Purity Balls and Fundies

[loveandwar]

I'm one that wants to wait until I get married. But I came to that decision by myself after doing my own research. (I think seeing 3 girls at my high school get pregnant at 15/16 also influenced my decision.) Also, my parents would never have taken me to a purity ball.

Edited because I do know the rules of grammar. :whistle:

[tinuviel]

Somewhat OT of the tangent, but did anyone notice that the women in the channel 4 documentary never stopped smiling? "I had a miscarriage" *SMILE* "I pity people who make those kinds of arguments" *smile*. Extremely weird. And usually fake smiles, like they just don't know how to make any other kinds of facial expressions. And they all talked in annoying know-it-all church lady voice. Yargh.

Oh yeah, and I don't want my dad repeatedly telling me I'm the most beautiful woman in the world. A simple "you look nice" when I'm dressed up is sufficient. :?

[valsa]

I'm one that wants to wait until I get married.

When I was a preteen, I actually did want to wait until I was married to have sex. As a teen, I did some research that led me to feel that sexual compatibility with a spouse is a big deal when it comes to having a happy marriage. That led me to deciding I didn't want to be a virgin when I got married because I wanted to make sure I was actually sexually compatible with my future spouse. I figured that if it's important to explore compatibility as far as raising kids, finances, religion, etc goes- how could it be any less important to explore how things measure up in the bedroom?

[Feberin]

Not quite the same but my MIL has a signed letter from my SIL that she did at like 11 promising to wait until marriage that she pulls out and hangs upin her office whenever my SIL is in a relationship. My MIL foolishly thinks that because she said she would wait at 11 that means she will still keep that promise at 20. However I don't think a preteen or even an early teen can make a decision for waiting that you can expect upheld as a young adult. I wonder honestly how many of the girls at the purity balls will wait. I would bet not that many.

[clarinetpower]

There is no data on whether girls who attend purity balls remain abstinent until marriage; chances are many do, given the tight-knit communities they live in. But there is striking evidence that more than half of teens who take virginity pledges—at, say, rallies or events—go on to have sex within three years, according to findings of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the most comprehensive survey of teens ever taken. And 88 percent of the pledgers surveyed end up having sex before marriage. “No pledge can counter the fact that teenagers are, in fact, sexual beings postpuberty,†notes Cary Backenger, a clinical psychotherapist in Appleton, Wisconsin, who works with teens, including several who have taken virginity pledges. “You can’t turn that off.â€

Disturbingly, the adolescent health study also found that STD rates were significantly higher in communities with a high proportion of pledgers. “Pledgers are less likely than nonpledgers to use condoms, so if they do have sex it is less safe,†says Peter Bearman, Ph.D., a Columbia University sociologist who helped design the study. For these teens, he believes, it’s a mind game: If you have condoms, you were planning to have sex. If you don’t, sex wasn’t premeditated, which makes it more OK. The study also found that even pledgers who remained virgins were highly likely to have oral and anal sex—risky behavior given that most probably didn’t use condoms to cut their risk.

Curiously, the teen pregnancy rate is on the decline nationwide. Proponents of an abstinence-only philosophy point to this as evidence that pledges work. But a just-released study by the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University attributed 14 percent of this drop to teens holding off on sex—and 86 percent to teens using more effective forms of birth control, like the Pill. Says study author John Santelli, M.D., a specialist in adolescent medicine, “If most of the progress in reducing teen pregnancy rates is due to improved contraceptive use, national policy needs to catch up with those realities.â€

Read More http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/20 ... z1SxRirQMk

From http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2007/01/purity-balls?currentPage=1 A Glamour article about Purity Balls.

[LynnKaboom]

I have to side with Kelya- what do you consider "promiscuity"? I may have started experimenting sexually young but I didn't lose my virginity for years after that. Is sleeping with one person considered "promiscuous"? How many people can you sleep with until it's promiscuity? What does that label cover- is any sexual contact promiscuous? Full vaginal or anal sex? Oral sex? Hand jobs? Heavy petting?

I'm a big fan of starting age-appropriate sex education early. If you wait until they start puberty, it's far, far too late. Since I know you have a lot of kids, I’ll go with a pregnancy related comparison- that’s like stopping drinking/starting pre-natal vitamins after you’re already knocked up.

I'm not emmiedahl, but I consider "promiscuous" to be engaging any kind of sexual behavior that could lead to STDs with more than one person over the period of one year. So, vaginal/anal sex, oral sex, and anything else that requires bodily secretions coming into contact with a person's orifices. Example: a friend of mine has been with her boyfriend for almost four years now, and they're... active, to put it politely. But they are monogamous, and have been. They only engage in sexual congress with each other. That is not promiscuous.

Now, let's say there's a hypothetical woman named Jane. Jane engages in sexual congress with five different guys, over the period of a year. (Not one guy per year). She does everything- actual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, and even things that could not transmit disease (although I probably wouldn't count those, if that was all she was doing). That is promiscuous. And if Jane's partners were engaging in the same behavior, they would be promiscuous too.

[valsa]

I'm not emmiedahl, but I consider "promiscuous" to be engaging any kind of sexual behavior that could lead to STDs with more than one person over the period of one year. So, vaginal/anal sex, oral sex, and anything else that requires bodily secretions coming into contact with a person's orifices. Example: a friend of mine has been with her boyfriend for almost four years now, and they're... active, to put it politely. But they are monogamous, and have been. They only engage in sexual congress with each other. That is not promiscuous.

Now, let's say there's a hypothetical woman named Jane. Jane engages in sexual congress with five different guys, over the period of a year. (Not one guy per year). She does everything- actual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, and even things that could not transmit disease (although I probably wouldn't count those, if that was all she was doing). That is promiscuous. And if Jane's partners were engaging in the same behavior, they would be promiscuous too.

This is, to be blunt, crap. Unless that couple you know were both virgins when they got together, one of them could have an STD they got from the previous partner.. Also, Jane could have had sex with 5 people in a year and still have been monogamous. Maybe she had a series of 5 serious relationships in one year. In fact, if that monogamous couple (assuming they weren't both virgins) has unprotected sex with each other and Jane had protected sex with all five of her partners, the "good" couple may have a greater likelihood of getting an STD than Jane.

[LynnKaboom]

This is, to be blunt, crap. Unless that couple you know were both virgins when they got together, one of them could have an STD they got from the previous partner.. Also, Jane could have had sex with 5 people in a year and still have been monogamous. Maybe she had a series of 5 serious relationships in one year. In fact, if that monogamous couple (assuming they weren't both virgins) has unprotected sex with each other and Jane had protected sex with all five of her partners, the "good" couple may have a greater likelihood of getting an STD than Jane.

Yeah, but being promiscuous still increases your chance of getting STDs and condom failure. At least if the person you've been with for a long time hasn't cheated on you, it's unlikely that if you haven't caught an STD by now you're not going to.

I don't gauge promiscuity based on how serious the relationships are, I gauge it based on the likelihood of contracting disease. If you sleep with five people the odds of you getting a disease is five times higher than if you only slept with one person. And condoms can break, they're not foolproof.

And yes, the couple I mentioned are both my childhood friends, and I know WAY more about their lives than I ever wanted to. The first time they slept together they both texted me within ten minutes of each other, telling me that they'd just lost their virginity.

You cannot stand there and tell me that people who engage in sexual congress with multiple people in rapid succession are not more likely to catch an STD. It's pretty much a given fact that is the case. Even if they were serious relationships, someone who has had ten sexual partners is more likely to have a disease than someone who has had fewer.

[Kelya]

I'm not emmiedahl, but I consider "promiscuous" to be engaging any kind of sexual behavior that could lead to STDs with more than one person over the period of one year. So, vaginal/anal sex, oral sex, and anything else that requires bodily secretions coming into contact with a person's orifices. Example: a friend of mine has been with her boyfriend for almost four years now, and they're... active, to put it politely. But they are monogamous, and have been. They only engage in sexual congress with each other. That is not promiscuous.

Now, let's say there's a hypothetical woman named Jane. Jane engages in sexual congress with five different guys, over the period of a year. (Not one guy per year). She does everything- actual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, and even things that could not transmit disease (although I probably wouldn't count those, if that was all she was doing). That is promiscuous. And if Jane's partners were engaging in the same behavior, they would be promiscuous too.

Okay, well I of course don't agree with your definition (since I don't really agree with the concept of promiscuity to begin with), but if you raise your kid with those expectations and they come to you for birth control and they're in a serious relationship, it sounds like you'll be fairly okay. Whereas what I got from Emmydahl's sentence was "needing birth control=engaging in sexual behaviors=promiscuity," which can be incredibly damaging for young adult. And a really mixed message! I'll get you birth control, but I don't approve of your behaviors...that's a pretty hard to sort out.

Starting another thread on birth control!

[valsa]

I don't gauge promiscuity based on how serious the relationships are, I gauge it based on the likelihood of contracting disease. If you sleep with five people the odds of you getting a disease is five times higher than if you only slept with one person.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you have never taken/passed a statistics class in your damn life. Because statistics don’t work that way and you shouldn’t be basing definitions off a subject on which you obviously have no idea what your talking about.

[LynnKaboom]

I'm going to take a wild guess that you have never taken/passed a statistics class in your damn life. Because statistics don’t work that way and you shouldn’t be basing definitions off a subject on which you obviously have no idea what your talking about.

Actually, I have taken and passed statistics with a 99% average.

Did you ever take health class?

[valsa]

Yeah, but being promiscuous still increases your chance of getting STDs and condom failure.

Also, you fail "Definitions 101". Your definition cannot be a circle.

[valsa]

Actually, I have taken and passed statistics with a 99% average.

It's too bad you never learned anything in that class.

Did you ever take health class?

Seeing as I'll be graduating as an RN in December, I think it's safe to say I have.

[LynnKaboom]

It's too bad you never learned anything in that class.

Seeing as I'll be graduating as an RN in December, I think it's safe to say I have.

If you're going to be an RN, how did you completely miss the fact that sleeping with multiple people, who you do not know the STD status of, increases your chances of contracting an STD? Even if you do use a condom they are not foolproof, they can break.

[valsa]

If you're going to be an RN, how did you completely miss the fact that sleeping with multiple people, who you do not know the STD status of, increases your chances of contracting an STD? Even if you do use a condom they are not foolproof, they can break.

Something that you should have been taught in your statistics class- there is absolutely no direct relationship of number of partners slept with to number of diseases caught. It's all about your practices. You can have unprotected sex with 2 or 3 people (in a year or a lifetime) and get an STD. You can have protected sex with a dozen people and never get one. With only a few exceptions, any protected sex will almost always be safer than any unprotected sex.

Also, since this originally started with the definition of "promiscuous", there's still absolutely no reason that likelihood of catching an STD should be part of the definition.

[LynnKaboom]

Something that you should have been taught in your statistics class- there is absolutely no direct relationship of number of partners slept with to number of diseases caught. It's all about your practices. You can have unprotected sex with 2 or 3 people (in a year or a lifetime) and get an STD. You can have protected sex with a dozen people and never get one. With only a few exceptions, any protected sex will almost always be safer than any unprotected sex.

Also, since this originally started with the definition of "promiscuous", there's still absolutely no reason that likelihood of catching an STD should be part of the definition.

Well, that much is obvious. I'm just trying to pointing out that protection is not always foolproof. Obviously having protected sex is safer than having non-protected sex. But there is still room for error. Condoms can break.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to get at here- if you sleep with many people, and you are not certain of their status, then you are putting yourself at more risk, even when you use protection.

[valsa]

Well, that much is obvious. I'm just trying to pointing out that protection is not always foolproof. Obviously having protected sex is safer than having non-protected sex. But there is still room for error. Condoms can break.

No one said they can’t. Doesn’t mean that’s not incredibly rare when they're used correctly. Also doesn’t mean they’re not still 98%-99% effective.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to get at here- if you sleep with many people, and you are not certain of their status, then you are putting yourself at more risk, even when you use protection.

I’m getting at the fact that you’re making a metric asston of assumptions that you can’t back up. Why do you assume people who sleep with more people don’t know their partner’s status? You can sleep with 10 people and know each one of their statuses. You can also sleep with one person and have no idea. In fact, most of the more sexually experienced people I know are better with knowing their partners’ statuses. Most of the people who’ve only slept with two or three people are too embarrassed to ask about that sort of thing or are stupid and just assume that their partner is clean (or monogamous)

[LynnKaboom]

No one said they can’t. Doesn’t mean that’s not incredibly rare when they're used correctly. Also doesn’t mean they’re not still 98%-99% effective.

I’m getting at the fact that you’re making a metric asston of assumptions that you can’t back up. Why do you assume people who sleep with more people don’t know their partner’s status? You can sleep with 10 people and know each one of their statuses. You can also sleep with one person and have no idea. In fact, most of the more sexually experienced people I know are better with knowing their partners’ statuses. Most of the people who’ve only slept with two or three people are too embarrassed to ask about that sort of thing or are stupid and just assume that their partner is clean (or monogamous)

I never said that they don't. I'm saying that people who sleep around and do not bother to check are putting themselves more at risk. I thought I had made that clear. Actually, even if you just sleep with one person and you don't know their status is dangerous. It's a very good idea to get tested often, even if you have only been with one person and are in a monogamous relationship, because the other person might not be. It is even more important to get tested if you sleep with a lot of people.

It is always good to err on the side of caution when it comes to things like STDs.

[kb2]

I happen to know with pretty good certainty that I caught mono from kissing someone. Then I gave it to my future husband. By kissing.

(Somehow I dodged fever blisters, but I'm the only one in my immediate family to remain lesion-free, so that was mostly luck.)

It's kind of a bad idea to define promiscuous by a number or a rate. I've only ever slept with two people--and I slept with both of them within a year. (The guy that gave me mono I kissed in between the two.) I've only ever kissed four people, and I'd kissed them all within a year and a half. I dated the first guy for almost a year before sleeping with him and we broke up a month later. I had my shirt off on the first date with the second guy, and had slept with him within a week, and now we're married.

I have a friend who has slept with 5+ guys within a year and is really no worse for the wear. She's very careful with condoms and gets tested in between partners just in case (not waiting to get symptoms) (also, she's always been negative, and we're really, really good friends, so I think she'd tell me (but then again I could be wrong)). She's also a serial monogamist. She was more hurt by a multi-year relationship imploding than the times she's decided the guy she's been sleeping with for the past few months just doesn't have a personality she could live with forever.

Meanwhile, the majority of guys I know say they have never, ever had an STD, and they have also never, ever been tested.

That said, a junior high or a high school could be a small, small place. In adult life you can sleep with anyone, but in high school you only have your clique. Maybe there should be some number warnings like, don't sleep with more than one-two people on the same sports team: switch up football and baseball and track. Unless your football team elects the homecoming queen, in which case just stick to those guys. I'm kidding, but only about the homecoming queen part. I mean, I can understand wanting to warn a young girl about getting a reputation. Not because sleeping with two people in a year is morally wrong, but teenagers aren't the most egalitarian people, and they're prone to slut shaming. Girls will ostracize the "promiscuous" member of their society, and guys will put more pressure on her because she's "that girl" and why won't she put out for him? :violin: Life could be bad, and it won't be because anyone caught an STD or got pregnant or gave pieces of their heart away.

[valsa]

I never said that they don't. I'm saying that people who sleep around and do not bother to check are putting themselves more at risk. I thought I had made that clear.

Nope. That was not at all discussed in your first post or your first supposed definition ("I consider "promiscuous" to be engaging any kind of sexual behavior that could lead to STDs with more than one person over the period of one year") Your little story about Jane and your friends mentioned nothing about any kind of testing or knowing about their partners status before having sex.

You failed to mention in the "definition" that you can do something that is likely to lead to STDs with just one partner in a year. Or that you can sleep with well over one partner in a year and still not be doing something that is likely to cause STDs

[valsa]

teenagers aren't the most egalitarian people, and they're prone to slut shaming.

I think we've seen here today that teenagers aren't the only ones.

[LynnKaboom]

I think we've seen here today that teenagers aren't the only ones.

Says the person who apparently doesn't care about catching potentially fatal diseases.

[valsa]

Says the person who apparently doesn't care about catching potentially fatal diseases.

...

...

...

Okay, why the fuck is Bert (or is that Ernie) in the back seat of that car? And why does he look like he's on LSD?

[LynnKaboom]

...

...

...

Okay, why the fuck is Bert (or is that Ernie) in the back seat of that car? And why does he look like he's on LSD?

It's Bert. And I have no idea why he's in a car with 50 Cent, I just think it's a funny gif.

I got a lot more if you're interested, I can upload them in a .zip file.

[valsa]

It's Bert. And I have no idea why he's in a car with 50 Cent, I just think it's a funny gif.

I got a lot more if you're interested, I can upload them in a .zip file.

That would actually be awesome. Do you know if Bert was added to that gif or if he's in the original? I swear I've seen it somewhere before and Bert was definitely not in it (or I just didn't watch the whole gif before, either one is likely)