Why the Animosity toward Traditional Sexual Values?
There has been a lively discussion on TPM about the "purity myth," a white, middle class notion of female virginhood that excludes poor women and women of color for whom it is (allegedly) unattainable. I have to question the premises of the discussion. That double standards continue to exist in terms of expectations of men and women's sexuality is a given. I think that goes without saying. The schema of virgin/whore remains pervasive in American society. However, I do not see the point of impugning the intelligence or agency of young men and women who choose not to have sex, suggesting that they have fallen prey to an oppressive, bourgeois ideology if they value the idea of chastity. Some young people, especially girls, undoubtedly feel the pressure to conform to an ideal of virginity, despite their own desires and conflicting social messages that encourage sexual activity. At the same time, though, we need to keep in mind that some young people choose not to have sex -- not because they are being coerced by bourgeois hegemony, but because they have religious convictions that value chastity before marriage. Or simply because they choose not to be sexually active.
Is this so hard to acknowledge? I feel like much of the debate on TPM has implied that women are either repressed virgins, captive to an unjust bourgeois ideal of sexuality, or they have a healthy, liberal attitude toward sexuality. At worst, this dichotomy seems to substitue a new orthodoxy of sexual liberalism in place of the old straightjacket of conservative sexual moralism. At best, it seems to miss the fact that there are other cultural impulses and social factors -- other than class and gender -- in play when people contemplate their own sexuality.
I only entered this debate because the basic premise that a "purity myth" was "middle class." This surprised me. When I was in high school, in a small southern town during the 1990s, the "True Love Waits" movement was quite popular. Both boys and girls got the rings and pledged that they would "wait until marriage." Undoubtedly, many of those people ended up breaking their pledges, sexual desire being what it is. In any case, many of my classmates who believed in this idea of chastity were not what I would call "well-off" or "middle class." They were of many races and income levels, and sincere in their Christian faith; many believed that their sexual experience would be more valuable if they postponed exploring it. That's an individual call to make, and most people will not come to the same conclusion, but I don't think that those who do are necessarily subscribing to an oppressive image of their self-worth as sexual beings. Let's keep this discussion of purity and virginity and sexuality going, so that the harmful and unjust aspects of our cultural expectations of sex can be addressed. But let's also respect people in the choices they make, when they are motivated in ways we might not always immediately understand or appreciate.
Is this so hard to acknowledge? I feel like much of the debate on TPM has implied that women are either repressed virgins, captive to an unjust bourgeois ideal of sexuality, or they have a healthy, liberal attitude toward sexuality. At worst, this dichotomy seems to substitue a new orthodoxy of sexual liberalism in place of the old straightjacket of conservative sexual moralism. At best, it seems to miss the fact that there are other cultural impulses and social factors -- other than class and gender -- in play when people contemplate their own sexuality.
I only entered this debate because the basic premise that a "purity myth" was "middle class." This surprised me. When I was in high school, in a small southern town during the 1990s, the "True Love Waits" movement was quite popular. Both boys and girls got the rings and pledged that they would "wait until marriage." Undoubtedly, many of those people ended up breaking their pledges, sexual desire being what it is. In any case, many of my classmates who believed in this idea of chastity were not what I would call "well-off" or "middle class." They were of many races and income levels, and sincere in their Christian faith; many believed that their sexual experience would be more valuable if they postponed exploring it. That's an individual call to make, and most people will not come to the same conclusion, but I don't think that those who do are necessarily subscribing to an oppressive image of their self-worth as sexual beings. Let's keep this discussion of purity and virginity and sexuality going, so that the harmful and unjust aspects of our cultural expectations of sex can be addressed. But let's also respect people in the choices they make, when they are motivated in ways we might not always immediately understand or appreciate.
