 |
| Book cover for "The Purity Myth" |
I'm something of an ex-purity-culture blogger, so I want to read and have opinions on all the books that criticize purity culture. So I read Jessica Valenti's 2010 book, The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women.
Surprisingly, I didn't like it.
---
2010 is a bit early for an anti-purity-culture book, isn't it?
The first thing that struck me as a bit unusual about this book was the publishing date. (I know the link says 2009 but the copy I have says 2010.) I'm reading this in 2026, and at this point there exists a whole slew of books about the harmful effects of purity culture- but that movement had barely started in 2010. The first anti-purity-culture book I read was Dex Anderson's "Damaged Goods" which was published in 2015. (I wrote 3 blog posts on it: Sex Was Just Not A Thing That People Did where I talked about being ace without saying I was ace, Is There Choice in the Kingdom of God?, and A Sexual Ethic Based On BEING REASONABLE. By the way, the book was published when they were still using their old name; they have since come out as non-binary and changed their name to Dex.)
The other anti-purity-culture books I've read are The Great Sex Rescue (2021) and Pure (2018). Also on my wishlist: #ChurchToo (2021), Shameless (2019), Talking Back to Purity Culture (2020).
So you see, 2010 is a bit early.
For reference, in 2010 I was a college student and I totally bought into all the purity ideology. It was around 2010ish that I first came across a blog post questioning purity culture- it said yeah sure it's a sin to have premarital sex, but something is WRONG about how purity culture is teaching that this sin is different from all the other sins, it will follow you for your entire life, it will destroy any chance to ever have a good marriage. Seems like the opposite of the message of the gospel, which says yeah we're sinners but Jesus forgives us and makes us new. Another blog post I came across had an anecdote about a woman who trusted that "God has a plan" and she wouldn't need to put any effort into dating, just wait for God to bring the right guy into her life, and now she's 30 years old and has never dated anyone and is unhappy about that- so, uh, maybe it's *not* true that you should just "wait" because "God has a plan"?
I was completely fascinated and searched and searched for more information questioning the claims of purity culture. For a long time, I had totally totally believed it, but I always struggled with some parts that didn't make sense. The biggest question I had was, how are you supposed to get to know someone enough to know if you should marry them, if you're not allowed to get to know them, because that would make you "impure"? (Yes, if you date and break up, that diminishes your purity- therefore you should never even go on a first date with someone, unless you're pretty sure you could marry them. Fact-check: This is terrible advice.)
At that time, the discussion I was reading on the blogs was very much along the lines of, yes premarital sex is a sin, we're not going anywhere near that claim, we know it's definitely a sin, but purity culture is wrong because: it's treating this like it's worse than all the other sins, like it's the one sin that's beyond God's forgiveness; because of the double standards between men and women; because it's saying "morality" is all about sex, ignoring all the bible's teaching about money and how we treat each other; because no matter what a girl wears, someone somewhere will accuse her of being "immodest"; because it leads teenagers to conclude that using a condom during sex is a worse sin than not using a condom- if you have a condom, that means you planned to sin, you can't claim "it just happened"; because it tells abuse victims that there's no point in leaving their abuser- they're already impure and their life is ruined anyway; and so on and so on.
Plenty of reasons to criticize purity culture, but "because it's actually fine to have unmarried sex" was not on our radar, for most of us. I remember Libby Anne was saying that, on her blog "Love Joy Feminism," but she's an atheist, so that's how she was able to reject the "it's a sin" framing while a lot of us could not. A *long* time later, I came around to "it's not a sin", and then I finally did have sex and it turned out to be a good decision for me, and did not ruin my life, so, purity culture was completely wrong.
But anyway, back to "The Purity Myth." How do we have a book criticizing purity culture, as early as 2010? Wouldn't that be too early to get accounts of people who lived through it and can now look back on it and see the problems, and talk about how it affected them?
Ah well. Turns out the book is not about that. It's not about what it's actually like to be a girl growing up in purity culture. It's not about the contrast between the promises of purity ideology and the way the real world works. It's not about explaining why purity is a "myth."
---
So then what is this book?
Instead, Valenti is coming from a very strongly feminist perspective. She sees what is being taught by purity culture, and because she's a feminist and knows what's what, she knows how harmful this ideology is, and how it's connected, in so many ways, to misogyny and rape culture and sexual objectification of women.
The book uses a lot of language like "it's about controlling women", "fetishizing virginity", "treating virginity as a commodity to be bought and sold", "it's about rolling back the women's rights movement", "the virgin/whore dichotomy", etc. I'm a feminist so I agree with what she says about why purity ideology is harmful and how it's connected to all this other misogyny- but for readers who believe in purity, this book cannot speak to them at all.
The book takes it for granted that it's not a bad thing for young women to choose to have consensual sex. It takes it for granted that there's no cosmically-important moral dimension in one's choice to have sex or not have sex. It doesn't explain these assumptions at all- it's coming from a deeply feminist perspective where these things are treated as obvious.
The book gives examples of oversexualized clothing being marketed to extremely young girls, like padded bras for 6-year-olds. It gives examples of vile things that people have said to rape victims. It talks about the violence against women embedded in most mainstream porn. And it says all of these things are connected to this "purity myth", the idea that women are most sexually desirable when they are young "innocent" "virgin" girls, passive and obedient to societal norms put in place by men. I'm a feminist so I agree this is all connected, but the book does not present its reasoning in a way that would make any kind of impact on people who believe in purity. They would say "??? No, purity teaching is NOT connected to all this sexualization and porn- we're fighting back against all that!"
So what audience is this book for, then? I guess it would be useful to feminist readers who are already aware of things like rape culture, the virgin/whore dichotomy, double standards for men and women, the ways that society and/or men have tried to control women's sexuality, and already agree that all of that is bad and we need to fight back against it. And then Valenti explains why purity culture is another example of these sexist ideas that we all already know we need to fight back against. It could be helpful for readers who know very little about what purity culture is teaching. Or maybe they heard a little bit about purity culture and it was presented as a positive thing- this book can tell them why it's actually not a positive thing, because under the surface it's all these sexist tropes that all of us good feminists already know are bad.
Perhaps this book could also be useful for women who have experienced judgment and shaming for the ways they didn't follow the purity rules, but they never bought into the whole overarching purity framework or even knew what it was. Maybe a girl who had sex in high school and was judged for that, and felt it was unfair, but never had the words to understand why people were judging her and why it felt so wrong for them to do that. The book explains the beliefs that were used in judging and shaming her; perhaps simply by becoming aware of what these myths are, by seeing them put into words, it will help this hypothetical reader understand what happened to her and why she didn't deserve to be treated that way.
But for readers who are coming from a purity-culture background, who buy into all of purity culture's reasons for why it's very important to not have sex... they will read this book and say "this is totally missing the point."
---
So, what are the arguments for purity culture?
As I said, the book takes it for granted that there's nothing wrong with choosing to have consensual sex, and that it makes no sense to view "virgins" are more moral than people who have had sex.
But if you believe in purity ideology, you know plenty of reasons why it's bad and immoral to choose to have consensual sex. The book doesn't address any of these reasons at all! So the book goes on and on about how bad it is that purity culture pushes these ideas about the importance of being a "virgin", about how these ideas are harming women- but readers who believe in purity culture would say "but what about all the reasons it's bad and harmful to have premarital sex?"
(Indeed, I seem to recall I did come across Valenti's writing online 10-15 years ago, and my reaction was "she's totally missing the point.")
Here, here are some of purity culture's reasons why it's extremely bad and wrong to have unmarried sex:
- God made sex and gave us clear rules for how it is supposed to be enjoyed. Sex is a very powerful and beautiful thing, but extremely dangerous if it's done in the wrong way. That's why it's so important to follow God's rules: to only have sex in a monogamous hetero marriage. God made sex, so God knows the right way to do it.
- God intended that you are only supposed to have sex with 1 person, your spouse. If you have sex with somebody and then don't marry them, you are wronging your future spouse. This is really serious- you owe this to your future spouse. God made marriage and God intends for marriage to be this way- you don't have the right to take this away from your future spouse.
- God wants us to follow him, rather than being selfish and doing what feels good for us. God made rules for our own good. We need to focus on God, and obey him- we owe that to him. It would be wrong to make our own choices based on what we want. That's sinful- God calls us to something better and more rewarding in the long run.
- If you have sex outside of marriage, there will be all kinds of negative consequences for you. You will be completely devastated when you eventually break up with your partner- because you've given them your whole body, you've bonded with them in a way that it so intimate and vulnerable, and when that bond is broken, wow, that kind of heartbreak is so overwhelming- God never intended for us to have to go through that. You'll never get over it. You'll be haunted by it forever. Even when you eventually marry someone else- you'll never be able to have a good marriage. Whenever you have sex with your spouse, you'll be comparing them to your ex. You'll be traumatized forever. Also, there's the risk of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. What if you die from AIDS.
- So if you have sex with someone you're not married to, you're causing them to suffer all those negative consequences. You're setting them up for heartbreak that will last their entire life. You're putting them at risk of pregnancy and STIs. Wow, what a terrible thing to do to someone.
I can tell you all sorts of reasons why these arguments are wrong. Real stories from people's lives that show the actual effect of following these teachings isn't "then you have a perfect marriage and perfect sex life" as promised, but instead you end up with a lot of internalized shame and don't have the tools to recognize what a healthy relationship is, or the ability to get out of a bad relationship. (And it's even worse if you're queer.) Analysis of the bible verses used to prop up these teachings, showing that this purity ideology is very much *not* "what the bible teaches" or "the rules God gave us" or "what Christians have always believed." Contradictions that arise if you really take the logic of purity culture seriously. That sort of thing.
(See for example The Bible and "Purity" and The Bible and Polygamy.)
"The purity myth" doesn't do that at all. It's for readers who already believe that there's no moral issue with having sex outside of marriage.
---
Example 1: Purity balls
I have a few examples of how this book sort of misunderstands or misses the point of purity teaching. First example is purity balls.
When I was in purity culture, I never heard of purity balls- I only heard about them when I started reading ex-purity-culture blogs. A purity ball is an event where girls and their dads dress up like they're going to the prom together, and there's a romantic atmosphere like it's a date, and the girls make promises to their fathers that they will "save their virginity" for marriage. Sounds... kind of creepy?
Okay so I never heard about that when I was in purity culture, but I'm very familiar with some of the associated concepts: teenagers and children signing "purity pledges" promising not to have sex until marriage, parents giving their daughter a "purity ring" to wear to show everyone that she is "pure", parents instructing their children about how important it is to be "pure" and how it would be just terrible if you had sex outside of marriage, etc.
And the book says this is all about sexualizing young girls, about men controlling women's and girls' sexuality. But readers who believe in purity culture would say, "What is she talking about??? It's not about that at all! It's about teaching our kids to make good choices."
The average nice church person who promotes purity culture genuinely believes that people are better off if they don't have premarital sex. They think it's not a good idea for teenagers to have sex, and so teaching teenagers to not have sex is a good thing. Some are motivated by their own experiences- they had sex before marriage and it was a bad thing for them.
To say "it's about controlling women"... this is just unintelligible for people who believe in purity ideology. It bears no resemblance to their actual motivations.
I'm a feminist, so yes I buy the argument that the overall effect of purity culture is controlling women's sexuality, rather than helping everyone make good and healthy choices. But I don't even go so far as to say "it's about controlling women"- for the vast majority of people in purity culture, it's *not* about that at all.
Every now and then I have a little glimpse of a realization, like "wait a minute, what if this actually has always been about controlling women, and all that talk about 'this is what God wants' was completely fake?" But for the most part, I engage with it by taking its claims seriously, about "this is what God wants, this is the best and healthiest way to have sex, this will guarantee you will have a good marriage", and arguing that the actual result of following these teachings doesn't match those claims.
---
Example 2: Born-again virgins
I wanted to put this example here because I think Valenti is misunderstanding what the purity advocates are saying.
The book discusses the concept of "secondary virginity"/"born-again virgins." This is when someone who is not a "virgin" decides to re-commit to a lifestyle of not having unmarried sex. When I was in purity culture, I never really got a good explanation for what the exact requirements were for being a "born-again virgin"- can anyone just say they're a born-again virgin, or are there some standards for what counts as a big enough change of heart? And, of course, it was always emphasized that being a born-again virgin isn't as good as never having had sex in the first place. You're still impure and your sexual experiences will still haunt you forever.
But anyway, here's what Valenti says on page 35:
What I find interesting about secondary virginity is that while it may seem like an easy out, with its emphasis on emotional and spiritual purity, it actually takes a hardline approach to chastity and has the effect of increasing the obstacles to being pure. After all, to be a virgin, all you have to do is not have sex. But to fully embrace your secondary virginity, you must abstain not only from intercourse, but also from masturbation or even thinking about sex. And there's no more of this "anything but" nonsense, either-- Love Matters, a teen abstinence program, tells those considering being secondary virgins to "avoid intense hugging," and that "anything beyond a brief, simple kiss can quickly become dangerous."
Some groups even advise women to change the way they act and dress to convey their chastity appropriately. An article from Focus on the Family, "Pure Again," notes that "women find they want to try a different way of dressing-- to show more respect for their own bodies."
So, the book is saying that "born-again virgins" are held to higher standards than regular virgins. That's... that's not exactly right.
I would frame it like this: If you've had sex before, if you have that experience, then having sex will feel more easy and natural to you, compared to someone who has never had sex. So, it is more difficult for a "born-again virgin" to avoid sex, compared to a regular "virgin." Both are held to the same standard- they need to not have sex- but the "born-again virgin" will need more restrictions and guardrails in order to follow that rule. And the part about changing how you dress- this is because the purity culture advocates assume that people who have sexual experience dress in a way that's more "immodest", and so they need to change that, to match the way a regular "pure" girl would dress.
Purity culture advocates are *not* saying "born-again virgins should be held to a higher standard of modesty than regular virgins" or "you only *count* as a born-again virgin if you follow all these other rules about not kissing, etc, whereas regular virgins are allowed to do those things." Instead, the logic is about how it's harder to resist the temptation to have sex if you already have experience with it, and how people who have sexual experience are assumed to have a general vibe of "impurity" and "immodesty" about them, so they need to clean that up, whereas "pure" girls would already have the right vibe (and never masturbate).
In other words, the message that purity culture advocates are communicating to "born-again virgins" is about re-emphasizing the rules that they should have been following all along. Must be that they didn't follow those rules, and that's how they became such dirty sluts who "lost" their "virginity."
There are plenty of problems with this whole concept, but "The Purity Myth" isn't really getting at what the actual problems are.
---
Example 3: Why lesbian porn is worse than straight porn
There's a section of the book that describes conservative groups' reactions to material they consider "porn." These groups condemn depictions of masturbation and lesbian sex more strongly than they condemn violent hetero porn. On page 94-95, it says:
The virginity movement's notions regarding obscenity and pornography have little to do with the actual issues in porn that affect women, such as hypermasculinity, humiliation, or violence against them. Gay sex or masturbation isn't what's harming women through porn-- a hyped-up patriarchy is. After all, there's nothing "alternative" about calling women "whores" or presenting violence against women as sexual. That's good old-fashioned misogyny, and it's been around and systematically supported for a long time. That's why the purity pushers' objections to pornography are so hypocritical: They see it not as something that degrades women, but as something that degrades patriarchy and male control of female sexuality. If this isn't the case, then why the focus on masturbation and lesbian sex-- two activities that are clearly very much under women's control?
I'm so boggled by this. So, the point that Valenti is making is, why would purity culture advocates have more of a problem with lesbian porn/ masturbation than hetero porn that is violent and degrading to women? Racking our brains, we can't come up with any reason at all, other than "it's about male control of women."
Really? Really can't come up with any other explanation?
Here, how about this one: God intended for sex to be 1 man + 1 woman. Violent and degrading hetero porn is bad because it's violent and degrading, but at least it starts with something good and God-given (hetero sex) and then twists it into something bad. But masturbation and lesbian sex are completely unnatural, no redeeming qualities at all. There's not even a core of something good and God-given, that was turned into something bad- it's all bad and against the rules God gave us about sex. And furthermore, it indicates just how sinful people are, to be interested in lesbian sex and masturbation. At least you can kinda understand the people who are interested in messed-up depictions of hetero sex- it's their God-given desire for hetero sex gone wrong. But being interested in lesbian sex or female masturbation, wow, that's so much worse.
You can make the case that this explanation is bullshit, and the evidence is more consistent with "it's actually about controlling women." Indeed, I agree that this explanation is bullshit. But it's so bizarre to me that this book claims purity culture's stronger condemnation of lesbian porn is a dead giveaway that it's actually about controlling women. It's not! It fits perfectly in their "God made sex to be 1 man + 1 woman" ideology. It's really quite easy to explain, without resorting to interpretations about "it's about controlling women."
---
Example 4: Raping a pure girl or an impure girl
[content note: rape culture/ victim-blaming]
In the chapter about rape, Valenti connects it to purity culture by talking about the conservatives who define rape as something that takes away a good girl's "purity", and believe it doesn't really count as rape if the victim was already "impure."
This definition of rape is awful. And from a feminist perspective, where we know about concepts like consent, victim-blaming, and rape culture, it's obvious why it's awful.
But! If you're in purity culture... Here's what sex means, in purity culture- it's not about the experience itself; rather it's an indicator of what kind of a person you are. Are you a pure virgin, or are you impure and unworthy of respect? In this ideology, rape is bad because it forcibly takes away that "pure" designation from a good girl. But if the girl was already "impure", then... then rape isn't that bad. Like, maybe a little bit bad because she didn't want that, but this shouldn't be compared to "real" rape (ie, rape of a pure girl). If somebody's trying to make you feel sympathy for a rape victim, well, it might be a totally different situation than what you're imagining. It might not be a good pure girl; it might be a slut who wasn't even trying to value her purity and respect herself, and nowadays feminists are calling that "rape."
This logic is horrific, but if you buy into purity ideology, this is genuinely how you would think. The whole thing is logically consistent with itself. In order to recognize why this is so bad, and why rape is wrong (regardless of the "purity" status of the victim), you need a whole different definition of what sex is. It's not about separating women into "good pure girls who deserve respect and protection" and "impure sluts who put themselves at risk of rape." It's about consent; every person owns their own body and has the right to make their own choices about their body. Rape is bad solely because the victim did not want it. The victim could have any number of reasons for not wanting it; maybe she thinks being a virgin is very important, and would say no to any and all sex; or maybe she chooses to have sex sometimes, for various reasons, but the circumstances where the rape happened were not circumstances where she would want it. None of this means one victim is more of a "real" victim than another!
But, again, it requires a completely different understanding of sex than the one taught by purity culture. For people who believe in purity ideology, none of this is obvious; they have to do the work of unlearning it. If they haven't done that work, it shouldn't surprise us that they're unable to comprehend what the problem is with raping a woman who's already "impure." The virgin/whore logic is all consistent with itself.
---
Conclusion
I guess this book is good for feminists who aren't aware of what purity culture is teaching girls, or aren't aware of how purity ideology connects to all the other misogyny in society, but need to only be shown what's being taught and will immediately recognize why it's harmful and accept Valenti's explanations of how it's connected. But for anyone who believes in purity culture- who believes these are the rules God gave us for sex, and it has nothing to do with men having power over women, it's just about how to live in the way that is good and healthy and God-intended- this book can't speak to them at all. It constantly talks about how purity ideology is all about sexualizing girls, and controlling women, and rolling back women's rights- and if you're in purity culture, you will say "what? no, that's not what it's about at all."
---
Related
"Pure": A Book About the Aftermath of Purity Culture
Roy Moore Dating Teenage Girls "For Their Purity" is 100% Logical in Purity Land
No comments:
Post a Comment