That “Integrity Balls,” the male counterpart to daddy/daughter “Purity Balls,” are intended to extract vows from boys to preserve women’s chastity instead of their own is just… I dunno, it goes against all but maybe the first 100 and the last 100 years of Christianity’s tradition with chastity. From St. Anthony and the early Church Fathers of Scetis, Egypt to the American Harvey Kellogg and Muscular Christianity, men’s chastity has been at least as important as women’s and often far, far, far more so.
Yes, the older world order was no more respectful of women — until maybe the 1700’s they were considered utterly immoral and therefore willing to copulate, at the drop of the hat, with any man too weak-willed to resist their wiles (if their families somehow left them unchaperoned.) And yes, the latter-day fantasies of Dr. Graham (of Graham crackers) and Dr. Kellogg (of Kellogg’s corn flakes) that a single ejaculation was equivalent of losing a pint of blood were beyond mentally ill.
But the fact remains that until very recently indeed chastity (as opposed to pre-marital virginity) was primarily the domain of men.
And therefore the fact that modern-day chastity movements has so completely detached itself from male chastity is just depraved.
Humorous side note #1: ‘Member in the movie Dr. Strangelove where the suicidal Gen. Jack D. Ripper goes off on a screed about the need to protect men’s “precious bodily fluids?” While it seemed bizarre by the 1960s, when the movie was made, and sounds utterly daft today, it was routine medical advice in the 1890s when it was believed, for instance, that excessive “conjugal endeavors with one’s spouse” — say a “depraved” 12 times a year — meant certain insanity and death.
Humorous side note #2: Westerners aren’t the only ones to believe in “semen conservation.” For instance it’s one of the foundations of Hinduism. (It’s also pretty central to Taoism, Buddhism, and a number of South American shamanistic principles. Withholding ejaculation was a huge motivation behind the development of Tantric sex.) Anyway, in the Ayurvedic medical tradition of India loss of semen through ejaculation is also a big health risk for men. And now that women are allegedly ejaculating it seems they too are now at risk. According to the Llewellyn Journal, in an article about women and tantra, “...we are aware of one contemporary neo-Tantric teacher who claims that female ejaculation causes cervical cancer…”




Submitted by 1171 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-01-26 14:10.
"...we are aware of one contemporary neo-Tantric teacher who claims that female ejaculation causes cervical cancer..."
That'll be a rigorously tested hypothesis then. Elesewhere I even managed to find the reverse: that female ejaculation might protect against cervical cancer (backed up by an equal amount of evidence).
[Well, yeah, in the first place -- from a physiological perspective -- the whole semen-conservation thing is daft to begin with as a corresponding "semen investment" philosophy would be. To try and translate that to something different in women that happens to have been given the same *label* is... well, let's say it nicely illustrates our ability to adhere to ideas that don't really fit the evidence. Thanks, A. --fl]
Submitted by 1171 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-01-26 20:58.
Good grief, can you believe the crap that some ppl come out with.
It seems to me that in the 1890's, excessive conjugal activities NOT with the spouse could certainly lead to insanity and death, but today we have Penicillin, so no excuse now.
Frankly, as biological beings both men and women are programmed to be the opposite of chaste, oh damn, can't think of the word for that, oh yes that's it, normal.
[Actually I think the opposite of what we think most people are is "incredibly varied." That variety happens to *include* total abstience since that works for some people. It's just a mistake to assume any one size will fit all, though. For every happily active person there's a happily abstient one, and the same goes for every other level of sexual activity. Thanks, Astra. --fl]
Submitted by 1171 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-01-26 23:07.
You always have the best intellectual sex discussions here, figleaf.
[Thank you, DFP! --fl]
Submitted by 1171 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-01-27 19:09.
Frankly, as biological beings both men and women are programmed to be the opposite of chaste
Technically, though, "chaste" means not so much abstinent as "having only the sort of sex that you're supposed to have." So you could have sex every day and still be chaste. Except if you happen to be in one of those categories of people that your group's chastity standards don't allow to have sex.
[Interesting, Lynn. And it turns out the first definition of "chaste" really is only "morally pure." Based on my contention that "prude" means someone who has less sex than they feel comfortable with, and a "slut" as someone who has more than makes them comfortable, then yeah, "chaste" -- just enough -- might hit the right spot. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 1171 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-01-28 02:14.
Well, the dictionary gives me
"chaste:
• adjective 1 abstaining from extramarital, or from all, sexual intercourse. "
but I was actually thinking of it meaning what you said, however biology would have us promiscuous for genetic diversity, it's societies that impose conditions on it, some of them for the protection of offspring, ie avoiding disease, others just to have power over reproduction.
[Yeah, in a way it doesn't matter what the word *originally* meant. Though it's fun to point out that's because the current use is degenerate. :-) Thanks, Astra. --fl]
Submitted by 1171 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-01-28 13:42.
OK, I can agree with you there. Even the kinds of limitations on our sex lives that we've got to abide by to be responsible people (who make sure we don't hurt other people, conceive kids that we later abandon, etc.) don't come exactly naturally, given how much our genes want us to reproduce.
[I'd just add that it's also complicated because we seem to use elements of sex, as we use elements of eating, for social as well as reproductive reasons. I suspect very, *very* few people male or female actively want to raise children with more than one person. It's just all the other things we can do with the parts. (I certainly think that if sex weren't linked to reproduction almost everyone would probably be more comfortable doing it more than one individual... though it might make Thanksgiving and Superbowl afternoons a little more complicated.) Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 1171 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-01-28 16:43.
Female ejaculation leads to cervical cancer? Only if by "female ejaculation" they mean "HPV."
[Yeah, if the whole thing isn't utterly made up it's certainly not been presented in credible journals. Thanks, Shakes. --fl]