No sex please - we're daddy's little girls

[Fitswimmer]

EWWW - really creepy! I chose abstinence, and would make the same choice again. However, it had nothing to do with my DAD!

I made the same choice and I didn't need a "Purity Ball" to enforce the decision. I made it because of my faith and because of the values that my parents instilled in me. I was taught that human beings have the capacity to make choices, to say no to sex, to drugs and to alcohol. I think it's a copout to say, "oh, they're going to have sex anyway" To me, that's no different than saying "oh, they're going to drink anyway, so I'll just buy them the beer-it doesn't matter that they're only 16" or "oh, they're going to smoke pot anyway, so I'll just buy it for them and have it around for them to use"

Teenagers do not have to have sex anymore than they have to drink or they have to take drugs. While the whole "Purity Ball" thing seems strange to me, I admire any parent who teaches their kids having sex isn't an automatic rite of passage in high school. It's a tough stance for a parent to take because it runs counter to popular culture. It's an even tougher stance for a teenager because of the tremendous peer pressure to give in. I admire any parent and teenager that holds on to their values in the face of all that.

 

[tiggersmom2]

yuck, yuck and triple ewwwwwwww.......

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I made the same choice and I didn't need a "Purity Ball" to enforce the decision. I made it because of my faith and because of the values that my parents instilled in me. I was taught that human beings have the capacity to make choices, to say no to sex, to drugs and to alcohol. I think it's a copout to say, "oh, they're going to have sex anyway" To me, that's no different than saying "oh, they're going to drink anyway, so I'll just buy them the beer-it doesn't matter that they're only 16" or "oh, they're going to smoke pot anyway, so I'll just buy it for them and have it around for them to use"

Teenagers do not have to have sex anymore than they have to drink or they have to take drugs. While the whole "Purity Ball" thing seems strange to me, I admire any parent who teaches their kids having sex isn't an automatic rite of passage in high school. It's a tough stance for a parent to take because it runs counter to popular culture. It's an even tougher stance for a teenager because of the tremendous peer pressure to give in. I admire any parent and teenager that holds on to their values in the face of all that.

I agree with these principles of parental involvement!

 

[Saxsoon]

I made the same choice and I didn't need a "Purity Ball" to enforce the decision. I made it because of my faith and because of the values that my parents instilled in me. I was taught that human beings have the capacity to make choices, to say no to sex, to drugs and to alcohol. I think it's a copout to say, "oh, they're going to have sex anyway" To me, that's no different than saying "oh, they're going to drink anyway, so I'll just buy them the beer-it doesn't matter that they're only 16" or "oh, they're going to smoke pot anyway, so I'll just buy it for them and have it around for them to use"

Teenagers do not have to have sex anymore than they have to drink or they have to take drugs. While the whole "Purity Ball" thing seems strange to me, I admire any parent who teaches their kids having sex isn't an automatic rite of passage in high school. It's a tough stance for a parent to take because it runs counter to popular culture. It's an even tougher stance for a teenager because of the tremendous peer pressure to give in. I admire any parent and teenager that holds on to their values in the face of all that.

I agree, it is admirable that the parents want to do it, though odd to us. The idea is great, but there needs to be other things talked about as well to prevent the std's and pregnancies. Talking of just abstinence is like telling the answer to a problem without showing how to answer it.

Though the ball thing is over the top, it should be a private matter in the family, not for friends and extended family as well.

 

[NewJersey]

Can we put the question on the ballot in November to ban these ceremonies?

Creepy doesn't describe it enough.

 

[esoumyekcim]

Why are these things always about fathers and daughters? Is the relationship between father/daughter somehow more important, more special than the relationship between mother/son?

And what about those girls who want to go through with this sort of thing but have no father (through divorce or whatever) to pledge their virginity to? Are they somehow less special because they can't pledge their viriginity?

Color me confused on this issue.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I agree, it is admirable that the parents want to do it, though odd to us. The idea is great, but there needs to be other things talked about as well to prevent the std's and pregnancies. Talking of just abstinence is like telling the answer to a problem without showing how to answer it.

Though the ball thing is over the top, it should be a private matter in the family, not for friends and extended family as well.

The thing that scares me is my DN's generation (she's 20) was supposed to be so well informed about sex because of all the sex ed they got in school. Well, they either did a lousy job teaching it or the kids weren't paying attention because she and her friends seem to have no concept of the fact that you can still get an STD orally, that HPV risk increases exponentially as the number of partners increase and that the pill isn't 100% effective. And don't even get me started on the boys, who seem to think that they have a God given right to be "serviced" by girls and that condom use "destroys the experience". It also seems that NONE of them were ever taught about the emotional reactions that go along with the "first time" or the differences in how men and women feel about the commitment established by intimacy. Luckily, DN and I have a good relationship and talk often about all sorts of subjects and she also has a wonderful GYN that tells it exactly like it is. Sadly, all kids aren't getting that kind of support and it shows.

 

[JadenLayne]

I'm another one who is in the South and also a Christian and have never heard of this at all.

I think expecting such things of a 9 year old is ridiculous. I remember playing "wedding" at that age with a different boy every day on the playground. Weird!!!!

Now my teenager has taken part in a Youth Study called True Love Waits. It is a class that does push for a person to wait until marriage but it also looks realistically at choices that can be made if you don't wait. Oh, and these are teenagers which is a BIG difference from a 9 year old and we as parents aren't involved.

 

[maxiesmom]

That just gives me the creeps! Sorry, but why is the whole purity thing something between father and daughter? Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww.

 

[esoumyekcim]

I think I did True Love Waits also and that was at least 10-15 years ago when I was a teen.

I didn't need a Purity Ball/Ceremony to promise to stay a virgin until I was married. I just couldn't find a guy I was THAT into that I'd want to jump in bed with him. Well..except for River Phoenix and Corey Feldman. I would've jumped in bed with either of those two if they'd bothered to ask.

 

[disykat]

The thing that scares me is my DN's generation (she's 20) was supposed to be so well informed about sex because of all the sex ed they got in school. Well, they either did a lousy job teaching it or the kids weren't paying attention because she and her friends seem to have no concept of the fact that you can still get an STD orally, that HPV risk increases exponentially as the number of partners increase and that the pill isn't 100% effective. And don't even get me started on the boys, who seem to think that they have a God given right to be "serviced" by girls and that condom use "destroys the experience". It also seems that NONE of them were ever taught about the emotional reactions that go along with the "first time" or the differences in how men and women feel about the commitment established by intimacy. Luckily, DN and I have a good relationship and talk often about all sorts of subjects and she also has a wonderful GYN that tells it exactly like it is. Sadly, all kids aren't getting that kind of support and it shows.

I've seen it on these boards too. Comments about people who have unwanted pregnancies as if birth control is 100% effective. I remember an episode of "Friends" where they were all aghast after noticing the warning on the condom box - as if they'd never seen it before or realized they weren't 100% effective. Unfortuantely, it's too true to life.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Can we put the question on the ballot in November to ban these ceremonies?

Creepy doesn't describe it enough.

Actually, thinking about it for a bit, it's not a joke and it's a valid point.

If Joe thinks that he should be able to legislate the rights of other people (such as gay marriage, a concept he finds personally offensive) via majority vote, then we should be able to vote away something that the majority of posters obviously finds offensive that Joe approves of.

By the logic you've used in other threads, Joe, don't you agree?

 

[Lanshark]

What's next

Purity Balls between Moms and Sons.

Very creepy!

 

[ilovepcot]

The idea of wanting your daughter to remain "pure" until marriage is understandable, however,this ceremony is TASTLESS and REVOLTING!!!

 

[freckles and boo]

My reaction pretty much is the same as most of the others.

First, no nine-year-old should be making any declaration about his or her sexuality. They are too young and should be worried about hundreds of other things at that age. These kids are being manipulated.

Second, abstinence only programs are completely irresponsible and set kids up for failure. If they only learn "keep your legs crossed", they can't find healthy ways to deal with the natural changes and feelings they experience. I dearly hope my kids wait until they are in a committed relationship with someone they trust when they become sexually active. But if they aren't, I want them armed with knowledge and in control of their own lives.

Third, what is up with the daddy thing? I fully understand that girls need their fathers so they don't run to the nearest punk for love. But come on!!! Exchanging a ring in a ceremony? Ick. Both parents (or whoever is involved in raising the child) should be a part of creating a family environment that clearly expresses the family's values and morals. This isn't something that is for public consumption. It also doesn't allow the girl to change her mind in a way that isn't shameful or public.

I remember reading once that Protestants had higher suicide rates than people of other religious groups because of these all or nothing attitudes.

 

[Golf4food]

Probably for the thrill of "control". Showing his family and friends he is the boss? Maybe putting the symbolic chastity belt on his daughter in front of all his friends makes him the big cheese for the day? Who knows...and who cares. The whole thing is medieval and creepy.

Wanting to show your daughter that you support them and care about them and want to help them follow in the beliefs of your religion - and a belief that is not in the least bit harmful in any way - is a bad thing? Abstinance only education might not work for most people - especially in today's society where the belief that "everyone is bad and is going to do bad things so we might as well help them do it as soon as possible" reigns supreme. But abstinance in and of itself is not harmful to anyone. If anything, it is a good thing because most of those early relationships are going to end quickly anyway and it is a lot less painful if there was no sex involved - you can't feel "used" if you never got used... The kids should be taught both sides so they understand the consequences and know where and how to get protection if they decide to have sex, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage them to do it or discourage them from waiting.

I don't support doing these at such a young age, but if I had a teenage daughter who was entering high school and knew about sex, I wouldn't see a problem with something along those lines. Being in a crowd of people with similar values shows support, and making an event out of it makes it easier to remember. What would you remember most? A short talk in the car on the way home from McDonald's or an event where you dress up, have a nice meal, etc? Doesn't have to be a big public banquet, but making a special occasion out of anything generally has more impact and is better remembered.

So those of you who would prefer we show our high school freshmen porno films at assemblies so that they can "learn the basics" and then send them out to have sex with anyone and everyone can hold to your belief - it is your right as an American. But you also have no basis to assume that any attempt to protect our kids from the negative consequences of sex are always a bad thing and are carried out with evil intentions. And the majority of churches and families these days would not ostracize a young girl for getting pregenant before marriage - just because they don't support the idea doesn't mean they won't support their loved one and help them in any way possible. Love isn't vengeful. It isn't the babies fault. And the parents should be forgiven and helped. Just because a Christian doesn't encourage pre-marital sex and having children out of wedlock doesn't mean that they would be hostile if it happened. That is just a typical liberal lie. It happens, yes, but rarely and generally only in extremely old-fashioned churches. The majority of your mainstream "Evangelical Christians" are much more "friendly" than the liberal agenda would lead you to believe. But how would they know? Contact with holy things like churches tends to make their skin sizzle...

 

[jamimb]

This thing isnt really my cup of tea but I see nothing wrong with it. I agree parents should take a more active role in their children's purity. Kids these days are having sex at 11 and 12 and having babies and catching STD's. I think the age of 9 might be a litlle young for these things though. It seems a little over the top but I think the idead behind it is great. I kept my virginity till I was married(I am only 30 not a child of the 50's) and I am really glad that I did. I know thats its possible and not some cruel thing. These family's are just trying to protect their daughters (not sure why the sons have not been included)

 

[disykat]

Golf4food, I think you're missing the point of what is skeeving people out. Comparing saving yourself for marriage to somehow having to do with being daddy's girl and making vows to him is just disgusting IMO. I consider myself very religious, but I just don't get what my relationship with my dad (which is totally nonsexual) has to do with my sexuality and my desire to have sex only within marriage. Yuck, Yuck, triple yuck!

I have sons, whom I am teaching that sex belongs within marriage according to our religious beliefs. That isn't stopping me from teaching them about birth control so they will be prepared if they make a different choice. And it most certainly isn't making me want to put on a wedding dress and have them pledge themselves only to me until they marry. Yuck! (I know it's the daughter with the dress, but it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned - and it's really creepy.)

 

[jamimb]

Wanting to show your daughter that you support them and care about them and want to help them follow in the beliefs of your religion - and a belief that is not in the least bit harmful in any way - is a bad thing? Abstinance only education might not work for most people - especially in today's society where the belief that "everyone is bad and is going to do bad things so we might as well help them do it as soon as possible" reigns supreme. But abstinance in and of itself is not harmful to anyone. If anything, it is a good thing because most of those early relationships are going to end quickly anyway and it is a lot less painful if there was no sex involved - you can't feel "used" if you never got used... The kids should be taught both sides so they understand the consequences and know where and how to get protection if they decide to have sex, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage them to do it or discourage them from waiting.

I don't support doing these at such a young age, but if I had a teenage daughter who was entering high school and knew about sex, I wouldn't see a problem with something along those lines. Being in a crowd of people with similar values shows support, and making an event out of it makes it easier to remember. What would you remember most? A short talk in the car on the way home from McDonald's or an event where you dress up, have a nice meal, etc? Doesn't have to be a big public banquet, but making a special occasion out of anything generally has more impact and is better remembered.

So those of you who would prefer we show our high school freshmen porno films at assemblies so that they can "learn the basics" and then send them out to have sex with anyone and everyone can hold to your belief - it is your right as an American. But you also have no basis to assume that any attempt to protect our kids from the negative consequences of sex are always a bad thing and are carried out with evil intentions. And the majority of churches and families these days would not ostracize a young girl for getting pregenant before marriage - just because they don't support the idea doesn't mean they won't support their loved one and help them in any way possible. Love isn't vengeful. It isn't the babies fault. And the parents should be forgiven and helped. Just because a Christian doesn't encourage pre-marital sex and having children out of wedlock doesn't mean that they would be hostile if it happened. That is just a typical liberal lie. It happens, yes, but rarely and generally only in extremely old-fashioned churches. The majority of your mainstream "Evangelical Christians" are much more "friendly" than the liberal agenda would lead you to believe. But how would they know? Contact with holy things like churches tends to make their skin sizzle...

GREAT POST!!!!

 

[grlpwrd]

Wanting to show your daughter that you support them and care about them and want to help them follow in the beliefs of your religion - and a belief that is not in the least bit harmful in any way - is a bad thing? Abstinance only education might not work for most people - especially in today's society where the belief that "everyone is bad and is going to do bad things so we might as well help them do it as soon as possible" reigns supreme. But abstinance in and of itself is not harmful to anyone. If anything, it is a good thing because most of those early relationships are going to end quickly anyway and it is a lot less painful if there was no sex involved - you can't feel "used" if you never got used... The kids should be taught both sides so they understand the consequences and know where and how to get protection if they decide to have sex, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage them to do it or discourage them from waiting.

I don't support doing these at such a young age, but if I had a teenage daughter who was entering high school and knew about sex, I wouldn't see a problem with something along those lines. Being in a crowd of people with similar values shows support, and making an event out of it makes it easier to remember. What would you remember most? A short talk in the car on the way home from McDonald's or an event where you dress up, have a nice meal, etc? Doesn't have to be a big public banquet, but making a special occasion out of anything generally has more impact and is better remembered.

So those of you who would prefer we show our high school freshmen porno films at assemblies so that they can "learn the basics" and then send them out to have sex with anyone and everyone can hold to your belief - it is your right as an American. But you also have no basis to assume that any attempt to protect our kids from the negative consequences of sex are always a bad thing and are carried out with evil intentions. And the majority of churches and families these days would not ostracize a young girl for getting pregenant before marriage - just because they don't support the idea doesn't mean they won't support their loved one and help them in any way possible. Love isn't vengeful. It isn't the babies fault. And the parents should be forgiven and helped. Just because a Christian doesn't encourage pre-marital sex and having children out of wedlock doesn't mean that they would be hostile if it happened. That is just a typical liberal lie. It happens, yes, but rarely and generally only in extremely old-fashioned churches. The majority of your mainstream "Evangelical Christians" are much more "friendly" than the liberal agenda would lead you to believe. But how would they know? Contact with holy things like churches tends to make their skin sizzle...

Yup, I think you are missing the point.

I like the idea about staying pure for marriage. That is ideal, but clearly, these ceremonies only sexualize little girls.