MarcusD pointed out a recent article by Samantha Pugsley: I Waited Until My Wedding Night To Lose My Virginity And I Wish I Hadn’t. Salon published the same article under the title My Christian virginity pledge nearly destroyed me.
This is of course catnip for feminists (Christian or otherwise), who have been diligently inverting the very concept of sexual morality. According to this new view, teaching sexual morality is immoral. It is considered immoral because in the feminist view it disempowers women, especially young women. Not surprisingly, an essential part of Pugsley’s “healing” is to remember that sex is only moral when it is miserly:
When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.
Most of this is exactly what it seems, a rationalization for sexual immorality by women and feminists. With that said, there is something creepy about the modern purity movement. However, the perversion in modern Christianity is not teaching women (or men) virginity until marriage, but the often unspoken belief that women should delay marriage. Sexual desire isn’t presented as bad or dirty in the Bible. The biblical solution to sexual desire is to marry and have sex, but the vast majority of modern Christians are horrified at the idea of young marriage, especially for women. As a result of trying to teach purity while being hostile to traditional marriage, we end up with the perverse replacement of the father for the groom (scroll down to see all of the photos), the groom he is keeping her from marrying.
But make no mistake, the perversion isn’t in teaching virginity until marriage, but the accompanying hostility to women marrying in their late teens or early twenties.