Purity Balls

[Marge_Innavera]

And then I read...

If the father's are protecting the girls, then  who are the boys going to screw around with?

Oh, yeah!   

I grew up when the double standard was still the norm, and that's one thing I never could figure out. But here's another question:

If there's something that's not harmful for you (in this concept, sex outside of marriage for men) but is harmful and/or wrong for someone else (i.e., sex outside of marriage for women), then how can it be all right for you to convince that other person to engage in it with you?  If you have no problem keeping alcohol on an occasional social level, for example, how can it be all right for you to talk an alcoholic into having a few drinks with you?

In other words, if sex outside of marriage is so wrong or harmful for women, how can anything other than same-sex contacts outside of marriage be okay for men?  Somehow, I don't think the daddies in those pictures had thought of that.

[Kerry]

I grew up when the double standard was still the norm, and that's one thing I never could figure out. But here's another question:

If there's something that's not harmful for you (in this concept, sex outside of marriage for men) but is harmful and/or wrong for someone else (i.e., sex outside of marriage for women), then how can it be all right for you to convince that other person to engage in it with you?  If you have no problem keeping alcohol on an occasional social level, for example, how can it be all right for you to talk an alcoholic into having a few drinks with you?

In other words, if sex outside of marriage is so wrong or harmful for women, how can anything other than same-sex contacts outside of marriage be okay for men? Somehow, I don't think the daddies in those pictures had thought of that.

I have no way of knowing, but I'm guessing they give their sons the same advice? 

[Marge_Innavera]

I have no way of knowing, but I'm guessing they give their sons the same advice? 

I don't know what sort of advice devotees of the double standard give their sons today.  But in the Victorian era, the attitude about sex reflected quite a lot of hate and revulsion about the body.  Sex was obviously necessary for reproduction, but was thought to be part of the male's "lower nature", which females largely didn't share.  A woman was expected to accommodate her husband sexually because 1) that was the way to conceive children and all women were assumed to want to be mothers and 2) it was the wife's responsibility to provide a sexual outlet. 

Even as late as the 1950s and early 1960s, boys were taught that there were two kinds of girls, and one of Scarlett's suitors in Gone with the Wind (book version) summed it up perfectly: "a good girl to court and a bad girl to have fun with."  Of course, the "bad girls" were considered to be both disfunctional and disposable.

Before that, I'd guess the central idea was breeding and paternity.  That is, if the wife screwed around the husband might have to end up raising a child that wasn't his and possibly make that child his heir.

[Katie77]

Talking about double standards......

I remember when our son was 15......we got a knock at the door, there stood a bloke about our age, who asked if Paul was our son.....we said yes.....He said, "your son has been having sex with my daughter". We were shocked, and told him we would talk to our son. 

When we did discuss it with Paul, he told us that SHE had seduced HIM. She was a year older than he was.

I remember afterwards, my hubby said.....I didn't know whether to kick him up the arse, or pat him on the head.......

[Kerry]

Talking about double standards......

I remember when our son was 15......we got a knock at the door, there stood a bloke about our age, who asked if Paul was our son.....we said yes.....He said, "your son has been having sex with my daughter". We were shocked, and told him we would talk to our son. 

When we did discuss it with Paul, he told us that SHE had seduced HIM. She was a year older than he was.

I remember afterwards, my hubby said.....I didn't know whether to kick him up the arse, or pat him on the head.......

Yes, double standards, indeed.

When I was 9, a family from the country moved into our quiet, seaside, Sydney suburb. They had one daughter, Barbara, who was my age.

I was a very young 9 year old, whereas Barbara was 9 going on 42.

At every opportunity, Barbara would endeavour to get us alone, where she would quickly undress and insist that I do the same. This was the 50s, television was brand new, and I wouldn't hit puberty for another 4 years. At age 9, I wasn't even experiencing sexual thought for boys, let alone girls*. The love of my life was my beloved German Shepherd dog, Toots.

Barbara systematically terrorised and brutalised me. I was terrified of her. And though there were other kids in  the street with whom we played, somehow Barbara always managed to get us alone. 

When, after many months of such abuse, I finally took a stand by avoiding all contact with her (I would literally run in the other direction whenever I saw her in the street), she spread the word that I had initiated the contact with her. I know, because two long-standing friends came and told me, and in so doing, advised me that they didn't believe her and that I was still their friend (they were both girls).

Now I look back, I can see that poor Barbara was probably being abused at the time, I suspect by her father, and was acting out with me.

I have since raised this with male friend, always advising how traumatic it was for me at the time. Universally, there have been two very predictable responses. My gay male friends usually bluntly tell me to "Get over it!" with no sympathy whatsoever. And my straight male friends invariable exclaim gleefully, "Wow, you got lucky!"

* And still haven't - for girls, that is.

[injest]

Yes, double standards, indeed.

When I was 9, a family from the country moved into our quiet, seaside, Sydney suburb. They had one daughter, Barbara, who was my age.

I was a very young 9 year old, whereas Barbara was 9 going on 42.

At every opportunity, Barbara would endeavour to get us alone, where she would quickly undress and insist that I do the same. This was the 50s, television was brand new, and I wouldn't hit puberty for another 4 years. At age 9, I wasn't even experiencing sexual thought for boys, let alone girls*. The love of my life was my beloved German Shepherd dog, Toots.

Barbara systematically terrorised and brutalised me. I was terrified of her. And though there were other kids in  the street with whom we played, somehow Barbara always managed to get us alone. 

When, after many months of such abuse, I finally took a stand by avoiding all contact with her (I would literally run in the other direction whenever I saw her in the street), she spread the word that I had initiated the contact with her. I know, because two long-standing friends came and told me, and in so doing, advised me that they didn't believe her and that I was still their friend (they were both girls).

Now I look back, I can see that poor Barbara was probably being abused at the time, I suspect by her father, and was acting out with me.

I have since raised this with male friend, always advising how traumatic it was for me at the time. Universally, there have been two very predictable responses. My gay male friends usually bluntly tell me to "Get over it!" with no sympathy whatsoever. And my straight male friends invariable exclaim gleefully, "Wow, you got lucky!"

* And still haven't - for girls, that is.

this is exactly why I get so angry when judges give female teachers that molest boys light sentences or no sentence at all. They act like there is no way a male could feel violated or hurt.

 

in the eleventh grade a girl put a pic of herself in D's locker...she was in her underwear. 

[Kerry]

this is exactly why I get so angry when judges give female teachers that molest boys light sentences or no sentence at all. They act like there is no way a male could feel violated or hurt.

 

in the eleventh grade a girl put a pic of herself in his locker...she was in her underwear. 

Yep, I agree. Fact is, they are predatory paedophiles. Simple as that. Under the law, they should be sentenced as such.

[Kelda]

Now I look back, I can see that poor Barbara was probably being abused at the time, I suspect by her father, and was acting out with me.

So Sad....


 

[Front-Ranger]

As the mother of a 16-year-old boy, I can vouch for the fact that girls today are very aggressive and prey upon boys much like it was the other way around in the '50s and '60s. And if they don't get their way with the boys, they boast and lie about getting them anyway! That is why he has dumped girlfriends, and sticks to sports these days.

[LauraGigs]

girls today are very aggressive and prey upon boys . . . and if they don't get their way with the boys, they boast and lie about getting them anyway!

Well, what's good for the gander . . .

It's been going on in the other direction for — how many years?  Decades?  Centuries??   I mean, personally I'm sorry for you and your son, but the fact is that present circumstances hardly even begin to make up for the fact that men & boys have forever gotten the proverbial "free ride".