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.
Advertisement
As you mention these purity pledges seem to be motivated by religous faith, which I know for me means it is premised on something that is not true but probably harmful as well. Without religion we would probably not have abstinence on education, or the pope telling people not to use condoms.
At this point it is hard not have a discussion about "purity" and not tie it to the underlying evil which is the religion it is based on.
April 9, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
Excellent post, I have felt that a balanced perspective has been completely missing from the discussion.
I share your sentiments, but I don't think that that religion is purely the motivator for waiting. I would fall somewhere in the middle of dichotomy you outline (not religious, not pure, or a believer in purity, but not a libertine either), and I think that there is something to be said for some selectivity in ones' choices.
Hearts are sensitive and easily broken, some choose to be selective and some don't. This does not automatically mean that they are all in thrall to some patriarchal dictate. We should recognize this and not patronize everybody as unevolved.
April 9, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a little bit of Pc group think going on, imposing uniformity. Think of how the mommy wars went -- working women didn't want to be stigmatized as "bad mothers", so they promoted an independent working lifestyle. Then stay at home mothers got offended because they felt disparaged as if they are "not working". I can imagine the girls who actually prefer being a virgin being offended by caricatures of religious zealotry or "virginity cult". People assume way too much about our personal choices and lifestyle.
Hey, how about we all stop being so judgmental!
April 9, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Young people can certainly "choose not to have sex" for whatever mixture of reasons, and have every right to be respected in such choices WITHOUT having to act silly flaunting their choice, joining a "movement", wearing rings, signing pledges, going up a stage with their parents, etc. especially if such movements are, as they certainly seem, richly laden with deliberately crafted ignorance, exploitation, phoniness, self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
No one can fairly object to a personal choice for virginity. People may certainly, and hopefully DO object to public displays of ignorance, self-righteousness and hypocrisy. It is not sensible or fair to combine the two ( (1) freedom of choice, and (2) ignorant flaunting of that of that choice), EITHER for purposes of defending both or attacking both.
April 10, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Traditional meaning old-style, such as the values our parents and grandparents had?
Because some of them were and are quite harmful for young women to internalize. I'm certainly not planning to teach my daughter most of those values.
The commenters of some who disagree with Valenti's purity challenge seem to equate purity with selectivity.
More selectivity is a good thing. Being pure doesn't lead to that. Ignorance isn't bliss but folly, remember.
April 10, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two Words: Kinsey Report
April 10, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the presumption of intellectual and moral superiority that has so hobbled, so weakened the Left. In this debate over the "Purity Myth", I see a relatively insignificant issue elevated to crisis proportion by a fulminating, upper-income political class happy to endlessly congratulate itself for its visionary awareness, blissfully unaware that no one else is listening.
Recognizing its own accelerating irrelevance, the movement has morphed to "progressive" - as if changing the label can slow the leach of vitality, of humman attention - but, let me tell you, there was a lot about the old Left that was important and resilient. I know. I believed. There's nothing wrong with an egalitarian ideal, as long as its means of achievement remain pragmatic and flexible. Human, if you will. When it become vitrified by blind dogma, it dies.
Or kills.
Look. If someone wants to remain a virgin until the cows come home, it's their business. If someone wants to remain closeted and gay, it's their business. If someone wants to look a dirty pictures and complete crossword puzzles standing on their head, so be it.
Of course, if they step out of their authority zone, and want to upset the legislative apple-cart, oppress the rest of us with their reigning fairy tale, their scientific, politically sustainable, dialectically proofed manifesto, then, sure, wrap their li'l knuckles 'til they knock off the bullshit.
But what's the threat-level of the "Purity Myth". Spark a movement? Back to chastity? Overrule Roe v. Wade? Put women back at ironing boards and into back alleys for abortions?
Can't. Doesn't have the heft. If the Religious Right could have pulled the country back to unto the fold of the ol' time religion, it would have done so by now.
Things change. Sure, vigilance is a good thing. But until there's something of substantial peril out there - not just the phantasms of ego and delusion - for the sake of the rest of us, dying in boredom, hammered with familiar slogans and passionate arguments until the walls of our inner ears bleed unstaunchable gore... SHADDUP!!!
April 10, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
April 10, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is it so hard to acknowledge?" No.
April 10, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink