Lori Alexander praises purity balls

[snuggles911]

Lori has a new post up in which she praises purity balls after watching the Nightline Prime episode on them: lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/03/father-daughter-purity-dance.html#idc-container

Their Christianity and purity infiltrates every part of their lives, similar to the Duggar family. Ken taped this program for me and I watched it with a smile on my face! I love seeing families living their faith completely, not trying to compromise with the world in any way. A young newly married daughter said that she believed the husband is the masculine leader of the home and the wife is the nurturer of the family.

It is rare to see this among Christians. We did everything we could to teach our children about purity when they were growing up. We sent them to purity camps, gave them books to read, and spoke openly to them about purity.

The world doesn't get it. Of course they wouldn't. They think it is silly, old-fashioned, and boring, but "the proof is in the pudding." Living God's ways produces beautiful fruit. The world mocks sexual purity and saving virginity for marriage, yet look at the results when these godly things are set aside for sexual freedom; emotional scars, abortions, rampant STD's, etc.

Two of her readers has respectively questioned the idea and Lori and Ken have amazingly left their comments up and offered responses.

[cindyluvs24]

Maybe Ken has learned something by being here.

[Coconut Flan]

I think one reason Ken stays here is to find blog fodder for Lori.

It's possible he's learning tiny bits here and there.

[polecat]

Pfft. My parents (who were so against premarital sex that they wouldn't allow my sister and I to even be around a male of any kind without a chaperon and there could be no touching of any kind -- sharing a hymnal was as close to hanky panky as we were ever supposed to get) would have said that purity balls are something that True Christians do not do because True Christians don't do such ungodly things as dance.

And those indecent outfits! Not only could I see those future tarts' shoulders and elbows, but they had their collarbones hanging out for everyone to ogle! Positively indecent. No True Christian would ever allow their daughters to go around looking like that.

[OkToBeTakei]

It is a good thing to teach knowledge, awareness and self respect to all young people. I have started this conversation with my daughter. I have NOT though any intention of parading this and respect her too much to do anything as crass as to organise or advertise her 'virtue' in such a public way.

Also never in the history of marriage has anybody had an abortion, suffered emotional scars or an STD. The stupid burns.

[Anny Nym]

"rampant STD´s" ... Yeah, didn´t Syphillis run rampant in good ole´victorian times? But Lori and legit history, that´s natural enemies... :mrgreen:

I didn´t see, the Nighttime Prime docu, but did there a bunch of tiny girls in ballerina costumes carry a cross and then pledge their virginity to their fathers as they did in that one that´s floating around on youtube?

As for this balls itself, well I´m from Lower Austria... Older men who are obsessed with little girls´, especially their own daughters´, virginity irks people the wrong way here ... So the Purity Ball concept would definitely not be a big hit here :penguin-no:

[a_harr]

Dancing at a ball with your father while celebrating your virginity is (excuse the childish word) enormously icky.

The whole patriarchal movement especially the SAHD movement, is an insanely creepy concept that basically promotes a form of emotional incest. Daughters practicing how to be good little wives, staying at home to serve their fathers? Daughters entrusting their sexuality to their fathers? Wrong on so many levels.

[Laurabelle]

Their Christianity and purity infiltrates every part of their lives, similar to the Duggar family. Ken taped this program for me and I watched it with a smile on my face! I love seeing families living their faith completely, not trying to compromise with the world in any way. A young newly married daughter said that she believed the husband is the masculine leader of the home and the wife is the nurturer of the family.

It is rare to see this among Christians. We did everything we could to teach our children about purity when they were growing up. We sent them to purity camps, gave them books to read, and spoke openly to them about purity.

The world doesn't get it. Of course they wouldn't. They think it is silly, old-fashioned, and boring, but "the proof is in the pudding." Living God's ways produces beautiful fruit. The world mocks sexual purity and saving virginity for marriage, yet look at the results when these godly things are set aside for sexual freedom; emotional scars, abortions, rampant STD's, etc.

Ummm...Lori?? I grew up Christian and learned ALL about purity/blah/blah--never did we attend "purity balls" (can't even type that with a straight face) or flaunt our so called purity in public or in any way, for that matter. That was between us and well, us. That's it. How do people like her jump from saving it for marriage (which I have no problem with) to going to dances with your dad, letting him give you a ring (all I can think about when it comes to this is kristinaskeeps and her dad putting her engagement ring on her finger instead of her fiance), etc.? That's not in the bible that I remember, and is just straight up squicky. Gross.

[salex]

All I get out of them is that they are a modified version of some pretty serious debutante balls mixed with home school prom. In most of the deb balls, the virginity it hinted at/assumed, but not talked about as much (white dresses,e tc)

NO weirder than this shit.... pbs.org/independentlens/las-marthas/film.html

texasmonthly.com/story/%E2%80%9Cbeldades%E2%80%9D-ball/page/0/1

From Laredo TX where he only girls who are guaranteed the privilege of making their debuts at the Society of Martha Washington ball are the daughters of the members. Granddaughters and nieces can also be presented, but because daughters take precedence, and because only so many six-foot-wide hoopskirts can squeeze onto the civic center stage, grandmothers and aunts have been known to occasionally engage in ruthless politicking. The cost of a dress—never mind the outlay for the parties that a girl’s parents host in the months before the ball or the jewelry or the private dance lessons or the photographer or the wardrobe required for the myriad debutante events—is a well-kept secret, since both Gutierrez and her clients value discretion, but a custom, hand-beaded gown is rumored to run from $20,000 to $40,000 and higher. When it comes to presenting a daughter to society, many families partake in an old practice: “ echar la casa por la ventana†—literally, “to throw the house out the window,†or to spare no expense. The ball has become a theater for conspicuous consumption; as Laredo’s upper class has been enriched over the past decade by NAFTA, a colonial gown has become the ultimate status symbol. “The dresses didn’t used to be as elaborate,†observed a former debutante who asked not to be named. “They’ve started to look more Marie Antoinette than Martha Washington.†(one article I read sicussed the girls curtysing to some man with their heads touching the floor, as they were welcomed into society

Or, in San Antonio, where the "Court" always sports heavy beaded dresses with a new theme each year. I keep threatening to buy a ticket to the coronation/dance someday, but never do, lol.

.mysanantonio.com/fiesta/slideshow/The-Court-of-Nature-s-Tapestry-61040.php

[RosyDaisy]

I think one reason Ken stays here is to find blog fodder for Lori.

It's possible he's learning tiny bits here and there.

Ken, learning? No. Finding blog fodder? Yep.

[browngrl]

I like to think about the origins of ideas. In many ways, an idea is like a virus (IMO). It propagates for a reason and that reason is a survival benefit (you can tell I believe in evolution). I don't have enough knowledge of early religions to know why they considered purity/virginity for women to be so important. Virginity offers no survival benefit and is by definition not helpful for procreation. So why did early Christians place such an importance on the presence of a hymen that they enshrined that idea in their religion? I have a theory. It would offer men one sure (perhaps the only way) of being sure that any child the woman has is his. All that would need to be in place so that men in those days could be sure of the parentage of the child would be: ensure the woman is a virgin, impregnate her and then control her actions/freedoms (could easily be done in the guise of "protecting" her). Voila. No need to go on the prehistoric version of Maury"you are the father" Povich.

Thoughts?

[RosyDaisy]

I didn't wait fore marriage. No emotional scars, never been pregnant, and no STDs. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. THEY ARE MISCHARACTERIZING ME!!!!!!!eleventy!!! LOL

[Firiel]

I like to think about the origins of ideas. In many ways, an idea is like a virus (IMO). It propagates for a reason and that reason is a survival benefit (you can tell I believe in evolution). I don't have enough knowledge of early religions to know why they considered purity/virginity for women to be so important. Virginity offers no survival benefit and is by definition not helpful for procreation. So why did early Christians place such an importance on the presence of a hymen that they enshrined that idea in their religion? I have a theory. It would offer men one sure (perhaps the only way) of being sure that any child the woman has is his. All that would need to be in place so that men in those days could be sure of the parentage of the child would be: ensure the woman is a virgin, impregnate her and then control her actions/freedoms (could easily be done in the guise of "protecting" her). Voila. No need to go on the prehistoric version of Maury"you are the father" Povich.

Thoughts?

I think this has a lot of merit. I also think that women stood to benefit were able to minimize risk by remaining a virgin, at least after the formation of some sort of legal structure in regards to marriage (even if that did mean owning one's wives). If a man and a woman had sex without a legal bond and a pregnancy occurred, the woman was left pregnant and the man really wouldn't have to face up to the consequences. He could always (this dovetails with what you said) claim it belonged to someone else or that he had never been intimate with her. So insisting on marriage before sex became a way of ensuring (or at least maximizing that possibility) that one's offspring would be financially cared for, which translates to being physically cared for (food, shelter, etc.).

I wonder if this is where the "men want sex, women want to without sex" stereotype began. For men, pregnancy is simply not the consequence it is to women, especially pre-paternity tests and child support. So they are going to want sex. Women, understanding more viscerally, what the consequences of sex (especially pre-very reliable birth control) could be and how it might affect them are more likely to want a legal commitment, hence the idea that women use sex as a reward for men, holding it over their heads until the women get what they want.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

This was touched on in another thread, but I'll say it here too: Being "impure" (words cannot describe how much I hate the word purity in a sexual context) has assured that I have a healthy sexual relationship with my husband. Knowing we were completely compatible in that area means we haven't suffered years and years of discourse like the Alexanders and some of their friends. There were no surprises after we made that lifelong commitment to each other, and hey! He doesn't use me as a masturbation tool.

*Disclaimer: I honestly do not care what others choose to do. Emphasis on choose. Be a virgin forever; go out and screw a hundred people. I do not care. I will raise my daughter to know that her worth is not wrapped up in the status of her hymen, that's for sure.

[Loveday]

I like to think about the origins of ideas. In many ways, an idea is like a virus (IMO). It propagates for a reason and that reason is a survival benefit (you can tell I believe in evolution). I don't have enough knowledge of early religions to know why they considered purity/virginity for women to be so important. Virginity offers no survival benefit and is by definition not helpful for procreation. So why did early Christians place such an importance on the presence of a hymen that they enshrined that idea in their religion? I have a theory. It would offer men one sure (perhaps the only way) of being sure that any child the woman has is his. All that would need to be in place so that men in those days could be sure of the parentage of the child would be: ensure the woman is a virgin, impregnate her and then control her actions/freedoms (could easily be done in the guise of "protecting" her). Voila. No need to go on the prehistoric version of Maury"you are the father" Povich.

Thoughts?

:) Yep. In many cultures, this is precisely it, especially among the upper classes and nobility, where it was so important to be sure your children were really YOUR children. You didn't want someone else's children to inherit your lands and wealth. And if you were the king, it was even more important. Wouldn't do to have the child of your wife's dalliance with a lowly gentleman of the court inherit the throne. :naughty:

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think this has a lot of merit. I also think that women stood to benefit were able to minimize risk by remaining a virgin, at least after the formation of some sort of legal structure in regards to marriage (even if that did mean owning one's wives). If a man and a woman had sex without a legal bond and a pregnancy occurred, the woman was left pregnant and the man really wouldn't have to face up to the consequences. He could always (this dovetails with what you said) claim it belonged to someone else or that he had never been intimate with her. So insisting on marriage before sex became a way of ensuring (or at least maximizing that possibility) that one's offspring would be financially cared for, which translates to being physically cared for (food, shelter, etc.).

I wonder if this is where the "men want sex, women want to without sex" stereotype began. For men, pregnancy is simply not the consequence it is to women, especially pre-paternity tests and child support. So they are going to want sex. Women, understanding more viscerally, what the consequences of sex (especially pre-very reliable birth control) could be and how it might affect them are more likely to want a legal commitment, hence the idea that women use sex as a reward for men, holding it over their heads until the women get what they want.

There's an obvious connection to caring for any children.

There's also a theory that sex/fertility rituals were used in ancient pagan religions, such as that of the Canaanites. According to that theory, some of the strong language against extra-marital sex and male homosexual sex was a reaction against Canaanite practices.

[docmom]

What is purity camp? I can't even imagine the types of conversations they have around the campfire.

[salex]

I like to think about the origins of ideas. In many ways, an idea is like a virus (IMO). It propagates for a reason and that reason is a survival benefit (you can tell I believe in evolution). I don't have enough knowledge of early religions to know why they considered purity/virginity for women to be so important. Virginity offers no survival benefit and is by definition not helpful for procreation. So why did early Christians place such an importance on the presence of a hymen that they enshrined that idea in their religion? I have a theory. It would offer men one sure (perhaps the only way) of being sure that any child the woman has is his. All that would need to be in place so that men in those days could be sure of the parentage of the child would be: ensure the woman is a virgin, impregnate her and then control her actions/freedoms (could easily be done in the guise of "protecting" her). Voila. No need to go on the prehistoric version of Maury"you are the father" Povich.

Thoughts?

I have always assumed this was exactly why all the rigmarole over virginity.

[salsa]

This is a crossover with the fundie sightings thread:

A woman and her son and daughter take the same fitness class that I do. They're obviously homeschooled, as the class is in the middle of the morning. They don't seem hard-core at all (the mom wears shorts and a spaghetti-strap fitness top and the girl wears exercise capris), but the boy did once wear a t-shirt that was a souvenir from a camp, sponsored by the Winshape Foundation (Chick Fil-A), that was obviously about guarding your heart.

To be fair, guarding your heart means a number of different things - it's not just sexual.

[ADoyle90815]

Dancing at a ball with your father while celebrating your virginity is (excuse the childish word) enormously icky.

The whole patriarchal movement especially the SAHD movement, is an insanely creepy concept that basically promotes a form of emotional incest. Daughters practicing how to be good little wives, staying at home to serve their fathers? Daughters entrusting their sexuality to their fathers? Wrong on so many levels.

To me, it implies that females are nothing more than property, first owned by their fathers, then by their husbands after their father gives them to him during a transferring of ownership ceremony that others call a wedding.

[Full enough quiver]

My daughter had some friends over last night, and they were admiring one of the girls' (catholic) purity ring that her father gave her for her birthday. She says "you guys should get one" one girl says "I'm a lesbian. I'm not the target audience" another says "I don't think my purity is my father's business" my daughter says"I'm not waiting for marriage. That doesn't make me impure". The other 3 girls look horrified, and say "you can't say that in front of your mom". I said "why not? We're very open about these things. Her self worth has nothing to do with what has or has not been in her vagina. And neither does yours" they were all shocked, and said their parents would be really mad if they had sex. I don't get why. I'd only be mad if she was stupid about it.

[Koala]

This may have already been mentioned, but did you guys notice that she changed the picture at the top of the post?

[OkToBeTakei]

This may have already been mentioned, but did you guys notice that she changed the picture at the top of the post?

:lol:

It is getting beautifully pathetic huh?

Oooh somebody said bare nekkid shoulders. CHANGE THE PHOTO QUICK!!!!!

[latraviata]

:lol:

It is getting beautifully pathetic huh?

Oooh somebody said bare nekkid shoulders. CHANGE THE PHOTO QUICK!!!!!

You can't disappoint your target group.

It is not easy being a fundie these days.

[crassy]

Lori can suck a big fat one. If she thinks the way to combat the hypersexualisation of girls and women is to hypersexualise them the other way, she is even more stupid than I thought she was. There is nothing noble about being the 'keeper of your daughter's maidenhood'. It is gross and creepy how much these dads concern themselves with their daughter's vaginas. Stats show that kids who do the whole purity thing are just as likely to have sex as those who don't, but they are less likely to use protection. I would rather my kid have sex and be safe than have sex with guilt and no protection. I would also prefer that my husband does not concern himself with her vagina on a daily basis.

This isn't about faith, this is about control and power.