Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Leftist Wackos Protest Purity Ball

A radical Leftist fring blog called Coat Hangers at Dawn (make of that what you will) says there was a group protesting the father/daughter "Purity Ball" held in Rapid City last night.

Among the Coat Hanger comments:

where men bring virgins to show them off and tell them about their "gift from god" that was put on by the SD Taliban

and
They are also going to be protesting the Virgin Show in Spearfish tonight.


What a bunch of maroos, as Bugs used to say.

Here's a comment I posted to the blog, but because it's moderated, it hasn't yet been posted there:
It's so sad that you folks on the Left are so twisted and morally bankrupt that you can't even acknowledge innocence and sexual purity as something positive.

Instead of protesting the Purity Ball, why not have your own event and call it the "Slut Ball" or something? After all, if you hate sexual purity so much, you should be proud of being a promiscuous slut, right?


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

purity balls come from good intentions, but something has gone wrong with what these parents are teaching their daughters to believe. Making desicions for your children is not necesarily going to help them in the long run. The message seems to be that a girl who has sex is not pure (which means what, she's soiled? ruined? bullshit.), that she "belongs" to her father and will someday "belong" to her husband. It just implies that a woman's sexual needs are less important than a man's. It is a psychological cliterodectomy.

Bob Ellis said...

A young girl doesn't "belong" to her father, but her father is her protector. A woman's sexual needs can be met by her husband when she's old enough to get married, just as a man's can be met by his wife when he's old enough to get married.

When a girl gives away her virginity--or boy, for that matter--it doesn't "ruin" her, but it is something she can only experience once. Something that unique should be preserved for her husband.

By the way, parents SHOULD teach their children right from wrong, until they are old enough and mature enough to make decisions on their own. How many children would naturally run out into the street if you didn't stop them--if you stop them, you're making decisions for them, but is it harming them...or keeping them from harm? Many children would be easily enticed away by a child molester, but parents (a) teach children not to go with strangers and (b) keep a close eye on them to make sure they dont; is this decision-making for children harming them or helping them?

Anonymous said...

it is maroon...I've got yer purity balls right here

Bob Ellis said...

Thanks for the edumacation on "maroon;" I never was quite sure exactly what Bugs was saying there, but the gist is unmistakable.

Ben said...

I think you are a little off base.

I've been reading quite a bit about these happenings on blogs, and I've seen very few comments from liberal bloggers implying that abstinence is the problem with the purity balls. The problems I have relate to other aspects.

First, these girls are quite young. The issue of sex in general may not be appropriate at this age.

More importantly, though, is the rather sexist nature of the whole thing. Why is the father the only protector of his daughter? Doesn't the mother have any role? And why are there no mother-son purity balls? In my opinion, such ceremonies perpetuate the concept that female sexuality needs to be restricted more than male sexuality.

Keep in mind, a lot of liberal people practice abstinence as well, and a lot of conservative people practice hedonism. I don't think there's really any political-sexual corelation. So your joke about us being sluts kind of fell flat. Sorry.

Bob Ellis said...

I would generally agree with you, Ben that the minimum age for the Purity Ball is a bit young (I believe it's 10, if I'm not mistaken). However, when the Left is working for sex ed in kindergarten--I'm not making it up--, then unfortunately they're probably already exposed to it. In fact, when I was in public grade school some 30-odd years ago, I heard plenty on the playground from other students. So while it's a shame that the subject even needs to come up at that age, the Left--either through the education establishment or from the over sexualized culture they promote--is going to make sure they're already exposed to "sex ed" by that age anyway.

Understand your point about the gender/sexist thing. However, the sexist notion is just feminist dogma. These Purity Balls are (to my knowledge) Christian sponsored events, and according to the Christian faith, the father is the head of the household (hey, don't have to like it, but God instituted it that way), and the primary responsibility for leading the family falls to him.

I think some sort of corresponding event for boys would be a good idea. In fact, I hope some creative person comes up with something. However, I think the reason the emphasis may be on the girls is that--short of rape, which is a crime--for the most part, girls are going to control the access to sex. The boys should control themselves, no argument there, but even if they let their hormones get the better of them, hopefully the girls' more level head in this area will prevail.

I still think my sarcastic humor about the "Slut Ball" was both funny and apt. There may be some philosophical cross abstinence and hedonism, but that doesn't really bear on my point.

The point is that these far out Left groups seem to despise the idea of sexual purity and the abstinance they promote so much that it would logically follow that they should prize promiscuity. Otherwise I would expect more ambivalence toward the whole thing.

Anyway, thanks for the most reasoned and thoughtful argument I've seen yet on the "purity ball opposition" side.

Rebecca said...

As a Christian woman, I am concerned about the purity ball idea for a number of different reasons, and have written several posts about them recently on my blog at http://blogmuse.blogspot.com

The biggest issue for me is the sexualization of young girls --- having them dress up as prom dates at an event designed to be focused on their sexuality, even when reports on sites in favor of purity balls have said that some of the little girls were as young as four!

Frankly, I think girls should be encouraged to learn about sexuality from their mothers, as modeled by Titus 2:3-5. Certainly most daughters are more comfortable discussing this sort of thing with their mothers, rather than their fathers.

Father-daughter events can be a wonderful thing; however, I don't think the focus of the event should be on the daughter's sexuality. I also don't think it is healthy for fathers to be extracting vows of sexual purity from girls who are too young to understand what that entails. And, even if this is to be done, why does it have to take place in a pseudo-prom romantically charged atmosphere without the mother even in attendance?

Bob Ellis said...

As a Christian man, I understand your concerns, Rebecca.

However, in our over-sexualized culture, it may be the best response we as Christians can make to help our children make Godly choices. When I was in public school some 30-ish years ago, I was learning about sex on the playground in the 2nd and 3rd grade (this was a little country school, not some inner city cesspool). I can only imagine what it must be like today, where sex is thrown at our children in practically every medium 24/7--some clothing manufacturers are even making thongs and stuff for kindergarten-age kids...not to mention many liberals want sex ed to start in kindergarten.

So while I would agree that such thing should be saved until they are at least of reproductive age, the rotten society in which we live makes that very hard.

I agree that girls should learn about their sexuality from their mothers, but a great deal of research indicates the father in the home--and his relationship with his children--is critical with both boys and girls. I think the intent with the purity balls is to help girls see a health, pure relationship between a male and female modeled, one where they go on a "date" and, instead of pawing and petting, the event is one of respect, selfless love and respect. (In contrast, what they hear from TV/movies/music and often from peers is "Hey baby, give it up!)

Anonymous said...

A girl isn't either a pure virgin or a promiscuous slut. It isn't that black and white. What happens if the virgin girl has sex, like 88 percent of them end up doing eventually? Is she a promiscuous slut? Is her dad going to be proud of her then? Is he going to love, respect and protect her still? The inference is that he is not. Virginity and purity is positive but so is individual choice and maturity. I'm not even going to get into how these pledges are coerced from the girls and how the coerced pledge for virginity leads beyond childhood into adulthood. I wouldn't want my father owning my vagina and "covering" me when I was in my twenties. That's just weird.

Bob Ellis said...

My comments have little to do with how much or little extramartial sex a girl is having. Of course fathers should still love their daughters, even if their daughters make bad choices--but that love does not mean fathers have to endorse or condone those bad choices.

My point was that these Leftist wackos don't even take an ambivalent stance toward the purity balls. In other words, they don't even go so far as to say, as the last Anonymous did, that virginity and purity is positive--they just ridicule and demean it. Therefore, if virginity and purity are things worth mocking, then it stands to reason the mockers embrace the opposite--promiscuity.

Fathers don't own their daughter's vaginas. It is, however, the mandate of fathers to help their children make wise, healthy and Godly choices. That's what the Purity Ball is about.

 
Clicky Web Analytics