It's Time to Have "The Talk" - Part Two

When I was in middle school, I remember we had a special guest speaker come in to talk to us about chastity.  This wasn't a surprising thing for a Catholic school to do, and the speaker was charismatic and entertaining.  He used such romantic language as "true love", "princess", "happily ever after", and so on and so forth, making it sound like such a fairy tale to stay "pure."  By the end of the talk, most of my class willingly signed a "purity" card, promising to wait until marriage to have sex.


Years later, I'm thinking back on that talk, and realizing how screwed up it really was.

Let me begin by saying that this is not an anti-chastity post.  Chastity, truthfully defined as "the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of [a person] in [his or hers] bodily and spiritual being", is a good thing (CCC, #2337).  It's an awareness and respect of one's own sexuality, and an understanding that sexuality is an integral part of the wholeness of the person.  It's a gift, and one that should be used responsibly.  Unfortunately, that's not what most people think of when the topic of chastity is brought into conversation.  Most people think that it is interchangeable with "virgin" or "pure", when it is in fact a term much more complex than either of those words.  But, you'll most likely come away from any chastity talk today with the idea that "chastity = not having sex", which, at the end of the day, has more potential for harm than good.

So, am I saying that the Church should do away with chastity talks?  No, I'm not.  What the Church does need to do, however, is reflect on and change the language that is used during those talks and the actual message that young people who hear them are receiving.  Specifically, the use of the word "pure", and the intensely gender-divided lessons.

When talking about chastity, what does it mean to say someone is "pure"?  Well, you're knee-jerk thoughts might be that that person is "clean", "wholesome", "unsullied", and "untouched".  But, digging a little deeper, what exactly does all that mean?  What are we really saying about someone when we call them "pure"?  To put it simply, pure = virgin.  Someone who has never had intercourse (even if they've done other stuff) is considered to be "pure" in the Church's eyes.  By that definition, then, the flipside would mean that non-virgin = used, dirty, unclean, sullied, broken, etc.  In other words, a non-virgin is automatically less of an ideal person than a virgin.

Let's pretend for a moment that you are a girl in high school, and a speaker comes to talk to your class about chastity.  You hear some things like "stay pure", "true love waits", "stay true to your future husband", "dress in a way that won't tempt guys" and so on.  Maybe the speaker uses some kind of imagery, like a white rose.  They hold up the rose and say that it's a representation of you when you're pure, and then squish it in their hand.  When they have another student try to straighten the squished petals out (and they obviously can't), they say that that's what happens when you give up your purity.  Maybe they take it one step further and compare women (yes, specifically women) to a clean, white piece of cloth, which they then get dirty.  They offer it to a boy in the crowd and ask if he would want to clean his hands with the dirtied cloth, and he naturally says no.  What's the lesson?  Guys don't want "dirtied" girls.  Super duper.

If you're a virgin, this might all sound just dandy for you.  But...what if you aren't?  What if you've already had sex?  Maybe you willingly chose to do it...maybe you were unwilling.  Either way, the message seems pretty clear: You're dirty.  You're used.  What respectable guy will ever want you now?  You don't think a young, impressionable high school girl who is bombarded daily with criticisms of herself from the media and society at large is going to come to these conclusions?  Sure, you can commit herself to "purity" from this point onwards...but the damage is done.  Instead of being uplifted, instead of choosing to wait because you know how important sex really is and why the Church considers it so sacred, you just feel more weighed down by guilt and fear.  Which, believe me, high school girls feel enough of in their day-to-day lives.

Even if you are a virgin, however, this language can still have negative consequences.  You come away from the talk with a fairy-tale understanding of how relationships work.  All you have to do is stay "pure" and you'll find your prince charming.  There's nothing about how naturally difficult relationships are, how much work goes into even the most successful ones.  And there sure as hell isn't any talk about how much work the sex part of a relationship will be, especially if you're completely ignorant of that area.  How will you shake the negative thoughts and ideas that you have about sex if you do get married and want to have it?  Won't you always see that part of your married life as a little bit dirty?  Plus, how is this talk going to color how you view girls you know have had sex?  Will you think less of them?  Will you avoid them, because you think they're bad or dirty?  Will you start judging others, instead of loving them?

Let's switch it up!  Now I want you to pretend you're a high school boy listening to a chastity talk.  Is what you hear going to have as big of an impact on you as it does the girls?  Are you going to feel as guilty, as dirty as a non-virgin female classmate?  Probably not.  Why?  Because while girls are most often told they need to remain pure to find love and get married, putting all the pressure on them to keep themselves "intact", boys are cast into the "prince charming", "true man", or protector role.  They are told the best type of girl to be with is a "pure" one, who will need to be protected.  There's nothing about mutually supporting each other in a relationship or partnership.  Boys are told that "pure" girls are delicate little flowers, and it's their job to make sure nothing "sullies" them.

Sure, this might not sound that bad at first glance, but these messages do nothing to empower young people, especially girls.  They're not keeping themselves "pure" because they have a right to control what happens to their own bodies, or a right to embrace their sexuality in the way they think is most wholesome.  No.  They have to stay "pure", or they will never find true love.  And for the boys?  When they say they need to be "true men", it's a very specific understanding of what it means to be a man.  Tough, strong, masculine, non-emotional, aggressive, take-charge...you get where I'm going with this?  Not all boys are going to fit into this mold of what it means to "be a man", and this is far from the only way to "be a man"!  However, when the Church is presenting it's understanding of what it means to be "pure" to young men and women, these deep gender divides in the language used and lessons taught feed into a much larger social problem.  This kind of divide leads to women who are opinionated and aggressive being labeled "bossy" or "bitchy", and for men who

display the same characteristics to be labeled "driven" and "assertive".  It's the divide that pressures men to keep their emotions buried, and for the norm for women to often be seen as "overly" emotional.  It's the divide that slut-shames girls and criticizes their bodies and the way they dress, while it's almost expected of men to engage in promiscuity (at least while young) and views those men who don't want to live up to that expectation as "unmanly".  It's the divide that makes certain men believe they can make decisions regarding women's bodies without involving women in the conversation at all.  It's the divide that leads some men to believe that it doesn't matter if a woman says no...

So what can we do instead?  What can the Church do to make chastity talks a more empowering, educational experience that the poorly-veiled guilt trips they really are?  Language is key here.  The language needs to change.  The word "pure" needs to be removed from the equation completely.  Just because a person is a virgin, does not mean they are "pure".  Just because a person has had sex, does not mean they are "impure".  Not all girls need to fit into the "delicate flower" mold, and not all boys need to fit into the "tough, emotionless, manly" mold.  People are complicated, men and women are complicated.  Chastity talks need to acknowledge the complexity of humanity, take into account the very different experiences of people, and recognize the spectrum of sexuality.  They need to switch the view from "stay pure and your life will be great" to "here's why your sexuality is important, and here's how taking care of it can make you a more holistic person."  The Church as a whole needs to rethink it's approach to the subject of sex, and a good place to start is rethinking the message that it's giving to young people through its chastity talks.

Stay tuned for Part Three of "The Talk", where I'll offer an alternative to "abstinence-only" ministry.

Until next time,

Erin B.