider those kinds of events creepy or incestuous too? It seems like most people just see them as an innocent way for dads to spend time with their girls and for the girls to have fun getting all dressed up.
As for the chastity aspect, well, it is certainly not a new concept for the patriarch of a family to be concerned about “protecting” his wife or daughters from the nefarious intentions of other men. You may not agree with that kind of thinking yourself, but that’s really just a cultural difference. Human societies seem to have managed to survive for centuries under similar cultural standards (while still maintaining taboos on incest). Just because they choose to raise their kids differently than how you do doesn’t mean they’re abusive, wrong, or sick.
As for the issue of “no kissing until marriage” leading to terrible emotional harm, bear in mind that some conservative Christians don’t date in the way that secular American society does. Instead, I’ve heard of some of them going through a “courtship” process where the couple spends time talking together at the family home where there isn’t any opportunity for hanky panky. To me, that isn’t any more bizarre or sinister than an Indian person going through an arranged marriage instead of normal American dating.
As for whether fathers have any right to care about their daughters’ sex lives, I do think that fathers have an influence on how their daughters end up behaving sexually. There have been studies done that show that girls who grow up without a father tend to be more promiscuous than other girls and tend to get pregnant at a young age (I quickly pulled this up as an example of what I’m referring to: http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030515-000003.html )
I don’t think it is a stretch to think that, yes, many women DO use their dad as a role model for how they should expect other men to treat them, and that sometimes girls who have been starved for attention from their fathers become promiscuous out of a need for male attention any way they can get it.
Since most of us want to be able to impart our values to our kids, I don’t see anything wrong with a man telling his daughter that he feels it’s important to stay celibate until marriage.
Dancing with his own daughter isn’t going to turn otherwise an normal man into a child molestor, for pete’s sake. More than anything, it seems like a way for the men to spend time with their daughters. I definitely think that it’s healthy and valuable for kids to have a true emotional bond with their dads, rather than just seeing their dad as a cash dispenser (which is essentially the role a lot of dads play in their kids’ lives, if the dads are even around at all).
Wouldn’t it be awesome if these dads could spend time with their daughters without it having anything to do with the sanctity of their genitalia? Show me that the same organization throws a father/son chastity fishing trip, and I’ll be a bit more impressed.
WotNot, I blush.
Yes. Why should women (or in this case, young girls) have to be the sexual gatekeepers? Why is it so important for girls to wait for marriage that all this whoop-te-do is directed at them, but boys seem to get a pass on that? Wouldn’t the percentage of people who make it that far go up if both sexes were instructed to Just Say No?
Men don’t mind if girls are slutty. They mind if their girls are slutty. Generally they want their boys to get some ass.
Your daughter gettin’ it on means foreign material coming into your line. Your son gettin’ it on means your DNA is going far and wide.
I think you’ve hit on the real impetus for this movement.
You’re overlooking THE big difference here, which is the focus on virginity. It’s right there in the name of the event, so it’s hard to miss. I don’t think anybody has said it’s wrong for a guy to dance with his kid. If daddy-daughter dances are full of pledges about chastity and purity (daughters vowing to stay pure and dads vowing to protect the purity of their kids), however, I’ll say those are creepy too. What you’re talking about might be a little anachronistic, but it’s not nearly as weird.
These dances and oaths are fairly new, as far as I’m aware. Obviously they’re an outgrowth of older traditions, but why does age lend them legitimacy here?
So I have to believe that every facet of every culture is equally good?
Yes, everything’s relative. Especially when we’re talking about incest. 
I think everybody is aware that there are centuries of tradition in this subject. That doesn’t make it any less paternalistic or sexist or possessive. There are a lot of traditional practices that I think are sick.
Where are the mothers while Daddy and Princess are all dressed up at the Purity Ball? It kind of creeps me out that the mothers seemingly aren’t very involved in the whole thing.
I’m also bothered by the young age of these girls. How can you make a meaningful promise to abstain from something when you don’t have a real concept of what you are going to abstain from? It would have been easy for me to promise to abstain from chocolate before I ever tasted it - not so easy now.
And I totally agree with the above posters - where are the boys? Why is their virginity not sacred? Why are they not being taught that all virginity is sacred? I remember these kind of Dads from when I was a young teen being forced to attend church. The virginity of their daughters was sacred, but they were out in the barn encouraging their sons to go take the virginity of someone else’s daughter. The double standard doesn’t hold up.
And no kissing until marriage? I wish that poor girl good luck finding someone even halfway well adjusted to date.
Sex isn’t inherently bad, and when you see these guys taking their kids to the annual dance well into their 20s, well…something is terribly amiss there.
Quote from the link:
:eek:
I saw that piece and was seriously creeped out.
All I could think of was, “Haven’t we gotten past the point in time when fathers owned their daughters and they were nothing more than negotiable property, like cattle?”.
All the while Daddy is aglow with the knowledge that his little daughters hymen is being saved in his name.
First the rings, then the balls…am I the only one uncomfortable with the kink implied? What’s next? Certainly chastity belts can’t be far behind. Heck, even the name of those is preferable to the abominable “purity.”
And a silent shout out to all the poor girls that are “saving themselves” and instead give blowjobs and anal sex. Then again, Daddy didn’t promise make me promise I wouldn’t take it up the ass!
I also take offense to the use of the word “purity” in this context. It sends a message that sex is bad. You’re only allowed to become impure (cough) dirty (cough) after marriage. It’s a twisted approach to sex in today’s age. They should be teaching them birth control, STD control, and being an example of a responsible, loving man; not dictating their daughter’s personal decisions by making them recite a pledge.
I think all these poor girls are setting themselves up for a big disappointment on their wedding nights. Years and years of saving themselves for that big moment when their husband who is probably horny as hell and sexually frustrated with a case of the blue balls can finally do the dirty deed. Wham-Bam thank you dear and it’s over.
I could see it back-firing with the gal thinking “That was it? Really? That’s what all the fuss was about. Maybe he was doing it wrong? Maybe I married the wrong guy? I really need to try it with some other guys to see if it’s really supposed to be like that cause that was just… well… anti-climactic.”
I’m glad we’re not all on the same page; makes debates so boring, you know? 
I actually haven’t heard of “Daddy-Daughter Dances,” and now that I have, I find the concept a little off-putting, too. Young girls getting all dressed up fancy to go dancing with their fathers strikes me as odd. Dances are held as a social event that usually has the underlying motive of people meeting other eligible people (there are of course other reasons for dances, but this is the first and foremost one, in my opinion).
Then there’s the whole “dancing as a substitute for sex” thing. Like others have said, this isn’t Purity Bingo we’re talking about here. Of course every dad who dances with his daughters isn’t having sex with them, but it would be completely naive of us to ignore the dancing/sex connection.
The third thing that bothers me about this is that there is a definite smell of daughters replacing their mothers’ rightful roles as their husbands’ partners here.
I will say that I am not completely convinced that there is anything wrong with Daddy-Daughter Dances; just that the concept is new to me, and I am not completely on board with it.
They’ve been around for quite a while around here, and I’ve always thought they’re weird. There’s the whole “Daddy’s Little Girl” thing that I’ve never been comfortable with. And the substitute partner thing is…well, it’s definitely there. I dunno…children should learn about social niceities from their parents through observation (at weddings or when the folks are entertaining, for instance). Not by being their date.
Here’s the quote the ‘Yeah!hymen’ guy tried to post at the CoatHangers at Dawn site:
I don’t think he’s talking about any of the ‘sluts’ pledging anything to their fathers. No clue? This guy is the clue version of anti-matter. You either believe that ‘purity’ is something positive, or you are a promiscuous slut in his eyes. No middle ground. Of course, if having control over my own sex life maked me a slut, then you (generic)can bet your insecure pecker I’m proud to be one, and where do I buy tickets to the tramp ball, anyhow? *
Some of the Feminista dames put on their thinking caps to develop some ideas, but no one’s rented a dance hall yet. 
To wrap up, here’s a comment from a Christian poster at the weirdo blogger’s site, just so we can all know than not all Christian women buy into this patonizing crap:
*Which would be really ironic, since I’ve been on the NGA roster pretty much since Bush I was in office. 