The Disturbingly Creepy Institution Known as The Purity Ball

No, clearly spot on topic

Although, I am not surprised that you're coming to the defense of another child sexual exploiter

It doesn't matter, conservative or liberal, whoever it is that is sexually exploiting children is the side you're on.

 

some of the fathers and daughter pictures did give one a bad vibe that is for sure

 

so purity balls with no evidence of inappropriate sexual behaviour (except in your own mind) is the same as a self-confessed sexual exploiter .. one does have to wonder the type of mind that would associate the two . .well in your case one does not have to wonder, your fascination with seeing sexual exploitation in pretty much everything indicates clearly where your thoughts linger.

 

That's not relevant to fundamentalism, since marriage under fundamentalism had very little to do with the modern western notion of "love", and much more to do with women's status as property, and their "role" simply being to produce children and carry on their father's name.

False dichotomy You must live in a cave if you think the only alternative to a Saudi-esque attitude on sex and relationships is sleeping around in a risky manor.

That would be like saying one has to support religious cults which castrated their members in order to be "tolerant" - the idea of sex and relationships these religious cults promote are centuries out of date and proven to be harmful; denying raw facts just to put on a guise of tolerance is silly

In the context of fundamentalism, they are. The same reason we'd think it'd be similarly creepy if an Islamic fundamentalist held a similar event (ex. a "Mrs Moral Beauty pageant featuring women in burkas), as they do. Or claimed an arranged child marriage was had something to do with "love".

It doesn't have to do with being the same; most scientific evidence shows that sexual repression is physically and mentally unhealthy, and in some cases causes paraphilias to develop (ex. such as the Catholic priests going after little boys) - so it's not a matter of "being different" anymore than objections to smoking or self-harm do. And cults like this are as much about "waiting till you find someone you love" as Saudi Arabian "marriages are" - the fact that you use the strawman of "wanting to sleep with as many people as possible" just shows your deflection.

In your individual case though based on your past posts, it's just a matter of you bemoaning your inability to get any (your own words, lol) - not some "wanting to do it with someone you love" that you're trying to make it out to be just to self-justify, so you're just kidding yourself by telling yourself otherwise (if it was you wouldn't be simultaneously boasting about your love of looking at hot naked women).

 

It is not a false dichotomy when it is a cultural value. And you're making a strawman with the castration remark.

 

What's a cultural value? Sleeping with "as many women as possible" isn't a cultural value anywhere except in your own mind. If you really believe it is then you haven't dated enough women or interacted with enough people who have.

Well this is an attitude on sex that would've been behind the times even to mainstream Christians in the 1920s (fundamentalism has always been a subculture, and never a mainstream or grassroots part of Western culture - Saudi culture may be a different story). The majority of people don't sleep around wantonly or engage in addictive risky sex, and they certainly don't have to join a fundamentalist sect to learn not to do that.

 

You might want to look up machismo and see what that entails.I think you've had a sheltered life if you're truly never encountered this culture.

Un short it's the culture that says that women must be a slave to their biology and be defined by their biology, to be barefoot and preggers in the kitchen while men get to go out and sow their wild oats.

 

I'm aware of what it entails - I just find it hilarious that you think this is part of a widespread "culture", as opposed to just high-schoolish bragging that you might see on a film like American Pie.

I think that of you if you think it's representative of any notable element of "culture" beyond a few individuals. The majority of people in the West get married and have kids, rather than sleep around well into their 60s like it's Animal House or something

Biological truth is though that sexual repression leads to lower testosterone and mental health in males, but again that doesn't make "sleeping around as much as possible" the go-to option or mean you're "not a real man" if you haven't slept with as many women as the next guy.

That has a lot more in common with the fundamentalist culture you're describing than it does with any modern American values.

As can be seen by the fact that Muslim men can take multiple wives for example, and that the woman rarely have much say in the marriages. So the thing you're ironically defending has a lot more to do with what you're decrying.

 

Basically what I'm really getting at here, without trying to make this too personal - is that your claim that this institution is just about "finding someone you love" is pretty silly - when it really has a lot more to do with the "machismo" attitude you're describing (ex. "women's role is to be preggers in the kitchen and bare children to carry on her father's name).

 

Uh, no, the purity ball is about strengthening the relationship between a father and his daughter. For some, through god.

I am not creeped out by that. Only bigots are, and only bigots accuse them of child molestation.

This is something I would like to see more of mysdelf.

A person is happier and more productive in society when they are happy and hralthy and supported by loving friends and family.

isolating people only causes mental illness and a lot of stress. Some people overcome it, others go on a rampage and hurt a lot of people over it, generally speaking.

Radical feminists oppose it because of their hatred and bigotry towards men, and want to separate men and women and reduce men to a slave class citizen to blindly serve the whose particular women in all things.

 

It's based on the idea that a woman is essentially "property" of her father and her "role" is simply to be married off and produce heirs for him, hence the father's interest in her "purity" - in the days when women were considered closer to property, a non-virgin woman was basically "used goods" and harder to auction off on the marriage market.

The majority of people in the US, Christians included would oppose this ideology

People are creeped out about it because of the ideology it represents and the fundamentalist groups behind it.

You might as well be suggesting that a 12 year old child bride in Saudi Arabia is just "being supported by a loving family then" - if it weren't for age of consent laws, a lot of these marriages would still occur in more boondocks areas of the country as well.

Cool story bro

That's a total red herring. Most people who aren't Islamist or Christian fundamentalist oppose the ideology behind it.

 

No it is not. That is simply a lie that only bigots and radical feminists spread to separate men and women out of penis envy and phallaphobia.

 

Um, yes it is. Read the Bible. Women in the OT who were not virgins on their wedding night were stoned to death because they were essentially "used property" and no longer desirable for producing heirs. This idea of women and their purpose still exist in Christian and Islamic fundamentalism today.

Thanks for sharing your conspiracy theory, don't forget the tin foil hat. Anyone who dislikes religious fundamentalism's treatment of women now must be a "radical feminist", good one.

No one envies your penis, don't be delusional.

 

I read the Bible, and you guys always takes thing out of context so I will simply summarily dismiss anything you have to say as a lie. You do not know the Bible as well as you claim.

And secondly, it is not about making women property. Stop making lies and actually read what their website and other primary sources instead of just reading one sided liberal pieces of filth.

Stop your lies.

 

Not at all, under OT law women who were not virgins were stoned to death - and this still goes on in Muslim countries today. Christians may not follow OT law literally, however the this is where the underlying ideology and fetish for virginity has its routes.

Um, yes I do - OT law required women who were not virgins when married to be put to death - the same standard however was not applied to men, they were simply required by law to marry the women they defiled and pay her father pieces of silver for her.

Yes, it is. It's about promoting the idea that women are valued for their virginity, for the reasons outlined above.

Might as well read a radical Islamic website's apologetic for child marriage next.

It's history and it's part of fundamentalist ideology, no liberal pieces of filth needed.

No lies here, you're just in denial and fixated on some conspiracy theory you have about "radical feminists".

 

What you don't seem to realize is that a lot of the OT is not applicable to Christians these days becausde of Paul's arguments in the book of Acts that those laws in Leviticus are based on Hebrew law, and Hebrew law is not for gentiles.


All you're doing is twisting things to suit your own agenda.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and drop the matter. You can not see anything else other than your own liberal agenda and bigotry.

 

I'm aware that it's not applied in literal practice by the vast majority of Christians, but the ideology and view of women which inspired the law is still prevalent in fundamentalist ideology.

There's a reason why you don't see many "mother/son purity balls" - women are singled out in specific by the fundamentalists.

Not twisting things at all, you're simply failing reading comprehension 101.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and drop the matter.

You keep saying "liberal" without knowing what you speak of - I'd think that the fact that the majority of Christians in America oppose the fundamentalists' views of women and sex should clue you in.

In truth you're simply off on some inane tangent about some "radical feminist conspiracy" behind this, when in reality anyone who knows anything about fundamentalism has plenty of reason to reject it. Your bizarre tangent about "penis envy" somehow relating to this is a complete non-sequiter anyway.

 

No that would be you and your inane insistence that the Purity ball is about enslaving women to men because of some dusty old book that you haven't read.

That's called projection, something for which you liberals are famous for.

I have no more to say to you.

 

It is - it's about promoting the idea that women's worth is determined by her "virginity", and that her "role" is to preserve her virginity and produce heirs for her father; just because fundamentalists aren't stoning unchaste women doesn't mean this religious view of women has completely vanished, and it's actively espoused by many fundamentalist churches.

This is why you don't see "mother/son purity balls", because of the double standard that fundamentalists have regarding women and men, something which is easily verifiable in the media, especially in the Islamic world, which like Christian fundamentalism also has its roots in authoritarian OT ideology.

It's certainly not about "love", I'll say that much.

I was raised Baptist so I've read it much more than you have

You need to put aside the Minecraft and get out more, you don't know what a "liberal" is - you know that the majority of Christians don't think highly of the fundamentalists and their purity balls right? Right?

I suppose you think that if women felt that their "role" was to just save their virginity and get married to a "nice guy (TM)" you'd have an easier time getting laid. Maybe you've seen those hairy, neckbearded Muslim men arranged to marry some hot tweens and think you could get equally lucky if women felt that was their destiny in life. But even then I think you wouldn't be very high on the pecking order - so keep dreaming.

Or better yet, take a break from the Minecraft and the firewater and get some real hobbies so you can actually meet and interact with real women, instead of blaming some radical feminist conspiracy for why you can't get a date

 

Yep. standard liberal nonsense that has no substance or credibility.

 

By your standard anything to the 'left' of Westboro Baptist Church is "liberal" - just shows how ignorant you are.

The majority of Republican voters and Christians in America would find this ideology and its view of women creepy... your deluded to equate it with liberalism. Some of these fundamentalist groups have even declared people like Sarah Palin "liberal feminists" simply for believing a woman's sole role isn't to be a homemaker and pop out offspring like rabbits.

Your theory that some feminist conspiracy about penis envy is the main motivator behind the objections as opposed to common sense certainly does... not.

Let me guess, you're one of those guys who posts on degenerate websites like "Sluthate DOT com" and rails on about "radical feminism" being the main culprit for your mediocre love life, and how women are indoctrinated into not wanting to have kids with self-declared "nice guys" like yourself huh? That's all I've got from this drivel.

 

Says it all

 

Fathers want to protect their daughters from the degenerates they used to be. Women will never understand. This is why children need both a father and a mother, committed to each other and recognized by society with a marriage contract. Christians no longer live in the 16th century, look to the ME and Islam for that.

Women and men are different. Especially when it comes to who impregnates and who carries the child. Each has it's own role to fulfill. One cannot fulfill the role of the other and visa versa. Women are generally physically less able to exert bodily force in short bursts but women can and do outlast men in endurance. When a woman is pregnant, she needs support which should come from the man who impregnated her. What is wrong with teaching young girls to respect themselves? One 'slip' and she'll have to make a rough decision and/or the sperm donor better be worth it.

 

Standard liberal saul alinski argumentation.

No substance or credibility there.

Call me when you have something other to say those evil christians are enslaving women to men and making them second class citizens.

 

Guilt by association.

By the same logic your inane arguments are similar to ones used by radical Muslims in favor of child marriages. You have no substance other than to regurgitate your inane claims of "liberalism" while showing how out of touch you are with the general non-internet population in the process.

No substance is required when debating someone who's only credibility is ranting about some unverifiable liberal/feminist conspiracy, when many non-liberals and non-feminists are objecting to it

Fundamentalist Christians are indeed promoting this social ideology - if you're saying they're not then you're lying. By your logic just because they aren't actively stoning gays in America, their hateful attitudes toward homosexuals have simply "ceased to exist", notwithstanding some fundamentalist groups who are actively calling for gay execution to be reinstated. Truth is you're just a liar, plain and simple.

But hey feel free to head back on over to SlutHate.com and rant about your conspiracies with some autistic school-shooting planners there - I'm sure they'll lap it up without question and feed your delusions. I notice you didn't deny posting there - I think I may have struck the nail on the head, heh