To think the concept of pledging your virginity to your father is creepy as hell?

[Sigyn]

Purity balls and the quiverfull movement so beloved of the Christian fundamentalist right in America.

Its obviously regressive as hell. Your sexuality is yours to control. It has nothing to do with your dad in any way shape or form.

But even aside from that-just...eeew. Sorry.

Can anyone explain to me how the concept of pledging your sexuality to your father for safekeeping is not just icky?

The whole thing is just misogyny and male control of female behaviour/thought dressed up as care. It is, basically, retrograde bollocks (a technical sociological term).
Also makes me think about my own relationship with my wonderful Dad, who basically taught me all I know about feminism and, amongst many other ace things, refused to give me away at my wedding as I was not his property to dispose of. I luffs him and he is still my best buddy and confidante and i'm 40! THAT is a good father daughter relationship not this purity/control cobblers.

Toffee men saying that doesnt really bother me though, because often it isnt until men have daughters of their own that they realise what their own behaviour was like. They know, because they used to do it themselves, that most teenage lads are on the cop and they want to protect their daughters from horny boys on the make. I can see that. I remember what I used to get up to, sneaking out of the house, drinking, going to parties when I was "staying over" at my friends house etc, and I realise what risks I took. I say to my kids that there isnt anything they can do that I havent done so I know all the tricks! Wanting to protect your children from predators and from making the same mistakes we did is normal. This Quiverfull thing really isnt though is it? It is, as you rightly say, creepy and controlling.

You protect your children best though by talking to them from day 1, listening to them and eventuaiiy ensuring they are as safe contraceptive wise as they can be so if they meet the wrong person it won't be catastrophic.

This movement is sick but then I find most religions are mysogynistic and controlling of womem and children.

This is no different to insisting womem cover their bodies with bhurkas or the bastards who have kidnapped those school girls.

If we criticise and find extremely right wing Christian movements distasteful we can't ignore other religions just because we ourselves are afraid if being seen as racist or xenophobic.

All power and control of others is wrong.

And yes not derailing it's wierd and creepy.

And if course a great way to cover up child abuse.

Oh I don't think other religions do get ignored at all, spring

When I open the Daily Mail best part of eating in a cafe I see one story after another about how well organised lesbian lone parents in burkas are smuggling plutonium into Bradford, on their way to fraudulently claim benefits.

My issue with this is that because the quiverfull movement tick all the "respectable" boxes-white (its a missionary philosophy), male-led, quite mainstream politically active, respectable professionals-they are exactly the people who also have power in society and so their behaviour is not seen as a massive issue.

sigyn absolutely agree. It's vile in its mysoginistic crap wrapped up in the guise of protecting young girls from men.

I dont read the daily fail that too is beyond ridiculous but I can't really see the difference here to any other controlling male dominated religion (arnt they all)

Christian, Muslim etc. of course there are mainstream and extremes too.

I quite like my little forays in the world of the Mail.

Keeps me on my toes.

However .... even the anti-Mail stuff, I personally find interesting in the context of a debate over feminism. The Mail was actually the first newspaper to be marketed at women.

I'm not going to go as far as saying that anti-Mail sentiments are anti women . However I think that because the Mail is really still perceived as a slightly female paper - I do mainly see women reading it, and its the only UK paper to have a majority of female readers - its an acceptable soft target, in a way that, say, the highly misogynistic Sun isn't.

(and yes, I know I brought up the Mail in the first place) .

Meadow thank you for that link - a really interesting and uplifting story - the whole purity ring / 'marrying' dad stuff is vile

sigyn yes I think it is a paper of choice for many women too.

My dm is an avid reader and then gets all huffy over immigration and asylum seekers while worrying her teen granddaughters are being preyed on by Asian men every time they go into the city!!

Why she buys it I have no idea? She votes labour ffs and is welsh...

This movement is soooo creepy.

But I do also agree with your other point, spring . This movement is possible because there is a general acceptance that patriarchy and control over women in the name of religion is somehow functionally different/more morally acceptable than just the normal, run of the mill, UKIP/Top Gear style misygyny which we generally do recognise and argue against.

misogyny! bloody phone.

sigyn yes agree mysoginistic attitudes are generally global and pervade most religions and cultures.

This is just so bloody silly it's easy to take the piss but can't ignore the fact that just because religions are seen as untouchable or cultures like the traveller one is defended because people are afraid if appearing racist or judgy.

We have to call mysogynistic attitudes out wherever they are. Religion, culture, custom and any manner of bollocks used to dress it up as acceptable.

Female submission is a huge part of fundamentalist Christianity. Hair covering (not just Amish type sects) keeping 'pure', letting the man of the house make all of the decisions and modest dressing are all a basic part of it.
It's quite scary I think.

Taken from the Raised Quiverfull Project, by Sarah

"I had a much longer conversation with my dad regarding sexuality around the same time. He sat me down and told me that men were perverse and sick-minded. “They will see a girl like you and immediately picture you without your clothes on. They only want ONE thing.” This, he explained, was the reason I must never do ANYTHING to tempt a man to lust after me. It was my responsibility to keep men pure since they could not control themselves. From that point on, I was terrified to make eye contact with any man. My dad watched me all the time, and would pull me aside to tell me when I was “laughing too loud,” or “standing inappropriately.” He policed everything I wore and often sent me back to my room to change if my shirt was “too tight” or showed too much collar bone."

What a vile man, effectively telling his daughter that it will be her fault if she gets raped.

What I dont get is that if men are weak and lustful that they will fall prey to any female with her hair uncovered or too much collar bone on show, how come they are the ones that get to be in charge? How do they square that up with men being the moral gatekeepers, while at the same time being sex obsessed perverts?

It was my responsibility to keep men pure since they could not control themselves

This in particular sickens me

I agree this pledging to your father is sick. However, I don't think it would be a bad thing if girls/women decided not to have sex with a partner till they were both fully committed.

Creepy as anything. Why do religious organisations meddle in a very pleasurable part of human nature?

Making an informed decision by yourself to wait until marriage is fine and it's quite admirable to go against the inevitable pressure to have sex, I know 3 people who did (1 man, 2 women). Being told that this is what you'll do isn't.

" I don't think it would be a bad thing if girls/women decided not to have sex with a partner till they were both fully committed."

Just to be clear Vivienne do you think that for boys/men too? Or just females?

I think it is no one's business, personally. I am in favour of people having as much knowledge and (consensual, obviously) experience as they wish. I simply don't understand the arguments against waiting til you are married, in the context of readily available contraception, respect and good knowledge.

What Sigyn said