Posted on

Books in 2012: The Purity Myth

Proponents of The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women would probably be surprised to know I don’t disagree with everything in it.

Albeit unlikely – based solely on the title – that I, a 26-year-old virgin and proponent of chastity (which involves abstinence until marriage) would enjoy reading the book, I did. And it is the seventeenth book I’ve read in full in 2012.

Written by feminist Jessica Valenti, the book aims to decry what she calls “the purity myth,” for shaming women for having sex before marriage, for promoting hierarchical relationships (in which men are authoritative and women are submissive) and for perpetuating the lies that men are uncontrollably sexual and women aren’t sexual at all.

Valenti is a fabulous writer, and the book is – in my opinion – an important and insightful one, def worth reading if you’re part of a lifestyle, church, school or ministry that involves calls to purity, abstinence or chastity (three terms which, as far as I’m concerned, should not be used interchangeably).

Which brings us to my first complaint. Throughout the book, Valenti doesn’t differentiate between purity, abstinence or chastity. Since she didn’t define them as separate, I’ll do it: 

Purity, frankly, is my least favorite term of the three. This is what’s at the heart of purity pledges (which are usually business card-sized contracts teenagers sign when they pledge to remain virgins until marriage), purity balls (formal father/daughter dances in which daughters pledge their virginity to their dads and dads promise to be “keepers” of their daughters’ virginity until she’s married [Um…]) and purity rings (a ring a guy or girl wears, which symbolizes his or her decision to save sex for marriage. From what I hear, a girl’s father sometimes takes the ring from her during her wedding and symbolically gifts the groom with it [which is almost as awkward as purity balls]).

The way “purity” is used (in the church, at least) tends to imply that once a person has had sex, he or she is impure, or contaminated, or tainted, or one of several other dirty adjectives. My problem with this is several-fold: it’s judgmental, “pure” applies to you only until you first have sex (regardless of whether you’re married) (so you’re either impure at marriage, or impure shortly after. Lose/lose!) and it potentially creates and maintains the belief that sex is bad (a belief that, when deep seated, is not so easy to shake on the wedding night, when a couple is finally “allowed” to have sex. And a person who does something he or she believes is bad surely will experience a psychological toll, at least.).

Abstinence, on the other hand, is abstaining from sex (pretty straightforward).

Chastity is not the same as abstinence, but involves abstinence until marriage, and does not itself end at marriage. It is “… a decision to die to self and to selflessly love (or to die trying). People who practice it regard all people as intrinsically valuable, reject their objectification and uphold love as a choice in a culture that calls it a feeling.” (1) Of the three concepts, it’s the only one that’s a lifestyle and, in my opinion, the only one of significant depth. (2)


That Valenti neither defined or differentiated between purity, abstinence and chastity in the book posed problems, like misuses of one word or the others, and the promotion of misconceptions about them:

A. “In (one virginity-movement writer’s) worldview, women are naturally modest and chaste; if we’re sexual at all, it’s because of outside influences.” -page 49

Either the writer whose worldview Valenti references doesn’t understand chastity, or Valenti doesn’t understand it (and therefore misinterprets what the writer means when she says whatever she says). But chastity doesn’t imply asexuality. A person can be chaste simultaneously as he or she is a sexual being, and simultaneously as he or she has sex with his or her spouse.

B. “Whats the difference between venerating women for being f***able and putting them on a purity pedestal? In both cases, women’s worth is contingent upon their ability to please men and to shape their sexual identities around what men want.” -page 91

For the record, anybody who treats anybody else as though his or her value is not intrinsic is not practicing chastity. 

C. “However, what it’s striving for  is not progressive change, but a return to ‘traditional’ norms and a time when porn – widely defined as seemingly anything that’s not women in head-to-toe prairie dresses and anything less chaste than hand-holding – existed but was hidden from view and not discussed.” -page 92

…another example of Valenti’s misconception of chastity. Anything less chaste than hand-holding? The line implies the closer a couple gets to sex, the less chaste they’re being. That would only be true if chastity ended when a person first has sex. But chastity is never supposed to end. Sex itself totally can be chaste, if the people involved are practicing chastity.

Second, in the book, Valenti also uses phrases the “purity myth” and the “virginity movement” interchangeably, and without much regard for people who a) are proponents of chastity (and therefore of abstinence until marriage), but who b) do not associate themselves with what she decries in the book (I am one of those people!). It’s Valenti’s right to define the movement as she pleases, but her readers are given no reason not to assume that everyone who promotes chastity and premarital abstinence is part of the movement she describes. (And indeed not everyone who promotes chastity and premarital abstinence is part of the movement she describes.)


My hunch is that what Valenti really means when she says “purity myth” and “virginity movement” is not “people who save sex for marriage,” but “complementarianism,” or, more specifically, the version of complementarianism that is, in reality, patriarchy.

Cases in point:

The virginity movement’s “goals are mired in old-school gender roles.” -page 23

“…(S)he adheres to the social structures that tell women that they exist purely for men…” -page 27

“The virginity movement is seeking a return to traditional gender roles.” -page 39

People who are proponents of saving sex for marriage say there are emotional, physical, moral, spiritual and political consequences for premarital sex. … “All of these supposed penalties have multiple tie-ins with other virginity-movement rhetoric and organizing – and all with the same goal: to return to traditional gender roles.” -page 48

“After all, there’s a reason why the assumed goal for women in virginity-movement screeds is marriage and motherhood only: The movement believes that’s the only thing women are meant for.” -page 58

“There’s no hiding behind the rhetoric of empowerment (in the virginity movement) – the message is clear and direct: It’s up to men to control young women’s sexuality.” -page 66

“In the world of the virginity movement, ‘femininity’ is synonymous with submissiveness and girlishness.” -page 68

“In fact, they’re exactly what the purity myth would like women to be: passive, silent, and unable to articulate their desires.” -page 88

“… Women are often described as weak, intellectually inferior, and needing men’s financial and physical protection.” -page 106 

“It’s literally more important to the virginity movement that American women adhere to traditional gender and sex roles than that they are able to make a living wage.” -page 139

“And, perhaps most of all, it’s embedded in the myth of sexual purity, which is based on traditional gender roles in which men are ‘men,’ women are chaste, and a gender-based hierarchy is essential.” -page 168

“…it’s also mired in the belief that traditional masculinity is superior and its preservation is necessary.” -page 176

And I could go on. But if it is the proponents of chastity and abstinence before marriage who encourage all of the above (as Valenti suggests throughout the book), it’s curious that I – a proponent of both chastity and abstinence before marriage – do not believe God designed us to adhere to rigid, traditional gender roles (3); nor that women exist purely for men; nor that women are necessarily solely meant for marriage and motherhood; nor that men even have the right to control women’s sexuality (nor, for the record, that women are responsible for men’s!); nor that femininity is “submissiveness and girlishness;” nor that women should be passive, silent and unable to articulate their desires; nor that gender-based hierarchy is essential (or ever good, for that matter); nor that masculinity is superior; and nor that I exist to preserve it. And the same goes, so it happens, for most of my friends who are proponents of chastity and premarital abstinence, too.

I wholeheartedly agree with Valenti when she points out the damage done by the aforementioned beliefs. But I disagree with (and borderline resent) the implication that chastity and premarital abstinence necessarily involve adherence to those beliefs. In my experience, it is rare for a person both to practice chastity and hold to those beliefs (and more likely that the people who believe those things aim for purity or just practice abstinence).

Third, there is a whole host of random stuff I didn’t like and myths I’d like to clear up. Here are some excerpts, followed by commentary:

“Just look at the women we venerate for not having sex: pageant queens, … pop singers, … and religious women who ‘save themselves’ for marriage.” -page 24

This might come as a surprise to you, but I am not saving myself. I am saving sex. There is a big difference. I probably like the phrase “saving myself” less than I like how the church uses the word “purity.” For one, I know no legit Christian who thinks he or she can save him or herself, and for two, using “myself” and “sex” synonymously essentially objectifies the person.

“Sex-as-dirty and women-as-tainted messages are central to the virginity movement and are perpetuated most visibly in the most unfortunate of places – our schools.” -page 33

If this is true, I am not part of the virginity movement. FYI. And it’s after this quote that I’m compelled to point out that I lean far further in the direction of some sort of comprehensive sex education than I do in the direction of abstinence only.

“Pleasure is widely dismissed, if not denounced, in the virginity movement. When the purpose of sex is simply procreation, pleasure is simply gratuitous.” -page 43

If this is true, chastity is unrelated to the virginity movement. Because for people who practice chastity, sex is for procreation and unity, and it is supposed to be pleasurable.

“Abstinence-only education seeks to create a world where everyone is straight, women are relegated to the home, the only appropriate family is a nuclear one, reproductive choices are negated, and the only sex people have is for procreation.” -page 111

If this is true, abstinence-only education does not align with the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex and sexuality (which do not say people who are homosexual have to “convert” to hetero, which do not say homosexuality is a sin, which do not say women have to be homemakers, which do not say everybody has to be part of a nuclear family [there are vocations to singleness or the religious life!], which do not say we have no choices in reproduction, which do not say sex is ever solely for procreation).

And finally, the book included a few gems:

“The real disservice to women here is that despite the fact that the plastic-surgery industry frames vaginal rejuvenation as “freeing” and benefiting women, the procedure’s real purpose is rarely for women’s pleasure – it’s almost always done for either men’s physical pleasure or aesthetic acceptance.” -page 74

Truth (the awful truth, I should say). And I think that goes for many (if not all) cosmetic surgeries, not limited to vaginal rejuvenation.

“In fact, women and femininity are so derided in American culture that it’s not uncommon to see men punished via feminization. A prison in South Carolina, for example, disciplines sexually active inmates by dressing them in pink. Another Arizona prison mandates that all inmates wear pink underwear. … A preschool in central Florida (reprimanded) boys by forcing them to wear dresses, and in 2001, a teen sued his former school for forcing him to cross-dress. … And it’s really women who end up being penalized because of these negative practices. This fear of women, this fear of being like women, is at the heart of most misogyny in the United States.” – page 170.

More truth! And…

“Women cannot continue to be the markers by which men measure their manliness.” -page 181.

Preach!

– – – – –

1. This quote comes from this recent sex essay of mine.

2. For a better feel for the depth of chastity, read up on it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

3. I don’t mean to imply it is bad if a couple happens to naturally fall into traditional gender roles. I do mean to imply that I don’t believe God requires, for example, men to be primary money-makers who don’t do housework and women to be non-money-makers who solely do housework and raise the kids.

Click here to read about all the books I read in 2012.

Click here to learn more about the Purity Myth.

Posted on

Books in 2012: Love and Responsibility

If I tried, I couldn’t concoct a sufficient synopsis nor come up with enough pomp to express with exactness how completely Love and Responsibility blew my mind. The book – the fifteenth I’ve read in full in 2012 – is by Karol Wojtyla, who is both brilliant and Pope John Paul II before he was pope.


The book is about love, marriage and sex and is chock full of profundity and articulate versions of the reasons you give when your friends ask why you’re so excited not to have sex until you’re married. (That happens to everybody, right?)


To anybody who has hopes or plans to wed, I offer a suggestion: PLEASE DON’T BOOK THE CHURCH UNTIL YOU’VE READ THIS BOOK. Worst case scenario? You’ll call off the wedding. But best case, you will learn how to exemplify with your marriage what marriages in our culture rarely really involve: Love.

See below for commentary and several of my favorite excerpts.

On sex, and on what love isn’t:


Wojtyla, to whom I’ll refer as JP2 for the rest of this post (because it’s way easier to spell), writes a lot at the beginning of the book on utilitarianism (the idea that the value of a thing is in how useful it is to you, the philosophy that aims for the greatest good for the greatest number of people), and egoism (which, simply put, is self-focus).


JP2’s description of egoism reminds me a lot of the reasons lots of people give for why it’s important to have sex with a person before you marry him or her:

  • “If sexual satisfaction and compatibility aren’t at least quick to achieve if not effortless, the sex is bad…and I don’t want to commit to a life of bad sex.”
  • “What if I marry a person who doesn’t know what he or she is doing in sex?”
  • “What if his penis is small?”

…all of which boil down to “I always have to have what I want,” a.k.a. egoism, or, frankly, selfishness.

I encountered a guy once who said while he won’t wait until marriage to have sex, it isn’t because he’s selfish. He isn’t selfish, he said. In fact, he added, he is generous in the bedroom – eager to pleasure whatever woman winds up there. He enjoys pleasing her (whoever she is).

To which JP2 would probably say this:

“If, while regarding pleasure as the only good, I also try to obtain the maximum pleasure for someone else – and not just for myself, which would be blatant egoism – then I put a value on the pleasure of this other person only in so far as it gives pleasure to me: it gives me pleasure, that someone else is experiencing pleasure. If, however, I cease to experience pleasure, or it does not tally with my ‘calculus of happiness’ – (a term often used by utilitarians) then the pleasure of the other person ceases to be my obligation, a good for me, and may even become something positively bad. I shall then – true to the principles of utilitarianism – seek to eliminate the other person’s pleasure because no pleasure for me is any longer bound up with it – or at any rate the other person’s pleasure will become a matter of indifference to me, and I shall not concern myself with it. It is crystal clear that if utilitarian principles are followed, a subjective understanding of the good (equating the good with the pleasurable) leads directly, through there may be no conscious intention of this, to egoism.” -page 38

And egoism and love, JP2 says, are incompatible.

“…an objective common good is the foundation of love, and individual persons, who jointly choose a common good, in doing so subject themselves to it. Thanks to it they are united by a true, objective bond of love which enables them to liberate themselves from subjectivism and from the egoism which it inevitably conceals. Love is the unification of persons. 

In reply to this reproach consistent utilitarians can (must, indeed) invoke something called the harmonization of egoisms, and a dubious idea it is too, since, as we have seen, on utilitarian premises, there is no escape from egoism. Is it possible to harmonize different egoisms? Is it possible, for instance, to achieve harmony, in the sexual context, between the egoism of a man and that of a woman? This certainly can be done according to the principle ‘greatest possible pleasure for each of the two persons’ – but the practical application of this principle can never deliver us from egoism. Egoism will remain egoism in this type of harmony, the only difference being that these two egoisms, the man’s and the woman’s, will match each other and be mutually advantageous. The moment they cease to match each and to be of advantage to each other, nothing at all is left of the harmony. Love will be no more, in either of the persons or between them … ‘Love’ in this utilitarian conception is a union of egoisms, which can hold together only on condition that they confront each other with nothing unpleasant, nothing to conflict with their mutual pleasure. Therefore love so understood is self-evidently merely a pretence which has to be carefully cultivated to keep the underlying reality hidden: the reality of egoism, and the greediest kind of egoism at that, exploiting another person to obtain for itself its own ‘maximum pleasure.’ In such circumstances, the other person is and remains only a means to an end, as Kant rightly observed in his critique of utilitarianism.” p. 38-39

To use someone as a means to an end is a violation of what JP2 calls “the personalistic norm.”

“This norm, in its negative aspect, states that the person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and as such the means to an end. In its positive from the personalistic norm confirms this: the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love. This positive content of the personalistic norm is precisely what the commandment to love teaches.” -p. 41

Something else often mistaken for love, he writes, is something that is, in truth, only part of love: sentimentality.

“Feelings arise spontaneously – the attraction which one person feels towards another often begins suddenly and unexpectedly – but this reaction is in effect ‘blind.’ Where the feelings are functioning naturally, they are not concerned with the truth about their object. … And this is just where emotional-affective reactions often tend to distort or falsify attractions: through their prism, values which are not really present at all may be discerned in a person. This can be very dangerous to love. For when emotional reactions are spent – and they are naturally fleeting – the subject, whose whole attitude was based on such reaction, and not on the truth about the other person, is left as it were in a void, bereft of that good which he or she appeared to have found. … This is why in any attraction – and indeed, here above all – the question of the truth about the person towards whom it is felt is so important.” -p. 77-78

On what love is:

“Love in the full sense of the word is a virtue, not just an emotion, and still less a mere excitement of the senses. This virtue is produced in the will and has at its disposal the resources of the will’s spiritual potential: in other words, it is an authentic commitment of the free will of one person, resulting from the truth about another person.” -p. 123

JP2 also writes that love is selfless, but that because it’s selfless does not mean a man or a woman will be stifled, or that either spouse should sacrifice any part of who he or she truly is. In fact, the opposite is true:

“Love proceeds by way of this renunciation (of ‘autonomy’), guided by the profound conviction that it does not diminish and impoverish, but quite the contrary, enlarges and enriches the existence of the person. What might be called the law of ekstasis seems to operate here: the lover ‘goes outside’ the self to find a fuller existence in another.” -p. 125-126

And love, not sex, leads to unity. Sex comes later:

“From the ethical point of view the important thing here is not to invert the natural order of events, and not to deny any one of them its place in the sequence. The unification of the two persons must first be achieved by way of love, and sexual relations between them can only be the expression of a unification already complete.” -page 127

On why it’s important to commit “as a result of the truth about a person” instead of solely your senses or your sentiments:

“(Love) is put to the test most severely when the sensual and emotional reactions themselves grow weaker, and sexual values as such lose their effect. Nothing then remains except the value of the person, and the inner truth about the love of those concerned comes to light. If their love is a true gift of self, so that they belong to each other, it will not only survive but grow stronger and sink deeper roots. Whereas if it was never more than a sort of synchronization of sensual and emotional experiences, it will lose its raison d’etre and the persons involved in it will suddenly find themselves in a vacuum. We must never forget that only when love between human beings is put to the test can its true value be seen.” -p. 134

On chastity (and how our culture feels about it):

“Has the virtue of chastity in particular ceased to be respectable? … in modern man, (there is a) characteristic spiritual attitude which is inimical to sincere respect for it: (Resentment.) 

Resentment arises from an erroneous and distorted sense of values. It is a lack of objectivity in judgement and evaluation, and it has its origin in weakness of will. The fact is that attaining or realizing a higher value demands a greater effort of will. So in order to spare ourselves the effort, to excuse our failure to obtain this value, we minimize its significance, deny it the respect which it deserves, even see it as in some way evil, although objectivity requires us to recognize that it is good. Resentment possesses as you see the distinctive characteristics of the cardinal sin called sloth. St. Thomas defines sloth as ‘a sadness arising from the fact that the good is difficult.’ This sadness, far from denying the good, indirectly helps to keep respect for it alive in the soul. Resentment, however, does not stop at this: it not only distorts the features of the good but devalues that which rightly deserves respect, so that man need not struggle to raise himself to the level of the true good, but can ‘light-heartedly’ recognize as good only what suits him, what is convenient and comfortable for him. Resentment is a feature of the subjective mentality: pleasure takes the place of superior values.” -p. 143-144

On marriage:
Some people who aren’t proponents of saving sex for marriage wonder why we wait until marriage – why informal commitment isn’t enough. JP2 answers that question, and adds the reason why Catholics (tend to) opt for church weddings (on top of legal ones):

Believers who intend to marry “must seek justification above all in (God’s) eyes, must obtain His approval. It is not enough for a woman and a man to give themselves to each other in marriage. If each of these persons is simultaneously the property of the Creator, He also must give the man to the woman, and the woman to the man, or at any rate approve the reciprocal gift of self implicit in the institution of marriage.” -p. 214

In other words, a church wedding is a ceremony in which as a man and a woman receive each other from each other, they also receive each other from God, to whom they both belong.

Which is beautiful.

– – – – –

Click here to learn more about Love and Responsibility.

Posted on

Why I’m a virgin: the feedback.

A week ago today, what I wrote about saving sex for marriage printed in the Perspective section of my paper, the Tampa Bay Times.

Readers called me unintelligent and unattractive (So that’s why I’m a virgin.).

A web editor had to shut down the comments online before the essay even appeared in print. “Too many personal attacks,” he said.

So I started getting emails and voicemails.

“That was a silly thing to go and write,” one said.

“In the end, you clearly made no point.”

“Who gives a damn why you’ve never been laid?”

“I read your article stating that you like to talk about sex. No offense, but talk about the voice of inexperience. How can you contribute on the very subject you have never participated in?”

“Why do you feel it’s necessary to write an article about your sexuality? That’s my question. I don’t understand it. Certainly you don’t think this will move another 20 year old or 25 year old to follow suit. People do it on impulse. It’s wonderful what you’re doing, (but) I can’t imagine what you hope to accomplish.” (From a voicemail. She didn’t leave a number.)

“Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that your husband and you will talk and work out all issues. Good luck. … The chance of finding a man who 1) knows himself well and 2) will talk out these issues, will be difficult. I wish you well.” (Written by a male, for the record.)

Other readers called me courageous and wise.

“Wish my son was old enough for you (he’s 12).” (Lol!)

“In a time of American and world decay, your story is refreshing, brave, and should give everyone a little more hope.”

“Although I am not a (Christian), I agree that adults (and younger people unfortunately) take sex very lightly. … Arleen, keep writing wonderful articles like this because we need people like you in this world. Badly.” (Insert me, placing my hand over my heart and saying, “Aww!”)

“My name is [insert name here], I just read your article. Good job, well written, well done. … I am a 55 year old mother of three. My oldest daughter is … also a virgin by choice. … We are Jewish, we are as liberal as liberal can be. … I, too, was a virgin when I got married. I can tell you my friends thought I was as crazy as crazy comes. And I sometimes thought I was crazy, too. But for me, it was the right decision. [Insert name here], our daughter, is young and cute and smart and sweet and in a graduate program, all that stuff. She is also waiting. To be blunt, she doesn’t give a shit about what other people think of that. And I commend her and applaud her for that, as I do you.” (From a voicemail.)

“It’s not only moral living, it’s common sense. You may be a 2 percenter, but believe me, the 98 percent have got it wrong.”
And couples who married as virgins, and have been (or were, if one spouse is deceased) married for 1, 3, 32, 33, 45, 52, 60 and 70 years wrote and called, too, to tell me what I wrote is true, and that they are happy.

It’s been a fun week, sincerely.

And when I rolled out of bed this morning, I found more feedback — a few letters to the editor in today’s Perspective section, regarding what I wrote:

Letters-to-the-Editor-7-1-12

If I could edit the second sentence of the third letter, I’d have it say this: “I hope and pray that all the parents, young women and young men who read her article listen to what she is saying …” Perhaps in a future post, I’ll delve deeper into why I’d add “young men,” but today I’ll sum it up this way: We are egregious when we say it is solely up to women to save sex for marriage. When we do, we uphold a double standard, we tell women that women (and not men) are responsible for men’s behavior, we enable men to relinquish responsibility and we permit them to believe they really can’t control themselves, which — frankly, and generally — is a lie.

And that isn’t a criticism of the letter writer (who emailed me, too, by the way, and is super kind). It’s a criticism of the culture in which he lives.

A culture (or at least a Tampa Bay area) with pretty mixed opinions about saving sex for marriage. I’m grateful for all the feedback about what I wrote, good and bad, and for the opportunity to have written it.

Posted on

Lovers.

Right now, I owe a lot of people a lot of emails (if you’re one of them, I’ll write back soon. Promise!). I’ve been a little inundated, since the “sexsay” appeared online and then in print. I also got to work today to find some voicemails. This one’s worth sharing:

11:25 a.m. Sunday:

“Congratulations! Congratulations, Arleen. My wife of 70 years (and I) were virgins when we married. We have had a beautiful life together, emotionally, sexually. We have 8 children, 62 grandchildren — that’s grand, great and great-great. Our sex is more meaningful today than ever. We have a beautiful relationship. … We are part of each other, as we are parts of the Lord Jesus who kept us. … We thank the Lord for you and for those who believe in the word of God that we are to keep ourselves pure. … God will bless you, and you have no fear of a beautiful life with the husband God has for you.”

It made me cry a little.

I called him back, his wife picked up another phone and the three of us had a fabulous conversation. They’re 90. And they’re kind and they’re funny. And they told me they cut out and and still have a copy of my first chastity essay (which I wrote three years ago), that they love me and that they would pray for me.

Haters may hate, but lovers make my day.