Feb 25 2009
Jonas Brothers Purity Rings, Rest of Us Are Whores
I know some personality types will take offense to this–religious, sentimental romantics–but the idea of a “purity ring” is pure nonsense. The poster boys for purity The Jonas Brothers sport theirs around to support abstinence.
Someone out there is going to ask why I am attacking abstinence? I’m not. Abstinence is attacking me and everyone else who has sex outside of marriage. It’s the very pop Christian term “Purity Ring” that is at fault because what is the opposite? The implication is that if you are not wearing one of these rings you’re a potential victim for “impurity.” And “GASP” if you’ve already had sex and you’re not married you are definitely impure.
In other words, you’re a whore, a slut, a tramp, a wild child running rampant in the night. It doesn’t matter if you’re a girl, a guy or something inbetween–it’s all about being legally married according to government regulations. I mean you can’t have a religous ceremony and be married, it’s the state who decides if you’re pure in America–not God!
I resent this impurity implication and while I would never make fun of The Jonas Brothers if they were wearing something called “Abstinence Rings,” I will make fun of them for wearing “Purity Rings.” “Abstinence Rings” is a neutral way of putting their desire to be married first before having sex. “Purity Rings” says that if I don’t agree with their lifestyle choice, I’m impure.
And do we really think teenage boys are “pure”? That’s the time of life when they’re jerking off, glancing at boobs and butts, imagining Miley Cyrus naked (oh, whoops, did I go too far), and sneaking peeks at hotel porn. And if you think I’m exaggerating, I’m not. Christian boys feel a tremendous amount of guilt for impure thoughts when it’s simply their biological imperative giving them ideas.
“Impurity” hides itself behind “pure” smiles. A legal paper sanctioning your sex act doesn’t make you pure. If anything you would have to go Zen and clear your mind of any sexual thoughts–that is, if sex was dirty.
And it’s not. Sex is not impure and having sex before marriage is not impure. The terms purity and impurity are BS unless you’re talking science. What sex really comes down to is responsibility. If the Jonas Brothers are responsible, that’s nice, but so am I and I never had to wear a ring to prove it.
The purity rings are disney’s way of safely marketing sex to pre-teens
Sex is not impure. But sex before marriage is impure, at least according to the Christian God. You give no definition of purity, excepting that you equate it with responsibility. I might buy that, except that if you think sex before marriage is either physically, emotionally, or spiritually responsible, then are seriously deceiving yourself.
Cheers.
That’s right, how dare they try to go against the grain in such an offensive manner? How dare they practice their beliefs for others to see? I mean, they are just celebrities in the public eye. They need to start talking about how hot every other woman is (sexually) and jump in and out of beds instead of brandishing something lame like a purity ring, oh no I mean the suggested “abstinence ring” because purity ring brings so much guilt on those without one, right? Though I’m sure the Jonas Brothers are just being themselves, the guilt OTHER PEOPLE feel is their fault, as is anyone else that wears a purity ring. It’s a shame when people want to be innocent of the potential vices of society. And it is even worse when people feel guilty for not being in on the hip new purity rings. I guess that reveals how easily offended and under confident people are in the lives they are leading.