I had an epiphany.

I've decided to avoid using the terms gay, straight, and bi to describe myself from now on. It isn't that I find the terms offensive, it is that I find them inaccurate. Human love and sexuality is a multifaceted, complex concept that cannot be described by a simple number, much less shoved into three distinct categories.

I mean, if a man falls in love with another man, and they later break up, he will probably fall out of love. Let's say after that, all the people he happens to fall in love with are women. Is he bisexual? Bi-curious? Ex-gay? Does it even matter?

People come up with more and more terms for people of varying sexualities, but I really think people are ignoring the real issue here. Trying to categorize sexualities is like trying to sort everyone in Spanish-colonized Latin-America into racial classifications, or trying to decide who was Jewish based on which relatives were Jewish. It really is missing the issue completely.

What is the real issue? Love. That's right, real, Grade-A love. Imagine, if you will, the complexities range of emotions one can feel when they fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. Nobody can really control them, or describe exactly the feelings. Now imagine you feel these same emotions toward somebody of the same sex. They are exactly the same. The fact that the target of the affections shares your genitalia does not make the feeling any less legitimate. I find it incredibly arrogant that anyone would claim to have the authority to determine what types of love are "real."

Really, does anybody really have any control whether they tend to prefer brunettes to blonds, smart girls to ditzes, big breasts to small? People just like certain types of people, and yet when somebody feels attracted to somebody of the same sex, it gets chalked up to infatuation, even perversion. This hasn't always been so. 100 years ago, people would consider the idea of black man and a white woman to be blasphemy. Nobody would never even consider the possibility that they could be love. It was just wrong.

I think the real reason homophobic conservatives use these terms is because it allows them to ignore the human aspect of their beliefs. If they truly allowed themselves to open their eyes and see love for what it really was, it would make it much harder to justify ongoing discrimination, shunning, and violence perpetrated everyday. By viewing same-sex attraction as "different" from opposite-sex attraction they feel themselves, they can oppose it more easily.

In writing this, I hope I am not offending those who choose to use these terms to describe themselves or others in good-faith. I am merely trying to get people to realize that, like many a term, it is merely that: a term.

There is something creepy about Evangelical Christianity’s newest tactic, “Purity” Balls. The basic idea behind them is that too many girls are having sex and that the way to fix this is to take have them publicly promise their virginities to their fathers. But why should I tell you about it? Why don’t you just watch this one “trailer” for it?

What I do not understand is the ickyness people attach to human sexuality, especially to feminine sexuality. We are, at our core, sexual creatures. I cannot truly understand why people would seek to to pretend sexuality is this big, special thing, when it really isn’t.

My incomprehension aside, let me discuss why I find these programs offensive and creepy.

They don’t work:

There is no data on whether girls who attend purity balls remain abstinent until marriage; chances are many do, given the tight-knit communities they live in. But there is striking evidence that more than half of teens who take virginity pledges—at, say, rallies or events—go on to have sex within three years, according to findings of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the most comprehensive survey of teens ever taken. And 88 percent of the pledgers surveyed end up having sex before marriage. “No pledge can counter the fact that teenagers [and all people] are, in fact, sexual beings postpuberty [and prepuberty, in my opinion],” notes Cary Backenger, a clinical psychotherapist in Appleton, Wisconsin, who works with teens, including several who have taken virginity pledges. “You can’t turn that off.”

Disturbingly, the adolescent health study also found that STD rates were significantly higher in communities with a high proportion of pledgers. “Pledgers are less likely than nonpledgers to use condoms, so if they do have sex it is less safe,” says Peter Bearman, Ph.D., a Columbia University sociologist who helped design the study. For these teens, he believes, it’s a mind game: If you have condoms, you were planning to have sex. If you don’t, sex wasn’t premeditated, which makes it more OK. The study also found that even pledgers who remained virgins were highly likely to have oral and anal sex—risky behavior given that most probably didn’t use condoms to cut their risk.

Glamour

Really, would you honestly remain celibate solely because you had signed some contract to your father when you were four years old? Would you really care what you had said at some stupid ball? The “promise” was not really “yours,” so why keep it?

My complaint comes from the main premise behind this whole ceremony. The “contract” is essentially that a daughter’s “virginity” should be property of either her father or her husbands, but never of her own self. Just listen to the contract that a girl must sign:

I make a promise this day, to God, to you, to myself, to my future husband, to my children, to remain abstinent until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. I know that God requires this of me, that He loves me, and that He will reward me for my faithfulness in this life and the next.

Have these people been living in such a time warp that they still believe a daughter should be treated as a gift? Is her purpose nothing more than that of her man-folk’s sex puppet? Many of these people also criticize objectifying women, yet they see nothing wrong with treating their young daughters as gifts.

The completely overwhelming sexist nature of these events are apparent to those willing to take a step back and look at it carefully, yet no one participating in the balls seem to care that the daughter has been completely left out the equation, the father is in charge of finding the proper man, and the daughter is expected to consummate her relationship, in short, men are in charge of what goes into her vagina, but she is not. Does this not strike anyone as more than a little anachronistic?

Sexual stereotypes are further enforced in the premise that the man should protect and shelter his daughters from the evils of sexuality, and that woman must separate themselves completely from sexuality in order to remain whole. Men, on the other hand, are relatively free from any stigma relating to their sexual activities, and no one pays much attention to their coming-of-age. Some might argue that since the father is also required to also required to sign a contract promising to “be pure in [his] own life as a man, husband and father,” he is held to the same standards as the woman he protects. But I question why they wait till fatherhood to make this promise. Why have these people ever suggested having a “mother-son” purity ball? Are the boys not in need of protection from the femme fatales of the world? Should the mothers also not pledge to be pure and protective of their sons? One blogger theorizes that the principal difference is the thin piece of tissue known as the hymen, that will supposedly indicate whether or not the girl is a virgin (which is complete bull, I know, but symbols need not be realistic). The act of tearing it is a more concrete symbol than the emission of billions of sperm cells into its place.

I find the exaggerated sentimentalization of girlhood offensive. The idea behind these balls—that girls should remain as a child until they marry—is simply another form of the typical desire on the part of their parents to never see their young girls mature into women. Notice the language used by Susan Chess at the beginning of the video, where refers to the fathers as “daddy.” How more belittling can you get? Boys, on the other hand, seem to be expected to grow up as fast as possible. It is not coincidence that, until recently, women had two major titles, “Mrs.” and “Miss” but boys could get away with simply “Mr.” Girls need to grow at some point, or their bodies will get ahead of them.

Finally doesn’t anybody find it more than a little creepy that the fathers should have such a feverish obsession over their daughters’ sexuality? This isn’t really an argument, but it is something I noticed.

Please, tell me what you think

References:

• Video: Carenet Purity Ball DVD Preview (trailer) - Google Video
• Glamour article: Would you pledge your virginity to your father?
• The Father-Daughter Purity Ball