And I thought I was going through a dry spell....

I realized that I used to write about current events with a lot more frequency than I do now. The reason suddenly occured to me. I used to read the New York Times online then, as I was already sitting in front of my computer, type out my response. Since moving to Queens I have had the New York Times delivered to the house, thus when I read it I'm probably on the couch, at the living room table, or even on the toilet (quite possibly the best place to read the newspaper), none of which is anywhere near the computer.

This morning when I went downstairs to eat breakfast I found the paper open to the style section. I'm not one for the style section. I tend to be a front page, metro, arts and leisure (and occasionally, sports) section kind of guy. Once in a blue moon I'll read the magazine, but rarely do I read any of the other sections. As Fashion was right in front of me I glanced over it and came across an article I felt a strong desire to discuss.

Chastity Rings. Small silver bands one wears on their ring finger in lue of a wedding band. The chastity ring signifies that the wearer will abstain from sex until it is replaced with a wedding ring.

Whether people have sex before marriage or if they decide to wait, I really don't care. What I do have an issue with is this: when speaking about the ring Jonathan Wagner, 16, of Wexford, PA. said this (quote is taken directly from the NY Times article), "It's a good tool to help you explain your decision and a reminder to you to remain pure."

It's the purity bit that gets me. I dislike the idea that sex is an impure action. The person back in the day who declared sex to be impure clearly wasn't doing it right. Though, as one who once was a dorky teenager with a veritable sexless high school career, I can see the desire to have an excuse why you're not having sex. It wasn't because I was a scrawny, acne riddled, comic book dork, and few girls found me desirable. It's a lot better for my self-esteem to think I choose to be celibate, instead of celibacy choosing me.

If people want to wait until they are married, to have sex, make love with someone they love and who loves them more power to them. I respect that. But if you are choosing celibacy due to some notion at "purity" or "remaining pure" I think you should get off your high horse and join the rest of us in the human race. Sex is natural, almost every living thing does it (well some reproduce asexually, but where's the fun in that?). In my experience, the repression of natural desires is more harmful than not.

I'm not advocating a balls out, hedonistic orgy of sex and other pleasures of the flesh. It's just when I read quotes like (again from the same article)

A statement on the website of True Love Waits, and abstinence group that encourages the wearing of purity rings, says purity also means saying no to "sexual touching," "to a physical relationship that causes you to be 'turned on' sexually," and to "pornography or pictures that feed sexual thoughts."

Maybe it's just me, but if I abstained from any physical relationship causing me to be turned on I'd be so stifled I'd become aroused at any image, possibly even:



or worse:



So, if you are waiting until marriage because you want the sex to be meaningful, to be with someone you truly love, then I say more power to you. If it's because you think sex is impure and wrong, and anything remotely sexual is wrong, then what kind of relationships do you have, and how do you date?


All quotes taken from The New York Times; Thursday, December, 8 2005 - Fashion section, pages G1 and G2. Article titled: A Ring That Says No, Not Yet.