Daddy I Do: "Purity" World is Tough for Women
by Sarah Seltzer, RH Reality Check
November 10, 2010 - 10:45pm (Print)
Daddy, I Do is an independent documentary from debut filmmaker 23-year-old Cassie Jaye. As its provocative title suggests, it explores the “purity” movement and the consequences of abstinence-only policies in America. Jaye speaks with abstinence advocates and scientists who support comprehensive sex education, and without much editorializing offers us all the available statistics about the effectiveness of one versus the other. Jaye particularly seems to relish hanging out with the “purity ball” and “purity ring” set, exposing us to a culture in which girls pledge their virginity to their fathers and the word “gift” is used over and over again to refer to virginity.
One family Jaye visits, the McCalls, with (adorable) girls all under the age of eight, are already heading out to purity balls. Their dad didn’t manage to stay abstinent until marriage, but he assures Jaye that he’s “learned from his mistakes.” And there’s no getting around it, as one woman later says in the documentary: The purity movement, particularly the father-daughter aspects of it, has a major “creep factor” which is one of the reason that many in America’s mainstream turn away from the idea of abstinence.
But what to do with the fact that, as Daddy I Do reminds us, one in six girls actually do pledge purity in America and 90 percent break that vow? And that 95 percent of American teens, regardless of religion, will have sex before marriage? One of the questions Jaye lets us ponder is whether these vow-breakers are armed with the knowledge they need when statistics bear out and they do start “sinning”? And furthermore, she asks whether the moral and ideological standards of one group has the right to determine, even intrude, on the educational standards of the entire population.
What happens after marriage?
In one of the film's most striking scenes, the mother of abstinence advocate Amy Catherine Flynn--who has brought her daughter up to believe in saving herself for marriage--expresses her own doubt in the Cinderella myth that girls are sold and that abstinent women often believe in. It’s the idea that once marriage occurs, the woman will be with her Prince Charming and they will live happily ever after--and have a great time in the sack to boot.
“These special men that women set themselves up for, are setting us up for emotional crashes,” the mother, who spoke from offscreen, told Jaye. She herself was a veteran of two marriages that went south. “When she wakes up one day and he’s not special...what happens to those women? She says, okay, I did all that for what? There’s still spousal abuse and child abuse and drug-abuse going on in these abstinent, save-yourself marriages,” she added.
This sobering moment of spontaneity was compounded by another interview with Matthew Paul Turner, a Christian sex educator, who said he worried that when people who were obsessed with the abstinence ideal actually did get married, they’d still feel guilty and repressed about their sex lives which obviously would present a barrier to intimacy and satisfaction within the relationship.
“Anything they would feel sexually, even in the context of a committed relationship, they feel guilty,” he says.
Fact Vs. Fiction
Jaye lingers for a long time with the folks at The Silver Ring Thing, a Christian abstinence movement which came into public schools and preached abstinence for many years during the Bush administration, even receiving federal funding, even though its founder says ““the ultimate goal is for teenagers to find Christ and end up in heaven.”
Only after exposing her viewers to a heaping dose of their pageantry and their pledges and their parent meetings does Jaye reveal that the ACLU successfully sued to get the program’s funding axed due to its clear violation of church and state boundaries. The program’s founder Denny Pattyn repeatedly insists that condoms don’t work and are faulty, and his followers don’t have their facts straight either.
One man interviewed by Jaye insists that his wife, who wasn’t a virgin, actually bled on their wedding night because they had prayed for healing. He sees this as a gift from God, a born-again virginity kind of thing. But most viewers will likely see it some sort of health problem that’s being glossed over as a miracle (or a lack of understanding about the woman’s first sexual encounter.)
Jaye juxtaposes Pattyn’s words with those of re searcher on sex education Dr. Doug Kirby, who says he doesn’t oppose an abstinence agenda, but does oppose abstinence-only curricula on the basis that it doesn’t work. And he has the data to prove it.
“The evidence regarding comprehensive sex education is very clear and compelling,” he says. Of all the programs he’s studied, “none of them hasten the initiation of sex. They also do not increase the number of partners or the frequency of sex.”
Women’s Choices Thwarted
Mixed in with Daddy, I Do’s averred interest in sex education policy is a documentary about Americans and our twisted, tortured relationship to sex that encompasses and goes beyond the "creep factor" of Purity Balls. And throughout Jaye’s up-close cross-country road trip (including obligatory musical and Western scenery montages as she drives from place to place) in which she makes stops to talk to everyone from a pole-dancing expert to a number of chastity advocates, to women contemplating their ill-informed reproductive choices, to scientists and professors, and even to our own Amanda Marcotte, it becomes clear just how deeply troubling that relationship is.
We meet a young woman with four or five children describing a history of violent sexual assault and childhood molestation, another woman describing being wheedled into pregnancy and then wheedled into abortion by the same man, and a third woman who was homeless when she was pregnant, living in her car. One thing the three subjects share is a lack of comprehensive sex education in their youth and also a lack of, to use a cliched phrase, sexual empowerment.
“If I had understood it, I wouldn’t have been as experimental [meaning risk-taking],” one says. Another said she didn’t use birth control because ““I didn’t trust it... I didn’t know enough about it, about anything really.”
The troubled women in the film whose background and circumstances differed, all shared at some point a reliance on relationships with men to boost low self-esteem, characteristics that the film only very implicitly connects to those well-meaning dads driving their little girls to the purity balls. Its an overarching theme that whether women are getting used for their bodies or told their bodies are sacred, these women are defined by men and don’t have control over their own sexuality--which leads to a lack of control over their own identities. As Trixie Lovett, a professional pole-dancing teacher in Vegas, (who proves to be one of the film’s most surprisingly wise voices) says, “I think we need to understand our bodies and the chemical makeup that we have and the urges--- and be mature and adult and not be controlled by men under the vice and under the cover and cloak of a higher power.”
This "movement" is a product of a "return to patriarchy" subculture which is just now being exposed to the painful light of those who have fled.
This movement is a fascinating phenomenom, but my sense is that it will pull in tight...as the voices of its first generation victims are beginning to be heard.
The biggest problem with this purity and abstinence obsession is that it bases morality on sexuality, specifically female sexuality. To be very blunt here: the totality of moral fiber, character, and spiritual worth is judged solely on whether or not a teenage girl/woman has had a penis inside her vagina. These purity-pushers are trying to send the message that sex is a "sacred gift for marriage" and they mistakenly believe that this is an empowering message for young girls -- but when you put that much moral importance on sex, it devalues all of the other qualities within a person. It doesn't matter if you are a kind, giving, talented, intelligent young woman... if you've had sex before marriage, you have spoiled "God's sacred gift" to you; you are spiritually wounded and must reclaim "secondary virginity" to abase yourself. No wonder these women STILL feel guilty when trying to enjoy their married sex life.
Recommended reading for all interested in this topic:
The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti
Virgin: The Untouched History by Hanne Blank
To be very blunt here: the totality of moral fiber, character, and spiritual worth is judged solely on whether or not a teenage girl/woman has had a penis inside her vagina.
But of course, only hers... his moral fiber, character, and spiritual worth are never based on whether or not he has put his penis inside of a vagina. :(
One man interviewed by Jaye insists that his wife, who wasn’t a virgin, actually bled on their wedding night because they had prayed for healing.
That is so sad. Bleeding shouldn't happen during sex (unless she was on her period) - that is a sign of injury. Why would they think being injured is a good thing?
I thought that was disgusting too.
I wonder if the conflation of pain with a "restoration of virginity" happened, too. I feel so bad for this woman... What a wedding night...
behind the sexual revolution. The basis of all atheism is free love. God has to be done away with so we can all be sexually liberated. Freely engaging in sex with more than one partner is dangerous, uncaring, unhealthy on so many levels and exceedingly irresponsible. Are we truly no higher than animals? Perhaps if we cleaned our act up including: lyrics in popular songs, movies, television programming, publications that focus entirely on the physical appearance of females, including immodest dress and seeking the unearthly "ideal" expected of all females, instead of on the necessity of beauty in the heart, raunchy billboards, men's clubs, etc. Fathers play a hugely significant role in whether or not their daughters will be promiscuous. Growing up with a close, loving, supportive father is essential for a girl's health and well-being. Encouraging abstinence helps to prevent the inevitable heartache that comes when a girl gives herself away to guys who profess love to them. Girls hearts are hurt when they guys who claim to love them leave them, while at the same time the guys escape unscathed. In reality, guys manipulatively feign love in order to get the sex they desire, while girls give sex hoping to find love - the love and affirmation that their own fathers have neglected to afford them.
Amplified Bible
Numbers 31:17 “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin.”
Numbers 31:18 “But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”
The bible god is pro-rape of young girls, and is not pro-life.
I am an asexual, heterosexual, atheist, with androphobia which derived from my christian background.
FBIR, I am very non-sexual, myself. It's more than just a lack of interest. The idea of myself having sex with someone else actually repels me, somewhat. What TruthSeeker and others cannot seem to understand is that that idea of sex I come from, is caused by my lack of trust in men outside of my family because of this idea of sex within marriage that my male acquaintances and friends have, much LIKE the ones anti-choicers portray, here.
TruthSeeker is simply unable to comprehend that humans ARE animals and that all non-human animals have sex only for procreation, which is what HE is promoting for humans. Just because you get married, doesn't mean you'll love that person any more than someone you're not married to (in fact, in the kind of 'ideal' world he's proposing, I think that will be LESS likely to happen).
~ Very cleaver Arekushieru, I never thought of it that way, it makes very good sense.
"unable to comprehend that humans ARE animals and that all non-human animals have sex only for procreation, which is what HE is promoting for humans."
How embarrassing for them that they want people to have animalistic relationships. ~
When I say all non-human animals have sex for such a reason I do include those that find pleasure in sex, because as far as I think we humans know, with our limited understanding, they do it simply to control population. Which is very much procreation-based from my perspective.
we don't know what is going on the head and heart of any individual animal or species, irrespective of their evolution-induced motivations that they might not be conscious of (nor are humans of their own)
Umm, just wanted to let those know who voted on Harry's post that he is a ProChoicer. Within that context, I think Harry was simply trying to provoke discussion with this particular comment. So, in that case, I don't think we really needed to vote on his comment, either way. ^_^;
In response to Harry: Oh, I agree. Which is why I said "I think" and "limited knowledge". :)
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
"it is the WOMEN that would find a way to get to the other side."
You need to get over your self creep! You just said this to two woman who said they do not want to have sex with a man. Why when little girls and women try to "lock" men out of their rooms, men break through the door to come in and "RAPE" them. Your male ego is vile. Especially since I know lots of women and little girls who tried desperately to (stay away) from men, and it was the men who would not leave them sexually alone.
"I would gently suggest you sitting down with a sex therapist"
And keep your offensive suggetions to your egocentric self.
Well isn't it wonderful that we are human and therefore can CHOOSE to have sex for reproduction? Contraceptives and abortion have been around for thousands of years- and we've been working towards having safe and effective methods for all this time, now we finally do! Hurrah for not being a slave to our biology anymore! Now if only we could convince the religious right what a good thing we have here, and get every youth educated. I love being a person and not a deer.
The example I usually give is that if there were two islands with women and men only on each respective island separated by water literally filled with man eating sharks, it is the WOMEN that would find a way to get to the other side.
Where do you give this as an example?
And, if true, how to explain the pervasiveness of rape? Seeing as you've admitted to being a rapist in this very forum I thought you might have some special insight.
There are thousands of studies on humans, and just because humans use sex for personal gratification does not mean that its purpose is not for procreation.
This is certainly true to a degree. But much in the same way that food is for nourishing one's body and eating fuels the body for work, plenty of people completely ignore biological function by overeating (yay for the obesity crisis!), eating foods that aren't healthy, and even refusing to eat at all. Humans are quite capable of separating purpose and need from want and desire. It's that whole advanced cerebral cortex at work there.
The example I usually give is that if there were two islands with women and men only on each respective island separated by water literally filled with man eating sharks, it is the WOMEN that would find a way to get to the other side.
Honestly, I'm of the belief that anyone who would so negatively generalize either of the sexes has a rather poor view of both. :/
At any rate, your suggestions for sex therapy and endocrinologists is patronizing at best and is a thorough reflection of your MORAL attitudes toward sex. Maybe you should speak with a therapist about your need to have everybody else think and act like you... because it's not really healthy. Just a thought...
I think you missed my point entirely.... Go back and re-read what I said then come back here.
I didn't say what I was specifically referring to. And I also mentioned limited understanding, which is more likely to refer to non-physical attributes, because we understand FAR less about that than their physical counterparts...? And I was indeed talking about the mental rather than physical purpose. Which means... your post doesn't prove anything.
Btw, there's something else you obviously didn't get. I said the sexual act repels me. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which I gave above and *none* of which would be addressed by discussing them with a sex therapist. It is the men or nature's sexism that would have to change.
I DON'T want to get pregnant, EVER. I don't want to BE pregnant, EVER. To suggest that I am nothing more than a mindless body just proves to me MORE that I don't want to see a sex therapist. Whooops!
Okay...so about the "purity" of sons, TS? Whyfore no intense interest in the virginity of the boys?
He has some serious issues.
In reality, guys manipulatively feign love in order to get the sex they desire, while girls give sex hoping to find love - the love and affirmation that their own fathers have neglected to afford them.
Wow, misandry and misogyny! Men don't love? Women don't like sex?? I'm so glad I don't live in your world.
The basis of all atheism is free love.
Uh, no, atheism just means you don't believe in any gods. (I only believe in one less god than you, I'm sure there are many gods YOU don't believe in, right?)
Plus, plenty of Christians don't subscribe to your weird ideas of men and women hating each other. In fact, most people of all faiths don't only have one partner in their lifetime.
Truthseeker, 90% of what you said is so ignorant and deeply offensive to me I'm not even sure where to begin.
Do you really geniunely believe that ANY sexual act between 2 people who are not married always results in the woman being heartbroken and lied to? That there's no possible way for two consenting teens/adults to enjoy mutually respectful/pleasurable sexual activity without horrifying consequences?
Women enjoy sex as much as men, men are equally capable of honesty and commitment as women.
Being sexual is just a regular part of being human. To say we're "no better then animals" because some of us choose to have more then one sex partner in our lives doesn't even make sense. Being able to consiously choose those partners is part of what makes us human in the first place!
young girls should not ever be made to feel that their sexuality is wrong or shameful, or that it "belongs" to their fathers until it "belongs" to their husbands. This is emotional incest, and borderline abusive.
That's an interesting concept. Makes you wonder, though, why they bother to do all this moralizing at women and agonizing over the sexiness of popular culture when it's obvious that all religion has to do to construct a truly MORAL society is castrate most of the men and permanently solve the problem.
Considering the assumptions in this post about how all Daddies are hyperfocused on their little girls' vaginas, starting with all the Daddies might be a good idea.
Considering the assumptions in this post about how all Daddies are hyperfocused on their little girls' vaginas...
Well... I might question whether they're not so focused on their own little girls' vaginas, but little girls' vaginas in general. :/
The basis of all atheism is free love. God has to be done away with so we can all be sexually liberated.
I find it incredibly interesting for you to suggest that the major purpose of religion is to control sex and sexuality. At least you don't try to pretend otherwise, right? :/
What a sad little existence you promote. That is not the God I grew up learning about. Please feel free to choose a miserable, fear mongering existence for yourself (I'm pro-choice on a lot of issues) but don't force that fundamentalism on others. It's not your right.
Perhaps if we cleaned our act up including: lyrics in popular songs, movies, television programming, publications that focus entirely on the physical appearance of females, including immodest dress and seeking the unearthly "ideal" expected of all females
I actually agree that we need more media literacy; not necessarily censorship, but more analytical skills to process the messages we receive. We're working on two different goals, though. You seem to think that's the way to REIGN IN THE BIG DIRTY WHORES, whereas I think it's the way to decrease violence against women. Objectification in the media dehumanizes women and makes violence more possible.
In reality, guys manipulatively feign love in order to get the sex they desire, while girls give sex hoping to find love
Doesn't sound like you really don't think much of men/boys. Or girls/women. Sex isn't something "girls give" and "guys get." Americans tend to think of it in those terms, but we need to move away from that to recognize women/girls as active agents of their sexuality and men/boys as capable of thoughtful engagement instead of "I'VE GOT A BONER AND I'LL SCREW ANYTHING!!" Those messages are harmful to the entire community; it places undue pressure on girls to repress their sexuality, and undue pressure on boys to express sexuality even when they don't want to.
"and undue pressure on boys to express sexuality even when they don't want to."
~ ack, I have thought this also that some boys and men pretend they want sex or are interested in sex when they do not because of social pressures, it is very sad.~
It's a perfect example of how rigid gender roles hurt boys. If a boy turns down sex, or doesn't actively pursue it, he's berated with insults that attempt to push him into what our culture defines as masculine. It's not a coincidence that the insults are words used to descibe girls/women or gay men. If we worked more on our relationships with our sexuality and disconnecting sex with gender roles, and worked on including respect as an inherent component, we'd all be better off.
Sometimes, Truth(seeker), sex is just SEX for pleasures sake for women, as much as for men. Not every sexual encounter is a search for love for a woman, anymore than it is a search for love for a man. Yes, I agree, a close relationship with a dad that is involved in a girl's life can help her make more wise decisions. However, when he tries to talk about her virginity like he owns her and it, and tries too closely to control her in her teenage years and acts like he doesn't trust her to be out of his sight, that is a problem and often paralyzes a woman from being able to make her own choices in her overall life. I would say that in the purity/abstinence daddy control mode, a girl is better off without a father at all. What kind of a man would keep his daughter on such a tight leash and then "sell" her to the guy who places the highest "bid" on her virginity. Virginity of a woman is a Patriarical construct from centuries gone by, today it is not important and the loss should be in no one's hands but the woman involved. All things being equal with the sexes, why isn't a guy's virginity held by his mommy and given to his woman of choice by her when he marries? Why aren't there any mommy/boy dances?? See the ridiculousness of it when it is turned around? If not, then you should. To hold a female to one standard and not hold a male to the same standard exposes the hypocricy, Patriarchy and misogyny, of this strange and female smothering culture, doesn't it?
... was my mother. I was one of the girls taught how perfect sex was once you married "God's right man for you", and how terrible, horrible, mind-bendingly evil, it was before hand. Talk about a mental disconnect! I never got a straight answer how something so evil and dirty could somehow be made magically perfect once "Man and Wife" had been said.
I was taught this rubbish long before purity balls and abstinence rings; long before abstinence only sex-ed-- thank Logic that we girls survived the birth of the so-called "Moral Majority" midwived by our mothers, bringing with it all sorts of evil disguised as "necessary for all good girls". Now, we get to see these same lies fed to today's little girls.
I hope they go through the same mental "re-connect" that I did and start asking the same questions. Then, hopefully these women can grow to love themselves, with or without that little peice of skin so highly prized by their parent's religious craziness.
~ I am very sorry for you Wolfwytch, this crap gives a lot of girls vile-gross self-hating feelings.
And what about those who have been sexually abused, and have the secret that no one knows, which is she is not so called pure. Eight out of every ten little girls I grew up with were not virgins on their thirteenth birthdays, and it was not their fault. ~
I really hate the term "Daddies little girl." There is NO knight in shinning armor. The cinderella myth is dangerous and bad for women. Wow, I had to get that out after watching the trailer for the documentary.
I can't fathom my father and I going to a purity ball when I was in school. We never even went to one of those father daughter dances in high school. My parents knew I was having sex in high school but they trusted me to have safe sex, protect myself, and use birth control. I can't see my mom ever being supportive of this. Thank goddess I was raised by feminists.
There is no knight in shining armor--for you--my condolences.
the knights in shining armour in their own lives, so don't feel too sorry for a woman who is too smart to be controlled by someone else's misogyonist psychobabble. The definition of a knight in shining armour in the girl purity community is to keep her in a glass cage, ignore her dreams and wishes for her life, keep her from being educated, and keep her having babies and keeping house for some man who watches her every move in the name of "GOD", while the man usually wants to and often does stray because someone who has never had sex is not usually equipt to satisfy his deep urges for a "bad" girl. As in the Madonna/whore religious male's dichotomy, both groups of women become losers, and it is the male who theoretically, "wins". We are having NONE of that. We don't believe in the Cinderella or women of the Bible myth. We find men who are strong and secure in themselves and who love us for who we are as a total person, rather than whether or not we have a piece of tissue still intact between our legs and an empty head that can be filled with Patriarichal, misogynist lies. Feel sorry for the girls and women who are controlled in such a way by their "knight in shinng armour" and when they finally get it ( if they ever do) have to start their lives over again after being kept in a cage and subject to the whims and Patriarichal dictatorship of tyrants like yourself. So condolences are needed for those cage kept women ( modern slaves who don't even know they are slaves) and definitely not needed for women like us who are the happy architects of our own lives.
judging from your itemized description, it appears to be a hodge podge of special interest advocacy oriented filmaking with very little balanced presentation. Perhaps you may want to add post script as to what the intent of the filmaker was since I don't have a clue based on your reporting. You write: "... And furthermore, she asks whether the moral and ideological standards of one group has the right to determine, even intrude, on the educational standards of the entire population...." Can you explain to me what the filmaker means by this when in our society today, we accept a GLBT definition of normal when statistically gay men represent approximately 3.5%, and lesbians represent .5% (that means one half of one percent) of the population and they demand "normal" identification and recognition? While I have no problem with this, my rational mind rebels at the idea of one half of one percent being considered "normal." So in the context of my fact, what the hell is the filmmaker talking about? To my mind this is a paid political docmentary.
Furthermore you state that "...The program’s founder Denny Pattyn repeatedly insists that condoms don’t work and are faulty, and his followers don’t have their facts straight either..."
For the record, you are mistaken, Condoms do fail in about 8 per cent of situations, and all sex experts agree the ONLY surefire guaranteed way to prevent infection is either by total abstinance or limiting your sex partner to one specific person known not to be infected and to be monogomous. Are you saying you dispute this? It is obvious that both the documentary and some of your comments are totally advocacy oriented and while there is nothing wrong with this, it woud certainly give you a lot more credibility if you would have stated so without the diatribe.
....when statistically gay men represent approximately 3.5%, and lesbians represent .5% (that means one half of one percent) of the population...
Not sure where you're getting your numbers but depending on the study and sampling homosexual individuals make up around 8 to 10% of the population. The numbers jump CONSIDERABLY if you're asking about lifetime prevalence of homosexual behaviors as opposed to primary sexual orientation (in other words, plenty of heterosexuals engage in homosexual behaviors on occasions/at some point in their lives).
While I have no problem with this, my rational mind rebels at the idea of one half of one percent being considered "normal."
At least in the field of psychology, "normal" has multiple meanings.
While I have no problem with this, my rational mind rebels at the idea of one half of one percent being considered "normal."
Perhaps it would ease your rational mind if you better understood what is meant by "normal" when discussing populations. It is not the same thing as "average" or "median" and it definitely is not the same as 'good'.
It is average to be born healthy, but it is "normal" for a consistent percentage of newborns to have various differences on a consistent statistical average of so many cases expected per 10,000 births, some of which are fatal, some of which are considered 'disabilities', some of which are neutral ASIDE FROM CULTURE (like being left-handed or having blue eyes), and some of which are considered assets (like having good reflexes, a high IQ or being tall).
The 'median' or 'average' American is female, right-handed, has brown hair and eyes, an IQ of 100, and lives in a house. That doesn't mean that it is 'abnormal' to be male, left-handed, have blonde hair or blue eyes, or live in an apartment and I don't think most people would consider it 'advocacy' or attempting to 'influence life choices' to buy some lefthanded scissors for the kindergarten.
I wasn't aware we "accepted" an LGBT definition of normal. Because "we" (you and a lot of other people) don't accept it. That's the problem. And it's obvious it IS a problem for you, despite your transparent statement to the contrary.
But given your logic, 8 percent failure rate with condoms isn't much more than that percentage, yet you accept its truth. Is an 8 percent failure rate evidence of faultiness? Not really. Sex experts aren't the only ones who agree that the only way to be infection-free is to be abstinent (you can't necessarily count on your partner being faithful, remember!). Everyone knows this. Sheesh. It's just not going to happen that way. Humans do have sex for pleasure. I do, anyway, and not for reproductive purposes.
And just who are you to tell FBIR and Ake to get therapy? How about this: if you don't think sex is great, like I do, I would gently suggest you get psychotherapy for your obvious frustrations in that department.
Q&A with DADDY I DO Producer and Director at the University of Nevada, Reno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8aLJffsB5s&feature=player_embedded'
Catch the Q&A with the producer and director.
There is a very interesting story brewing in Marin County, CA where an independent theater pulled the screening at the last minute after 2 board members where uncomfortable with the content and felt it was not relevant to Marin. Crazy!
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_16589343
"The troubled women in the film whose background and circumstances differed, all shared at some point a reliance on relationships with men to boost low self-esteem, characteristics that the film only very implicitly connects to those well-meaning dads driving their little girls to the purity balls. Its an overarching theme that whether women are getting used for their bodies or told their bodies are sacred, these women are defined by men and don’t have control over their own sexuality--which leads to a lack of control over their own identities."
When you say that “women are defined by men” it not only makes me a little angry on the inside (because I am a strong independent woman who takes control and I don’t like to think that a man would ever define me), but it also makes me think of Laura Mulvey’s “male gaze” and how women in the media are portrayed as objects of desire for the man to observe. Women have been widely represented in the media as the “attractive secretary” or “loving housewife” but not often do we see women in charge and men in more submissive roles. Often, when we do see women in powerful positions in the media, some other aspect of their life is unstable/falling apart because they are “unable to handle all the responsibility” or something like that. This film (which I have not seen, but now kind of want to) sounds like it’s clearly representing the women who had sex before marriage as failures in society since they did not stick to the (films) accepted views of what’s right and wrong.
“I think we need to understand our bodies and the chemical makeup that we have and the urges--- and be mature and adult and not be controlled by men under the vice and under the cover and cloak of a higher power.”
I agree that we need to take control of our own bodies and lives and not let anyone control us but ourselves.
The heart of “Daddy I Do” is that the various women depicted in the documentary all have been affected dramatically by their sexual choices and they all share a lack of basic knowledge about protected sexual practices. The focus that the filmmaker seems to take is that in the absence of comprehensive sex education, people will almost always make flawed choices.
The epidemic of sexual abuse in girls is known to be predictor of teen pregnancy and that access to contraception is sorely lacking in most places in our country. Abstinence-only education actually ends up making unintended pregnancy and disease more likely.
