I really dislike hypocrisy, and this strip tackles it really well:
With the change in laws allowing same sex marriages to take place in the United Kingdom, the first marriages have taken place.
Not everyone is happy of course. The Churches are looking all confused – on the one hand preaching that “God is love” while on the other hand saying, “wee-eeeell, maybe God is love – but not quite for all people. Not for you gay people over in the corner, anyway.”
And the politicians who, in not too distant memory were all iffy and uffy about same sex marriage, now rush in their full acceptance of the cause, saying, “We were on your side all along! Yes, really!”
Then there are groups who claim that same-sex marriage will persecute traditional marriage types. I’m not sure how – and neither are they, as they don’t quite specify the details – but they’re vehement on the matter.
The thing is, all this denying and delaying and complaing and whinging about being persecuted sounds eerily familiar. The same complaints were heard, and the same arguments, every time a persecuted minority (or majority) has gained rights.
The same arguments were used against the civil rights movement in the US (didn’t you know whites are discriminated against?), and the same against women rights (men are being persecuted now – didn’t you know?). It’s the same old line, used over and over.
It never held water then, and it doesn’t now.
Australia is a backwater
My home country of Australia is starting to look more and more like a backwater of human rights. I’m embarrassed. I’m living in New Zealand now, but I follow the Aussie news, and I feel ashamed that Australia hasn’t led the way on this issue. Especially when so much of the population is clearly in favour. It seems like the politicians have stopped listening to the people. Or maybe that happened a while back…
But you can’t stop change. The Churches in the UK are against this, but popular opinion is changing so swiftly in favour of this issue that they’ll soon be left behind, if they aren’t already. Just one more way in which mainstream religions are losing touch with popular culture.
These are interesting times we live in. I think there are some issues that are changing a little too fast for my liking, such as the amount of violence on TV and film. But other issues, such as rights for minorities, can’t change fast enough.
What do you think?
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.
The average age for first marriage in the United States is 28.9 years for men and 26.9 years for women.
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.
In light of some of the questions I posed in the latter part of yesterday’s post, I want to talk about virginity.
Specifically, women’s virginity.
Of course, all of this is aimed at women and young girls. None of it pressures men or boys, and it all centered on such vague notions as “purity” and “chastity”, and is tied up with biblical, sexist concepts of what a woman is supposed to be.
It’s another one of those double standards.
So my questions are – if our girls are supposed to be saving their virginity, who and what are they saving it for? And why?
Does it make a person a better woman somehow if they come to a relationship with no sexual experience?
Are they goods of a higher value if they have no life experience behind them? And in whose eyes is that value estimated?
Who is judging these women valuable or less valuable, and what effect does this have on their wellbeing and equality as individuals, if so much hangs on the state of things between their legs?
I prefer my partners to have experience. Many men and women I am friends with and chat to in various forums say the same. An experienced lover knows their own body and understands better how to give and receive pleasure. The only possible benefit a virgin woman can give is one in which a woman is viewed as something that is owned and possessed, and in which any other man having “used” her has thereby lowered her value.
In other words, because she has had sex, she has become “used goods”. Like a secondhand car.
And what is purity anyway? It’s an abstract concept, something someone, somewhere, has made up.
Why aren’t men held up to be “pure” too? And if we’re going to delve into religion, if purity was so important, why isn’t Jesus’ sex life ever mentioned? Was Jesus a virgin? He slept with 12 men in the garden of Gethsemane, and hung around with prostitutes. Clearly, what he did and who he slept with made him no less “pure”, if any sort of purity according to what Jesus actually did counts for anything.
Oh, but he was a MAN. So what he did doesn’t count.
Of course, there’s that double-standard again.
I forgot. My bad.
Who I sleep with and how many partners I have had isn’t anyone’s business but my own. Who I happen to be fluid bonded with, and any diseases I may have are of course considerations for any partners I may choose to have, but that’s where any other person’s business ends.
Having sex with no-one, one person or thousands of people doesn’t make anyone more or less “pure”, because purity is a make-believe concept. Sex is just something we humans do, like knitting, or eating, or going for walks. And women of the age of legal consent have every right to do with their bodies as they wish. With as few or as many partners, of whatever gender they desire. And they’ll be no more or less pure as a result of their actions.
The whole “purity” concept is a feeble attempt at controlling women’s bodies and minds. But I ask, should other people – particularly middle-aged men – have the right to control young women’s bodies and minds? That sounds a bit creepy to me. Perverted, and mentally sick. Why are they so interested in whether young women have sex? Why are they so obsessed with it? It’s downright icky.
So what is virginity, and why does it count? Truth is, it doesn’t. Only in the minds of those who would like to control women. A lot of women don’t even have an intact hymen by the time they reach adulthood – sports and tampons and a host of other things can break it. And a lot of women don’t bleed the first time.
Virginity is a stupid concept anyway. Is a woman who has only had anal sex all her life still a virgin? What about a gay guy who has only ever taken it up the ass? (As Dan Savage famously said of his boyfriend, “I’ve been preserving the shit out of my boyfriend’s virginity for 14 years now. If my boyfriend ever decides to marry a woman — miracles can happen! — he’ll be able to wear white at his wedding.”)
Or what about a pedophile priest who has only ever abused little boys? Is a girl who is raped at the age of six “impure” and not a virgin? Virginity is outdated. It’s a dinosaur idea.
I think it’s time we threw the whole concept of virginity out the window. It’s stupid, and belongs along with the concubines and mass murders of the Old Testament.
What are your thoughts?