Not the same thing at all - the "promise" in "promise keepers" is that they will be good upstanding people who will keep them damned troublessome women in their place.

I would imagine that some of the Dads here are "promise keepers." Which is to say, ignorant assholes.

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

NOV 16, 2006 10:21 PM

TheGringo said:

Otoki said:
And I do wonder why this isn't as popular a phenomenon with boys.

I can't speak for any church other than the one I had to attend as a kid but I went to a Catholic church which taught that the women had different responsibilites than the men. We even had a newsletter every summer that addressed the females and explained to them what was considered modest and what was immodest.

It was clear to me at that age that our church believed the onus was on the woman to not turn the men on and that the men weren't responsible for their impure thoughts or whatever.

It was those experiences and others which led me to the belief....well, knowledge that religion was an instrument of control and manipulation.

I find it hilarious how many Christians bash the Muslim attitude towards the veil. This is proof that they have the same double-standard, they just don't apply it to head-gear.

binney

I'm lost

July 2005

DEC 01, 2006 11:25 AM

I left this same comment over on the "Christians" group, but I'll duplicate it here just for the sake of adding another perspective to the conversation . . .

So I'm probably a pretty rare creature, in that I'm a Christian, a husband, and a father (of a little girl) who's also an SG member, so my perspective is likely unique around here. I think that there's definitely biblical warrant to the idea a husband/father has primary spiritual responsibility for his household. Naturally, immediate responsibility is also shared among all individuals, but the bottom line still comes down to Dad. This is probably a flawed analogy, but for instance, if Microsoft puts out a shitty product (let's say . . . the Zune ) . . . some engineers and programmers might get blamed or even fired for the sheer crappiness of the product, but in the end, all eyes are still on Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates, because it's their company that put it out. Same goes with families, I think. If, say, my daughter has some sort of struggle or failure that has spiritual implications (which everything does, in at least some sense), the immediate onus is hers, but ultimately, God's eyes are on my wife and I . . . and especially me. Not as a matter of "ownership", but of responsibility, protection, nurture, etc.

My little girl is only three, but we already have "Daddy Date Nights" every week, where she and I go out for ice cream or a trip to the bookstore or something like that, just to hang out. Gives us bonding time and my wife a much-needed break. It's something I want to continue for as long as she's under my roof, but not just to make sure she doesn't let some little punk stick his dong where it doesn't belong. I want her to develop as a young woman . . . as a whole young woman . . . not just one with an intact hymen, but has the rest of her life falling apart.

All that said, it's important for these "Purity Ball" advocates to realize that our sexuality is only one aspect/expression of our spirituality, and while it should definitely be addressed, shoving it to the forefront of all other issues probably isn't wise and can cause more problems that it'll supposedly solve. I've dealt with and counseled teenagers whose entire spiritual self-image hinged on the fact that they were waiting for marriage . . . and when/if they messed up, their entire world fell apart. They had absolutely no concept of grace, despite what they'd supposedly been learning in church and from their parents.

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

DEC 01, 2006 11:46 AM

binney said:
I left this same comment over on the "Christians" group, but I'll duplicate it here just for the sake of adding another perspective to the conversation . . .

So I'm probably a pretty rare creature, in that I'm a Christian, a husband, and a father (of a little girl) who's also an SG member, so my perspective is likely unique around here. I think that there's definitely biblical warrant to the idea a husband/father has primary spiritual responsibility for his household. Naturally, immediate responsibility is also shared among all individuals, but the bottom line still comes down to Dad. This is probably a flawed analogy, but for instance, if Microsoft puts out a shitty product (let's say . . . the Zune ) . . . some engineers and programmers might get blamed or even fired for the sheer crappiness of the product, but in the end, all eyes are still on Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates, because it's their company that put it out. Same goes with families, I think. If, say, my daughter has some sort of struggle or failure that has spiritual implications (which everything does, in at least some sense), the immediate onus is hers, but ultimately, God's eyes are on my wife and I . . . and especially me. Not as a matter of "ownership", but of responsibility, protection, nurture, etc.

My little girl is only three, but we already have "Daddy Date Nights" every week, where she and I go out for ice cream or a trip to the bookstore or something like that, just to hang out. Gives us bonding time and my wife a much-needed break. It's something I want to continue for as long as she's under my roof, but not just to make sure she doesn't let some little punk stick his dong where it doesn't belong. I want her to develop as a young woman . . . as a whole young woman . . . not just one with an intact hymen, but has the rest of her life falling apart.

All that said, it's important for these "Purity Ball" advocates to realize that our sexuality is only one aspect/expression of our spirituality, and while it should definitely be addressed, shoving it to the forefront of all other issues probably isn't wise and can cause more problems that it'll supposedly solve. I've dealt with and counseled teenagers whose entire spiritual self-image hinged on the fact that they were waiting for marriage . . . and when/if they messed up, their entire world fell apart. They had absolutely no concept of grace, despite what they'd supposedly been learning in church and from their parents.

So, lemme ask you. How would you handle it if your daughter wanted to be a Suicide Girl?

edith

France

April 2006

DEC 01, 2006 12:54 PM

um, every heathy and happy father and daugher i know has "date nights" where they hang out and bond and do things together. it's normal, not special or "christian" or novel of you to do things with your daughter. your average person just doesn't call them "date nights" and would never make themselves out to be some important part of their child's future sex life.

the best thing a dad can do is set a good example and be a good person. i don't know many girls who were raised by a strong, kind, wise and loving father who ended up with some sleaze ball. ok, i know a few, but not many. you can't control what your child does and if you do it will just backfire. if you "own" your child's body she will rebel and prove its hers by abusing it. i mean, come on. body ownership is the most basic thing a child is aware of. teach her well and hope for the best.

getting overly involved in your child's body/sex life/whatever just doesn't seem very nice. "some little punk and his dong" has a way of slipping though the cracks when you're dealing with teenagers.

Chainlink

Christmas Island

August 2005

DEC 01, 2006 05:59 PM

edith said:
um, every heathy and happy father and daugher i know has "date nights" where they hang out and bond and do things together. it's normal, not special or "christian" or novel of you to do things with your daughter. your average person just doesn't call them "date nights" and would never make themselves out to be some important part of their child's future sex life.

the best thing a dad can do is set a good example and be a good person. i don't know many girls who were raised by a strong, kind, wise and loving father who ended up with some sleaze ball. ok, i know a few, but not many. you can't control what your child does and if you do it will just backfire. if you "own" your child's body she will rebel and prove its hers by abusing it. i mean, come on. body ownership is the most basic thing a child is aware of. teach her well and hope for the best.

getting overly involved in your child's body/sex life/whatever just doesn't seem very nice. "some little punk and his dong" has a way of slipping though the cracks when you're dealing with teenagers.

" slipping thru the cracks " ?

good one

edith

France

April 2006

DEC 02, 2006 12:14 AM

yeah. ha.

man i have a lot of typos latey.

binney

I'm lost

July 2005

DEC 03, 2006 07:07 AM

NickFaust said:
So, lemme ask you. How would you handle it if your daughter wanted to be a Suicide Girl?

That'd depend on quite a few factors . . . how old she was when she expressed that desire, her motives for wanting to do so, her career aspirations, whether or not she still lived at home, etc etc etc. Regardless, with such a decision (and with any decision, really), I'd want the assurance that she was making is with the mindset of a whole, well-informed, emotionally mature young woman. And that's what I'm trying to raise her as, by God's grace.

Edith said:
um, every heathy and happy father and daugher i know has "date nights" where they hang out and bond and do things together. it's normal, not special or "christian" or novel of you to do things with your daughter. your average person just doesn't call them "date nights" and would never make themselves out to be some important part of their child's future sex life.

the best thing a dad can do is set a good example and be a good person. i don't know many girls who were raised by a strong, kind, wise and loving father who ended up with some sleaze ball. ok, i know a few, but not many. you can't control what your child does and if you do it will just backfire. if you "own" your child's body she will rebel and prove its hers by abusing it. i mean, come on. body ownership is the most basic thing a child is aware of. teach her well and hope for the best.

getting overly involved in your child's body/sex life/whatever just doesn't seem very nice. "some little punk and his dong" has a way of slipping though the cracks when you're dealing with teenagers.

Yeah, I don't think that I implied that dads and daughters spending purposeful, exclusive time with eachother was somehow exclusively Christian. I'm sorry if I left something open for you to infer that.

Anyway, I'm well aware that I can't ultimately "control" the ultimate adult decisions and direction of my children's lives -- any aspect. While they're under my house and my care, though, I'd be remiss not to parent in such a way that reflects and teaches them my values (and their personal value). That doesn't necessarily constitute "over-involvement", I don't think, but that's a relative term anyway.

BostonBootGirl

Hollywood, FL

September 2004

DEC 03, 2006 07:49 AM

muy5 said:
That's an African cutural tradition and thus ineligible for criticism by liberals because it illustrates the rich diversity of something. However, it also involves a woman, thus it's a feminist issue and some of them are liberals. I don't have my liberal value rank sheet, so I don't know who wins in this case, but I suppose we could criticise the practice but still respect the rich history and diversity of the culture that spawned it, that way we all win!

You don't have a "liberal value rank sheet"? Could've fooled me.

BostonBootGirl

Hollywood, FL

September 2004

DEC 03, 2006 08:13 AM

muy5 said:

BurningKrome said:
To the same extent that they currently intervene in other aspects of education, meaning education under the close supervision of professional psychologists and the handful of motivated and educated parents - since if we allowed the entire nation to home school we'd fall back to the stone age.

Oh yeah, because our big city public schools are doing a great job keeping us competitive under the direction of these professional educators. Have you seen the direction of our test scores in any large urban school districts over the last 30 years? If they teach little Johnny about sex as well as they teach him math and science, we're fucked. I guess something has to take a back seat to the self-esteem and cultural sensitivity they teach these days.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem is actually that we've allowed parents to abdicate their responsibility to the nanny state which goes about turning schools into grand social and cultural experiments instead of just teaching the core curriculum that got us by just fine for 200 years. It's a toss up in my mind which is the greater failure, large city public schools or the average American parent. Strike that, it's never a toss up, the government is always the greater failure than the average anything.

First you say it's a toss up. Then you say govt. is the failure. Whichever position you take for the moment, both are ludicrous. Our public schools are certainly no prize but do you really believe parents could do a better job on their own? That assertion, in a country that can barely point out England on a map, is astounding.

I'd love to see how this country fares if the "average anything"....in this case, parents everywhere....were soley responsible for the early basic educations of our children. As faulty as govt. sponsored programs are, it sure beats the scenario you are suggesting.

BostonBootGirl

Hollywood, FL

September 2004

DEC 03, 2006 08:58 AM

NickFaust said:
What is creepy about it, to me, is that the program assumes that the ideal model for woman's perception of a man is her father. Regardless of the good attiributes any dad might have, he has one that a partner should never have - he assumes a paternal role. A father is a parent and so necessarily paternal. By implying that he is the role for men in a woman's life there is also the implication that women need a paternal male in their life, when what women (and men) need is an intimate partner - something a parent should never be.

What is creepy, to me, about this program is its implication that a father has a role in keeping his daughter "pure" until he passes her on to her new master.

Thank you again, Mr. Faust.

As a woman reading this, that is one of the first things I thought of when I viewed the video (I had to go to YouTube since the decency police here evidently lifted it). Sure, it's creepy. Sure, I have a major problem with my tax dollars going to a religious organization. Sure, I think abstinence is a good thing and I certainly don't want young girls getting STD's, pregnant or getting used up. But after you get past the obvious, what is the deep dark premise of these parties?

I appreciate the good intentions of these fathers, but the message to these little girls is that keeping the love of their "fathers" on earth and in heaven is dependent on keeping their sexuality pure. That's pretty damaging, don't you think? Whose vagina is it, anyway?? Not to mention the whole issue of the Christian ideal of the subservience of women to their fathers and future husbands. I don't want my daughter (if I had one) growing up thinking God or Daddy or Husband won't love her if she loses her virginity or has sexy thoughts. Is a woman's acceptance as a person really dependent on her chastity? The absence of Mom at these events is also rather telling. Is she darning socks on the Puritan homestead or something?

If that's what some people really want in their lives, that's fine. But I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if my tax dollars were going to a secular organization that included abstinence advocation AND basic sexual health education. If these Christians want to have Virgin Prom Princess Parties, they should do it via their supporters and churches, and not the public dollar.

Oh.....and one more thing.....what are these dads doing to teach their sons about respecting the girls they will inevitably meet and controlling that teenage male urge?

Bastardo

Boston, MA

January 2005

DEC 03, 2006 09:35 AM

Markus001 said:

I'm a Christian, and when I was at school I had to put up with countless atheists trying to force me into saying I didn't believe.

Yeah, we're prone to ganging up on the minority.