What about dolphin purity? And what about the rape of organic gluten-free muffins in an SUV behind the Wal-Mart in Bellevue? Where's the "progressive" outrage?

hey, mister g, you ever been raped? hmm? have you? no? then SHUT THE FUCK UP. same goes for the rest of the men on this thread. you haven't been raped, so you know nothing about it.

"scary tyler moore" is the right name for you! Yikes!

Is there a solution for "scary tyler moore" lurking in there? I sure hope so! Anyone have a spare burka?

@98 Saying that someone's sexual choices have an impact on how much that person is worth is no worse than saying that a person's other choices have an impact on how much that person is worth. Yes, "purity" is a loaded word; it implies that sexual restraint is good. It is.

I have read post 87, and the problem is not valuing purity or valuing modesty. The problem is holding women responsible for men's sexual choices.

You guys are jumping to the conclusion "This culture 1. values purity and 2. has too much rape so it must be valuing purity that causes too much rape!" I'm saying that these things, while not necessarily completely independent, are not necessarily causative either. It is possible to have #1 without #2. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

@DRF I thing you've been too much influenced by religious talk to understand what I've written on post 87.

I clearly stated that "purity" and "modesty" ARE the problem.

I also stated that telling youngsters to wait until adulthood for sex was good. This is the only kind of sexual restraint that can be considered good.

Other types of society-enforced sexual restraint are worthless : If two adults and consenting, there is no valid reason for sexual restraint.

If one is cheating by doing so (I mean breaking an agrement of exclusivity with his/her SO) then that one will have to bear the consequences, such as a broken relationship. Just like there are consequences in breaking any type of clauses in a contract.

But sex is not a special dangerous act that needs to be handled with kid gloves, and where society must get involved and enforce "sexual restraint" to override individual responsability, as if individuals were too weak to have sex by themselves. Sex is not a separate, sacred act from other human acts, such as washing one's hands before meals.

Making sex sacred through "purity" and "modesty" legitimates violence in sex against non-conformers, and any female can be considered a non-conformer by a rapist.

... and making sex sacred makes rapists out of men.

If two adults and consenting, there is no valid reason for sexual restraint.

You've never been tied up? Good thing dolphins lack opposable thumbs.

@72

"other than unregistered homophobes"

Should that really be plural? I thought it was just the same obsessed weirdo over and over. Certainly all the comments have the same writing style (bad ranty poetry)...

@109 Yes, you think that purity and modesty are the problem. You're wrong. The problem is not purity; it's gender inequality.

Something that's unquestionably bad, rape, has been associated with something that you happen to disapprove of, a focus on chastity, and you're jumping to the conclusion that the second causes the first.

Look at it this way: Back in the 1980s, a lot of gay men had AIDS. AIDS is unquestionably bad. Homosexuality was just something that most people back then happened to disapprove of. But homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS. Yes, refraining from homosexual sexual activity among men put people at less risk for contracting HIV, but that has nothing to do with whether homosexuality in itself is good or bad.

But that didn't stop homophobes from blaming the gays for spreading disease and claiming that it was God's punishment for their unenlightened ways. That's just what you guys are doing now: Something you don't like is associated with something that's bad, and you're claiming that it's caused by their unenlightened focus on sexual restraint rather than on the real cause.

@ 104 - You're probably not going to read this, as I'm a bit late in commenting, but you are FULL OF SHIT.

I am a man, and I have been raped. YOU don't know what you're talking about, so SHUT THE FUCK UP.

@113: But what do you think is the real cause? You wrote @108 "The problem is holding women responsible for men's sexual choices." Do you not see that this is an integral part of the purity culture? Purity is a sacred state that women are required to protect and preserve. If they fail to do so, then they are impure - and an impure woman is one who deserves whatever it is that she gets as a result.

@115 I do not believe that valuing purity and chastity—especially not if they are valued in both sexes—necessarily places people in a position in which they are held responsible for other people's choices.

I believe that the real cause is gender inequality. Believing that women have to be pure but men don't is the cause. Believing that women are there to be, as the article says, objects of pleasure and reproduction is the cause. Believing that men's sexual needs are just like hunger and thirst and must be met and that men cannot or should not be expected to control these needs is the cause.

The belief that having few, carefully chosen sexual partners throughout one's life is good, however, had nothing to do with Ms. Pandey getting attacked. That belief is harmless by itself. It is only when people say "She got raped because she's impure" or "she was asking for it; look how she's dressed" that there's trouble.

@114: oh, i do, honey, i do. you've been raped? do tell.

116: When we talk about purity culture, we're not talking about people being advised to exercise restraint for practical reasons (lower STI risk, etc). We're talking explicitly about cultures who view women as "pure" or "impure" based on the amount of sex they've had (or, usually, whether they've had any sex at all). There's a difference, and the latter is what we're focused on here. It may not be the only factor contributing towards rape culture, but it definitely shares a strong connection with rape culture.

Maybe there is a hypothetical way in which purity, if applied universally, wouldn't be sexist or dehumanizing and wouldn't be connected to rape culture. But we're not talking about hypotheticals. The egalitarian purity culture you describe doesn't exist, which is telling.

In reality, purity cultures apply this value system specifically to women- this is not a coincidence, and it's completely irrelevant whether or not it theoretically could be in some alternative world. Assigning "worth" to a woman based on her sexual experience (which is exactly what 'purity' hangups do) is dehumanizing: by default, it makes them less than human; it makes them a commodity rather than a person. A person's worth doesn't lower after having been "used," but a thing's worth does.

Also don't confuse "rape culture" with "rape incidents." A rapist might not be motivated by notions of purity. An incident of rape, by itself, may have little to do with whether women are dehumanized by social convention or not. But a "rape culture," where rape is normalized, over-rationalized, oddly common, and where responsibility is pinned on the victims, has everything to do with whether or not women are dehumanized in that culture.

Women are dehumanized in purity cultures and their worth is connected too specifically to their sexual experience. As a result their rapes are taken less seriously than they should be and are often seen as having something to do with the character of the woman rather than simply being seen as a violent crime.

@114

I'm so sorry to read that, Ricardo. You are corageous to share. Rape is a terrible thing for all who have experienced it. And, I hope you are far along on your journey of healing.

Take care,
k

@ 114 and 117: Me too. It sucks. We shouldn't hate on each other. I like and respect you both, and I wish to god that you two didn't have this awful thing in common. These last few days have been hard. I know that these conversations have made me feel sick and angry and full of despair.
There are so many of us.....

I wish I could hug you both and tell you that it'll be ok.

@118 Yes, the concept of sexual restraint as being good in and of itself, independently of STI transmission is purity. That's why I keep using the term "chastity," which is so often used in religious contexts. We're not misunderstanding each other there.

I also concur that there is a correlation here. Cultures that view women as objects are more likely to think of purity/chastity as important, and they are more likely to have problems with rape. However, it is these misguided views that create a culture of rape, not the focus on purity. It is entirely possible to value purity without creating an environment that excuses or misplaces the blame for rape.

By choosing the title "Purity Culture Is Rape Culture," Mr. Savage is saying that valuing purity is what is to blame for these crimes, and it's not. It implies "sexual restraint isn't just not fun; it's going to get people RAPED!" "people who value purity aren't just prudes with whom I happen to disagree; they're putting others in danger!" and that's not true.

@121: Here's the thing: People who value "chastity" or "purity" or "sexual restraint" or what have you for themselves are not putting others in danger. People who value those things for everyone else, through what we are calling "purity culture," may be.

And while it may be true that it isn't the focus on "purity" as much as it is all the misogynist baggage that goes with it that is the real issue, the fact is that it practice the two are damned hard to disentangle a lot of the time. The existence of some ideals of chastity that are not inherently misogynist does not negate the existence of a whole lot more which are.

@122 Then we shouldn't be saying "Purity Culture Is Rape Culture." We should be saying "Misogynist Baggage Culture Is Rape Culture." I could get behind that. But characterizing the word "Purity" in this way is an attempt to frame an idea that Mr. Savage does not like as much more harmful than it truly is.

@124 Contraception has nothing to do with whether a focus on chastity causes rape. I concur that access to contraception is a good thing for women and for society at large.

@126 No it's not. Purity is about sexual restraint. It's the idea that having fewer sexual partners is better than having more. Even misogynistic purity rationales have nothing to do with contraceptives.

@DRF:
Even the choice of the word "purity" is a problem.

Pure = clean; that means: not pure = dirty, contaminated

Why can someone who chooses to have sex outside of marriage not be "pure"? She has to be "dirty"?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have only a limited number of sexual partners during one's lifetime. But there is a lot wrong with letting everyone know that this is the morally superior choice and calling everyone who makes a different choice in effect "dirty".

#30 - the Texas school teacher wasting tax dollars on purity lectures is not making it more likely that "pure" girls will get raped by the boys of her creed. She is making it more likely that women who fall into that creeds "impure" category will get raped. These types of traditional women need to piss off.

@128 Yes, it's deliberate. The idea that having few sexual partners is good and healthy and that having many sexual partners, especially if chosen indiscriminately, is bad and unhealthy merits the use of words that have connotations of cleanliness and uncleanliness. If you think about it, it's no worse than describing a diet full of unhealthy food as "junky."

What you seem to be saying is that you don't like or approve of the concepts of purity and chastity. That's valid. The fact that a sensible person can believe this is not in question. The issue at hand is whether or not it's valid to claim that valuing purity and chastity causes horrible events like what happened to Ms. Panday. It isn't.

@130 "The idea that having few sexual partners is good and healthy and that having many sexual partners [...] is bad and unhealthy"

How PURITY works where society gives no shit about it :
Religious : "Wah wah wah... Purity... Rings... Bears..."
Males and Females : "Yeah, whatever, having sex before marriage is better than marrying someone sexually incompatible ! Gross he's so focused on fucking, he an OB-GYN ?"

How PURITY works where society gives a huge shit about it :
Religious : "I'm your specialist in sexual moral matters ! Remember purity : the lesser, the better ! And put your Modesty Attire on, you impure whores !"
Female to religious : "Someone raped me, even though I had my Modesty Attire on !"
Religious : "Oh, no, a peen went in your poon and I hadn't married those sexual organs together yet ! Now you're impure ! If you get married to any other man that will make another, different peen get into your poon ! Further impurity ! We can't allow that ! Only way now to become pure again : marry your rapist !"
Male rapist to religious : "hey, thanks, buddy ! Couldn't talk any female into marrying me, but now things are so looking up for me ! Hey, when I'm bored with her, can I say she's taken a lover, and then we'll stone her, and then I rape another one and marry her ?"
Religious : "Sure, son. Purity applies to living poons only, dead poons don't count. Don't go rape two girls in a row, though, that would be tricky for our PURITY business."

Wake up from purity, DRF. Look around. You might learn a thing or two.