Have you ever noticed how the people who are most vocally anti-abortion also seem to be the least likely to care about child poverty in their communities?
Sure, they’ll rant and rage over a bunch of cells when they’re inside a woman, and talk about the rights of the foetus, and do everything they can to destroy a woman’s rights. But what about those babies who are born, and living in poverty, and whose parents are struggling to feed them, clothe them, educate them?
Ah, well, they seem to be a different story.
I don’t take well to hypocrites. I also happen to be very strongly in favour of women’s rights, and in favour of bodily autonomy. Perhaps this post says it better than I can here:
But the hypocrisy is getting my goat right now. Take the Hobby Lobby, for instance. On the one hand, obstructing women’s access to contraceptives while on the other supporting, with practically every dollar they make, sweatshop practices that seem to be brutally at odds with the welfare of any children. Or adults.
Then there’s this:
I’m glad I live in New Zealand, where contraceptives are easily, cheaply available and no-one questions it. Where abortions are readily available and they’re nobody’s business but the woman’s and her doctor’s.
All women deserve these rights. We need to stand up against the hypocrites who think they have any sort of automatic access to our bodies and what we do with them, and tell that it’s not okay to tell us what to do. It’s never okay.
And, while we’re at it, how’s about those pesky hypocrites start paying attention to the children in poverty who really need their attention instead!
We all know that the churches of the Bible belt have been placing a massive emphasis on “purity” and virginity lately. Especially for women.
Teens are taking “purity pledges” and being “re-virginized” (whatever THAT means!) and promising to “wait” until they get married.
But have you ever stopped to ask – why?
Why the emphasis on this one aspect of human behaviour?
Think about it for a moment. How is a “good person” or a “valued member of society” usually defined?
Think of the people in history you’d consider to be heroes. They might be Jesus, if you’re a Christian – but I bet his sex life was never a big issue for you (do you even know how many sex partners he had? is it even mentioned in the Bible?)
Or you might think of Nelson Mandela. Or you might be thinking of Martin Luther King Jr. Or Marie Curie, if you’re a scientist. Or Fred Hollows, who restored eyesight for countless people in the world.
What about Mozart and Beethoven, and the beautiful music they gifted the world? Or Van Gogh, for his stunning artwork?
Or modern composers like Eric Whitacre, and the gorgeous pieces he’s currently writing for us to enjoy?
Other heroes you might consider could include people like your family doctor. Or a favourite teacher. Or the physiotherapist who helped you to walk again after you had a terrible brain injury.
They’re all heroes. Every one of them. All doing good works. All worthy of admiration.
If you believe in Heaven, every one of them deserves a place, wouldn’t you think?
I sure would.
Were they virgins when they married? If they married? And does God even care?
Of all these people, do you know for certain if any of them were virgins when they married? Did it matter? Did it make a difference to them being good people?
Did it affect their being valuable people, of worth to the world and those they loved and that loved them?
I’ll answer the question for you: not one bit.
Their sexual status when they married didn’t affect their contributions as unique individuals. And neither does your sexual status affect your contribution as a unique individual.
Don’t think so little of God!
If you think the Divine is so petty as to care about your virginity, well then, you’ve got one really petty little God you’re worshipping.
If you think God will judge you based on whether you’ve had sex or not, you’re really underestimating God. Plus, you’re really overestimating your own self-importance. The Divine has better things to worry about.
So why do the Churches care?
Firstly, don’t get Church and God muddled up. They’re NOT one and the same. Churches are made up of people. People with all their human frailties and mistakes and bigotries and confusions.
Churches have been telling people what to do and what to think for a long, long time. And a lot of the time, they simply represented what society thought.
When society got it wrong, so too did the Churches.
For example, when society didn’t know better and thought the sun revolved around the earth, the Churches defended this belief to the death. Literally. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for his challenge to this theory, his books were banned, and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Other scientists that challenged the same belief (such as Giordano Bruno) were burned at the stake by the Church.
This all happened a long time ago, but what I’m pointing out is that the churches are fallible. They make mistakes, because they’re controlled and made up of people. They reflect common beliefs of society at the time. And sometimes not so common!
What’s more, the Churches, due to their generally conservative nature, tend to lag behind society, and are slow to change and update as society changes.
Society has changed, but the Church is still playing catchup
This is what we have now. Reliable contraception is relatively new (the pill was first approved in 1960, very recently in historical terms) and was a massive change to how women could control their fertility.
With that huge change, the status of women changed quickly. Women were suddenly no longer tied to house and children. We could choose to work and pursue careers, knowing that pregnancy wasn’t lying in wait for us unexpectedly.
Reliable laws supporting safe termination followed swiftly in 1973 with Roe v Wade, enabling women who did find themselves unexpectedly pregnant to end it with a safe termination. Terminations are very common – I’ve had one, as have about half of my friends. These days they’re safe and supported by public health insurance in most western countries – the days of backyard coathangers are thankfully over.
But all these changes, including other further advances such as the morning after pill (1997), are very new. Too new for the Churches to cope with. They’re still more than a century behind, back in the Victorian era, advocating abstinence until marriage.
But what’s wrong with abstinence?
Quite a lot, actually. But let’s start with numbers.
The average age of menarche (first period) for girls in the US is 12.5 years of age. Boys hit puberty on average at age 13.
So if they’re going to be abstinent, women are going to, on average, have to be abstinent for 14.4 years. Men are going to have to remain abstinent for 15.9 years.
Are you beginning to see a problem? I sure am! Can you imagine, as an adult, going without sex for about 15 years? It’s just not practical or reasonable to expect young people, at the height of their fertility, to not have sex for that long.
Furthermore, the same communities that are preaching the abstinence mantras are typically
a) not providing young people with full sex education, so they are more at risk of pregnancy, STIs and dangerous / abusive relationships should sex occur
b) not providing young people with access to contraception or teaching them how to use contraception properly
c) dumping guilt on young people when the inevitable does occur and they do have sex.
In other words, they’re preaching a virtually unachievable mode of behaviour for all but the most asexual of young people, then blaming those same young people when they cannot meet unrealistic expectations.
So why purity?
Purity has, and always will be until it finally suffers a permanent demise as a concept, been about control. It’s a way of making people feel: dirty, cheap, worthless, not good enough, not able enough. It’s a way of judging people and labelling people and keeping people (women) in their place that is hurtful and can be very cruel.
Yes, the pretty white dresses and “purity rings” are all very nice, but they’re a veil over a brutal attempt to control women.
What to do?
Don’t buy the lie. Don’t buy into the purity lie.
Instead, focus on being a good person. Do good works. Let your actions speak for who you are and what you believe is important and right. If you choose to wait until you find someone you love for sex, that’s only your business: no-one else’s.
It’s not the church’s. Or your minister’s. Or your parents. Or your friends.
Ignore the purity rings. And the purity balls. And the purity pledges. Be a good person because that’s who you choose to be, not to fit into someone else’s rules and regulations and guidelines and boundaries.
Have sex when you choose to. With who you want to. With as many or as few people as you choose.
Do it safely. Feel no guilt, because sex can be a beautiful, fun, pleasurable gift when you do it right.
But the only purity that you should ever concern yourself with is the purity of your food and drink. Because that’s the only purity that matters.
Aphrodite is a difficult Goddess. She makes no apologies for that. Why should she?
She’s not convenient, not politically correct, she doesn’t abide by society’s rules and guidelines. And I think the reason she is rising is because we need her, more than ever.
Women are becoming more powerful. Over the last 100 years we’ve gone from have few choices to even being world leaders. We lead countries and companies, we have our own television shows and our own story-writing empires. We top the music charts and the bestseller lists, and we raise families and stun the world with our sporting achievements.
There is nothing we cannot do.
But with these massive changes to the status of women has come the inevitable backlash. It had to happen, of course – because with the rise of any previous underclass there will always be a small proportion of their previous rulers who are unhappy with the change.
One of the primary forms this backlash is taking is an attack of female sexuality. So we’re seeing – in America in particular – “purity balls” and “reclaimed virginity” (absolutely ridiculous!), a vicious attempt by the religious right to put women, once again, back under the control of men.
We’re seeing “slut shaming” (Think Miley Cyrus – did you notice how little comment Robin Thicke got for his behaviour in the “twerking” incident?) and a widespread attack on women’s rights to choose regarding abortion and contraception.
All of this is inevitably doomed to failure. But that doesn’t mean its perpetrators aren’t going to do their best to try.
In response, Aphrodite rises, more powerfully than ever. We’re seeing battle lines being drawn – and, in my experience, you’re a fool if you try to take on a Goddess!
So we’re seeing, in response to these attacks on our sexuality (the domain of Aphrodite), “slut walks“, vocal appeals in support of rape victims, Steubenville-like fallouts (where men suddenly realise that the game is changing and the world no longer tolerates their behaviour), Roastbusters fallout (ditto), and real, open discussion about sexuality and consent becoming more common in families, in youth groups, and in schools.
Like the recent, massive improvements that are happening for equal marriage rights around the world, I believe it is easy to see which way these issues will inevitably, historically fall. Like I said, you’d have to be a real fool to take on a Goddess when she is on the move. And it is clear that Aphrodite is rising. The whole testing ground of women’s sexuality and our rights regarding our sex lives and our physiology are on the table now, up for debate, and it is clear which way the wind is blowing.