Virgin Worth

Virgin Worth
Revaluing Girls as Sexual Property in Christian America
by Sydney Houston-Gouge

In an era where social conservatism is railing against modernizing democrat forces in Congress and the White House, the issues surrounding public and personal morality have never been more relevant. This has been examined on a policy level through the debate over abstinence only education, and the sexual rights of adolescents. At a grassroots level, this movement has produced an increase in purity pledging, and the spread of father daughter purity balls. (Advocates for Youth, 1)
The United States government has funneled $50 million dollars a year into abstinence only sex education from 1998 onwards, and denied funding to comprehensive sex education programs. Despite the unproved efficiency of these abstinence only programs, only eight states have refused funding; California, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. (Advocates for Youth, 2) Outside of schools, increased controls over adolescent access to family planning services are being implemented, through the requirement of parental consent for oral contraceptives and laws demanding that doctors and nurses report sexually active teenagers under 17 to authorities and their families. (Brindis, 284)
In this climate of traditionalism, the popularity of virginity pledging in the United States has been steadily rising since its inception as part of the “True Love Waits” movement in 1993. Teenagers can pledge to save themselves for marriage, stating:
“Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to a lifetime of purity including sexual abstinence from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship.” (Truelovewaits.com, 1)

Studies of virginity pledging have demonstrated that it can be successful in encouraging younger teens to delay sex, but usually not maintained until marriage.1 Recent studies suggest that up to 82 percent of those who take a virginity pledge later deny it, and have roughly the same rates of sexual activity as those who never took a virginity pledge. (Reuters, 1) For those that do not recant, however, serious sexual health risks have been tied to virginity pledging.
Firstly, those who take a virginity pledge are up to one third less likely to use contraception if they break their pledge. (Bearman, 899) This is not surprising, as it is difficult to prepare for something you don’t intend to do. Those who take a virginity pledge are therefore more likely to engage in unprotected sex, and are thereby more at risk for unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. (Bearman, 900)
Secondly, there is a high likelihood of recanting one’s sexual history upon taking a virginity pledge. A study done by Janet E. Rosenbaum, titled “Reborn a Virgin: Adolescents’ Retracting of Virginity Pledges and Sexual Histories” documented that at least 10% of teenagers who had previously admitted sexual experience recanted after having recently taken a virginity pledge. (Rosenbaum, 7) This denial of previous sexual experience coupled with the increased likelihood of unprotected sex among pledgers is a huge cause for concern, as individuals have a higher chance of transmitting and receiving sexually transmitted diseases without knowing it. Not surprisingly, STI testing and seeking contraceptive medical care are also far less likely among pledgers.
Issues of sexual denial notwithstanding, the success rate of pledging and the people who chose to pledge at all are highly dependent on demographic considerations. Socio-economic status, religiosity, ethnic group, and even intelligence all play a role in determining whether one’s virginity pledge will be successful. Academically inclined teenagers of a higher socio-economic group, especially females, are far less likely to have an early start date for sexual activity due to higher perceived risks to their future. (Bearman, 868) They are also statistically less likely to enter into a virginity pledge in first place, perhaps due to perceived increase in ability to withstand sexual pressure. (Bearman, 908)
Those who pledge also have to conceive of themselves as having a “non normative identity” and part of a select group in order to be successful. The appeal to evangelical Christians, as part of their belief in themselves as a limited group predestined for salvation, is evident. Statistically speaking, this select group of pledgers in a social environment must be no more than 30% of the population. Any more than this, and virginity ceases to an exclusive status, and the abstinent effect of the pledge is removed. (Bearman, 895) This reduced effectiveness of mass virginity pledging is demonstrative of the unlikely success of an abstinence based sexual education in the United States. (Bearman, 901) One can conclude from the documented research that if most American high school students were to pledge their virginity, there would be no “pledge effect” to delay the transition to sexual intercourse.
One can see the need to belong to an exclusive social group in the demographic information of many pledge participants. Some of the most common pledge candidates are white females belonging to a lower socio-economic group, with a lower GPA, limited social network, higher religiosity, and lower self esteem. (Bearman, 881) Comparatively, black female pledgers and non black male pledgers tend to be the opposite, with higher academic achievement, high self esteem, and higher attachment to their high school. (ibid) These demographic factors suggest that low self esteem, coupled with a desire to belong to a special group, are indicators of a higher rate of pledging. (Bearman, 881)

Demographic arguments and success rates aside, the very concept of virginity pledging is worrisome. Randy Wilson, the founder of the Purity Ball movement, has commented that American’s daughters are “…desperately waiting for us in a culture that lures them into the murky waters of exploitation. They need to be rescued by you, their dad.” (Banerjee, 1) Promises made by fathers at purity balls state that fathers will pledge “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.” (Banerjee, 2) These assertions of male dominance make the power dynamic inherent in this movement quite evident By contracting your virginity to God, your family, and your future spouse you are effectively relinquishing ownership of it, and giving someone else control over your sexuality.
This handing over of sexual control is demonstrated most viscerally in the Purity Ball phenomenon, in which young girls (often between the ages of 10 and 18) make a covenant to their fathers to save themselves for marriage. In return, their father pledges to protect their daughter’s virginity for their future husband, and affirms his desire to “war” for his daughter’s heart. (Purity ball, 1) Begun in Colorado Springs in 1998, Father-Daughter Purity balls occur in 48 American states. (Colorado Springs Father Daughter Purity Ball.com, 1)
The pledge spoken by fathers at purity balls to their daughters drills home the ideas of ownership and dominance inherent in this virginity movement. Spoken over their seated daughter as a covenant, the father states that:
“I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and my family as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.” (Colorado Springs Purity Ball website, 1)

This ceremony, complete with the gift of a purity ring from father to daughter, exchange of vows, the passing of father and daughter under crossed swords, and girls dressed in white dancing around a large wooden cross, is representative of a larger trend in the religious right: control over female sexuality. The fundamental message here: your sexuality is not your own. It is a commodity purchased and sold by others, the basis of your personal morality. (The purity myth, 27) The making of the heartfelt promise to a father to remain “pure” until marriage effectively makes a girl’s virginity the currency of her moral worth. In the words of Lauren Wilson Black, the daughter of Randy Wilson (the founder of the Colorado Springs Purity Ball), without virginity, a woman cannot enter her marriage as a “whole” person. (Robb, 1) These arguments hearken back to medieval requirements of blood on the wedding night bed sheets and monikers of “fallen women”, and “damaged goods”.
However, this is traditionalism with a twist. Not only do girls attend an event with their fathers that seem to be equal mixes of prom, wedding, and church service; they are effectively “dating” them, as fathers model the proper treatment by men for their daughters. (MacLean’s, 2) While spending quality time with their fathers, and learning how to value respect from their partner is inarguably worthwhile, many argue that it is not clear is why this lesson needs to be taught in such a quasi romantic way. (Gillis, 2) There is a demonstrated need for father-daughter activities that reflect a relationship between parent and child, not a relationship between pseudo spouses.
Capitalizing on these new markets of tween regalia and romanticism, a blossoming merchandise industry surrounding the virginity movement has sprung up. Among these companies is “Wait Wear”, an online clothing store that hawks a “chaste couture” line, and prints t-shirts that read “Notice: No trespassing: my father is watching”. (Wait wear.com, 1) Totally apart from the blatant reference to the female wearer of the shirt as “property”, it is difficult to avoid the suggestion of voyeuristic supervision by a father jealously guarding his daughter.
This protection of fragile feminine virtue by patriarchal means is a considerable repeal of evolved sexual and community ethics. To be defined in terms of your worth by a society praising inexperience, virginity, and submission, cannot be regarded in any way but degrading for the women and girls that submit themselves to virginity pledges and purity balls. This modern buying and selling of virginity on the Christian marriage market under the guise of a “fatherhood movement” and family values is fooling no one.
1 88% of pledgers have sex before marriage, as opposed to 99% of non pledgers. (Bearman, 274)