[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n 1607, the North American colony Virginia was established by the English. These colonists wished to compete with the Spanish who found gold and riches in South America. The English named their new colony Virginia, in honor of their Queen Victoria. The name Virginia refers to the Queen’s supposed chastity, rather than her leadership abilities or any goodwill she may have brought the English people. The naming of this English colony reflects a painstakingly common trend in history and popular culture, in which women’s bodies define their worth and limit their rights.  These conditions lead women to believe their worth lies somewhere between their legs, rather than residing within their hearts.

Virginity is utilized to define women’s worth and moral character. Women are valued in many religions for remaining pure for marriage. In some cultures, newly married couples are expected to have intercourse immediately after marriage and present the blood-stained sheet. This is intended to prove the bride’s virginity. It is believed that a hymen will only break after a woman loses her virginity. An article written by Carol Roye, a nurse practitioner who serves teenagers, explains this dynamic:

“The hymen is the focus of many traditions. In some cultures, the newlyweds are expected to consummate the marriage immediately after the wedding ceremony and then appear before their guests with the blood-stained sheet to prove that the bride was a virgin. But many women who have never had intercourse don’t bleed during first intercourse because their hymen has already been disrupted.”

The issue with this method of authentication is that many women break their hymens before they have intercourse. Others are born without them. (click here for definition of hymen) Proving virginity remains important when determining women’s worth, even though the concept has no medical definition.

Placing value on a physical trait such as an intact hymen, and granting moral value through its presence degrades women.  It implies that women’s qualities come from the condition of their physical bodies, rather than their intellectual or emotional traits.  

Even though women’s rights have advanced dramatically in the United States, women are still devalued by these standards.  Nationally many high schools offer abstinence-only or abstinence focussed sex education.  By 2014, abstinence-only sex education programs received $1.75 billion in federal funding.  These programs teach students that sexual purity grants them moral value.  

In 2013, a school district in Texas demonstrated this dynamic to students by comparing people who engage in premarital sex to a chewed up piece of gum.  The lesson is intended to show students that once they, like the gum, are ‘used’ by having sex, they are ruined and deemed unlovable.  

Women are taught in abstinence-only sex education that as the sexually passive gender they have a responsibility to stop premarital sex.  Last year during my church’s abstinence talk, the woman speaking told us about how abstaining from sex can dignify sexuality and give respect to our bodies.

These values are not degrading and can have positive emotional outcomes in relationships and marriages. Her arguments seemed promising until she informed us ladies that we have a responsibility to stop men from having sex, and implied that abstinence is naturally easier for women than men.

Her final and most important point revealed the true intentions of many abstinence programs: reinforcing gender roles that imply sexual purity is the most important standard women can hold themselves to.

In many other conservative Christian values, women are the focus when it comes to preserving and valuing chastity. In a majority of states across the country, fathers and daughters participate in purity balls.  These balls are wedding-like ceremonies in which fathers promise to protect their daughter’s purity to remain intact for marriage.

 The Wilson family started the balls around twenty years ago, and states that the balls foster an “incredibly important father-daughter relationship.”  The Christian Center, which organizes purity balls in Illinois says that as an organization they “encourage young women to commit to moral purity and help them understand the beautiful and righteous life God offers them[.]”

The balls are meant to encourage father-daughter relationships, preserve purity, and help make faith an integral part of young girl’s lives.  These goals have hidden meanings and reveal underlying cultural values about gender roles.  

Jessica Valenti, a feminist author points out that the purity balls are heavily focused on virginity rather then father-daughter relationships or emotional development in girls:

https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/159390027560919040

The selection of the daughter and father pair in the balls exposes the reality that women’s purity is valued over men’s. It also implies that men have ownership or jurisdiction over women’s sexuality. There are no purity balls for boys and their mothers. Instead, boys are encouraged to attend the balls and watch the fathers model how to treat women.

When men are presented with purity rings, it is usually associated with a promise to protect women’s purity rather than their own. These messages give men and boys the impression that they have a responsibility to preserve someone’s morality other than their own, and also that by engaging in sex they have the power to take away that purity. (but do not jeopardize their own)

 It is also notable that in these important coming of age ceremonies for children, men have substantial roles.  Traditionally women are expected to raise children, but when it comes to groundbreaking moral teachings and declarations of purity, men hold the responsibility for both girls and boys.

When sexual purity outweighs any other trait in determining a woman’s value, it emotionally affects how women evaluate their self-worth.  Elizabeth Smart, a woman who was repeatedly raped by her abductor explained her struggles with this concept.  She was raised with the understanding that her purity defined her, and when that was taken away she felt worthless. She speaks out against the ways sexual assault survivors are treated and judged.

 Her analysis of rape culture brings attention to the ways placing moral value on chastity eats away at women’s emotional well being: “After that first rape, I felt crushed. Who would want me now? I felt so dirty and so filthy.”

 Rape culture implies that a woman’s purity, and along with the moral character, can be removed because of something someone else does.  A woman’s character can be influenced by actions others do to her against her will.

These examples prove that overall, values enforcing chastity as a moral standard are sex-selective. Women’s worth is placed on intact hymens to prove their virginity, while this concept unprovable by medical professionals.

The purity balls in father-daughter pairs reveal that men are granted ownership over women’s sexuality, rather than women themselves.

Abstinence-only sex education gave clear exhibitions of sexual activity being presented as something that can strip morality when sexually active teenagers were represented with a chewed up piece of gum.

These social customs and values show an overall trend that women’s worth is focused on their sexual purity, rather than compassion or individual personalities. These attitudes lead women to believe that their worth comes from intact hymens, and distracts from their unique talents and capabilities.

Featured Image: “flowers” by Nic Redhead, Creative Commons 2.0