I'm not really sure what type of purity culture you're talking about. I'm in favor of the sort of picture Paul paints in Corinthians--or
not in favor of it, I should say. Wacky, wacky Corinthians.
I am all for adhering to a sort of biblical, Pauline virtue ethics, though I wouldn't really consider that purity culture.
[edited for clarity] Yes, that is more or less what I have in mind when I say 'purity culture,' which from what I gather is somewhat different than what has been passed off as such in some overly exuberant churches. And your analogy with Corinth is apt. In fact, I find it amazing how similar we today in the U.S. are in various respects to the Corinthians. I've actually thought we should change the titles of these two related letters from Paul to 1st and 2nd Americans.
I find the focus on female chastity extremely problematic, especially combined with the idea that when men behave badly, it's normal and to be expected. I ran into this recently here with some Trump supporters who couldn't understand why I had a problem with the sort of sexual remarks Trump makes. It is bizarre to be a Democrat screaming at Republicans about sexual morality, but as long as large swaths of the Christian world are out to lunch on the issue of male chastity, I think this is going to be an issue. (I know this is not you, but it's definitely one of the big issues I have about purity culture in general.)
If it's any consolation, my primary thrust is on male concupiscence (yes, that is a pun!) and the male driven commercial sex industry that culls out and attracts financially starved women. It's just that some attention (correction?) is to be applied to women because, well, let's face it, they are the fairer sex and some of them are being excessively complicit in the various male-driven sex industries. And it only takes one Playmate to hook a bunch of male kids ... for life.
Yes, large swaths of the Christian world are "out to lunch" and haven't yet even really addressed the presence in our culture of the male Double - Standard.
I also dislike the idea of "saving" yourself until marriage, both because it's not that hard to slip and make a mistake, and because sexual violence is an unfortunate reality. A woman who was planning on waiting until marriage can get drunk and make a mistake, and decide that now that sexual purity is no longer an option, there's no reason to not abstain any further. This type of culture doesn't teach people how to handle mistakes, which is a serious problem.
This is probably the one point on which I will somewhat differ with you. I think the idea of waiting for marriage is beneficial, but only for Christians. I mean....hey...I'm not expecting this Pauline type purity culture thing to be mandated by law, especially not across the board. What I don't want to hear, however, is the voice of non-Christians shouting down Christians who do think it is the wisest choice. On the other hand, I would socially advocate for Christians to become much, much better educated about sexual matters and various issues about physical and relational compatibility.
On the issue of "mistakes," I'm not harping. Virginity before marriage is something Christians should strive for but not preach to the world to conform to. And I think you're quite right in saying that what should be promoted is a cultural value on acknowledging mistakes as mistakes and how to handle them in wise and helpful ways, part of which should provide 'the church' with opportunities for service and restoration
rather than platforms for unnecessary political reform parading as agendas pertaining to moral control in society.
I don't really know what you mean by "raunchiness." It's such a strange word, haha. I think that a lot of what goes on is exploitative (and not exclusively of women), and that it's really difficult to lead a permiscuous lifestyle and not end up hurting people, yourself included.
At the least, I mean by raunchiness what Ariel Levy means by it, and as you may know, she is a non-christian, Jewish, Lesbian feminist. So, if I can agree with at least her definition, I feel I'm on to something.
I was specifically thinking of the tendency to judge women in particular based on sexual status. The Madonna-harlot dichotomy.
uh.....but Madonna is a harlot! Oh...oh, wait a minute, you mean the other Madonna, don't you?
But seriously, the Bible does judge women who persist in a particular lifestyle or immoral attitude just as surely as it does men (who it may identify as 'harlot-mongers'.......ew!) And yes, yes, I know all of this is troublesome emotionally these days, but it is for most of us. We all have to pull the immorality 'out' of us if we want to be Christian. I don't expect non-Christians to be able to do that very well, if at all.
Well, I'm thinking more about things like the modern discussion of sexual harassment and assault, which I don't think would have been possible even a couple decades ago. Sexual abuse was just not the type of thing that people were comfortable talking about before, so as much as the modern secular world irritates me, I don't pine for the good old days of being silenced.
Oh, I just define all of THAT STUFF as standard, required Ethical education for everyone. So, yeah, all of that should be out in the open to scare off any perps who think abuse and physical force are somehow 'meet' for social interaction.
Things are more than a bit odd right now, but the progressive world at least is kind of confusedly creeping towards a new type of sexual morality. It's also getting increasingly puritanical in a way that I find fascinating.
If we count the thinking of persons like Ariel Levy, then yes, I suppose so. But I'm not seeing it take hold on a wide scale yet, unless you're somehow counting the #me2 movement. You may have to enlighten me further on what way you're seeing this 'progressive creeping' which you're talking about.
Found one. Mr. Atheist seems to eschew the idea that having to go to the Bible to support a notion about sexual propriety means the notion itself should be seen as questionable [between minute 6 and 7]? NOT! What's questionable is 'how' people apply hermeneutics to their understanding about social principles seen in the Bible, not whether or not they go to the bible for social principles.