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

[iloveboardwalk]

I'm sure that if you asked a parent who is involved in this they would view it as helping the girls self esteem.

I don't think it's helpful to tie a girl's self-esteem to her sexuality. It teaches girls from a young age that they worth nothing more than whether their legs are open or closed. The ability to make smart decisions perhaps one of many of them being able to say no to a persistant boyfriend comes from genuine self-confidence. Self-confidence certainly doesn't come from "marrying" her dad at the age of 9.

 

[Fitswimmer]

That's the problem. All I see is a parent doing something to satisfy themselves, and deluding themselves into thinking that they're doing a good thing, when all that is really needed is to simply sit down with their daughter often enough to keep the lines of communication and respect open.

But we don't know that they aren't doing that as well, and this is just an affirmation of a relationship that already exists.

Look, I'm not defending the "Ball", I'm just saying that we should be consistent. Nobody is requiring this of anyone, it's not being forced into the public schools, and from what has been reported it doesn't contain condemnation of other lifestyles. If it included any of those things, I'd be all over it. These parents have made the choice and they will have to deal with whatever consequences come along.

 

[bicker]

But we don't know that they aren't doing that as well, and this is just an affirmation of a relationship that already exists.

You're right, we don't, but for all we do know, this affirmation provides less benefit to the girl, per minute, than if her parents had just talked with her during that period of time, at home.

These parents have made the choice and they will have to deal with whatever consequences come along.

I agree completely.

 

[cardaway]

I don't think it's helpful to tie a girl's self-esteem to her sexuality. It teaches girls from a young age that they worth nothing more than whether their legs are open or closed. The ability to make smart decisions perhaps one of many of them being able to say no to a persistant boyfriend comes from genuine self-confidence. Self-confidence certainly doesn't come from "marrying" her dad at the age of 9.

Well said.

 

[Ilovefozzie]

I don't think it's helpful to tie a girl's self-esteem to her sexuality. It teaches girls from a young age that they worth nothing more than whether their legs are open or closed. The ability to make smart decisions perhaps one of many of them being able to say no to a persistant boyfriend comes from genuine self-confidence. Self-confidence certainly doesn't come from "marrying" her dad at the age of 9.

I agree completely. Girls need to know that they are smart, talented, capable. They don't need their parents/father's disapproval hanging over them. "OMG I just had sex my father is going to hate me now because at 9, when I didn't understand, I pledged I wouldn't."

 

[cardaway]

How about what this doesn't say. Are the girls allowed live to the Clinton definition of sex and do everything but the big deed?

How about parents just give them the tools to make the right decision, and do it at a more appropriate age, like 12 or 13?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't think it's helpful to tie a girl's self-esteem to her sexuality. It teaches girls from a young age that they worth nothing more than whether their legs are open or closed. The ability to make smart decisions perhaps one of many of them being able to say no to a persistant boyfriend comes from genuine self-confidence. Self-confidence certainly doesn't come from "marrying" her dad at the age of 9.

I agree with you. I think a girl should be taught that her value exists beyond her capacity to bear children or what size bra she wears. Sadly, the Purity Ball is only ONE place where a girl's sexuality seems to be valued above her intellect.

This is the same thing to me as a lot of other social value issues. I don't have to agree with them, but as long as nobody's being forced to participate and nobody is being condemned for not participating, then it's really none of my business.

 

[UrsulasMyHero]

They covered it a month or two ago in Glamour or Marie Claire Magazine and it wasn't "pretty". If you ask me it was down right disturbing. There have always been double standards in our country and this is/was a huge one. Little girls promise/pledge to remain untouched before marriage as though their sexuality belongs first to their fathers and then to their husbands. When, I ask you, does it belong to them?

 

[iloveboardwalk]

I agree completely. Girls need to know that they are smart, talented, capable. They don't need their parents/father's disapproval hanging over them. "OMG I just had sex my father is going to hate me now because at 9, when I didn't understand, I pledged I wouldn't."

I think this is good point. Sex is a very complicated issue, I don't think most 9 year olds, pre-puberty, understand what they are talking about.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Little girls promise/pledge to remain untouched before marriage as though their sexuality belongs first to their fathers and then to their husbands. When, I ask you, does it belong to them?

This is a great point.

My daughters are being taught that they are in charge of their bodies, and as they get older, that will include their sexuality. They will be taught that it is important to wait until they are in a loving relationship and emotionally ready for sex, but it will be for their own physical and emotional health, not for their daddy.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Agreed. As soon as the Hitler, Taliban and Facist comments start, I tune out to whatever else is being said.

The interesting thing to me about this whole debate is that if this had been a coming out party for gay teens, everyone would be looking at it very differently. We would be praising it as offering acceptance and making the kids feel comfortable. I had a friend in college who said he knew in grammar school that he was gay, so what's the big deal about a 9 year old?
While I'm not a fan of the whole thing and I'm really glad it didn't exist when I was young, if these parents feel that it helps their kids feel comfortable with their choices why are we condemning them? Nobody is forcing anyone to do it with their own kids or anything.

It's the same as a lot of other issues: if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, if you're against abortion, don't have one, if you think the Purity Ball is creepy-don't do it.

I don't see how a coming out party for gay teens is anything like these purity balls. (I've never heard of gay teens having a party for the sole purpose of announcing and celebrating their sexual orientation, but stranger things have happened.)

There seem to be some big differences: 1) the difference between teens and 9 year olds (I know you mention a child who knew he was gay in grammar school. While I think this is not that uncommon, I think you definitely overestimate the degree to which folks on the DIS would approve of a party announcing and celebrating the sexual orientation of a 9 year old. I'm gay and I don't even like that idea.) and 2) the promise about one's future sex life, and 3) the promise by the father regarding his daughter's sex life, and 4) the context of the ceremony (as someone else put it, almost wedding-like.)

Now suppose these gay parties had all of these elements: The children are in elementary school. They have a ceremony in which they promise their same-sex parent that they will have lots of gay sex once they are of age. The same-sex parent then promises that they will cherish the child's sexuality by helping the child to have lots of gay sex in the future. While making their vows the child and parent exchange "promiscuity toothbrushes" and each child is given a big box of them to share with each of their future sexual partners the morning after.

Surely no one on this thread would approve of this. All of us who find the straight, Christian, purity balls creepy would find the gay, promiscuity balls just as icky. The only difference is that JoeEpcot would join us in condemning the gay balls.

Like many others on this thread have said, I plan on explaining my values to my kids and I while I hope they come to accept similar values. Unlike most people on this thread, however, abstinence really has no place in my values (that is, I don't find abstinence any better or more ideal than non-abstinence in regards to middle aged teens.) And I would definitely not want a child of mine to wait for marriage or a similarly serious legal relationship to have sex (no more than I'd want him/her to wait until marriage/legal relationship to determine if one another's financial styles are compatible). But I wouldn't expect my pre-teen child to make any vows to me about these things. I want them to feel free to come to their own considered view about sex; not feel pressured to keep a vow they made to me and God when they were too young to know what they were doing.

 

[smartestnumber5]

My DH, though, does admit that there will be a double standard for our kids when they get older. As he puts it with the DS he only has to worry about one *package.* With the DD he will have to worry about all the rest. My Dad had the same viewpoint, sadly enough.

My parents had the same attitude, though it took a lot of debating from me to get them to admit it. They always tried to say, "well look you could get pregnant, but your brother wouldn't be the one actually getting pregnant." (I never quite understood this. I figured if I got pregnant I'd likely get an abortion--end of story. But if my brother got someone pregnant he'd have little say in whether he was legally bound to a child for the next 18 years since that potential child would be residing in someone else's body. ) In any case, I then through a bunch of hypotheticals at them--"Well suppose that somehow I had a medical condition such that it was absolutely for sure the case that I could never, ever get pregnant. Then brother and I would be in exactly the same position regarding sex, right?" At that point my mom just said, "Okay, okay. We have a double standard. Even if you definitely couldn't get pregnant, we'd still be more concerned about you having sex than your brother. Because you're a GIRL!"

 

[Chuck S]

Here is a "covenant" read and signed by "Daddy."

I (daughters 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, a husband, and a father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability, as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and my family as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

And from a website that advocates these purity balls:

It’s like a wedding but with a twist: Young women exchange rings, take vows and enjoy a first dance…with their dads. “Purity balls” are the next big thing in the save-it-till-marriage movement.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The question I have is why we feel so free to condemn these parents and the choices they've made about raising their children? Again, as long as they aren't forcing it into the public schools or making condemnation of others a part of it, I don't see where it enters our airspace.

And I disagree that we would condemn a coming out party-should one ever exist. I think it would be looked upon as a way for gay and lesbian students to feel supported. I think a majority of folks would find it positive. I don't see how promiscuity would enter into the equation. The Purity Ball seems to be about sex within marriage. So, an equal party for gay kids would be about sex within marriage/union as well, right? Of course, the same stipulation would apply, no forcing participation and no condemnation. Maybe some folks wouldn't like it either but that wouldn't mean it was wrong.

When does sex ed start in schools? If they're going to a school that teaches about sex at 9, then I can see why the parents would want to start their own programs at 9. We didn't learn that young, but I went to school in the dark ages when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

 

[Kath2003]

And I disagree that we would condemn a coming out party-should one ever exist. I think it would be looked upon as a way for gay and lesbian students to feel supported. I think a majority of folks would find it positive. I don't see how promiscuity would enter into the equation. The Purity Ball seems to be about sex within marriage. So, an equal party for gay kids would be about sex within marriage/union as well, right? Of course, the same stipulation would apply, no forcing participation and no condemnation. Maybe some folks wouldn't like it either but that wouldn't mean it was wrong.

I think we'd feel exactly the same if these parties were involving children of the same age. At 9, a child can fully understand the mechanics of sex - but they simply don't have the hormones pumping around their body the way that teenagers and adults do - so it would be unfair to ask them to make a decision on their sexuality of any kind and declare this in public when they are not fully able to understand the implications of their decision.

It's more the age thing that I have a problem with in this whole scenario. If at an age when a person is deemed legally able to have sex (in the UK this is 16 for heterosexual sex, I believe it's still 18 for homosexual sex) they made the decision to have this ceremony, it would be a hell of a lot less creepy. Equally I would think it was creepy if the parent of a 9 year old child held a party declaring their attraction to people of the same sex - whereas I wouldn't have so much of an issue if that person was 16/18 and legally responsible for their own actions.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I think we'd feel exactly the same if these parties were involving children of the same age. At 9, a child can fully understand the mechanics of sex - but they simply don't have the hormones pumping around their body the way that teenagers and adults do - so it would be unfair to ask them to make a decision on their sexuality of any kind and declare this in public when they are not fully able to understand the implications of their decision.

It's more the age thing that I have a problem with in this whole scenario. If at an age when a person is deemed legally able to have sex (in the UK this is 16 for heterosexual sex, I believe it's still 18 for homosexual sex) they made the decision to have this ceremony, it would be a hell of a lot less creepy. Equally I would think it was creepy if the parent of a 9 year old child held a party declaring their attraction to people of the same sex - whereas I wouldn't have so much of an issue if that person was 16/18 and legally responsible for their own actions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1045383.stm

Sex is legal for heterosexuals and homosexuals at 16 now. It used to be illegal for homosexual males to have sex but not homosexual women. As I said before not everyone gets to choose when they have sex. Many years ago there was a little girl at my junior school, when she was about 7 or 8 her mother went into hospital and her father decided that she would take over all the wifely repsonibilities for her mother. When I say all I mean all, she couldn't stop him and bang went her virginity. The better idea is to nuture your daughters so that they are stong enough to say no rather than just go through a meaningless ceremany about something they don't have the understanding of.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

The question I have is why we feel so free to condemn these parents and the choices they've made about raising their children? Again, as long as they aren't forcing it into the public schools or making condemnation of others a part of it, I don't see where it enters our airspace.

To me, it's just a topic of conversation, like any other parenting choice that people agree or disagree with. I find these ceremonies creepy, but I wouldn't support a ban on them, either. Their kids, their decision.

 

[cardaway]

Where was all this talk about not condemning the parents decision when there was a thread about parents teaching their kids how to have sex? Their kids - their decision - right?

 

[eclectics]

To me, it's just a topic of conversation, like any other parenting choice that people agree or disagree with. I find these ceremonies creepy, but I wouldn't support a ban on them, either. Their kids, their decision.

Right. I'm not saying they should be banned either, but if I think something is creepy, I'm going to say so.

 

[LuvDuke]

The question I have is why we feel so free to condemn these parents and the choices they've made about raising their children? Again, as long as they aren't forcing it into the public schools or making condemnation of others a part of it, I don't see where it enters our airspace.

And I disagree that we would condemn a coming out party-should one ever exist. I think it would be looked upon as a way for gay and lesbian students to feel supported. I think a majority of folks would find it positive. I don't see how promiscuity would enter into the equation. The Purity Ball seems to be about sex within marriage. So, an equal party for gay kids would be about sex within marriage/union as well, right? Of course, the same stipulation would apply, no forcing participation and no condemnation. Maybe some folks wouldn't like it either but that wouldn't mean it was wrong.

When does sex ed start in schools? If they're going to a school that teaches about sex at 9, then I can see why the parents would want to start their own programs at 9. We didn't learn that young, but I went to school in the dark ages when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

It isn't that people are condemning someone's choices. What is disturbing is a grown man's obsession and public celebration of his daughter's hymen. A little creepy, doncha think.