Virgin Club Wins “Who Judged First” Contest


Before I start in on this column, I want to say to the self-appointed sexual abstainers of the world: I don't care if you don't have sex. Seriously. Please, don't fornicate if you don't want to. I promise to respect your decision so long as you promise not to preen about as if you're better than everyone else.

Of course, having a proper amount of humility and a cheerful comportment when dealing with those more in touch with the naked side of life doesn't get one media attention or the chance to play the virgin martyr. I know it's considered only politically correct to be generous to sexual abstainers, and I am, so long as they're humble about their choices. The ones who are don't even tend to show up on my radar. But the holier-than-thou abstainers — who are just a branch of the anti-choice movement that seeks to restrict the rights of women, force Americans into a rigid patriarchy, and punish those who don't conform with disease and unwanted pregnancy — get no sympathy from me.

Which is why I couldn't stop rolling my eyes while reading this New York Times Magazine article about the "True Love Revolution" virginity club at Havard. These virgins would like you to believe they are simple, kind people trying to live out their philosophies free of judgment, but even the name of the organization belies this claim. "True Love Revolution" is in itself an accusation towards the 95% of Americans who do have premarital sex: You can't understand true love, which can only be activated by awkward wedding night fumbling.

Not that the interview subjects don't try very hard to uphold their image as innocent babes in the woods, just trying to live their lives in peace.

She could hardly bear to see it ridiculed in The Crimson. An article about the group's ice cream social appeared under the headline "Not Tonight, Honey, I Have a Brain Freeze." A columnist who wrote about the group joked of getting "very, very aroused" just thinking about virgins and wondered if such people might be available for "dry humping."

"It's an odd thing to see one's lifestyle essentially attacked in The Crimson," Fredell said.

As it turns out, The Crimson was firing back after the students of Harvard had put up with a ton of shaming tactics from the True Love Revolution club. If the clubbers don't like being attacked, perhaps they should not pick fights. But the allure of playing the "Neener neener, I'm purer than you" card overwhelmed the club, which, according to this article, sent out cards to freshman women to insult them about their private sexual behavior. The cards read, "Why wait? Because you're worth it," implying that sexually active women lose value. It's the sort of thing you have to hide behind a card to say, because calling someone a slut to her face often leads to unpleasant interactions.

The relevant thing to remember here is that they only sent the cards out to female first-years. Later, after they got called on it, they added men to the list of those who are to receive insulting messages about their sex lives, a late addition that is so disingenuous that it's worth wondering why they bothered. The ugly sexism at the heart of chastity movement makes comments like this laughable:

"It's extremely countercultural," she said, for a woman to assert control over her own body. It is, in fact, a feminist notion. Conventional feminism, she explained, teaches that control of your body means the freedom to have sex without consequences – sex like a man. "I am an unconventional feminist," Fredell said, in the sense that she asserts control by choosing not to have sex – by telling men, no, absolutely not.

She's peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining. Abstaining from sex to fit a patriarchal notion of the marriageable/purchaseable female is only "controlling your body" in the most limited sense of the term. Don't let a disingenuous use of the word "feminist" throw you off the scent. The chastity movement, which is basically the youth division of the anti-choice movement, does not function from the idea that women should have the right to control our bodies. If you wish to have sex outside of marriage, or to terminate a pregnancy, or even to prevent one, they'll be happy to deprive you of this control. It's like being in a prison cell, but feeling you're free because you're allowed to walk three feet in any direction.

By all means, abstain if you want to, but don't pretend it's freedom if you don't believe women should have other options.

Thankfully, this article does better than most on showing the link between the voluntary chastity movement and the larger political movement to force the rest of us to join or face punishment through STDs and unwanted pregnancy. My podcast on Monday detailed the more common approach to covering the chastity movement. Dawn Eden managed to sneak onto "The Today Show" to talk about abstaining from sex outside of marriage, and not once did the hosts mention her participation in a larger movement to deprive other women of the choice to use abortion or contraception. This article does mention, however, that True Love Revolution is engaged in a typical anti-choice maneuver: using selective statistics to create the incorrect impression that condom use doesn't prevent STD transmission, a lie that could be very deadly in some situations, undermining claims from anti-choicers that they're "pro-life." Follow-up to their website demonstrates that they are willing to scare people into abandoning condoms by hyping HPV transmission, but they neglect to mention that if young women get vaccinated for HPV before they become sexually active, they do not run these risks.

Being generous again for a moment, I want to say that I understand and accept that in our hyper-sexual culture, the choice to abstain can feel strange, and you're going to get called stuffy. I can imagine that there could be a group of virgins who sincerely don't judge the sexually active, who are eagerly pro-choice, and who only meet as a club for moral support. But while this is theoretically possible, this article shows that the reality at Harvard is something very different.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • harry834

    "I want to say that I understand and accept that in our hyper-sexual culture, the choice to abstain can feel strange, and you're going to get called stuffy."

    People like myself do have to watch our words when talking about those who choose differently. But we do have a right to outrage when we hear virgins who are lying (unintentionally or not) to suggest that nonwaiters – most of us – are psychologically ill, and sex is a disease.

    The truth is that being a "non-waiter" does not even require having sex. It just means that you've chosen not to wait until the biggest, most cofnsequential committment of all in intimate relationships. A committmen that many of us, in our self-awareness, know that we'd be better of not having, or at least waiting, waiting, waiting.

    Sex, while an often complex and confusing human experience, is not a sickness.

  • the-watcher

    Brilliant article! Well-written, informative, and strikes every note! I'm going to feature it on my blog (because I don't have time to write an entry right now:P)!

     

    "It's extremely countercultural," she said, for a woman to assert control over her own body. It is, in fact, a feminist notion. Conventional feminism, she explained, teaches that control of your body means the freedom to have sex without consequences – sex like a man.

     

    Okay, so how do you have sex like a woman then?

     

    This is offensive in the extreme; suggesting that women's only two options are "sigh and give in to sex" or "don't have it." What about the third option? Have sex of your own volition and enjoy it? THAT would be feminist.

  • invalid-0

    I liked the detail about how they only sent it out to the girls at first. Maybe they were worried about attracting boys who wanted to have sex like a woman.

  • invalid-0

    I know it’s considered only politically correct to be generous to sexual abstainers, and I am, so long as they’re humble about their choices.

    How generous. You promise to respect our choices so long as we are humble about them. If the Catholic Church said, “We promise to not care about whether or not you have premarital sex, as long as you are humble about it,” your fur would fly. You are not “humble” in any sense of the word about your sexual exploits; why degrade one group by demanding that which you are incapable of doing yourself?

    the larger political movement to force the rest of us to join or face punishment through STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

    Amanda, it’s not the patriarchy that makes women pregnant after premarital sex; it’s not Republicans who make people get diseases when they swap bodily fluids. So, my dear atheist, stop complaining about conservatives and start cussing out evolution.

    The cards read, “Why wait? Because you’re worth it,” implying that sexually active women lose value.

    Only to women, like you, who judge themselves and each other by their ability to get laid. The cards do not mean that women lose value once they have sex; they state, explicitly, that women are worth waiting for. That we are worth more than a one-night stand and a sneering look to “get rid of [our unborn children]” if said one-night stand results in pregnancy. Worth more than worrying about our periods for some guy who asked for all of us but is unwilling to give the same in return. Worth more than worrying about STDs, choosing the non-choice between abortion and education, and being used.

  • invalid-0

    Actually it is the patriarchy that makes women pregnant after premarital sex, and it is the Republicans that make people get diseases after swapping bodily fluids. How? They limit the access to and information regarding birth control, for instance. They portray pregnancy and disease as inevitable byproducts of sex when both are wholly avoidable: use birth control and don’t have sex with someone with an STD. If people weren’t so hung about about the “morality” of sex, these would be easy goals to achieve.

  • invalid-0

    Amanda, you remind me of the fundamentalist pentecostals I grew up with in the South, seeing a demon under every rock and an sinister motive behind anything that doesn’t come from one of the approved oracles. Lighten up. No one is trying to force you to have less sex. For someone who purports to be all about “choice,” you sure seem to have a hard time with choice in the marketplace of ideas.

  • invalid-0

    Normally, a “feminist” would denounce sexual harassment, such as the following:

    A columnist who wrote about the group joked of getting “very, very aroused” just thinking about virgins and wondered if such people might be available for “dry humping.”

    But I guess Amanda’s okay with it, since it’s someone who has a different opinion from hers. Choosing to say “no” ahead of time, clearly, for their own reasons, these people need to be silenced. They should be “humble about their choices”.

    I can see it now. Mr. “Dry Humping” carries out his implied threat, having his friends hold down Fredell on the bar while he “takes care of her virginity problem”. Amanda’s there, cheering him on: “Give it to her! SHE’S ASKING FOR IT!”

  • invalid-0

    “No one is trying to force you to have less sex.”

    actually, that seems to be exactly what they’re doing, albeit a little more quietly than some of the more rabid righties out there. they make so the only choices are disease ridden, casual and thoughtless sex, or abstinence. whether or not they’re actually working to bring this about as a reality (through the destruction of family planning networks and birth control and respect for the choice to engage in extramarital sex) is not the issue. they’re framing the argument that way, and that’s simply not the reality. that’s why it’s wrong. they should at least have the guts and the fortitude to acknowledge that their reasoning is not everyone’s reasoning, and if they want to be disproportionatly frightened of the percieved negative effects of sex, so be it. they have no right to try and push that fear on others, any more than the people who base all sense of self worth in their genitalia have the right to convince others that the only way to be loved is to put out. both views are wrong, and both are damaging to people in their own special way.

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 invalid-0

    That depends on whom the woman is.

    If women find out that all the men who are interested in them only want sex, they should ask themselves what else they have to offer besides sex?

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 invalid-0

    How do they limit information? The information is out there already .

  • invalid-0

    Only to women, like you, who judge themselves and each other by their ability to get laid.

    Back atcha baby. Only to women, like you, who judge themselves and each other by their ability to NOT get laid. Aren’t you more than that? Can’t you be Kate or Lisa…must you be VIRGIN Lisa? Is your true value only that you are a virgin? In fact, you value yourself in that so highly there’s a special club for you! I’m a member of a book club and a moms group and a gamers group and a programmers group, but I have to say, I’m not a member of a get laid group…

    That we are worth more than a one-night stand and a sneering look to “get rid of [our unborn children]” if said one-night stand results in pregnancy. Worth more than worrying about our periods for some guy who asked for all of us but is unwilling to give the same in return. Worth more than worrying about STDs, choosing the non-choice between abortion and education, and being used.

    Those aren’t the only options. Sex with mutual respect, under safe practices, can be very fulfilling. You satisfy not only a biological demand, but also an emotional one. You can appreciate all of your partner and have sex. If you have only found those options, you’re hanging out with the wrong type of guys. You have an extremely negative view of sex if that is all you think it’s about (and that’s kind of sad. It’s one thing to choose not to have sex based on a belief of saving something for your husband, but entirely another to base it on misinformation). Now, sometimes it’s just about sex, but both parties can be aware it’s all about the sex and share a mutual respect…it’s called friends with benefits.

  • invalid-0

    I like the way you worded that Michael. “If women find out that ALL the men who are interested in them only want sex…”

    If all the men you meet are interested solely in your genitals, maybe it’s time to offer something else. If it’s only some of the men, well,that’s just some men. ;)

    No, I’m not being sarcastic, that’s well worded and true.

  • amanda-marcotte

    I don't think I'm better than someone else just because of what I do in bed.  All I ask is the same respect, and I'm not getting it.  Sorry, doesn't fly.  

  • amanda-marcotte

    No one is stopping you from having a committed sexual relationship.  I'm in one, and I'm the big boogeywoman of free love on the internet.  If I can be in a monogamous relationship and very happy about it and feeling zero pressure to sleep around if I don't want to, then how is it that you're feeling pressure?  Seems like paranoia to me.  

  • amanda-marcotte

    If you put your views out in public, they are available for satire.  I am satirized all the time, but I would never call that "sexual harassment".  Sexual harassment is real—it's men actively trying to run women out of workplaces or sexually assault them.  It's not rude humor published in a public discourse.  Sorry, not going to fly.  If people don't want to have their views mocked, they would be wise to keep them to themselves.

  • http://www.thecontrariansreview.com invalid-0

    Gee Mandy, you gals are pretty upset about this, huh? Sort of reminds me of people I knew in high school. Which is it? Is it one of the cool girls who “puts out” regularly so a second string linebacker on the varsity football team will consider asking her to the prom? Perhaps, the band geeks who fumble awkwardly around in the back of a rusty conversion band (after an enlightening talk about music which is good because no one’s heard of it and, of course, how much smarter they are then the rest of their class)because they want to be the aforementioned cool girls. Either way, they always hated the girls who had better things to do than let some sweating, incompetent pervert teenager deflower them. Why do they hate them so much anyway?
    Oh right, they judged first.

  • harry834

    insisting that women wait till marriage is not just asking chastity from teen girls who might be around "sweating incompetant pervert" teen boys. It's asking for these women to avoid sex even after they reach adulthood.

    Why? Because we typically don't get married right after high school.

    Now, to repeat, if individual girls choose this pattern, that is their choice. But don't advocate the prejudiced AND false worldview that choosing otherwise will result in "cheapening of the self".

    These particular virgins are claiming an empirical claim: that women who have sex before their wedding day will be "cheapened", "hardened", "regretful", etc, etc.

    This is clearly not true as most of us have sex before marriage, of our own free will, and we are no where near as mentally damaged as these club virgins are proclaiming.

    It gets worse considering that the young people of today still live with very conservative elders and parents in their community who believe this nonsense that sex before marriage "impurifies" or "weakens the character" of women who choose to have it. It is viewed that these women should not be allowed to choose sex.

    It's true that this perspective might only be forced in extreme cases, like in other cultures where brothers and father are expected to uphold their daughters and sisters chastity. But even without a literal gun to the head, the strong expectation of conservatives, elders, parents, older siblings, even elected leaders and judges, that "good women will avoid sex before marriage" – this view is held by many, and prejudices our thinking.

    A woman who dresses "too provactive" is often seen as bringing on rape on herself. This dampens our compassion for rape victims who don't seem virginous enough. Not too long ago, judges in rape trials would see the woman's sexual history as a mitigating factor for the crime.

    Remember election 2006? The one where conservatives got their asses handed to them. Well one battle they lost was in South Dakota where "pro-life" legislators wanted to ban abortion, even in cases of rape. One such legislator was asked about what a pregnant rape victim would do. Here's his response:

    http://harryfuture.blogs.friendster.com/harrys_universe/2006/10/south_dakota_la.html

    State Senator Bill Napoli (R) insists that the law would exempt rape victims through the "life" exception. When asked by a journalist, "how so?", he answers thusly:

    "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." **

    —-

    Wow, just two years ago, in America. I'd hate to be that guy's daughter.

    Now it is worth saying that I don't know quite how far this mindset extends. On the other hand, I'd see how many would not admit their beliefs in public. You can say people have the right to believe what they want, even if they are prejudiced, with a mindset that says that women's virtue depends on whether or not their hymens are intact on the wedding day. There is a right ti believe such a thing. But is such people advocate that this is the true nature of the world, that they makes laws, or at least advise women, based on this condemning worldview, do we have the right to confront these advisers, these lawmakers, these people "acting in our best interest" – do we have the right to confront what worldview they are advocating for?

    The answer is yes. To confront their worldview that they wish to make others follow, if not by law, then by peer advice.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    How willing you were to bend over and deny your own most cherished beliefs to protect some man with a fine head of hair…

    Who now is a footnote in history. Boy, you got screwed lots of ways.

  • http://moss-place.stblogs.org invalid-0

    It gets worse considering that the young people of today still live with very conservative elders and parents in their community who believe this nonsense that sex before marriage “impurifies” or “weakens the character” of women who choose to have it. It is viewed that these women should not be allowed to choose sex.

    In my experience the opposite is true. I am 35 years old and my parents were that 60’s generation. The people in that generation were and are pretty promiscuous. Neither ir my in-laws are married, have had live-in boyfriends/girlfriends.I know more people from that generation who get annoyed by our decisions to live more traditionally.Even my grandmother’s generation (WWII) seems to be a much more forward thinking (by your standards) generation than you give them credit for.

  • invalid-0

    Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s say that you’re planning to have dinner with your Significant Other. You decide (choice) that you are going to wait until you are with S.O. to eat. This will make it special. You won’t starve to death by waiting.

    On the way home, there are lots of opportunities to eat. Everything from fancy restaurants to sidewalk hotdog stands. You hold firm to your resolution to wait until dinner.

    Other people may feel hungry, or tempted by what’s offered, and grab a snack, a sandwich, or a whole meal. When they get with their S.O., they’re still going to have dinner.

    If one of the abstainers sneers at the partakers, it says less about the idea of waiting, than it does about the personality of the abstainer. On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with the abstainer (1) talking about his/her plans, (2) outlining possible advantages of this approach, including avoiding food poisoning (disease), (3) encouraging others to try the same approach, and (4) associating with others who feel the same.

    Conversely, it makes little sense for the partakers to feel that the abstainers are somehow forcing their choice on others. Amanda seems to see oppression in everyone who is not “humble enough” and dares to say anything positive about abstinence. She doesn’t need to feel threatened just because others are making a different choice and are happy about it.

    The analogy is imperfect, but does show some of the main ideas in a less “loaded” context: waiting to make it special, people exercising their choice, and people’s treatment of those with different ideas.

  • invalid-0

    Does this analogy extend to stopping people in the street and handing out pamphlets “encouraging” others to have dinner as they do, even when their opinion is uninvited? It’s one thing to put a poster up saying “Virgin meeting on Thursday Here At This Time” and entirely another going around handing out cards uninvited, individually.
    Saying something positive about abstinence WHEN IT COMES UP is fine. Going around saying it uninvited just makes you wierd and IMO, very pathetic. If I wanted your opinion on sex, I’d have stopped you in the hallways and asked. Obviously whatever I’m doing is working for me. Put up posters about meetings, people should know the group exists. Stop there.
    It’s funny, but the whole sex thing doesn’t really come up until some abstinence group starts yelling. You don’t see people who get laid handing out pamphlets saying “get laid, it works for me and it will for you too”. Really, who is causing all the hoopla? All the virgins who feel so pure and special. Great, sweetie, more power to you. However, I wanna go do it this way. Accosting me in the street telling me your point of view is really pathetic. How would you like it if I accosted you and told you about what I did last night? Uninvited? Some stranger, just stopping you to tell you what sex I had last night? Can you imagine? You’d probably think I was as pathetic as I do them.

  • harry834

    I don't necessarily know the whole landscape of the older generation's viewpoints. But my above speech may have acted as if I did. Sorry about that.

    Though there are definitely experiences opposite to your opposite experience. Families of immigrants might be a good example. Of course, if anyone can bring any counter examples concerning immigrant parents, please do.

    My own family would fit my example, but they are not the most oppressive of our ethnic group. My sister and female cousins can tell you stories of all the pressure to be "good South Asian daughters who would never be an embarrassment".

    I think the only thing that we can be certain of is that all varieties are out there. That includes the bad and oppressive, as well as the surprisingly liberal. My Canadian uncle might be a liberal example, though I wonder how he treated his own sons.

    Of course, liberal and open parents does not help those with conservative oppressive parents. They could live next door, but still be worlds, or centuries, apart.

    And then we still have the issue of elders who become legislators, like SD Bill Napoli

  • harry834

    Waiting for dinner, is worlds apart from waiting for sex…until marriage. Especially since many people want to know what sex is, how sex feels, what they like in bed, what they don't like, what their partner is like in bed, etc, etc…all this people (not all, never all) want to know before committing to one sex partner for the rest of their life.

    Waiting for a restaraunt is no where near as consequential.

    Also note that I said "many" people instead of "most", though I feel "most" would work well, since studies show that, given free choice, most will have sex before marriage. 

    I will concede that it is possible that we pre-marital sexers can hear the virgin message and simply walk away unscathed. But that isn't always the case. Consider people, including some sheltered adults, who are just learning about sexuality. When seeking accurate information about sexuality, they should not be taught a false fear that sex before marriage, in terms of probability, causes, by itself, all the imagined mental disfunctions that these virgin clubs proclaim.

    Their message is nowhere near the restaurant analogy that you created, though it is a great way to conceal the message if you wanted to sell it.

  • invalid-0

    Several points to make:

    A. She never even mentioned her “sexual exploits.” Are you assuming that because she’s not placing virginity on a pedestal that she must be out galavanting with a different man/woman/whatever every night? I am not a virgin or a slut. I had lots of sex with my boyfriend of two years who I lived with. That is not “exploits.” (if you think it is, you live a very sheltered life.)

    B.If the Catholic church ever did say “We promise to not care about whether or not you have premarital sex, as long as you are humble about it,” I would jump for joy. Seriously. That would be a huge step forward.

    C.It most certainly is the patriarchy that wants us barefoot and pregnant, and it is Republicans who are against abortion AND contraception (which is not abortion, not matter how often you say it is.) If kids would use condoms, there would be way less disease and way fewer abortions. Thus, the unwanted pregnancies and diseases are their fault, at least in part.

    D.”Only to women, like you, who judge themselves and each other by their ability to get laid.” You are disgusting to imply that. I have sex because it’s fun and I love my boyfriend. I judge myself based on my job as an underpaid inner-city educator, my weekly attendance at church services, where I sing in the choir, and my love and loyalty to my family and friends. I judge myself based on the food I bought yesterday for a homeless man. I judge myself based on the money I give to charity. MY SEX LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I’M WORTH!!!! Neither does yours. You’re not worth more than me because you waited. Oh wait…you never claimed virginity. Hmmm…..I wonder.

    E.If you’re so proud of your views and so ready to scorn others, could you at least have the cojones to sign your name?

  • invalid-0

    They teach abstinance only education in schools. That is how they limit information. They do not present our youth with accurate, up-to-date, truthful information on all ways of avoiding pregnancy and disease. For many of them, by the time they get this information, it is too late.

  • invalid-0

    You assume that the girls that got deflowered in high school somehow were pathetic and jealous of others? Sorry, just not true. Plenty of us “deflowerees” were in 7 different after school activities, were all state level musicians, were National Merit Scholars, spent time working at soup kitchens, and went to church on Sundays.
    Having sex does not make you a bad person. Nor does it make sex some kind of crazy obsession that eliminates any other thought from our slutty little heads. What an ass you are.

  • invalid-0

    Harry, you are right: there are orders of magnitude more consequences from waiting for sex vs. not waiting. However, the analogy does have a lot of application to the concepts here. You’ve actually helped to reinforce its relevance.

    You mention that people want to know what sex is, etc. Waiting until you’re ready to have dinner with your S.O. has some of the same “temptations”: something smells or looks good, you’re curious about it, etc. It’s the same concept, although it’s easier for some find it easier to resist one or the other.

    You mention that many or maybe most people don’t wait. Analogy applies. Whether or not many people wait to eat until dinner with their S.O. doesn’t invalidate the idea of waiting to make it special.

    You mention people’s reactions to the “virgin message”, and that some people may be harmed by listening to it. The New York Times article only mentioned three cases of advocacy other than just their associating as a group.

  • The “why wait” cards would only harm someone who regretted “not waiting” and you’ve said that it’s an imagined mental disfunction.
  • Handing out flyers after a “safe sex” seminar with “10 reasons to wait”. I don’t know for sure what was on the flyer, and I imagine that you don’t either. If you do, the we can discuss those.
  • Having a debate with Lena Chen, an outspoken proponent of “hookup culture”. This is hardly seizure-inducing stuff.
  • The debate with Chen is one of the more interesting parts of the article:

    What they found, as Chen told me, was that both of them were “out there publicly declaring” who they are. They admitted that they were both, in their own ways, advertising sex appeal. The Crimson pointed out that “both have come under attack for their extreme attitudes toward sex,” and Fredell said they were able to bond over being attacked.

    By underscoring their similarities and demonstrating mutual respect for each other, Fredell said she hoped to suggest to the audience that perhaps True Love Revolution was a friendly force at Harvard — and also deserving of a little respect.

    Hmmm, two women who are outspoken about their views on sex, wanting respect, and Amanda wants one of them silenced, because she’s not “humble” enough. Maybe she didn’t like this line near the end of the article which mentioned one blogger’s observation about the debate:

    And then someone by the screen name of Sex v. Marriage wrote in to say that “most guys out there would rather end up with a girl like Janie.”

  • invalid-0

    I understand this is all about how women shouldn’t be valued by just their virginity, but doesn’t portraying men as sex-hungry fiends who just want to fuck and leave women paint them in a bad light as well?

    Abstinence pledges aren’t just hurting women, they’re hurting men too.

    I’d rather have a club promoting respect, understanding, and love within relationships and sexual activity (even if it’s a one-night stand!) rather than a chastity club that devalues both men and women.

  • harry834

    I haven't read the NY article. It's definitely a necessary read before making too many assumptions. I apologize if I have.

    My assumptions might be more applicable to a group that is more aggressive in insisting or advocating for pre-marital virginity. That aggression might not apply to these "true love revolution" groups. One could always pick hairs with the title, but you are right: it's better to read the article before judging these groups too harshly.

    So, I'll be more careful before criticising these groups, but not the more, provenly, harsher groups. I would hope that the true love revolution would separate themselves from the harsher groups, but I would need to read into the details of that relationship before placing condemnation.

    I wonder if good candidates for suspicion would be the other "pro-virgin" commentors on this post.

    That, at least for now, does not include you Crispy. Thank you for articulating the points.

     

     

  • harry834

    That this should not be a free pass to deny young people ALL information about sex if they choose to have it. And that process of informing young adults and kids, must teach them how to practice sex with safe practices, condoms, contraception. And we must make it comfortable for the youth to ask the "dirty" questions. What about licking an anus? What are the health concerns from mutually touching each others genitals (and nothing else)? How to practice mutual masturbation in a safe way? Is it ever safe to swallow cum? Or vaginal juices? Can I bite her or him in the genital? How much to worry about breaking the condom or dental dam? Little bites?

    Do these questions make you squirm, Crispy? Your not the only one. But these are the questions youth should be able to ask, and the advisers, (parents, school counselors, college health advisers, and yes fellow peers) should be able to answer with full honesty , which is not the same thing as telling the questioner an answer that will scare them away from sex, or more commonly the less aggressive dodge "just keep waiting".

    I would hate for these club viewpoints to be used as an excuse for advisers to say "see? they don't need to have sex. there's perfectly good reseources for waiting".

    This would be selling our youth short, and doing it in a way that gives the advisers a way to dodge resposibility – and dodge being open and honest. If young adults have created a "positive" support system for waiting till marriage, then we can just direct the youth to them.

    Now, I'm not saying True Love has signed on to this idea. It's a scenario I'm painting. It's possible True Love has done nothing of the sort that I've suggested. And even if the older adults did take advantage, in the way I'm suggesting, that is no reason to shut down the True Love club.

    But we need to be watchful. Forcing the club to disband, or even "asking" that they do, may be overkill, but keeping an eye on how the advisers (parents, school officials) try to use this movement to dodge responsibility in giving FULL information – that is a fair vigilance.

    I hope no one accuses me of having a pessimistic view of adults. We are responsible for questioning authority and that means we judge them by their actions , instead of an a priori assumption that they have "our best interests at heart".

    The proof is in the action and effects, regardless of good or bad intentions.

  • invalid-0

    Hi. I’m female. I’m 22, soon to be 23. I’m a virgin.

    You want me to say something nice about abstinence, here it is: I’ve been perfectly happy in my virginity because losing it thus far would have meant me screwing some very unpleasant people.

    None of this changes the face that you, sir, are a patronizing jackass.

    Anytime someone assumes that I am frigid, passionless, and boring because I’m a virgin, I sort of want to hit them. Everytime someone suggests that my friends are depraved perverts who will sleep with anything that moves, I sort of want to hit them too. You can’t make judgements about a person’s life based on the state of their genitalia, and it’s none of your goddamn business to be doing so in the first place. That’s all Amanda’s saying.

    You’re not standing up for me; you’re not helping me. You’re just making me mad, so bugger off.

  • harry834

    and I'm a virgin too.

    Just curious: which "patronizing jackass" are we referring to? I need screename

  • invalid-0

    Harry, I was referring to thecontrariansreview, not to you. You actually seem fairly cool.

    Sorry for the late reply; I was out today.

  • invalid-0

    I think you are 100% correct, Danakitty. It definitely harms men and boys, too. Women are not the gate-keepers of morality and men aren’t sex-hungry fiends with one-track minds. Let’s not forget the whole “save yourself for marriage” rhetoric kind of leaves some people out in the cold…like say, homosexuals, who cannot marry. Are they just supposed to abstain forever?

    Hmmm…seems as though trying for force your lifestyle on others by perpetuating stereotypes can be harmful. Imagine that.

  • harry834

    I didnt think you were referring to me. I knew it was one of these nutters. The strings of comments get so far, that sometimes it gets confusing about whos referring to who.

     

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 invalid-0

    I wonder how you feel about homosexual clubs.

    You must think they only serve to isolate and alienate homosexuals from the larger community, right?

  • invalid-0

    The relative consequences of sex versus virginity depends on one’s age.

    Certainly, an unplanned pregnancy is much more traumatic at age fifteen than at age twenty-five.

    And of course, pregnancy is almost impossible at fifty-five.

    What about STD’s? Certainly STD’s would be very traumatic to a teenager with a life expectancy of decades.

    But an octogenarian is not likely to have a long life expectancy in any case.

    Now let us examine the other side, which is virginity.

    Virginity is not disturbing at thirteen, since almost everyone that age is a virgin.

    But what about age thirty? Imagine someone knowing that everyone else that he knows, including his own family, has had sex and he had not. How would he feel? What would be the only rational way for him to feel? And what would his peers think of it? Note again that the value of the opinions of one’s peers increase with age. At thirteen, one’s peers are dumbass kids. At thirty, one’s peers would include people who are married and have kids and can support themselves.

  • invalid-0

    homosexuals are already alienated and isolated from the community. They must either deny who they are to fit into society’s mold and be miserable. Or embrace their sexual orientation – and be miserable because they won’t fit into society’s mold.

    Teens who are wrestling with their sexual identity have it even worse. I’ve never heard of a completely “homosexual club”, yet there are the Gay/Straight Alliances which have been the subject of so much controversy.

  • invalid-0

    Why the huge long post? A simple yelling of “SLUT!” would have sufficed. It’s about as intelligent and kind as your post was, and you don’t have to waste your time talking to us dirty, dirty whores.

  • http://www.wankerparty.com invalid-0

    Have sex! Be a virgin! Masturbate! It’s your life. I make a living out of masturbation and I love it.

    I also get sex and I love it.

    What you do – I don’t care!

    Whether you’re trying to stuff abstinence or anything down my throat – I DON’T CARE. Life is too short. Get your kicks I say and get them now cos you could get hit by a BUS tomorrow! Woo – partytime.

    Chas Diamond
    Owner
    Wankerparty.com

  • invalid-0

    In addressing your last point, I’d just like to say: I am a former member of just such a group, a pro-choice virgin club. We called ourselves the “celibate four”, and we were a group of friends who were pro-choice, pro comprehensive sex education, and also virgins. The primary reason for our continued virginity was that we didn’t feel like having sex (and some of us didn’t have stable relationships, and weren’t interested in one-night stands). I might also note that none of us were strongly religious.

    I call myself a former member, because after being with my current partner for a few months, I decided to lose my virginity. My “celibate”friends were very supportive of my decision (and they now call themselves the “celibate three”).

    I share this story to illustrate what I think is a productive support group for virgins, feeling pressured to have sex. Sure, have a group. Get together, have fun, talk about your beliefs and your feelings. But don’t get together to judge others.

    Sex is a personal choice. To have it, or not. Your choice. And it’s no-one else’s business.