Sex and scallops

Everyone knows the only way to keep high school students "pure" is to make sure they have no social skills whatsoever, and that they go around carrying bookbags filled with so many math and science books that they cannot stand up straight, no matter how hard they try. But not everyone can go to Stuyvesant, so for the rest of American teens, who would otherwise be gettin' some, there are purity rings, sort of like chastity belts for the finger, except that they aren't only supposed to regulate the actions of one's fingers. Seems these rings are being marketed as either Christian or secular jewelry, the idea being that even the most godless individuals have good reason to save themselves for marriage.

What's always confused me about abstinence-only education is that its goal is not just to prevent teen sex--a reasonable if not entirely wise aim--but to prevent all premarital sex, even among adults. This now apparently includes preventing "a physical relationship that causes you to be 'turned on' sexually." While this is all well and good if you get married the day after prom, what if you don't? How weird would it be to reach 20, 30, 40... and still... nothing. Not even a moment at first base, just because you didn't meet anyone you wanted to marry, or because it was too confusing whether someone was a good candidate for marriage or just for other things. I have no idea, in the American Christian context, which behaviors that lead to being "turned on" are off-limits, as even looking at a person in a certain way might have that effect, so this all seems far too involved...

For religion, people do all sorts of crazy things, repress all sorts of urges, etc. Religion gives a reason beyond disease and pregnancy to keep people from having sex. That pregnancy can easily be prevented with the simultaneous use of two near-perfect birth control methods is irrelevant if you think God will strike you down for premarital hand-holding. That abstinence prevents certain negative (as well as positive) physical and emotional outcomes is true for all, religious and secular; that it keeps you "pure" is something only understood by those with certain religious convictions.

Somewhat tangentially, this is where I disagree with the (rest of) the left: I believe that there are individuals, gay and straight, who are actually happier abstinent than sexually active, because it would be so upsetting to them to indulge that it would cancel out any pleasure sex would bring them. I don't think sexual desires are somehow inherently stronger than religious fervor, so if a desire for "purity" exceeds one for sex, that's the desire that wins out. Of course, I say this from the perspective of someone who is completely secular, so perhaps I'm wrong, but I think many secular, liberal types like myself make the mistake of thinking that everyone who doesn't have many sexual experiences, preferably with both sexes, is somehow miserable. I say this not out of some all-encompassing idea of moral equivalence--I do not believe that if someone's religion dictates female genital mutilation, beating women, etc., that that's fine, too--but out of a sense that different people want different things for different reasons, and to assume a healthy, fulfilling sex life is everyone's first priority is unfair.

Which brings me to the ever-fascinating concept of "shomer negiah," a concept which apparently, I realize upon Googling it, has its own blog. I suspect the (anonymous) blog may be somewhat fictional, but regardless, people like the "shomer negiah" blogger probably exist, so it makes for an interesting, if unreliable, read. I don't know anyone personally (well, obviously not "personally") who observes this rule, so I'm not sure how it works on a day to day basis, how often it's broken, whether hand-holding is as sinful as a cheeseburger, etc., but it seems to fit quite well with what the "purity ring" contingent expects of unmarried Christians. It's a way of going above and beyond plain old "abstinence," in part so as to make extra-certain that abstinence is the result, but also in part to show yourself to be an extra-hardcore believer, even beyond what most would think the religion in question demands. It's sort of like saying that not only is shrimp non-kosher, but so is romaine lettuce that might contain bugs (hat tip: Sam), or even tap water that may contain non-kosher microorganisms. Of course, sexual restrictions are typically more fraught than dietary ones--while there are surely more opportunities, during a typical day for a typical person, to eat non-kosher food than to engage in premarital sex, a happy life can be led wihtout eating any number of foods, whether for religious, health, or squeamishness reasons, whereas a sex-free life, while perhaps the best or even only option for the super-religious and single, is going to be a bit more problematic.

Which brings me to this, which I found via Gawker. I don't quite know what to make of it, other than the fact that this Andrew Krucoff fellow's expression is... exactly what you'd expect of a man watching otherwise modest young girls going wild. The whole Catholic schoolgirl thing apparently works even when the girls are Jewish; all the better if they observe a law forbidding them even the slightest physical contact with men, and yet for some reason are taking part in a wet-t-shirt (well, wet-skirt, too) contest.

Is there a point to all this? Surprisingly, yes: While it's perfectly legitimate to abstain from premarital sex if you feel this goes against your own (almost always religious) principles, if you are just some random teenager or single adult, there's no reason you should be inundated with this rhetoric of "purity." The concept of "purity" is not only inherently religious, but it must be specific to a particular faith one adheres to, rather than to a generic Judeo-Christian idea that premarital sex is wrong. So a "secular purity ring" is not, in fact, possible.