COMMENTS: 84
'Born-Again Virginity' in the Age of Girls Gone Wild
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.
Born-again virgins, usually young people with a sexual past pledging to start fresh and commit to abstinence, take endless abuse on MySpace. Here, in Web pages filled with youthful accounts of hook-ups, parties and daily minutiae, writers muse over what constitutes born-again virginity, tongue planted firmly in cheek. Is it a year without sex, or as Ramona (above) might suggest, something more short term?
"I used to have a roommate who was a 'born-again virgin'," one Myspace user asserts in a typical posting, " -- what a crock of shit that was." Popular depictions of born-again virgins do little to add credibility. For example, Luanne from the animated sitcom "King of the Hill" vowed in a church ceremony never again to have premarital sex. A later episode depicted her pregnant, however.
Further reinforcing doubts are provocative musical treatments like singer Noa Tylo's 2001 album, "Born Again Virgin," which one reviewer called "a dark and broody dance-music exploration of sexual intensity." Hardly monastic!
Meanwhile, singer-songwriter Cindy Alexander's song "Born Again Virgin" begins, "Hey it's nice to meet you/I'm a born-again virgin" and later proposes, none too coyly, that "maybe we could touch." (Blame it on Madonna's 1984 hit, "Like a Virgin.")
Rooted in Evangelical dogma, born-again virginity has become easy to mock. But, for a large number of teens, abstinence supporters -- and, surprisingly, a cadre of mature single women - born-again virginity is no laughing matter. What, then, is the appeal of born-again virginity, and does it work?
AKA 'secondary virginity'
Born-again virginity originated from chastity campaigns organized by Evangelical Christians in the early 1990s. Currently groups such as Silver Ring Thing (www. silverringthing. com) and Worth the Wait (www. iamworththewait. org) promote teen abstinence on a massive scale, encouraging young people to take virginity pledges and seal the deal with wallet pledge cards and purity rings.
Does pledging work? In the short term, yes. But not in the long term, which is where born-again virginity comes into play. Abstinence pledges are successful with young and mid-adolescents, often delaying sex by 18 months, according to a 2001 study by sociologists Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner. Still, a follow-up study by the same authors showed that 88 percent of pledge-takers eventually had premarital sex.
"Secondary" or "renewed" virginity, then, may be a key retention strategy of the abstinence movement because it allows fallen pledge-takers back into the fold.
Virginity pledgers who break their vows are welcomed home with the proviso that they stop having sex and re-commit to abstinence: "If you have already had sex," it says on the Worth the Wait Web site, "don't throw in the towel just yet. You CAN start over and take a vow of renewed abstinence." Silver Ring Thing offers a similar message: "We recognize the fact that many students who attend the SRT are or have been sexually active, and they need to know if it is possible to begin again. The answer is YES, YOU CAN START OVER and, in fact, for this reason many students attend our program."
In this way, pledge groups touting secondary virginity operate in much the same way as Alcoholics Anonymous, which positions itself as a support system for all problem drinkers -- whether they are on, or off, the wagon.
Seriously, born-again virginity
There is a strong argument to be made on behalf of women -- Christian or not -- taking control of their bodies and making choices that are right for them.
This is essentially the approach that author Wendy Keller took in her 1999 book The Cult of the Born-Again Virgin. Keller had been working as a successful literary agent and stumbled onto born-again virginity in a social circle where you might least expect it: among 30- and 40-something high-powered career women. Rather than emulating Sex and the City's Samantha Jones, who uses her sexual prowess to dominate men and feel powerful, the women depicted in Keller's book had decided that taking themselves off the dating treadmill would empower them, and it did.
"I was at a cocktail party in Philly with a client at a friend's house," Keller recalls. "A woman was there who was dynamic and vivacious and successful and pretty. I asked if she was dating anybody and she said, 'No, I'm a born-again virgin and believe in being celibate until I find the right guy.'" Keller's first thought was to avoid the woman but when she heard the term again at a brunch in New York City and then later in Malibu, she knew she was on to something. She began researching born-again virginity and developed a self-help book advocating it.
Her book encourages women to stop using the pursuit of men as an excuse to avoid confronting their own problems. After it was published, Keller recalls, "There was a nuclear explosion." She appeared on hundreds of radio shows and garnered an overwhelming response: "I had everything from teenagers calling me on the radio crying because they'd had sex with nine boys and needed to make better choices to husbands saying, 'My wife has decided to become a born-again virgin.'"
Keller found herself under attack from different camps: Playboy and Maxim chided her for her supposed prudishness because she advised sexual restraint. Meanwhile, Christian broadcasters were incensed that she would not advocate premarital abstinence.
"I got a lot of heat from the Christian community because I would not say it's a good idea to be celibate until married. It [premarital abstinence] was a bad choice for me. There were people who had made that choice and paid a high price for it," Keller says. "The way I see it, the born-again virginity movement is temporary celibacy, and it's about not waiting for a man to fix every aspect of your life. The point is to get your life working."
Sex, lies and born-again virginity
Recent research raises troubling conclusions about the way teens practice secondary virginity. Janet Rosenbaum, a doctoral candidate at Harvard University, last June published findings in the American Journal of Public Health that adolescents are prone to recanting virginity and secondary virginity pledges. She found that those who take pledges are likely to recant their sexual histories.
By documenting the extent to which young people lie about their sexual experiences, her findings raise concern over whether teens might take their virginity renewal literally, believing that if they stop having sex they can conceal their past from a spouse or doctor and, in so doing, spread or ignore STDs.
Perhaps this concern highlights a need to reinvent born-again virginity so that it does a better job meeting the needs of the people who choose it. First, teens need to know that born-again virginity doesn't mean they can pretend they never had sex and leave diseases undetected and untreated. Second, born-again virginity should be a feminist-inspired route to autonomy of mind and body: a recourse for adolescent girls seduced by exploitative and ultimately fraudulent media depictions of youth sexuality. In this era of porn on-demand and girls-gone-wild, it's easy for girls to believe that early promiscuity will make them powerful, when it is more likely to lead to unplanned pregnancy and STDs, if not shattered self-esteem.
Third, every young woman deserves candid conversations -- not about purity for the sake of her future husband -- but about desire, responsibility, self-respect and self-determination. For herself.
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 20, 2007 1:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it is no surprise young people, looking so attractive to each other, would want to bed each other. The sex made me feel good about myself, helped with all the exam stress I was under (I was trying to get my grades up because I wanted to go to an ivy league university and I was coming from the ghetto). 99 percent of the liberals on here can't even come close to understanding how stressful that is for somebody who is 16 or 17.
Taking sex away seems especially cruel and dishonest. As much as I had sex in high school, it was unbelievable in university.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: fork
» father-daughter purity balls
Posted by: DeeOhGee
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: l_m_n
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: lissajayne
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: shaicapone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Mar 20, 2007 1:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Chastity??
Posted by: Ayla87
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erik1968 on Mar 20, 2007 2:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex is complicated. To be simply pro or anti sex is just dumb. Everyone has sex before marriage, and they have forever. Even the pilgrims had bundling!
The issue isn't abstinence per se, but whether women should be allowed to make their own decisions, and be informed, abotu their own sexuality. Despite the age of "girls gone wild," (and in some ways, because of it) women still have a long way to go. When choosing to pursue goals and "going wild" are considered two sides of the same coin, the space for freedom is narrowing, not growing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The two concepts are not the same
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: The two concepts are not the same
Posted by: jaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea on Mar 20, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the flip side, those who do not engage in sex, or who think it should be oppressed, are not to be trusted. They are nothing more than pods, fake humans, without soul. These are the people who start wars for "whatever," believe that killing others in the name of religion or nationalism is justified, and exhibit greed on a daily basis. These people hate enlightenment; they are the "anti-humans. "
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: Sunfell
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: lively56
» Enlightenment
Posted by: hbw
» The Dalai Lama, "anti-human" hater of enlightenment
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ktm on Mar 20, 2007 6:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and i don't think this movement is healthy for that reason. breaking the virginity vow (once or twice or however many times), which the author admits is frequent, only furthers to make the girl (or woman) feel as if she has betrayed herself or her father or her future husband or some other hideous damaging lie. if you really want to pour some effort into healthy sexual choices, please pour it into supporting the movement AGAINST abstinence only education.
and what about the ones who break the vow of secondary virginity? is their chance at an empowering sexuality gone? how many chances do you get? regardless, putting a limit on sexual experiences only serves to throw judgement on those who break the vow or opt out of taking it.
this might be the right choice for a woman who knows herself, her temptations, and how strong her will is, but i would hazard a guess that an adolscent who has already slipped into 'sexual sin' before will find it a very hard standard to uphold and will probably suffer more damage as the result of not being able to keep the vow a second time.
i think our empowerment should come from confidence in our sexual choices, no matter what they might be. And i do not think that that is the motivating force behind the 'worththewait' and the 'silverringthing'. their motivation comes from categorizing 'good' and 'bad' sexuality, not educating women about their sexual choices. empowerment, at least for me, has come from the realization that MY sexuality is MY choice.
just because the religious right and feminist movement is temporarily aligned in this abstinence by choice/empowerment of choices virginity does not mean that each are doing it for the correct reasons. education and empowerment should always remain our focus.
placing judgement or guilt on a natural biological urge will not now, nor ever be an educational or empowering thing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: empowerment or guilt?
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: empowerment or guilt?
Posted by: lively56
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 20, 2007 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first opinion is that ANYTHING that stops teens from becoming parents is a great idea so if these kids want to do abstinence or born-again virginity or whatever, fine with me, as long as they're not spewing out babies.
My second opinion is this: teens and young people are going to have sex. We are biological sex machines. It's what we DO. It's why we are here on the planet-to reproduce. Sadly. I'd much rather see programs supporting family planning, free birth control in schools, etc.. that programs shoving re-abstinence down kid's throats.
Either way, there are far too many people on the planet. I, for one, am a non-breeder at 44. So as long as whoever is having sex is doing it safely, consentually, and with BIRTH CONTROL, cool.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Tatarize
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: drmflorida
» for Tatarize
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Contradictions...
Posted by: hbw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sunfell on Mar 20, 2007 6:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The original meaning of the word 'virgin' meant a woman who was not pregnant, a woman who belonged to herself. Such women might have sex, but manage to avoid both pregnancy and being bound to a man.
Today, the word 'virgin' has become a word riddled with religious connotations. So has 'celibate'. But the act of deliberately eschewing sex and the energy expended in pursuing it is a very empowering one, and should not be tossed aside because of its religious links.
This does not mean becoming 'anti-sex', or some sort of celibate zealot. The choice to eschew sex should be a personal one, taken with deliberation and the desire to nurture yourself. It is an empowering thing, a profound secret, a place of healing and growth. You don't have to make elaborate vows or wear silly jewlery. You simply close that door and move on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» interesting comment
Posted by: off-the-radar 2
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 20, 2007 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SOME WOMEN WON'T BUY INTO
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SOME WOMEN WON'T BUY INTO
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Guy on Mar 20, 2007 8:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» If I have sex with my gay boyfriend to convert him....
Posted by: xgroverx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SayBlade on Mar 20, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins tears into the intelligent design idjits. I feel bad about piling on—almost. Hey, intelligent design idjits? If God really wants us to have heterosexual sex only, and then only within the bounds of holy matrimony, and if adultery offends Him so much—it's a stoning offense, right up there with gay sex—how come He designed men and women to be sexually incompatible?
"Well, I should say that He designed straight men and straight women to be sexually incompatible. Lesbian couples, with their bags of Doritos, and gay couples, with our mutually insatiable sexual appetites, seem pretty intelligently designed. Thank you, Jesus!"
The burden of sexual temptation is carried largely by women. Young women and girls must be horribly confused by a society that blames them for rampant sex and yet told to preserve their virginity for marriage, when it is the young men and boys who have the larger part of the sexual energy that drives much of the sexual activity. Meanwhile, while the young men and boys may be taught that virginity is a good thing, they tend to escape the kind of blame that the young women and girls must shoulder.
This is not a right or wrong statement about youthful sexual activity, but a recognition that society and culture are what determine how negative outcomes (pregnancy, disease) are viewed and treated.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 20, 2007 9:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was an interesting article, in particular because I couldn't put a finger on the author's exact bias. That's an exemplary trait for an expository essay, and it was a surprising treat to find on this website. One note of contention:
Second, born-again virginity should be a feminist-inspired route to autonomy of mind and body: a recourse for adolescent girls seduced by exploitative and ultimately fraudulent media depictions of youth sexuality.
In circles with fewer X-chromosomes, this is covered under the topic of "keeping your willy in your pants". The verbiage to describe this approach, in contrast with the author's offering above, does not wax nearly so poetic, nor does it satisfy the insatiable need for an indictment of "society" as a requisite preamble to what I find on the whole (so to speak) to be genuinely agreeable propositions.
Where the more direct approach shines, on the other hand, is to place the focus on the individual making choices that are less destructive for himself and those around him: the impetus to make "humanist" choices, versus highly codified and exclusionary "feminist" ones.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My understanding is that what other people choose to do with their naughty bits...
Posted by: freedom_rings
» RE: My understanding is that what other people choose to do with their naughty bits...
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 20, 2007 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Mar 20, 2007 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Promiscuity is relentlessly hyped by our corporate culture (and is a fine choice for some) but for many other people, it is not the right path.
So promoting abstinence (or waiting!) is a very valid option---for women and men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: thoughtful article
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hhunt on Mar 20, 2007 10:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 20, 2007 10:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
• GGW vs. Virginity, ("born-again"?! WTF?)
• celibacy vs. lack of self-control
• sex as lack of autonomy vs. no-sex as virtue
Good grief, what a bunch of complete stoopid this entire concept is that there is one or the other of any of these things. The species is utterly doomed if that's truly the case.
What I get from this article is that the whole notion of virginity and celibacy (outside of a cultural construct for specific individualized purposes) is just making shit up to compensate for emotional and sexual illiteracy. It sounds as grossly unhealthy and pre-pubescent as GGW.
Is there any way we can get an RFID tag for these folks to wear so normal humans can avoid them, or at least offer some therapeutic assistance? Seems to me, neither approach to sex and sexuality is very useful, the author's meager attempt at the same notwithstanding.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "...compensate for emotional and sexual illiteracy." As in "As American as...."?
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SayBlade on Mar 20, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One CANNOT become a born-again virgin - it is physiologicallly impossible without surgery. One can be born-again chaste. To encourage women to think that they are physically virgins after having sex is to confuse the day-lights out of them. They can change their future behavior but not the RESULT of previous behavior."
People also retain the memory of what they did and so does the person with/to whom they did it!
While the means test for determining virginity in a woman is only somewhat reliable (horsey riding and swmming can bust a hymen, too), I'd like to see a means test to determine whether a man can prove he is a virgin.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 20, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
P.S.: I'm glad I was armed with education all the way to grad school to take survive this brutal world. Job security is a joke in America as it is and every Alternet user knows that when one or the other partner is a victim of it, that can damper a good relationship.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: As a male, I was pretty darn good at TOTAL abstinence. In fact,
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmeow on Mar 20, 2007 12:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when did not having sex equal not dating. How is someone going to "find the right guy" unless they are open to dating? And why did she need to announce this. The question was "are you seeing anyone" not "are you sexually active?"
I know this quote was just to explain Keller's interest in exploring this phenomenon but to me it illustrates an underlying problem with the "born-again virgin" movement. What I see in this woman is someone who connects dating with sex (suggesting that she tended to jump into sexual relationships very quickly in the dating process) and identifies herself in terms of whether she's having sex or not (not necessarily in terms of her sexuality but from a much narrower perspective). What I take from this is that she (and other women who have embraced the "born-again virgin" movement) is not dealing with her sexuality or her issues around her sexuality but is merely trying to exert control over one relatively narrow aspect of sexual behavior. While there is nothing wrong with trying to exert control over one's sexual behavior, doing so without addressing deeper issues with one's sexuality is only likely to be successful in the short-term.
I think there is a big difference between chosing to be celibate and calling yourself a born-again virgin. I see chosing to be celibate (for whatever reason) as empowering but do not feel that being a born-again virgin is empowering (the one exception is with girls/women who have been sexually abused ... especially those who lost their virginity through rape ... if it is a way of separating who they are from the abuse). To me, being a born-again virgin is buying into a moral attitude about sexuality that is paternalistic and controlling.
Finally, what does being celibate or a born-again virgin mean? Does it just mean not having P-V sex (e.g., oral, etc, is OK)? Does it mean not having any sexual contact (P-V, oral, anal, heavy petting)? Does it mean not having any sexual contact or any contact that might lead to sexual behavior (e.g., no kissing, either)? Does it mean not having orgasms or sex (no masturbation or fantasy allowed)? I'm sure it means something different to everyone who adopts it which is also one of the flaws with the whole movement.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: celibate = not dating either?
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» RE: celibate = not dating either?
Posted by: mizkaye
» www.virginityproject.typepad.com - would anyone like to contribute a story?
Posted by: KateMonro
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madaha on Mar 20, 2007 1:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madaha on Mar 20, 2007 1:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frank67 on Mar 20, 2007 2:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: frank67
Posted by: Monk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Idunno on Mar 20, 2007 5:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I can' believe no one noticed and commented on...
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I can' believe no one noticed and commented on...
Posted by: Idunno
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xgroverx on Mar 20, 2007 8:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Anti-Feminist?
Posted by: Libertine
» RE: Anti-Feminist?
Posted by: xgroverx
» read it again
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: read it again
Posted by: xgroverx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Mar 21, 2007 4:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I told my daighter and son when they were about twelf years old that kissing and caressing with the right person was OK.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: what do you mean with SEX???????
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: what do you mean with SEX???????
Posted by: Idunno
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edraven on Mar 21, 2007 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex is good, and fun - - not EVIL.
We should learn how to have great sex in school.
Churches and presidents should stop twisting our minds with crap.
Virgin is a made-up concept to cause guilt. The word has no meaning otherwise.
Other words like: Abstinence, Chaste, Born Again, WWJD, Slut (and all of its variations), and Sin - - are stupid, hurtful, and controlling.
Why do you all (well, most of you) buy into things that are designed to hurt you?
Ed Graham
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mizkaye on Mar 21, 2007 12:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Mar 22, 2007 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like buying 'organic', if I'm gonna pay more for a 'virgin' I want it to be properly certified.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's all about marketing
Posted by: mizkaye
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ateo on Mar 24, 2007 4:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think I'll wait until I've bought a house and can afford to "buy" a wife. A hot little 18 or 19 year old from Russia will do just fine thank you very much.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Mar 25, 2007 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THAT is why the religious are so hung up on other people's sexuality. THAT is how you can get them to drink any kind of Kool-Aid...such as going to war for no reason and/or believing that your Invisible Friend in the Sky wants you to do...whatever.
Another reason in the very full barrel of hypocrisy and BS of the religious...their barrel of "good" reasons to be religious is quite empty these days.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KateMonro on Apr 16, 2007 5:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 20, 2007 1:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it is no surprise young people, looking so attractive to each other, would want to bed each other. The sex made me feel good about myself, helped with all the exam stress I was under (I was trying to get my grades up because I wanted to go to an ivy league university and I was coming from the ghetto). 99 percent of the liberals on here can't even come close to understanding how stressful that is for somebody who is 16 or 17.
Taking sex away seems especially cruel and dishonest. As much as I had sex in high school, it was unbelievable in university.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: fork
» father-daughter purity balls
Posted by: DeeOhGee
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: l_m_n
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: lissajayne
» RE: Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: shaicapone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Mar 20, 2007 1:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Chastity??
Posted by: Ayla87
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erik1968 on Mar 20, 2007 2:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex is complicated. To be simply pro or anti sex is just dumb. Everyone has sex before marriage, and they have forever. Even the pilgrims had bundling!
The issue isn't abstinence per se, but whether women should be allowed to make their own decisions, and be informed, abotu their own sexuality. Despite the age of "girls gone wild," (and in some ways, because of it) women still have a long way to go. When choosing to pursue goals and "going wild" are considered two sides of the same coin, the space for freedom is narrowing, not growing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The two concepts are not the same
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: The two concepts are not the same
Posted by: jaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea on Mar 20, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the flip side, those who do not engage in sex, or who think it should be oppressed, are not to be trusted. They are nothing more than pods, fake humans, without soul. These are the people who start wars for "whatever," believe that killing others in the name of religion or nationalism is justified, and exhibit greed on a daily basis. These people hate enlightenment; they are the "anti-humans. "
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: Sunfell
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: lively56
» Enlightenment
Posted by: hbw
» The Dalai Lama, "anti-human" hater of enlightenment
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ktm on Mar 20, 2007 6:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and i don't think this movement is healthy for that reason. breaking the virginity vow (once or twice or however many times), which the author admits is frequent, only furthers to make the girl (or woman) feel as if she has betrayed herself or her father or her future husband or some other hideous damaging lie. if you really want to pour some effort into healthy sexual choices, please pour it into supporting the movement AGAINST abstinence only education.
and what about the ones who break the vow of secondary virginity? is their chance at an empowering sexuality gone? how many chances do you get? regardless, putting a limit on sexual experiences only serves to throw judgement on those who break the vow or opt out of taking it.
this might be the right choice for a woman who knows herself, her temptations, and how strong her will is, but i would hazard a guess that an adolscent who has already slipped into 'sexual sin' before will find it a very hard standard to uphold and will probably suffer more damage as the result of not being able to keep the vow a second time.
i think our empowerment should come from confidence in our sexual choices, no matter what they might be. And i do not think that that is the motivating force behind the 'worththewait' and the 'silverringthing'. their motivation comes from categorizing 'good' and 'bad' sexuality, not educating women about their sexual choices. empowerment, at least for me, has come from the realization that MY sexuality is MY choice.
just because the religious right and feminist movement is temporarily aligned in this abstinence by choice/empowerment of choices virginity does not mean that each are doing it for the correct reasons. education and empowerment should always remain our focus.
placing judgement or guilt on a natural biological urge will not now, nor ever be an educational or empowering thing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: empowerment or guilt?
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: empowerment or guilt?
Posted by: lively56
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 20, 2007 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first opinion is that ANYTHING that stops teens from becoming parents is a great idea so if these kids want to do abstinence or born-again virginity or whatever, fine with me, as long as they're not spewing out babies.
My second opinion is this: teens and young people are going to have sex. We are biological sex machines. It's what we DO. It's why we are here on the planet-to reproduce. Sadly. I'd much rather see programs supporting family planning, free birth control in schools, etc.. that programs shoving re-abstinence down kid's throats.
Either way, there are far too many people on the planet. I, for one, am a non-breeder at 44. So as long as whoever is having sex is doing it safely, consentually, and with BIRTH CONTROL, cool.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Tatarize
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Abstinence *only* is child abuse.
Posted by: drmflorida
» for Tatarize
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Contradictions...
Posted by: hbw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sunfell on Mar 20, 2007 6:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The original meaning of the word 'virgin' meant a woman who was not pregnant, a woman who belonged to herself. Such women might have sex, but manage to avoid both pregnancy and being bound to a man.
Today, the word 'virgin' has become a word riddled with religious connotations. So has 'celibate'. But the act of deliberately eschewing sex and the energy expended in pursuing it is a very empowering one, and should not be tossed aside because of its religious links.
This does not mean becoming 'anti-sex', or some sort of celibate zealot. The choice to eschew sex should be a personal one, taken with deliberation and the desire to nurture yourself. It is an empowering thing, a profound secret, a place of healing and growth. You don't have to make elaborate vows or wear silly jewlery. You simply close that door and move on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» interesting comment
Posted by: off-the-radar 2
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 20, 2007 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SOME WOMEN WON'T BUY INTO
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SOME WOMEN WON'T BUY INTO
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Guy on Mar 20, 2007 8:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» If I have sex with my gay boyfriend to convert him....
Posted by: xgroverx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SayBlade on Mar 20, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins tears into the intelligent design idjits. I feel bad about piling on—almost. Hey, intelligent design idjits? If God really wants us to have heterosexual sex only, and then only within the bounds of holy matrimony, and if adultery offends Him so much—it's a stoning offense, right up there with gay sex—how come He designed men and women to be sexually incompatible?
"Well, I should say that He designed straight men and straight women to be sexually incompatible. Lesbian couples, with their bags of Doritos, and gay couples, with our mutually insatiable sexual appetites, seem pretty intelligently designed. Thank you, Jesus!"
The burden of sexual temptation is carried largely by women. Young women and girls must be horribly confused by a society that blames them for rampant sex and yet told to preserve their virginity for marriage, when it is the young men and boys who have the larger part of the sexual energy that drives much of the sexual activity. Meanwhile, while the young men and boys may be taught that virginity is a good thing, they tend to escape the kind of blame that the young women and girls must shoulder.
This is not a right or wrong statement about youthful sexual activity, but a recognition that society and culture are what determine how negative outcomes (pregnancy, disease) are viewed and treated.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 20, 2007 9:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was an interesting article, in particular because I couldn't put a finger on the author's exact bias. That's an exemplary trait for an expository essay, and it was a surprising treat to find on this website. One note of contention:
Second, born-again virginity should be a feminist-inspired route to autonomy of mind and body: a recourse for adolescent girls seduced by exploitative and ultimately fraudulent media depictions of youth sexuality.
In circles with fewer X-chromosomes, this is covered under the topic of "keeping your willy in your pants". The verbiage to describe this approach, in contrast with the author's offering above, does not wax nearly so poetic, nor does it satisfy the insatiable need for an indictment of "society" as a requisite preamble to what I find on the whole (so to speak) to be genuinely agreeable propositions.
Where the more direct approach shines, on the other hand, is to place the focus on the individual making choices that are less destructive for himself and those around him: the impetus to make "humanist" choices, versus highly codified and exclusionary "feminist" ones.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My understanding is that what other people choose to do with their naughty bits...
Posted by: freedom_rings
» RE: My understanding is that what other people choose to do with their naughty bits...
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 20, 2007 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Mar 20, 2007 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Promiscuity is relentlessly hyped by our corporate culture (and is a fine choice for some) but for many other people, it is not the right path.
So promoting abstinence (or waiting!) is a very valid option---for women and men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: thoughtful article
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hhunt on Mar 20, 2007 10:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 20, 2007 10:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
• GGW vs. Virginity, ("born-again"?! WTF?)
• celibacy vs. lack of self-control
• sex as lack of autonomy vs. no-sex as virtue
Good grief, what a bunch of complete stoopid this entire concept is that there is one or the other of any of these things. The species is utterly doomed if that's truly the case.
What I get from this article is that the whole notion of virginity and celibacy (outside of a cultural construct for specific individualized purposes) is just making shit up to compensate for emotional and sexual illiteracy. It sounds as grossly unhealthy and pre-pubescent as GGW.
Is there any way we can get an RFID tag for these folks to wear so normal humans can avoid them, or at least offer some therapeutic assistance? Seems to me, neither approach to sex and sexuality is very useful, the author's meager attempt at the same notwithstanding.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "...compensate for emotional and sexual illiteracy." As in "As American as...."?
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SayBlade on Mar 20, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One CANNOT become a born-again virgin - it is physiologicallly impossible without surgery. One can be born-again chaste. To encourage women to think that they are physically virgins after having sex is to confuse the day-lights out of them. They can change their future behavior but not the RESULT of previous behavior."
People also retain the memory of what they did and so does the person with/to whom they did it!
While the means test for determining virginity in a woman is only somewhat reliable (horsey riding and swmming can bust a hymen, too), I'd like to see a means test to determine whether a man can prove he is a virgin.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 20, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
P.S.: I'm glad I was armed with education all the way to grad school to take survive this brutal world. Job security is a joke in America as it is and every Alternet user knows that when one or the other partner is a victim of it, that can damper a good relationship.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: As a male, I was pretty darn good at TOTAL abstinence. In fact,
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmeow on Mar 20, 2007 12:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when did not having sex equal not dating. How is someone going to "find the right guy" unless they are open to dating? And why did she need to announce this. The question was "are you seeing anyone" not "are you sexually active?"
I know this quote was just to explain Keller's interest in exploring this phenomenon but to me it illustrates an underlying problem with the "born-again virgin" movement. What I see in this woman is someone who connects dating with sex (suggesting that she tended to jump into sexual relationships very quickly in the dating process) and identifies herself in terms of whether she's having sex or not (not necessarily in terms of her sexuality but from a much narrower perspective). What I take from this is that she (and other women who have embraced the "born-again virgin" movement) is not dealing with her sexuality or her issues around her sexuality but is merely trying to exert control over one relatively narrow aspect of sexual behavior. While there is nothing wrong with trying to exert control over one's sexual behavior, doing so without addressing deeper issues with one's sexuality is only likely to be successful in the short-term.
I think there is a big difference between chosing to be celibate and calling yourself a born-again virgin. I see chosing to be celibate (for whatever reason) as empowering but do not feel that being a born-again virgin is empowering (the one exception is with girls/women who have been sexually abused ... especially those who lost their virginity through rape ... if it is a way of separating who they are from the abuse). To me, being a born-again virgin is buying into a moral attitude about sexuality that is paternalistic and controlling.
Finally, what does being celibate or a born-again virgin mean? Does it just mean not having P-V sex (e.g., oral, etc, is OK)? Does it mean not having any sexual contact (P-V, oral, anal, heavy petting)? Does it mean not having any sexual contact or any contact that might lead to sexual behavior (e.g., no kissing, either)? Does it mean not having orgasms or sex (no masturbation or fantasy allowed)? I'm sure it means something different to everyone who adopts it which is also one of the flaws with the whole movement.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: celibate = not dating either?
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» RE: celibate = not dating either?
Posted by: mizkaye
» www.virginityproject.typepad.com - would anyone like to contribute a story?
Posted by: KateMonro
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madaha on Mar 20, 2007 1:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madaha on Mar 20, 2007 1:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frank67 on Mar 20, 2007 2:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: frank67
Posted by: Monk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Idunno on Mar 20, 2007 5:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I can' believe no one noticed and commented on...
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I can' believe no one noticed and commented on...
Posted by: Idunno
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xgroverx on Mar 20, 2007 8:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Anti-Feminist?
Posted by: Libertine
» RE: Anti-Feminist?
Posted by: xgroverx
» read it again
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: read it again
Posted by: xgroverx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Mar 21, 2007 4:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I told my daighter and son when they were about twelf years old that kissing and caressing with the right person was OK.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: what do you mean with SEX???????
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: what do you mean with SEX???????
Posted by: Idunno
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edraven on Mar 21, 2007 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex is good, and fun - - not EVIL.
We should learn how to have great sex in school.
Churches and presidents should stop twisting our minds with crap.
Virgin is a made-up concept to cause guilt. The word has no meaning otherwise.
Other words like: Abstinence, Chaste, Born Again, WWJD, Slut (and all of its variations), and Sin - - are stupid, hurtful, and controlling.
Why do you all (well, most of you) buy into things that are designed to hurt you?
Ed Graham
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mizkaye on Mar 21, 2007 12:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Mar 22, 2007 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like buying 'organic', if I'm gonna pay more for a 'virgin' I want it to be properly certified.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's all about marketing
Posted by: mizkaye
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ateo on Mar 24, 2007 4:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think I'll wait until I've bought a house and can afford to "buy" a wife. A hot little 18 or 19 year old from Russia will do just fine thank you very much.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Mar 25, 2007 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THAT is why the religious are so hung up on other people's sexuality. THAT is how you can get them to drink any kind of Kool-Aid...such as going to war for no reason and/or believing that your Invisible Friend in the Sky wants you to do...whatever.
Another reason in the very full barrel of hypocrisy and BS of the religious...their barrel of "good" reasons to be religious is quite empty these days.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KateMonro on Apr 16, 2007 5:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Unhappy With Your Birth Control? 10 Methods You May Want to Try
Is Our Sexed-up Society Creating Prosti-Tots?
Is There Really a Backlash Against Casual Sex?




