At what point does it become child abuse?
It’s a serious question.
The father and daughter in this photograph are attending the Batshit Crazy Fundamentalist Christian Purity Ball, where little girls as young as 4 promise their daddies they will remain virgins until marriage.
Here’s what the little girl recites to her father:
“I pledge to remain sexually pure…until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband…I know that God requires this of me…that he loves me and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.”
Here’s what the father recites to his daughter:
“I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.”
Obviously these men (excuse me, “high priests”) are deeply disturbed; obviously they are imposing a sick, twisted psychology on their children. But the right of parents to impose a sick, twisted psychology on their children is generally acknowledged the world over. At what point does it become child abuse? Where do we draw the line between religion and mental cruelty?
I’m not talking about incest, though god knows the odor of pedophilia emanating from the Purity Ball is unmistakable. But put that aside, if you can, and just consider the question at hand: what do parents have the right to do to their children in the name of religion?
Physical harm is a no-brainer; that is clearly abuse and should be illegal. Parents in Africa and the Middle East who genitally mutilate their daughters, for example, are monsters who ought to be locked up, even if by their own cultural standards they are not criminals. Religion doesn’t give you the right to physically maim your child.
But what should society’s attitude be towards psychological abuse? These Purity Ball girls are being taught that they are the sexual property of men — first their fathers, then their husbands. Their sense of themselves as females is being warped grotesquely, their self-worth reduced to the “purity” of their vaginal canals, their humanity reduced to the status of chattel (”wedding gift”). Even their fundamental psychological integrity, their very sense of themselves as autonomous human beings, is under attack. And of course there’s almost no chance any of them will grow up to experience a healthy sexuality.
These little girls are being mentally maimed for life. What do we do about that?
(Via Pharyngula.)
71 Responses to “At what point does it become child abuse?”
-
Martin says:
That photo alone gives me the major willies. Pedo city! (Not that that’s what it is, only that that’s how it looks.
What do we do about it? I dunno. Make sure that strong support networks are in place for when these girls run away/get pregnant/become strippers at 16, I guess.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:54 am EST -
Paul Tergeist says:
..what do parents have the right to do to their children in the name of religion?
-VioletIn most societies, the right to sell them into slavery, or marriage, or kill them for imagined wrongs, mutilate their genitals or even, if the parents don’t want a female child, kill them at birth.
The Bible is very clear that male children are wonderful but female children are worthless or nearly so.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
I doubt there is anything anyone can do, but the earth can do something and it is. Global warming cannot be stopped at this point and the human race as it has been known in history is in its last millineum. You see, when humans invent something nasty, they cannot stop themselves using it on each other…in the name of God.
Your question: At what point does it become child abuse? It has ALWAYS been child abuse. Hell, paddling your child for setting the house on fire is child abuse now. What bullshit. No one has ever cared and not enough people care now. For every one who rails against it, someone else will argue that it isn’t. Like the people in the picture.
-
Timothy Shortell says:
I suggest that we continue to take every opportunity to expose religion as an irrational anti-pleasure death cult. It would help a great deal to build some momentum behind this question. Do parents have a right to dehumanize their daughters like this? No! The traditional language makes the devaluing so obvious. It needs to be countered by a public health concern: what are the effects on girls’ self-image and self-worth of these rituals of humiliation? If it is framed well, I suspect that a lot of religious moderates would find the phenomenon disturbing.
Also I think it would be a wise strategy to compare this kind of thinking to fundamentalism in Islam, Hinduism, etc. The whole Father-gives-daughter-to-Husband bullshit makes it easy to connect the dots.
-
Alon Levy says:
I agree, Timothy, although I’d rather see some hard facts about the consequences of emotional abuse. For example, I’ve read that people who are full-time caregivers, such as housewives and people who care for their elderly parents full-time, have unusually high rates of depression. Is there any similar problem associated with a patriarchal upbringing for girls?
Drawing parallels between this type of thinking in Christianity and Islam will certainly be worthwhile, if only because of the Madrassahs’ pro-terrorism teachings.
-
gordo says:
A 4 year old girl?
“I pledge to…what’s ‘pledge’ mean, Dad?”
“It means promise.”
“…to remain sexually…what’s ’sexually’ mean, Dad?”
And these are the same people who write letters by the hundreds they see something too suggestive on TV.
I’d really like to see the statistics on pregnancy rates in fundamentalist households. But of course, things like pregnancy and STDs are beside the point here. Stigmatizing female sexuality is the real goal.
-
Martin says:
Someone elsewhere pointed out that at the age of 7, let alone 4, all a little girl ought to be thinking about are her dolls, kitties, ice cream, and playing with friends. To make her talk about sex in any form, let alone make a sexually oriented pledge, takes fucked-uppedness to new depths.
-
Violet says:
Someone elsewhere pointed out that at the age of 7, let alone 4, all a little girl ought to be thinking about are her dolls, kitties, ice cream, and playing with friends.
Exactly. Though honestly I don’t know what freaks me out more: the idea of a 4-year-old looking into her father’s eyes and reciting this pledge, or the idea of a 14-year-old doing it.
When I googled this Purity Ball nonsense I learned that girls of all ages are involved — from 4-year-olds to teenagers. We need a word beyond “fucked-uppedness.”
-
gordo says:
And to think that all these fathers think that they’re doing the girls the greatest favor a man can do for his daughter: keeping her from having sex with her boyfriend.
-
Martin says:
I personally have never understood the near fanatical pursuit of “sexual purity” and the abstention from premarital sex among fundies. Okay, I can understand how it’s one thing if you want to make a conscious and thought-out decision to not fuck anyone until you meet the person you want to marry. But that’s a very different thing than the way fundies prioritize abstinence with a state of fervor bordering on panic. I mean, there are the undesirable consequences of having sex when you don’t know what you’re getting into, like STDs and pregnancy, sure. But then the fundies, with their unequivocal opposition to the kinds of sex education that would inform kids as to how to avoid those things, aren’t exactly focused on that aspect of it. It’s all about the institution of marriage itself, as this holy, sanctified be-all and end-all to human existence, outside of which no one (but especially women) can hope to have a happy and fulfilled life. Exactly what do fundies think they’re protecting by their abstinence fixation? Do they think that by avoiding premarital sex, they are innoculating their future marriages against any hardship or strife whatsoever? That if you remain “pure” until those rings are exchanged, you will have a perfect marriage in which you never ever argue with your spouse, and all your kids will be cherubic and perfect? What fantasy of married life are they imagining, anyway? It’s all very very odd.
-
Barbara says:
I saw a report about this on Now last Friday.In South Dakota, these “purity balls” are for the girls in high school. They get all dressed up, as though for a prom, and they’re escorted by dear-old-dad. And they take the “pledge” with Dad standing by.
My question is: where’s the “purity stag party” for the guys??? If it’s going to be abstinence pledging, then how about making it equal opportunity abstinence pledging at least! This is the same old stuff about the girls have to control the guys that I was taught in my religiously affiliated high school. In other words: it’s always the girl’s fault.
They also interviewed Leslee Unruh, who runs the Abstinence Clearinghouse
http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.phpShe believes in teaching ONLY abstinence in the schools, nothing about contraception. Her arguments were the same-ol’ same-ol’.
-
Barbara says:
BTW — I’m being facetious about “equal opportunity abstinence pledges.” I don’t believe in abstinence pledges at all.
-
will says:
What is next: “I Promise Not to Touch Myself There” Proms?
-
flawedplan says:
This is his moment, not hers. He’s teaching her being used by men is normal, and I agree with the first quote, by Martin, when she puts this together the betrayal, the hurt of it, the vengeful acting is all but written on the wall. How better to get back at him? They’re creating crazy little Sylvia Plath girls. Daddy you bastard and so on.
-
larkspur says:
I keep looking at the stories and pix from this “Purity Ball”, and I keep asking myself, “Where’s Mom?”
I can see religious parents wanting to teach their children that sexuality should be reserved as an expression of love between two married people. I can see parents trying to teach their children that sex is an adult thing, and that they don’t have to (and ought not to) embark on it until they’re adults, and are ready for it.
But that isn’t what is happening here, because…Where’s Mom?
Mom is no longer significant, because by definition, she’s handed over her only valuable asset - her virginity - from her father to her husband. She’s just another handmaiden to the “high priest”, one that has been defiled by carnality. And she doesn’t even own her carnal self, because in that milieu, her uterus is subject to the rules of others.
I’m in favor of warm emotional connections between parent and child. Obviously. But that’s why they created (among other groups) the “Indian Princesses” concept. It’s stupidly named, and maybe a bit silly in its mission, but the idea has heart: dads and daughters going out on adventures (like camping) with other dads and daughters.
But this Purity Ball stuff - it’s a particularly insidious version of All Your Base Are Belong To Us.
-
Jim Deeny says:
This is some wierd shit. I couldn’t even begin to imagine me standing next to my own daughter reciting that BS. I know without a doubt I’ve raised her better than that. It’s called self respect and if she would enjoy “sex” later on in life I know without a doubt she’d be responsible for herself and her actions. Now, could have raised her to be irresponsible and have kids because she then can get a hefty amount in child support and it could start a new trend in having babies for dad’s cash, but I’m not like that.
-
Violet says:
Alon linked to this post over at his blog, and considered various forms of government intervention.
Obviously letting the state involve itself in what parents teach their children is fraught with danger. The only approach that might work, I think, would be to bring back mandatory public schooling, and to concomitantly revamp the public curriculum so that it includes core values of feminism, liberalism, etc. Sort of the 21st century version of “good citizenship.”
-
Steve says:
This is precisely the kind of story that, in and of itself, proves the dead-on importance of blogging. Did I read this story in the mainstream media? Of course not. Yet what we see is nothing less than pathological, age-inappropriate sexual interaction between father and daughter. To raise the topic of sexuality or penetration or virginity with children before they have any vocabulary or context in which to place the information is abusive and hurtful. It is torture, you fundamentalist dickweeds.
It is not unlike telling children that they have to run from fire before they know what fire is. As if you tell them fire is bad, you tell them that they can be burned, you even show them where the nearest exit is, but you never show them what fire looks like. So the child fears fire as something that can kill but doesn’t know what it looks like. Giving incomplete and premature and age-inappropriate information is flat out psychological torture.
But why should this sex panic be any different from any other time in American history when society has zeroed in on sex as the cause of all ills. At various times, the specific culprit has been teen sex, gay sex, extra-marital sex, and god know what other kinds of sex that I cant even think of. And the result of this panic always seems to be suggested remedies that are worse than the alleged threat.
Seriously, what do you think is worse?: A seven year old getting a public ceremonial lecture about chastity or a 16 year old having sex? Sex at 16 might be a bad idea for a whole host of reasons. But is it worse than implanting some mysterious, insidious idea about sexual practice that is virtually incomprehensible to the child? No way.
This is the logical result of one of the key symptoms of social panic, i.e., the rampant idea in a society gone bonkers that it is never too early to talk to your kids about X or Y. Every minute you wait is seen as a minute that you are risking your child’s life. Bullshit. There are some perils that children are 1) not ready or prepared to understand or 2) that are so rare that to warn them is to inflict a fear about something that might occur less frequently than the apocalypse.
I don’t give a flying fuck about what these panicked fucktards do among their “adult” selves, but when they subject children to the virtual psychological rape of premature sexual references, they occupy a circle of Dante’s hell just below the molesters.
Step aside Megan’s Law. It’s time for “Fucktards Law.” This will require states to create publicly accessible computer registries, along with photos, of any father who puts his daughter through such a ceremony.
I have an eight year old and I’d be scared shitless if she went to play at a house headed by one of these purity morons.
-
Jim Deeny says:
Steve, you got me thinking about something and why I aways wondered why some ofthe Amish and Menonite live two lives. I live in almost an all Amish town and let me tell you, they can get down! I’ve seen them do lines, have group sex and I could never figure out why they are like that, maybe I’ve found out the answer to my own question?
-
Alon Levy says:
Well, that’s possible, but the devil’s in the details. As I said on UTI, is it enough to just expose children to the world, via more intensive study of world history and world cultures? Should there be civics classes introducing a more individualist/egalitarian idea of good citizenship? Should there be politics or philosophy classes in which active debate among students is encouraged?
-
Richard Jeffrey Newman says:
Martin wrote:
To make her talk about sex in any form, let alone make a sexually oriented pledge, takes fucked-uppedness to new depths.
Right there, it seems to me, is where the abuse kicks in. If he were forcing her to look at pictures of naked people, especially if they were having sex, in order to “educate” her, no one would doubt that there was abuse going on. My guess, though, is that most people do not see talking about the absence of sex, especially the “morally correct” absence of sex that these Purity Balls are ostensibly about, as talking about sex.
-
Alon Levy says:
Sorry, Timothy, I’m replying to you here because for some reason, I can’t comment on UTI.
I think that public examination of these rituals is the best way to reinforce our collective commitment to modernity. As I said over at Violet’s place, one strategy is to compare the theology of gender of the fundamentalists in all traditions. They all share the view of women as property, which is an exceedingly uncivilized notion. I think that the mainstream US, including moderate church-goers, would find the comparison of fundamentalisms quite uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, the only types of religious fundamentalism the average American is familiar with are the American type and the Islamic type. I think it’s possible to connect Dominionism to Islamism, but there needs to be a massive campaign of education about Islamism first, since the Islamists most Americans are familiar with are the violent ones, who are a minority among fundamentalist Islam. It’s possible, but it has to be fairly long-term, since educating the public takes time.
By the way, I had no idea you and Dr. Celebre are the same person - after all, your two blogs link to each other as if they are written by different people.
-
Timothy Shortell says:
That Dr Celebre and I occupy the same coordinates of space-time is merely a coincidence. I bear no responsibility for the things he writes, nor he for my writing. At least that is what my attorney says.
I agree that a campaign to bring public attention will take time and a lot of organizing. I just don’t have much faith in state intervention. Schools are controlled locally, and we all know the state of local school politics. If we are still debating creationism at the local level, what hope do we have of championing a feminist egalitarian curriculum?
-
Infidel says:
If only the fucktards at Mountain Springs Church and/or Generations of Light had read Charles Finney’s 1851 Systematic Theology instead of Wayne Grudem’s 1994 Systematic Theology all of this might have been averted.
-
Martin says:
Somehow, I think this is very relevant to what we’re discussing here.
-
Infidel says:
I suspect the origins of Mountain Springs and/or Generations were based on an understanding of Finney’s work and how it could be corrupted into a business that espoused the work of Grudem. Leaders of the Church are now being recruited- if it could be stomached, one would hope a mole might infiltrate, rise to the top, retain truly moral constructs and cause the abomination of such a church to implode- and make a buck or two. There are no backers and no volunteers so we must abide, and hope it goes away.
My thoughts have some relevance as “Systematic Theology” is suggested reading for interested future leaders of Mountain Springs Church. It isn’t a very large Church, with only thousands(not even tens of thousands) as claimed followers. They are recruiting though, and they seek to expand. -
Violet says:
Steve, how much do you think this is sex panic as opposed to panic about female sexuality? As Barbara, larkspur, and flawedplan have all noted, this is about men controlling females. There aren’t purity balls for boys, you know. I think some fundies do have boys take the Abstinence Pledge or something, but the emphasis is overwhelmingly on female purity. It’s that same old cocktail of fear of sex + hatred of women = fear and hatred of female sexuality.
And notice how this kind of thing is wrapped up with language exalting the father as the priest in his home, etc. If you’ve ever been around fundies like this, they absolutely fetishize male supremacy. This is all about debasing females and reversing feminism. These freaks read the Bible, see where women are bought and sold like cattle, and think, “Hey, that was good! We should go back to that!”
Schools are controlled locally, and we all know the state of local school politics
That’s one of the things we would need to change. Establish a national core curriculum.
-
Steve says:
Socks:
You are absolutely right about the impulse driving this panic, i.e. the need of men to control and own the sexuality of their wives and daughters. That’s one reason the wedding custom of fathers giving away the bride always drove me nuts. It’s like a title transfer ceremony, where the father publicly implies to his son in law that he offically gives the approval for full-frontal nookie.
It is about ownership and possession and itr stioll pisses me off that at this ceremoiny supposedly marking a woman’s chloice to enter a mutual re;lationshio with a man, the father gets his last public nod as the guy giving permission to put the stones to his daughter.
As if he should have a fucking thing to say about it.
Fucking idiots. Patriarchal dicks who think that THEIR dicks give them the right to officially sanction any sex in whiuch their posessions engage.
You know something? Somethimes I am so deep into my man hating reading your blog Socks that I lose track of my own gender and my own collaboration in the shit I rail against.
-
Violet says:
is it enough to just expose children to the world, via more intensive study of world history and world cultures? Should there be civics classes introducing a more individualist/egalitarian idea of good citizenship? Should there be politics or philosophy classes in which active debate among students is encouraged?
I think all of those things are needed.
When I was a little kid, we had “citizenship” lessons. This focused on good behavior, obeying the law, understanding our system of government, etc. I think we should have a new kind of citizenship class that teaches the ethics of individual liberty, equality, tolerance, etc. As students advance in years, the courses could evolve into more sophisticated explorations of politics and philosophy.
I also think children need to start learning world history from third grade on (if not sooner!). They need to be exposed to other cultures and religions, they need to get a sense of the global community (its diversity and commonalities), they need to be given the knowledge to put their own microculture in a larger perspective.
-
Violet says:
You know something? Somethimes I am so deep into my man hating reading your blog Socks that I lose track of my own gender and my own collaboration in the shit I rail against.
Oh no! Well, you know we don’t hate men on this blog, Steve; we hate the patriarchy. I’ve known enough good men in my life that I have no trouble distinguishing between the two.
As the father of a daughter, what do you think can possibly be going through the minds of these Purity Ball daddies? It’s just beyond squidgie. But I’ve noticed time and time again that these fundies are incredibly lacking in self-awareness. They’re like pre-moderns, completely oblivious of unconscious motivation, completely unable to analyze their own behavior. They don’t even have the language for it.
In fact, speaking of language: one of these days I’m going to do a study on the peculiar diction of these Christian fundamentalists. They’re creating their own idiom — have you noticed? — that’s almost incomprehensible at times to normal English speakers. Of course they’re getting the words from the Bible, but using them in new ways: convicting, covering, yadeyadeyade. It’s another sign of cultural boundary-marking: we talk this way because we’re not of The World.
-
Violet says:
Also I think it would be a wise strategy to compare this kind of thinking to fundamentalism in Islam, Hinduism, etc.
Timothy, do you remember when Jerry Falwell blamed 9-11 on feminists, gays, and lesbians? There was a brief “aha” moment in the press and public, when everyone suddenly saw that fundamentalists like Falwell are the blood brothers of fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden. At the time I hoped that moment would mark the beginning of the end of Dominionism, but I guess I was wrong.
-
Infidel says:
Knowledge is a double edged sword. Given a child that has gotten an understanding of individual liberty, equality, tolerance exposure to other cultures and religions, and a sense of the global community; grown up- a seminary student for instance- what is to keep that seminary student from using that knowledge to form a Church that would stifle all that. Gathering a flock is hard work and only requires a facade of sincerity and devotion. There are examples. Violet, I believe you. Many of us do just what you ask with our children. I do. Are you suggesting mere exposure to such education would keep dupes from being duped?
-
Steve says:
Vi: But I’ve noticed time and time again that these fundies are incredibly lacking in self-awareness. They’re like pre-moderns, completely oblivious of unconscious motivation, completely unable to analyze their own behavior. They don’t even have the language for it.
Again you hit the bull’s eye. This lack of self-awareness is so pathetic, so complete, that it almost is hard to work up real rage against these guys.
You ask me about being a father of a young daughter. And what insights that might give me about why some of these jerks seem like they would rather die than think of someone having sex with their daughter or wife. Good question. And this requires a confession.
Because of social class and other differences, I am smart enough not to act out my sexual anxieties and fears of inadequacy in the style of a southern fundamentalist. It’s hard to imagine a Jewish college professor from the northeast at a purity ceremony with his daughter on the upper west side of Manhattan.
Having said that, I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t fess up to sharing some of the same impulses of sexual jealousy and possessiveness as the fucktards. I may not feel the need to dress a seven year-old up in a gown and swear allegiance to the god of virginity, but I’m not going to lie and claim that I wouldn’t be somewhat uneasy with the thought that any of the four vaginas in my house were hard at work with men I found disgusting or abusive.
So I DO feel protective of our household genitalia. And I would feel enraged, threatened and inadequate if my main squeeze decided that another penis might be worth a try.
It is a rare man who is completely confident of his manhood and sexuality. Most of us are constantly gauging our masculinity and wondering on some level if we measure up as an object or subject of sexual desire. And the thought that another man might find his way to the same genitals we were man enough to earn (wife) or create (child) is horribly threatening.
In other words, while I can cloth my possessiveness in respectability and while I can rail against the men who surpass my neuroses and engage in patriarchal violence and claims of ownership, I just may share more with these guys than I thought.
Oh, the horror!
-
Steve says:
which tag ENDS the italics?
-
Infidel says:
Steve- I concur. Take it one step further and see more clearly the difference. You might understand the motivation of the father who kills the crying baby- stressed out, can’t get any sleep, blows his top, but come on, there is no shame in being exposed to similar motivation.
-
Violet says:
This tag ends italics: </i>
I fixed it in your comment.
As for what you said, Steve: that is very interesting. My initial reaction is that women have sexual anxieties and possessive instincts as well, yet there does seem to be a difference. Men are so much more…controlling. Is it nature or nuture? 10,000 years of patriarchy, or the difference in reproductive strategies between male and female animals? A combination of the two?
-
Timothy Shortell says:
Timothy, do you remember when Jerry Falwell blamed 9-11 on feminists, gays, and lesbians? There was a brief “aha” moment in the press and public
Yep, that’s what I’m talking about. We need to capitalize on the fact that there are a lot of people who will find the sex obsession of the fundamentalists disturbing.
There is a great moment of clarity in Richard Dawkins’ BBC special, The Root of All Evil when a Muslim rants about Dawkins letting “his women go out in public dressed like whores.” Dawkins calmly replies that they are not “his women” and they dress themselves. It really underscores the vast difference in thinking about gender, and I think most Americans would find Dawkins position more reasonable. We need to mount a campaign to call into question the creepy medieval attitudes about gender roles and female sexuality held by all fundamentalists, including the home grown ones.
-
Infidel says:
Kudos Violet. That you would even hint that the difference in reproductive strategies between male and female animals and not just 10,000 years of patriarchy makes men so much more controlling, raises you up even higher in my estimate. You posses an ethic I admire.
-
flawedplan says:
This is way over that little girl’s head. It’s her autonomy she is pledging to renounce. Heaven help her the day she gets hip to that, the day he killed her soul, and then they had ice cream.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Infidel: Are you a syncophant?
Lemurs have a matriarchial society. I guess they have not evolved enough to understand that evolution does not exist and that God created everything for men.
There is only one God and Charles Darwin was His first prophet. Now Richard Dawkins has taken up the sword and is doing a wonderful job!
-
Paul Tergeist says:
I wonder if I would lose my feminist creds if I suggested that, of all the potential experiments of nature, the most obvious one is the patriarchal/matriarchal experiment. It must have been tried countless times because matriarchies are still extant in nature when there is a need for countless and unlimited offspring. Termites come to mind..but there don’t seem to be many of those societies thriving at the human level.
Ladies, it isn’t 10,000 years of men, it’s simple evolution. Men have evolved to be the alphas. It’s a burden we have to bear, but we should be able to handle it. Those men obviously can’t.
-
Pastor Pistle says:
Friends, that ceremony is obviously not for the girls, who will all be harlots by the time they are fifteen. It is for the fathers. The one in the picture looks like a homer, so the child is probably not related to him.
I can tell you that we at Landover Baptist teach our girls that they should be married to the rich Republican Baptist of their choice as soon as possible after puberty so they can have fourteen or fifteen children as GOD COMMANDS.
Surprisingly, some choose to go to college and even graduate school instead of starting a family immediately. Some even become professionals, but only after JESUS has spoken to them and warned that they are barren or will likely have only female children. (It is a treacherous lie that the father determines the sex of the offspring! All fathers want sons!)
Friends, I can tell you that public humiliation for being such a moron is the fastest way for the “high priest of the house” to become a laughingstock and stop his unholy attempt to derail GOD’s plan.
-
flawedplan says:
I’ve been avoiding what I want to say, b/c I know it will sound insipid, but maybe it will help me sleep to try to start. I believe a person has to have had morality almost conditoned out of his/her own character before they can truly effect the morality of others; our defensive structures are intricate and formidable and effectively ward off psychological threat. I don’t believe I am this type of person, I do believe it takes such a person to get through to this wingnut father; one who sincerely respects him as a person, does not feel morally superior and is profoundly interested in his well-being. That is all.
-
Pastor Pistle says:
No worries, miss. It doesn’t quite rise to the level of insipid. But maybe that isn’t the word you wanted.
-
sybil says:
I started here early this morning, now it’s past my bedtime. First I wanted to register my huge Bleaaach at the image and the story. Disgust and more. When I returned, there were twice as many comments, and half as much energy for a coherent response. plus a couple glasses of vino.
The whole thing is so repulsive. It reminded me of all the fears I had of my father when I reached puberty. No *actual* sexual impropriety as far as I can determine, but underlying assumptions and attitudes, a few *innocent* remarks freaked me out for the rest of his life. And I was very clear that I was not his to *give away* at my marriage. Nothing as compared to this sickness. Yes, where are the mothers and brothers?
Violet, your equation is spot on: Its that same old cocktail of fear of sex + hatred of women = fear and hatred of female sexuality.
I applaud all you men. In my limited explorations, this has got to be the greatest collection of pro-feminist consiousness-seeking males on line. And Steve’s honesty is far out in #32.
enough for today, soon it’ll be time to log on to tomorrow’s indignities.
-
Alon Levy says:
That’s one of the things we would need to change. Establish a national core curriculum.
Exactly… but you need to take great care to ensure the right people are in charge of it. I don’t want any ideologues - liberal or conservative - even near the committees that establish curriculums. I don’t want to hear about progressive math, or pure discovery learning, or patriotic values, or equal time for creationists. After unloading on neocons, libertarians, and communists for not admitting failure, I’d be a hypocrite not to acknowledge that most liberal attempts to remold education in the last 50 years have only made things worse.
I applaud all you men. In my limited explorations, this has got to be the greatest collection of pro-feminist consiousness-seeking males on line. And Steve’s honesty is far out in #32.
It happens periodically - for example, during the debate over whether Chris Clarke was right to say he wasn’t a feminist. I’m not exactly sure why, but I’ve always felt that Violet’s blog is very conducive to feminist men.
-
Infidel says:
Paul- Synconophant? no but probably a sycophant, I don’t have the work ethic for politics, I’m too lazy.
-
Infidel says:
Jesus loves me Valentines having been trivialized and derided get replaced by covenents of purity because they are so much more practical.
All fundies are not Jim Jones followers, though it could be argued sipping of the cup of Purity Balls kills the soul of young girls.
The members of this church “Mountain Springs” only, can be prosecuted for child abuse. The consent of the children’s parents, who do legally own- or are legally responsible for their human offspring may have been motivated geographically, they had the misfortune of being in a community with lame choice in churches.
Ownership of your children, male or female, may not be the worst thing to ever happen to humanity and responsible parents all seek and use available help to nurture. -
gordo says:
Alon and Violent–
Curricula are already overemphasized, and I’d be willing to bet that a national curriculum would be very similar to most state curricula.
As it is, most teachers just design their lesson plans, and then look through the curriculum to find a topic that they can shoehorn the lesson plan into.
And don’t think that it would be possible to keep the extremists out of the curriculum-writing process.
I remember looking through the Arizona State Curriculum and thinking, “If any kid manages to live up to this standard, he’s going to be like the professor on Gilligan’s Island by the time he graduates high school. He’ll know more about every subject than most people know about any subject.”
-
flawedplan says:
Yikes, don’t forget home-schooling, and the reason it exists.
And Yes Pistle, my approach, whatever it’s called is not for everyone, but then neither is front-end work with perpetrators. Let love in! -
Bob Dog says:
All religious acts are sexual acts:
- Prayer is masturbation.
- Church is group sex.
- Proselytizing is rape.
- The indoctrination of children is paedophilia.
- It clearly has S&M overtones (the cross, self flaggelation, sexual frustration, etc.)The religious should keep their filth - uh, faith - to themselves and not assault any unwilling people with it.
They should pray in private. You wouldn’t want to see christians masturbate in public, so why should you have to endure seeing them pray in public?
And they should do it ONLY with consenting adults involved; you wouldn’t allow christians to take your kids to their sex orgy, so why would you let them take your kids to their churches or allow their religion in public schools?
There is a million times more danger to children from religion in schools than there is from homosexual boy scout leaders.
-
Infidel says:
Religion is you and God.
God being external to you.
God being external to the universe.
You can only imagine God.
Mastrubation, Sex, Rape, Paedophilia, are not religion. You can imagine these, or experience them, you might even perform them.
There are overtones. -
Violet says:
Paul Tergeist: You have feminist cred?
flawedplan: I don’t think your comment was insipid. I know what you mean: I couldn’t do the work of enlightening this Purity Ball dad because I couldn’t get past my own revulsion. So it takes a different kind of constitution. You know, Christians would argue that loving everyone regardless is a higher morality. I don’t know that I agree, but thought I’d mention it.
Sybil: There do seem to be a lot of guys here, and I don’t know how it got that way. I think it might be because I’ve been linked from some very popular blogs with predominantly male readership.
-
will says:
I believe that you have lots of men here because of your frilly pink Easter outfit.
-
Jim Deeny says:
Violet: I think it’s a rather good thing that men are here in your blogosphere. I’m here because I became a reformed male rights activist only through this blog (and others) by communicating,mostly women, because I believed that there’s 2 sides to every story. I slowly begininning to feel like it was a revelation and interpersonal compromise. Did that make sense?
-
BAC says:
I think it does border on child abuse. There is a quote by Butch Hancock of The Flatlanders Band on the cover of the documentary “The Education of Shelby Knox” that says: “Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”
BAC
yikes101.blogspot.com -
Alon Levy says:
Curricula are already overemphasized, and I’d be willing to bet that a national curriculum would be very similar to most state curricula.
That’s true, but what a national curriculum will end is the proliferation of curricula, and the contradictory textbook adoption guidelines of Texas and California, which are responsible to most of the textbook mayhem in the US.
It clearly has S&M overtones (the cross, self flaggelation, sexual frustration, etc.)
I’m pretty sure everyone who really engages in BDSM is going to vehemently object to that.
-
Infidel says:
I came here to see what the cartoons were all about(GOOGLE) I found blogging beats the crap out of everything you say. I relish getting the crap beaten out of what I say, or think- Crap sucks. Plus Violet has a way with much of her topic selections. Here we have another example of the lunacy of fundie fucktards, Still I’m not ready to throw baby out with bathwater- this one church is just on fundie church. By the way it does do charitable work.
-
Violet says:
Does anyone have a suggestion to combat this other than education?
Personally I can’t think of anything that wouldn’t represent an enormous state intrusion into everyone’s lives. But it’s just such a frustrating situation. Look at that little girl in the picture. Does the heart not go out?
I have baby cousins who are being taught this kind of thing. Two of the girls are extraordinarily bright — even when they were preschoolers it was evident they had very sharp minds. Yet those minds are being wasted because their parents are home-schooling them. The emphasis is on the domestic arts, with so little math and science the girls now need special tutoring to pass the state requirements. The last time I was down there, I learned that the girls were enrolled in a “hearth-keepers” program so they can learn to be obedient wives, keep the house clean, cook meals, etc. And one of them told me that she’d have “as many babies as God gives me.”
Another baby cousin, a boy age 6, is obsessed with worry over the fact that his playmate, another cousin, is going to roast in hell for all eternity because he’s not saved. It’s just obscene.
-
lolife says:
Brainwashing
This Purity Ball shitis pretty horrifying. I have no idea how common such a thing is. To echo many of the interesting thoughts in the comments on the post linked above, it is bizarre in 2 ways and brings up at least 1 significant social issue. It’s bi…
-
RedDragon says:
That is really f*ed up. And I can’t think of any better way than education..and even that is horrendously biased most of the time. You’ve highlighted also, the immense dangers of homeschooling. I do believe it’s important for kids to experience the social environment of school, as well as the less-subjective education. At least there is the chance of exchanging ideas with fellow classmates.
-
Jim Deeny says:
I have two very close friends that are lovers with each other, needless to say, they are lesbians (Lifetime mate, whatever you want to call it) and the one has a daughter that’s 16 years old. Let me tell you what, that girl is astounding! She’s outgoing, tells you like it is, never holds back a thought, straight A student, very popular and self confident and probably could kick my ass if she wanted to.
Maybe a way to help fix the problem is to have a private school with an all female faculty? I’m not bustin’, but, if you met this girl, you’d admire her even if you’re as old as Violet, ooops, me I mean. -
Jim Deeny says:
To add to my previous post:
There’s something about this 16 year old that sets her aside from being raised in the typical family setting. They’re not completely religious in their home either. Would she be different if they’re was a father? I know I am her friend, but she treats me like an ornament when I talk to her. She doesn’t seem to be oppressed one bit, no alpha male BS, she’s completely free at 16 to be who she wants to be but with the guidance of her two female parents. Interesting, eh.
-
belledame222 says:
There is a term called “covert incest;” (also sometimes “emotional incest”); it has to do with inappropriately sexualizing/charging the atmosphere between a parent and a child, even if there’s no actual touching. I’d say asking your kid to “pledge herself” to Daddy–I mean, purity, excuse me–counts, yes.
I do believe that grossly misinforming or lack of information about sexuality also counts as abuse; as does any sort of poisoning one’s sense of sexuality (screaming at your kid that masturbation is “dirty” and punishing him/her for it).
Finally, speaking from my own experience, at least, I would say that institutionalized homophobia is in fact a kind of sexual/emotional abuse.
-
belledame222 says:
Oh yes, and: spiritual abuse is also a concept worth considering.
-
belledame222 says:
>Steve, how much do you think this is sex panic as opposed to panic about female sexuality?
-
belledame222 says:
–fuck! why does that keep happening?
I started to say: I don’t think you can really separate the two (wrt 65), especially in this situation. You’re a guy, and *maybe* you’re not being taught that your own sexuality is quite as fucked up as that of the wimminfolk. On the other hand, the people to whom your erotic energies are supposed to be going are being taught that sex is dangerous and disgusting. Meanwhile, *you* are being taught that while you must needs spend most of your time and “bonding” with menfolk, *erotic* energy directed toward them is the worst thing of all. AND apparently masturbation is right out. What’s *that* going to do to your sexuality?
For one thing, I am thinking: besides the inherent misogyny being taught in that worldview, the simultaneous suggestion that 1) you deserve sex and 2) the person with whom you’re supposed to have it has to keep shoving you away, because “it’s” bad and disgusting, is gonna create an extra layer of hostility toward women.
and ultimately the shame toward the self has got to be in there.
Nobody wins, here.
-
Infidel says:
“Nobody wins, here”
Gentlemens’ Clubs are winning.
Every third billboard along the highway is for a Gentlemens’ Club.
Are these just new(last 5yrs) to the midwest? -
Paul Tergeist says:
To 58: Violet, WHO decided these kids needed to be homeskooled, who is doing the schooling and who picked the curruculum?
I’ll bet the answer is MOMMY. MOMMY is teaching her daughters to stay in the kitchen and have babies, be victims and do what men tell them.
Daddy is at work all day. Mammy and Daddy are good Christians, which means their entire lives are focused within 25 miles of home….the store, the mall, the church, work.
What would this mean to them? http://worldometers.info/
-
Azkyroth says:
Remember this creepy “purity ball” pledge?
Well, I…fixed it. ^.^
Daughter: “I pledge to treat my body, my mind, and my life with dignity and respect, and to ensure this is reflected in all my decisions. I recognize that sex is healthy, natural, and also potentially dangerous. I understand that I must make informed and intelligent decisions, for my own sake and my partner’s, regarding when and with who to have sex, and that I must resist any attempt to take the decision out of my hands, no matter the intent. I understand also that you are concerned for me, that I mean a great deal to you, and that above all you want me to be happy. I recognize that you have more experience than I do in most areas of life and that I should consider your advice and opinions, but also that I must make my own judgements rather than mindlessly absorbing or defying any example, even yours. I know that I can trust you and confide in you, and that you will be there for me when I need advice and support. Most of all, I know you love me, no matter what.”
Father: “I, (daughter’s name)’s father, affirm to her and to myself my recognition that she is my responsibility, but her own person. I recognize that sex is healthy, natural, and also potentially dangerous. I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure that she has the knowledge and judgement necessary to make informed and intelligent decisions about when and with who to have sex, but I will accept that the decision is ultimately hers to make. I understand that my example will be a major influence on her ideas and attitudes about sex and relationships, and I will model integrity, maturity, reason, and responsibility in every way I can. I recognize that the best thing I can do for her is to set a good example and be supportive and accepting of her as a person, but when I disagree with her decisions I will make this clear in a civil and responsible manner. I will make clear that she can trust and confide in me, and that I will be there for her whenever she needs advice or support, and I will make good on my promise. Most of all, I will ensure that she knows I love her, no matter what.”
Comments?
-
Violet says:
I like it. The “sex is potentially dangerous” part gives me pause, if 4-year-olds are going to be reciting this. That seems fraught with potential for causing psychological mischief in the minds of children. But I guess it depends on the age of people who would be reciting this.
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Passive Blogging says:
[...] Amanda posted a Purity Ball video last week that I actually can’t bring myself to watch. You know how I feel about Purity Balls. [...]
