<p>" if it wasn’t the dads would be getting involved by coaching their sports teams, by encouraging them to take math and science to increase womens involvement in science careers, instead of going on “dates” with their daughters."</p>
<p>I liked this part of a post. There is such a eww factor to be sure. After reading the article, it made me angry. Angry that these dads think of their daughters as property and they can’t be complete if they aren’t pure. There’s an agenda going on there that isn’t as pure was what’s being talked about. It’s just creepy. </p>
<p>I would hope what ever my daughter decides to do with her body, is done on her terms. She has no need to “prove” her purity or worth to me. I already know her worth. If she decides to wait till marriage fine, if she decides not to, fine. She is educated and aware and my only dissappointments would be if she failed to make an encounter safe or lost her sense of self in a relationship. </p>
<p>Now back to that post I copied and what it meant. I was a dad who went to watch tennis (or sorta tennis ) for a couple of hours during the season. I sat on uncomfortable benches for 3 hours for a minute and a half of swimming. 14 hours at the barns to watch 15 minutes of horseback riding. Attending every knowledge bowl competition, enjoying every correct math, science, shakespear and current events answer. </p>
<p>I think all those events over the years shows far more support for the person my daughter is, than taking her to a dance where she promises me her virtue. I’m not so worried about her virginity because I supported her developement as a person along the way. I trust her to make the right choices for her, when ever that may be. That’s not my call, that’s hers.</p>
<p>I think alot of people do this kind of stuff because they’ve shortchanged thier kids somewhere along the way. It’s a form of guilt transference. I would think if you raised your children with love and support (illregardless of religous preference) you should have very little to worry about.</p>
<p>Sorry Hanna. I’ve been painted here so many times as a religious fanatic/bigot I’m kind of jaded. For the record, I do hold out the idea of waiting until marriage to my kids, in keeping with my religion. They are not aware that I (or my husband) wouldn’t be shocked, shocked, if they don’t quite make it to waiting, although I do think the thought may be dawning on my close to 21 year old. :)</p>
<p>Why on earth would you assume that the people criticizing this extremist practice are humanist/agnostic/atheist? That’s a pretty broad brush to paint the posters on this thread with.</p>
<p>If you find this kind of ceremony acceptable, even desirable, fine. But all religious people are not obligated to think exactly like you on every issue. Maybe people wouldn’t “paint you” as a fanatic if you didn’t “paint” them as irreligious at every turn.</p>
<p>Me? Now that fathers are being encouraged to “war” over their daughters’ viriginity, I can’t help but wonder how long it will be till teenagers who are raped end up killing themselves because they can’t face the “dishonor” they’ve brought on the family.</p>
<p>Okay, I read this from the beginning. And this is what I saw:</p>
<p>A disturbing story of extreme behavior that showed an unhealthy father/daughter relationship and seemed to treat women like property.</p>
<p>A slew of EWWWWW! reactions, with which I heartily concur.</p>
<p>So far, no controversy.</p>
<p>Then HH, you came on to accuse everyone of being liberal slut-encouragers because they agreed about that article, claiming, without any substantiation that I can see, that anyone who saw this the same way as Glamour did was actually using this as a thin veil to perpetuate their zipless **** agenda; that to agree with an article in Glamour was tantamount to buyng th whole woman-fetishing dominant media of which Glamour may be a part.</p>
<p>The rest of the thread seems to be you and others claiming that this is the actual subtext that everyone is asserting even though no one said it, and then everyone else maintaining that no, that it not the subtext, at all.</p>
I’m not switching, mini. Hormones are powerful little buggers. Their role in sex is multifaceted --getting the body ready for it, enabling it to perform, and impacting one’s psyche long after the fact. Not something I feel 14 year olds are ready for. And not something for college kids to take lightly, either.</p>
<p>We can argue whether teens/young adults should abstain from whatever, and for how long, til the cows come home. I still think a poll would show the overwhelming majority response to the OP to be: “Ewwwwwwwwwww.”</p>
Yeah. CGM taking a unanimously rated yuckky purity event and extrapolating from that event the premise that religion, especially Christianity, supports mistreatment of women. </p>
<p>I saw HH’s point a bit differently. She found it odd that Glamour would feature this event & posters seemed horrified, yet rarely would the standard Glamour headlines raise any eyebrows, although they are arguably just as yuckky (simply situated on the opposite end of the spectrum.)</p>
<p>See, there it is again–rarely would the standard Glamour headlines raise eyebrows–written in passive voice because you can’t find anyone here who assents to standard Glamour headlines. Setting up a strawman that no one here is defending.</p>
<p>And overall, who most often questions the “Glamour” view of women as objects? Gee, I think that would be, gasp, feminists!!! (shh, cover the kids’ ears.)</p>
<p>swimcatsmom, it’s an allusion to the work of Erica Jong. She used it to symbolize idealized sex without angst or hassle (eg, no zippers to deal with).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I get that you SAY you don’t think this is desirable, but then you contradict that by implying that anyone who doesn’t like it is “humanist/agnostic/atheist.”</p>
<p>It’s like when you say that no one really listens to Rush or gives him any credibility, then you slip some particularly ridiculous thing he says into a discussion, like the violence deaths in Baghdad vs. murder rate in Philadelphia.</p>
<p>garland, I think you haven’t seen Glamour headlines lately. It’s not just “Thin thighs in 30 days.” Some pretty graphic sexual content with a decidedly feminist, empowerment focus. Conveniently overlooking the down side to promiscuity. Kind of along the lines of pushing condoms as “safe sex” without acknowledging that herpes & HPV can be easily transmitted despite their use.</p>
<p>And what I don’t get is why all the arguing against girls thinking meaningless sex is okay, but in guys, it’s expected and the norm. </p>
<p>I didn’t marry a man who felt that way, I didn’t raise a son who feels that way, and I feel that people who do raise their sons to think that meaningless sex is the norm, strictly because they’re male, make my D’s life, and all young women’s lives, just a little bit tougher.</p>
<p>And I am not interested in the evolutionary biology line–we don’t let guys kill each other even if their hormones tell them to. That’s what civilization is all about, isn’t it? We can raise men and women who are just a little bit more evolved, if we want to.</p>
<p>Sorry, SS, I still don’t get what you mean by that being feminism, which is not about pushing anything on women, but letting them choose how they want to be.</p>
<p>And I still, still don’t see anyone here pushing the Glamour line. Could you point me to what I’m missing?</p>
<p>The only thing that could possibly have a higher ewwww factor than this stuff is if “Field and Stream” magazine encouraged Mommy-Son dances, and they had a photo of teenaged boys high-fiving each other for having gotten to second base.</p>
<p>garland, a large part of the standard feminist view of sexuality is that no distinction can be made between men and women. No way will anyone who suggests (or conducts studies) to determine if women may be more vulnerable than men will be tolerated. My own views, that women have more to lose both physically from higher likelihood of STD, and of course pregnancy, and emotionally, is not welcome in feminist circles nor on the pages of Glamour & other women’s magazines.</p>
) for a couple of hours during the season. I sat on uncomfortable benches for 3 hours for a minute and a half of swimming. 14 hours at the barns to watch 15 minutes of horseback riding. Attending every knowledge bowl competition, enjoying every correct math, science, shakespear and current events answer. </p>