Unless they're like... 12. Can I protect my daughter if she's 12? Or is that too oppressive?

I cannot think of a worse party idea.

They should start this ritual with dads and their gay sons. Maybe I wouldn't have turned out as much of the flamboyant town tart that I am today. AWKWARD!

One of the featured families has daughters named Khrystian and Jordyn. While you would think based on their names that Khrystian would be the slightly more fucked up one, it was Jordyn who said "Something I need from dad is affirmation, being told I'm beautiful."

The best part, and of course the part the Times left out, is the daughter-swapping session at the end. Yes, I went there.

@Pope John Peeps II: I just prefer an awkwardly-phrased "Talk," not all the pomp and circumstance of a mini-prom.

@Malarcus: The word "Rape-a-thon" comes to mind.

My balls are very pure. It's my cock I always worry about. He's a complete dick.

@YourWildHorses: Agreed - but it usually depends on who turns up.

Modern Love gets more and more desperate every week.

wasn't this on tyra awhile back? it was even creepier on tee vee.

Yes, this is totally ewwwwy, but . . . is it really that much creepier than the whole "giving away the bride" icky wedding ritual?

*ducks*

Because she's worth waiting for...?
[www.fatherdaughterpurityball.org]

I read that as "Purty Balls" - as in, "You got a purty set o' balls, pardner."

@VirusWithShoes: damn. You got there first.

@seejanewrite:

I never thought of the "giving away the bride" as anything sexual or creepy - just the father telling the groom "she's your charge now - provide for and protect her" etc.

If that first photo doesn't look like a virgin sacrifice then I don't know what. Also, I'll bet you anything these poor girls walk away with a warped sense of their sexuality. Sure, they might be all "pure" (what the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway) now, but in a few years all they will be thinking about is getting carpet burn on their knees in a cheap motel with one of the jocks from highschool and confusing that for real passion. Thanks dad!

Better than Fame, Schwetty and, in some instances, "her boyfriend's".

@nonpareil: Yeah, that's what I find creepy though--she was my virginal possession (see the white dress!), now she's yours! I'm not anti-weddings, I just think that it's too easy sometimes to forget about the disturbing roots of rituals we're overly used to.

MY favorite part of the article is where the dad says he did this because "If I'm holding them to such high standards, you can be sure I won't be cheating on their mother."

Yet another reason to avoid the central states. Who thinks of these events??

Sorry, the end-of-the-night stroll around the "dark, glassy lake" easily creeped me out the most.

You can bet not a one of them has had the Gardisal vaccine

What really annoys me about this is the gendering of it. The idea that a young woman needs to be protected by a man. What if your dad is out of the picture? Could your mom come in his place and take the same oath? And what about all the young men out there? Why do the young women need so much protecting, why aren't the boys taking oaths not to make it necessary for anyone to be protecting the girls? Assuming that you buy the premise that teenage sexuality needs stifling to this degree (I don't), it still seems like they're only looking at one half of the social contract.

The other thing that gets to me is the idea of these fathers keeping their daughters pure "for her future husband." Fuck the future husband! Do if for her, and only for her, because you think it's the best thing for her, period. I loathe the inclusion of this fictitious other male, and the implication that his needs have to be considered above her own, even before his identity is known.

This turns me into a total ragemonster.

@Zorica: *applause*

@Zorica:

+ Watch video

@IHateNewYork:

[gawker.com]

Let's play a game. How many times can we use the word balls in a piece about abstinence without giggling.

To me, the creepiest thing about this is that it's like the fathers are exhibiting a bizarre ego investment in their daughters' personal/sexual developmemt.

No joke...I just read that second line as "Lolita problems with this one."

@jackvinyl: Excellence. Now I have more things to be rageful about.

Like, for instance, the part where a girl came on and they described her as a 15 yr old who signed when she was 12. A LOT happens to you between 12 and 15, and I have a hard time believing that you can understand the decision you are "making" at 12 well enough for your 15,16,17 yr old self not to have a messed up relationship with it. In some sense they are signing an agreement not to grow up, not to change the way they relate to their own sexuality. It boils my blood. To have sex or not to have sex is something that you should constantly be choosing, not something that is a foregone conclusion, including after you're married, if you ever do decide to marry.

This isn't about people living healthy lives. It's about cementing people into their roles.

That quote at the end, that girl who said that lots of people regret not waiting so she's glad she avoided that - that's faulty logic. You haven't avoided that. You are still in as much danger as anyone of making a choice that you are not happy with. You can't sign a contract and blindly follow a prescribed pattern of behavior and be assured a positive outcome.

I've gotta take a deep breath and calm down. It really does get to me, I feel very protective of young women, especially as I'm in close contact with them a lot of the time, and from that perspective seeing people enacting something I think is borderline abusive in the name of protection is RAGEINATING.

Also, the part where the dads say that they'll "cover her" grosses me out entirely. As I recall from my days hanging around the large animal vet, "cover" is the term for breeding, as in "we want that stallion to cover that mare."

@Zorica: hear hear.

In the FLDS, they just call these swap-meets.

One man's purity ball is another man's rainbow party.