RI School Bans Father Daughter Dances

[Pearl]

So why can't a mother relinquish her protection of her baby boy to another woman? Just asking!

 

[Jive Turkey]

I guess she could if she wanted to. I'd have no problem with that. But gender roles aren't necessarily always a bad thing

 

[Irvine511]

I've never thought of the 'giving away' thing to be about property. I've always seen at as a father relinquishing protection of his little girl to another man

women do need to be protected by men. it's unbelievable that women think they can live alone. who else will guard the sanctity of her vagina if not her father or husband?

 

[Irvine511]

So why can't a mother relinquish her protection of her baby boy to another woman? Just asking!

mothers don't protect. that's a man's job. mothers nurture. that's the woman's job.

and this is why i am against same-sex marriage.

 

[Jive Turkey]

women do need to be protected by men. it's unbelievable that women think they can live alone. who else will guard the sanctity of her vagina if not her father or husband?

Are you really going to twist that, Irvine?? Of all the benign things I've ever said...

Besides, I was talking about a father protecting his daughter... Isn't that part of their job?

 

[Irvine511]

Are you really going to twist that, Irvine?? Of all the benign things I've ever said...

Besides, I was talking about a father protecting his daughter... Isn't that part of their job?

In all honesty, I did find it a bit patronizing. Now that we don't allow children to get married anymore (as opposed to the very recent past), one can assume that it is two adults getting married, and I'm not sure why it would be the father who is in charge of protecting, say, his 32-year old I-banker daughter who makes $200k a year.

 

[Jive Turkey]

It's symbolic. I think it's sweet

 

[Irvine511]

And it maintains and reinforces the patriarchy.

But so do most weddings in general, from the virginal white cake to the symbolic getting of the first piece of her "cake."

Just ask this guy:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...before-marriage-was-best-thing-ive-ever-done/

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm not really bothered by the whole "giving away" thing, either, myself. I mainly see it as a dad saying, "I trust you with my daughter", or something like that. But if and when I get married, since my dad's not here, I won't really need to worry about that anyway, so...

I do find all the strange rules churches have about what should or shouldn't happen at a wedding strange, though. How about every couple just be able to do what makes them personally comfortable?

 

[Liesje]

I've never thought of the 'giving away' thing to be about property. I've always seen at as a father relinquishing protection of his little girl to another man

I had my dad walk me down. I guess to me it just meant I was now and adult and that he was proud of me as a daughter (though I got married when I was 22, maybe it would have been more weird if I were older). I didn't really think of it as protection or property. If I'd told him we weren't doing it I'm sure he would have been disappointed, and I've never felt that my dad viewed me as his property or someone that he gets to protect or control.

 

[anitram]

It's symbolic. I think it's sweet

For me it was actually kind of offensive that my Mom would not be included. I have a great relationship with both my parents and it was inconceivable to me that my father would walk me down the aisle but not my mother.

In the end, my fiance and I will walk in together, as is our preference, but my Dad walking me down on his own was never an option in my view. To each his own, though!

 

[Jive Turkey]

I had my dad walk me down. I guess to me it just meant I was now and adult and that he was proud of me as a daughter (though I got married when I was 22, maybe it would have been more weird if I were older). I didn't really think of it as protection or property. If I'd told him we weren't doing it I'm sure he would have been disappointed, and I've never felt that my dad viewed me as his property or someone that he gets to protect or control.

That's cool too. I mean, I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do
It. Interpret it how you like. If you find it offensive, don't do it. Kind of a non Issue

 

[Pearl]

And it maintains and reinforces the patriarchy.

But so do most weddings in general, from the virginal white cake to the symbolic getting of the first piece of her "cake."

Just ask this guy:

Waiting till the wedding night – getting married the right way | Fox News

Wow, that article angered me so much. Why do conservatives make such harsh, holier-than-thou judgments on anyone who doesn't do things their way? Do they really think every person who does not save sex for marriage is promiscuous? That all married couples who didn't remain celibate until their wedding night have lousy mornings after their big day? I have friends and family who did not save sex for marriage and were not promiscuous nor did they have a lousy morning.

If I were to meet that man, I swear I would say "fuck you" to him. Heck, I'm wondering if I should tweet that to him. OK, I may be overreacting (like I always do), but I have very low tolerance for arrogant, judgmental people.

Just remember, dude: the first will be last, and the last will be first.

 

[Jive Turkey]

In the end, my fiance and I will walk in together, as is our preference, but my Dad walking me down on his own was never an option in my view. To each his own, though!

to all this

 

[Axver]

I'm honestly surprised nobody leapt on my earlier post that basically ridiculed the idea of staying a virgin until marriage. Clearly this forum needs more people like that Steven Crowder bloke to put me in my place.

 

[LemonMelon]

Axver will take you on a booze-laden romp on graduation night and something WILL have sex with you. It's only a matter of what.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm honestly surprised nobody leapt on my earlier post that basically ridiculed the idea of staying a virgin until marriage. Clearly this forum needs more people like that Steven Crowder bloke to put me in my place.

I just figured since it's not the 1950s, it wasn't really something to be discussed

 

[Pearl]

Unfortunately, some people in the U.S. have a 1950s mindset and wish everyone saw the world like they do.

I just want to add - because I get so worked up when I'm offended (no surprise there) - that the FOX News contributor claims men who don't save sex for marriage have ego issues because they need to have conquests. Well, isn't agreed among many that men who want a virginal bride because her being inexperienced means they don't have to worry about some other man being better than them in bed? Isn't that a major ego isssue?

I'm sorry, its just people like that who thoroughly boggle my mind.

ETA: I actually did send a tweet to that contributor, but it was more calmer than my original idea. I responded to his tweet where he said "I don't judge people but I judge their decisions. You should too."

I tweeted back: "Its still judging others and its not cool to be holier than thou." Of course, he didn't respond and probably laughed off my tweet, but at least I got something off my chest.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think both parents are supposed to "protect" kids-boys and girls. When you're an adult you don't need anyone to do that. In a marriage I think you protect the other person in a loving way full of equality, not in any subservient or paternalistic way. Obviously it should be completely different from a parent/child relationship. If it isn't well I think that's a big problem. I get the whole symbolism but it should not be paternalistic. Women "give away" themselves.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well said, Pearl. Good point about the ego thing, too.

If someone wants to wait until they're married to have sex, that's totally fine. If someone doesn't want to wait, that's fine, too. That's a very personal decision to make, and a person should make it because it's what they feel most comfortable doing, and not because others are telling them what to do. I will never, ever understand why people are so obsessed with what others choose to do in their own bedrooms. Why the hell is that any of your business? Why do you care?

(*"you" being a general "you", not directed at anyone here.)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I agree completely. It's a personal thing and no one's business. I think that should go along with not being judgmental about gay marriages and relationships and what anyone does in their bedroom-choosing to remain a virgin is no one else's business either. Seems to me we shouldn't be judgmental about that either If you want to be consistent, just worry about your own sex life and your own choices.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly. I firmly believe that's a big reason why so many people's relationships and things related to that struggle and fail. They're way too focused on what other people are doing and not concerned enough with making their own love lives worthwhile.

Besides that, I think everyone's had that experience where you can tell a loved one until you're blue in the face why you don't like this or that about their relationship or their sex life or whatever...most of the time the friend or family member you tell this to won't listen to your advice or will tell you to shut up and leave them alone. And I don't have much relationship experience of my own, so I don't feel like I have the expertise necessary to tell other people what to do anyway.

Like I've said before, if there's abuse involved, that I can certainly understand intervening in. If I found out someone I loved was in an abusive relationship I'd be doing everything I could to help get them away from it. And if a friend asks my opinion about a guy she's dating, and I think he's kind of a skeezball, I'll tell her I'm not fond of him.

But if a relationship has none of that going on, then you gotta let people live their lives and leave them be. You don't have to understand it or even like it, but it's still not your place to tell them what to do.

 

[Axver]

I just figured since it's not the 1950s, it wasn't really something to be discussed

True. But this forum has exploded over far less!

If someone wants to wait until they're married to have sex, that's totally fine. If someone doesn't want to wait, that's fine, too.

I just fundamentally don't see what one has to do with the other, and I really don't see why anybody would deprive themselves of doing something pleasurable and fun until after they've had a specific ceremony and got a certain piece of paper. To me, it's like saying you won't eat ice cream until you've spent a whole summer living in a tropical country and have the passport stamps to prove it. Obviously it mattered more in times past, before the invention of effective, readily available, cheap birth control; if you could potentially have a child, being in a stable relationship obviously helped improve your chances of affording to raise said child. But now it only seems to be religious tradition that's keeping alive this connection between sex and marriage ... and that seems to be much stronger in the US than in Australia/New Zealand. I'd be a bit surprised if most people I know were in a relationship for a month and hadn't had sex.

Plus, to be perfectly honest, the people I've met who've made a big deal about waiting until marriage to have sex have generally (generally!) either had some serious judgemental and/or prudish issues about sexuality, or were struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality. I realise the latter sounds like I am implying closeted homosexuals, but I'm more thinking of people who like to portray themselves as pure and wholesome when they don't know how to handle a very sexual, kinky side of themselves.

However ...

That's a very personal decision to make, and a person should make it because it's what they feel most comfortable doing, and not because others are telling them what to do. I will never, ever understand why people are so obsessed with what others choose to do in their own bedrooms. Why the hell is that any of your business? Why do you care?

This I completely agree with.

(I should say at this point that I completely understand people who only want to have sex if they are in a committed, long-term relationship. But these days, that is not a synonym for marriage. Hell, in both my family and my partner's, the only relationships that have lasted are those who haven't got married! )

 

[anitram]

Plus, to be perfectly honest, the people I've met who've made a big deal about waiting until marriage to have sex have generally (generally!) either had some serious judgemental and/or prudish issues about sexuality, or were struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality. I realise the latter sounds like I am implying closeted homosexuals, but I'm more thinking of people who like to portray themselves as pure and wholesome when they don't know how to handle a very sexual, kinky side of themselves.

The only person that I ever knew who took a purity vow/wore a ring (do people still do that?) walked around telling everyone how it is the measure of a man whether he'll try to sleep with you before the wedding. To that end, she recalled a story her Mom told her - when the Mom and Dad were dating, he propositioned her and she turned him down and he then told her that it had been a test and that he now knew he was getting a "quality" woman. You can't make this stuff up. Anyway, my friend ended up getting pregnant (shocking), dropping out of university and had a shotgun wedding. They are still married and have lovely kids together whom they adore, but you'd be wrong if you thought that she never wondered how things might have been if anyone had managed to take her down to her local Planned Parenthood.

 

[Pearl]

The only person that I ever knew who took a purity vow/wore a ring (do people still do that?)

The Jonas Brothers wore those rings. Russell Brand made fun of them at the VMAs some years ago, and I think Jordin Sparks has one too. And given the fact that there are purity balls in this country, that's a good sign that there are many who make those vows/wear the rings.

Plus, to be perfectly honest, the people I've met who've made a big deal about waiting until marriage to have sex have generally (generally!) either had some serious judgemental and/or prudish issues about sexuality, or were struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality. I realise the latter sounds like I am implying closeted homosexuals, but I'm more thinking of people who like to portray themselves as pure and wholesome when they don't know how to handle a very sexual, kinky side of themselves.

This I've noticed too. They are so squeamish over the slightest thing and are very judgmental towards people who are not like them. When it comes to sex, everything is black and white with them and they fail to realize there are a lot of gray areas in this issue.

 

[Irvine511]

Pretty sure for the Bros Jonas -- like with Britney -a the virginity thing was all part of the brand.

 

[Pearl]

Pretty sure for the Bros Jonas -- like with Britney -a the virginity thing was all part of the brand.

Maybe, but weren't they from some fundamentalist church and were home-schooled?

Anyway, there are people who do wear those rings, even in this day and age.

 

[corianderstem]

The Jonas Brothers wore those rings. Russell Brand made fun of them at the VMAs some years ago, and I think Jordin Sparks has one too.

She did, because she went up and made some comment like "I'd rather have a purity ring than be a slut."

Because, you know, there's no in between. You're either a virgin or a slut.

John Legend was next to her when she made that comment and if I recall correctly, he made a pretty hilarious face at it.

 

[Pearl]

Because, you know, there's no in between. You're either a virgin or a slut.

And that's what is so frustrating. Sex is black and white with no gray area to these people. They live in such a bubble or cocoon where they're right and anyone different is wrong, and they can't comprehend any other viewpoint.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I just fundamentally don't see what one has to do with the other, and I really don't see why anybody would deprive themselves of doing something pleasurable and fun until after they've had a specific ceremony and got a certain piece of paper. To me, it's like saying you won't eat ice cream until you've spent a whole summer living in a tropical country and have the passport stamps to prove it. Obviously it mattered more in times past, before the invention of effective, readily available, cheap birth control; if you could potentially have a child, being in a stable relationship obviously helped improve your chances of affording to raise said child. But now it only seems to be religious tradition that's keeping alive this connection between sex and marriage ... and that seems to be much stronger in the US than in Australia/New Zealand. I'd be a bit surprised if most people I know were in a relationship for a month and hadn't had sex.

Plus, to be perfectly honest, the people I've met who've made a big deal about waiting until marriage to have sex have generally (generally!) either had some serious judgemental and/or prudish issues about sexuality, or were struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality. I realise the latter sounds like I am implying closeted homosexuals, but I'm more thinking of people who like to portray themselves as pure and wholesome when they don't know how to handle a very sexual, kinky side of themselves.

I tend to agree fully with all of this. Besides that, even if one wants to get married, there's no guarantee that'll actually happen, and not everyone wants to marry anyway. So what exactly are those people supposed to do, be forced to remain celibate their whole lives? And with the divorce rate being what it is nowadays, the chances of the person you wait for being your one and only aren't always very high. It can work, sure, if the couple is truly right for each other and make it work and all that. But most of the time, you've saved it for someone that only winds up being there a few years at best and it just seems like a waste.

However ...



This I completely agree with.

(I should say at this point that I completely understand people who only want to have sex if they are in a committed, long-term relationship. But these days, that is not a synonym for marriage. Hell, in both my family and my partner's, the only relationships that have lasted are those who haven't got married! )

LOL. Indeed.

That's kinda where I am. I knew I didn't want to have sex while a teenager, for all sorts of reasons, so I didn't, but since then, I just think I'd personally feel more comfortable being in a committed relationship before taking that step. I'm not waiting until marriage (I'd like to get married someday, if I find the right guy, but I don't know if that'll happen or when, and it's a long enough wait already ), but I do definitely want to be with someone I can trust and feel comfortable around.