Nice poster. I like how it's the girls who spread VD, not the servicemen.

And Say Anything Blog clearly doesn't read you, but here on Feministing there are regular posts critiquing both GGW and the hypersexualization of young girls. But why ruin a good story with the facts?

I love how the Say Anything Blog blames feminists for sexualizing young girls, while they are the people having "purity balls" so 7-year-olds can pledge their virginity to their dads. No, that isn't sexualizing young girls AT ALL...

Also, if we're not supposed to sexualizing women here, how come all these conservative blogs repeatedly use language like "sluts" and "whores" when referring to women? I see so much hypocrisy in their thinking; it really makes me angry.

And once again, why is it that only WOMEN'S moral character is based on their virginity, and not men's, according to them? Oh that's right, it's because girls who have sex are "sluts," but if a guy doesnt have (or doesn't want to have) sex with a bunch of girls he might be...gay!... How terrifying!

A lot of the commentators on those blogs are talking about "Jessica and her ilk." I like it! Jessica, I'll be your ilk any day.

What sucks is, I bet none of them will even bother to read the book.

Hi Jessica,

I like your site and what you're setting out to do. I think these crazy conservatives do have an interesting underlying point, though, despite the fact that they so completely misunderstand you and the important ideas you're trying to get across.

There is this frightening celebration and glorification of the "slut" archetype, if you'll allow me to use the ugly term just for this purpose. As a 26 year old male participator in the MySpace/Facebook cultural wave and also one who analyzes cultural trends, I can't help but be disgusted at the empowerment some women appear to find in living up to the "stud" standard.

I agree that people should be allowed to define and conduct their sexuality in any way they see fit, however I do think it is an ugly reflection on our society to see that both sexes are associating promiscuity with empowerment. That doesn't even include the gratuitous photos that some post of their bodies (sometimes in the hundreds) on their personal sites and the undeniable vanity and self-centeredness that comes with that.

What do you think?

Wait, wait. I thought feminists were supposed to be man-hating dykes, not raging sluts who want to corrupt the youth of America? Make up your minds, right-wingers!

If your work is riling people up to this extent, you're hitting a nerve by poking something they don't want poked (no pun intended).

If people aren't reacting, you're doing it wrong.

Clearly, you're doing it right. Keep up the awesome work, Jessica. Your books (as well as this site) make a difference.

Wait a minute!!! I thought feminists were responsible for SHUTTING DOWN sex and sexiness. That's why we hate Palin, and wear comfortable shoes.

Which is it!?

GMTA WickedAnnabell. It took me forever to sign in and comment, so I hadn't seen your comment yet!

When they associate Girls Gone Wild with feminism, you know they seriously don't have a clue what they're talking about.

ignornace impresses me sometimes. i mean, making shit up and then feeling strongly about said shit takes a LOT of effort! w2g, neocon bloggers.

Oh, I *love* this one: "No... they've got to ruin the lives of American teenage girls as well."

Yeah, because the state of the American teenage girl is sooooo healthy as it stands right now. Give me a freakin' break. TV, commercials, and the "aren't you going to wear makeup to the..." comments from Mom and Dad do more damage in a day to a young girl's self-worth than the concepts purported to be in this radical new book. :)

The Right sees no problem in their culture and religion(s) browbeating their young girls to make them conform to being a beauty-queen-turned-Stepford-wife drone, so long as they submit their virginity to that One Special Man after they get married. Yeah, what a great standard to live by.

(I weep for our future.)

I think their collective responses to this book should be viewed as a complement. They obviously see it as a threat, and frankly, they should feel threatened.

These silly people aren't worried about girls becoming "tramps" and "sluts". They are worried that their daughters might be "infected" with the Commonsense Virus. Symptoms include critical thinking skills and intellectual independence.

The final stages of this horrible "infection" can be seen in those young women who have discovered that there is no bridge connecting sexuality and morality. As a result, they go off infecting other girls with the desire to live their lives on their own terms, which would ultimately lead the a world of empowered women.

OH, THE TRAGEDY! THE HORROR! *faints*

For the record, I'm glad you're coming out with this book. I really am. I used to be one of those girls who was scared into not having sex, because having sex before marriage would make me a bad person. I had to get to college to realize that being sexual is okay, and that being a virgin (which I am) is *my* choice and DOES NOT make me a better person.

Okay, wanted to get that off my chest.

Carry on!

Who cares what Jessica Valenti has to say about sex? She is downright hideous, and therefore doesn’t have to worry about anyone wanting to have sex with her. For someone who describes everything as “creepy,” Jessica Valenti has a creepy smile and a lazy eye. So does sis Vanessa. She’s all-around yucky.

The right wing seems to assume that "virginity" and "purity" are the same. Let us perform a thought experiment and see if they are right.

Imagine a rape victim who was previously a virgin. Is she now "impure?" Obviously not. (And if you said 'yes,' you are a tremendous asshole with no morals.)

Now imagine me back in high school. Young Yawgmoth was 'saving it for marriage,' and so my boyfriend and I used to get each other off orally and manually. Yes, naked. We were both virgins. Were we "pure?" I suggest to you that we were not!

We now see that "virginity" and "purity" are unrelated. So, then, what is "purity?" (Hint: the book title is correct!)

hey, these bloggers are obviously just concerned with defeating the Axis...

@Paul - Here's an interesting idea about the cult of promiscuity ala MySpace/Facebook - do you think it's a hyperactive response to the Purity Myth. Like, young women realizing that they can't live up to that ideal, so they swing all the way in the other direction.

Just a thought I had when reading your post.

I mean, ideally we should all just be able to do what we want with our bodies, and not be judged by it. Obviously, that's at the core of feminism. I guess people are just afraid to acknowledge that sex is something that women really do want to do with their bodies.

If we acknowledge that women like sex, what will become of us all? **back of hand to forehead**

And that's why they're afraid of lesbians . . . because the thought that women could have sex with each other messes with their narrow view that women are just having sex to make baaayyyyybeeeeeessssss!

I'm having an overstate the obvious day, aren't I?

Paul:

I don't think that de-emphasizing virginity in any way casts promiscuity as empowerment. If anything, that seems to be exactly the harmful virgin-whore dichotomy that Jessica's trying to debunk!

These conservatives mentally configure any state other than virginity as Girls Gone Wild exhibitionist promiscuity. These are the two models of female sexuality in our culture and women are expected to imitate one or the other of them. Without seeing that there are viable options in between, many girls feel pressured to act in those extremes.

The tacit message sent to young women is this: if you're going to be impure anyways, you'd better go all the way. And as you point out, it's just as bad to push women to be more sexual than they'd like as it is to push them to be less. That pressure, however, is not the result of feminist displeasure with the virginity icon, but rather of the virginity icon itself.

a friend just notified me that this post was linked on http://www.eschatonblog.com/

a friend just notified me that this post was linked on http://www.eschatonblog.com/

Huh, I thought Jon22 was trying to parody the stupidity of trolls who try do discount someone's ideas by attacking their appearance. Sometimes it's so hard to tell...

I agree very much that the whole "purity" thing is fetishizing virginity. My Mom told me when I was 11 to, "have sex with a man before you marry him. After sex everything changes." This didn't prompt me to go out a'whorin'. I didn't do the nasty until I was in college, and I do think it's a good idea to wait, even if just for the reason that teens tend not to use contraceptives as faithfully as adults and getting pregnant shouldn't be something that happens to you by accident.

The emphasis on virginity (from women, men - not so much) is very creepy and seems to further emphasize that women were created for men's pleasure.

If you haven't seen this parody yet, you'll laugh your ass off. http://ironhymen.com/

I can't wait to read the book.

In above post, I meant the IDEA that women were created for men's pleasure! Yikes.

Also, the virgin/whore dichotomy is very old, and certainly predates feminism. Most feminists I know argue against the idea that the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon is about empowering women...it is merely an extension of the traditional idea that a woman's value is based on her body and that men are the appraisers who determine that value.

Okay. So I happen to be a virgin, and it's not because I think sex is evil or wrong, or because I'm afraid of being labeled a "slut." It's a choice I made in the context of my life. It doesn't define me, and it really has nothing to do with anything else.

Jessica's book is on my side, too. Why? Because our culture's obsession with virginity hurts ME too!! It's amazing the assumptions some folks will make about you when they discover you're still a virgin. Like, that I'm religious. Or conservative. Or a sex-hating prude. Etc. Why do people make those assumptions? Because of the virgin/whore dichotomy, and what our culture teaches us to assume virginity "means" -- When really it means nothing. It's that attitude that needs to change.

Jessica, thanks for writing this book!

I'm starting to wonder if conservatives can really interpret reality at all without hypocrisy? In Cassy Fiano's bio she starts off with "My name is Cassy Fiano, and I’m a twenty-something Florida native who started blogging solely on a whim."

A paragraph later she says that she was told to blog from some right wing bloggers and... "After a lot of consideration, I took the leap and started blogging!"

So, of course feminists are man-hating, hairy legged lesbians AND over sexed promiscuous whores. Just don't say it in the same breath and then it's totally fine.

Paul's question and PeggyLuWho's response gave me an idea: it'd be cool if this were the first of a trilogy. I know the problem of sexuality in our culture has been taken on a lot, but I think "How America's (or American media's) obsession with sex is hurting young women," written from a feminist perspective would be a good answer to this book. We're hearing from one side that we're only good women if we're pure, and from the other side that we're only good women if we're hypersexual for men's benefit only (and not for our own pleasure). The final part would be how some people are trying to change the culture around sex and sexuality, and how to do it so that it doesn't hurt young women, including support for abstinence-by-choice, sex-by-choice, etc.

Not only would it be really cool to have all of these ideas together, but maybe it'd shut up the antifeminists for a few seconds. unlikely they'd ever shut up, but can't hurt to dream...

" I believe that a young woman's sexual choices - no matter what they be - shouldn't have a bearing on how they're seen as moral actors."

Really? Because I think there are lots of sexual choices people--men or women--make that do have moral implications. Choosing to have unprotected sex when you know you have an STD would, for example, be an immoral sexual choice.

Partnered sex is a human interaction, and the way we treat others matters morally, so the decisions we make about sex also matter morally.

And that's the core of the problem I have with the pro-abstinence people: By making sexual morality all about abstinence until marriage, they've created a false choice between "abstinence" and "immorality" making it very difficult for people in this society to think carefully about and have honest conversations about what it means to be moral in how one deals with others sexually.

Honestly, how can these people fail so badly at reading comprehension?

You have to try really, really hard to not get it as much as they do. That's an impressive amount of sucking, for real.

Oh, wait, no...they just hate women.

It takes someone with a truly twisted view of sex and sexuality to come up with a turn of phrase like "refrain from abstinence."

I just think that those blogs you linked to are funny. They fail to see all the hypocrisy on their side! The comments are even better than the blogs themselves, if that's possible.

It pisses me off to no end that right wingers misunderstand what anyone who disagrees with them, and makes it come off like we poking babies with pointy objects...gods forbid that we disagree with whatever they are spewing...without even knowing or reading your book they are condemning it as proof that feminists promote anonymous sex...not true at all...feminists or at least as far as I've seen, but what do I know I have both or Jessica's other "parodies" feminists do not place a woman's power or her worth in her sexuality...feminists tend to believe that women's sex lives are her business and her business alone...and whether she's slept with hundreds of men/women or none it does not make her any better or worse person...it is her body her decision, and no one has the right to say she's a slut or a prude because of her choices...

new reader, first time poster, and SO excited about your book.

this topic was a huge focus of my college studies (mandatory and not) and i do not understand why any woman would choose to continue to push for the "hymen-is-worth" mentality. the problem with "purity balls" (i snicker everytime...) and "purity rings" and "purity pledges" is the implicit assupmtion that one's hymen is owned by one's father. THAT is what makes them disturbing. oh, and the inherent commoditization of said body part upon the "exchange" between father and husband at the altar. i have been to a wedding where they literally discussed how the father was "giving" his new son-in-law his daughter's virginity, complete with purity ring, etc. i think my (completely unexposed to whacko religion) boyfriend almost vomited.

sorry for the long rambling post. i am very excited to read this book and cannot comprehend the ignorance of some.

Is it too late to add these comments to your book to help you make your point?

Congrats, Jessica, for getting "Reformed Dad" so fired up he can't type and he wants to puke. Just his name is creepy. My dad never got involved with my sex life. He just saw that as a line that he wasn't going to cross as a father. I feel so sorry for people whose daddies don't have a real life and believe it is their duty in life to keep guard over their daughters' panties.

Wow, I only read the Fiano thing, but, fuck! am I living in a happy bubble, here in Europe...

I mean, I saw troll comments here and on other sites like this before, but that ignorance was just astonishing. It reads as if she skimmed through your post and just got some buzz words which she then used to repeat the same drivel those anti-sex conservatives seem to have learned by heart. Not too attentive...

By the way, does anyone even get, what comment #6 there is trying to say? (And yes, may I, too, be your ilk?)

PS @Misspelled; I had to chuckle at that one, too...

And another PS (to get annoying in my first comment, heh): Sorry for my mail, obviously figured out, how to post now...

This is why I'm so grateful that this book is coming. I have to work everyday to make people more comfortable with talking about sex, sexuality and that people of all genders can be sexually autonomous and proud of it in a university (you'd think that a liberalizing place like university wouldn't graduate students that just don't 'get' that condoms aren't hilarious, they're useful and important). It takes so much work to help people unlearn the madonna/whore complex that these right wing folk hold so dear.
If it's anything like the posts that have been on here for as long as i've been visiting, it will be an incredibly useful resource.

I attended a Christian Bible camp from the ages of 6 - 14. The teen camp (ages 13 - 18) indoctrinated campers with abstinence-only education and "encouraged" us to take abstinence pledges. I use quotes because if you didn't raise your hand and take the oath, you were pretty much announcing your promiscuity before the camp, its staff and Jesus himself.

The problem here was not so much with the abstinence-only education as it was that the abstinence oath wasn't just a pledge, it was presented as a binding pact with god. Break the pact, go to hell was the message I remember taking. You know, because nothing says promoting abstinence quite like instilling the fear of god and loss of one's mortal soul and eternal afterlife in an impressionable 13-year-old.

Looking forward to the new book!

Wow. Way to go, Jessica! :)

What occurred to me while reading those quotes (besides the obvious anger at slut-shaming and stupidity of course) was this notion that feminism these days is about wanting to be promiscuous and that it seeks to turn every female into a multi-partner vixen - which is so completely at odds with my personal experiences. The vast majority of women I know who identify as feminists (ages ranging from around 20 to 70) are either in monogamous committed relationships, or are celibate, temporarily or otherwise - very few of them have multiple sexual partners or one night stands. But many of the women I've known who DON'T identify as feminists or who pointedly reject the term and see feminism in the same light as Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter do - they are the ones who "sleep around" or think being on GGW would be the best thing ever. These are women who want so much to be pleasing to men that they follow the typical male pattern of thinking in regard to feminism: hairy legs, no fun, live alone with six cats, etc...and therefore also follow the typical male desires for sexualized, up-for-anything behavior, often concealing a great deal of insecurity or a lack of self-respect. In my experience, it is feminists, with our sexual liberation ideology, who truly value and respect sexuality and the choice to become sexually active or not.

Also, if Fiano thinks YOU are misguided, bitter and angry, Jessica - heaven only knows what words she would use to describe herself!

Hello, I'm also a new reader pointed here by a friend. I'd like to add my own intellectual two cents, if I may.

*puts two pennies in the drop box*

Ahem.

So I think there are two real social problems this conservative backlash demonstrates, and one is that you're being ironically "read off" (before anyone has actually read anything you wrote) as certain labels: "hardcore liberal", "feminist", "whore". To these blogs, your book really is no longer a book; its a symbol, a scapegoat, and a literal image (your cover) which is being read into, used as a signifier for "the problems of liberal feminism". It unfortunately puts you in a position where you're now unable to speak for yourself, since now all you are to these blogs are "liberal", "whore", and other such nasty words that certainly call to mind a slew of mental images with no substance. And I'd say that it's that labelling that denies women voices in this society (along with other minorities). Funny that the "virgin" is another label that denies women voices, that let men say "Oh she wouldn't know about sexuality she is a virgin", which I'm guessing is what you've pretty much been writing about.

The second real ill I see happening in this response that a number of responses above me pointed out is that it's the responses to you that are using the words "whore", "slut", "sexual liberation" without assessing those terms (again, as sort of stand ins that evoke images with no criticality). Who's perpetuating what here? I think the best way to talk about this is to borrow from Foucalt's main arguement that the repression of sexual expression (both acts and language) only serves to bring it out more, and to give members in certain positions power. To exemplify the virgin then, also creates an image of the non-virgin, the prolific whore that those inscribed into talking about virginity are simultaniously prohibitited to speak about but also recognize and think about. Again, these reactionary responses to your book are claiming to uphold "celibacy" and "sexual morality", but it is the creation of those terms that create "sexual deviancy" and "sexual immorality". What they really stand for then, is merely a way for certain woman to feel good about their subjucation as sexual identities, identities that are defined by their inscribtion to a certain sexual place.

Sexuality (homo,hetero,prolific,abstinate,whatever) and gender (male,trans,female,other) are mutually exclusive and CONSTRUCTED identities, and as these angry reactions show are identities that cause misrecognition and an unfavorable power dynamic. But keep in mind too that "right wing", "reformed dad", "enlightened woman" are also artificial labels, one that these people may be perpetuating upon themselves but doesn't mean we should perpetuate too. Right/Left, feminist/chauvenist, and liberal/conservative comes with it's own set of problems thats really working across our society and is serving as the real reason why we can't talk across the blogosphere, why you are unable to explain yourself to others outside of this blog. If we fall into the same language practice of dichotomies (not just "whore/virgin" but left/right), I think we'll end up missing the point too. This is why I think it's telling that you say how "THE MYTH of virginity is hurting young women", because you do recognize that the identity is a myth, an artificial image projected on the woman.

*phew* That's a lot of text.

I'm sorry, I couldn't help but post about this on my own site because I happen to think that Jessica is fucking brilliant. Hope its ok I used the cover, but I gave some link love too!

Jessica, I know you don't need to hear this because you already know (BECAUSE you're a feminist), but I want to pass on some advice that my high school English teacher (who was the first man I ever heard call himself a feminist) passed on to me, an I have never forgotten:

Illegitimi non carborundu(Don't let the bastards grind you down)

Cheers to you and your future projects!

can i just add to what cecelia said above, when she noted that many people assume she's religious b/c she's a virgin? i grew up in a very left-wing, pro-choice, and also deeply christian family. (when i say christian, i don't mean like these hypocritial douchebags who live in the middle of fuck-nowhere and warn of hellfire and damnation. i mean christian as in loving christ. moby has written an excellent essay on this issue.) i was straight-up told *not* to wait until i was married, and though i most certainly haven't (and judging by the anecdotal evidence of many friends in unhappy marriages who *did*), i did wait until i was older than many people i knew. i think that decision was in part influenced by my religiosity, but in a positive way: my church and the group of friends i had from my youth group were all instilled with a strong sense of self, in part from the very powerful idea that we are loved without condition by a forgiving, understanding God.

i just wanted to throw that in there, because i think a lot of christians are rather uncomfortable with how the term "christian" is almost become shorthand for a politically conservative, hypocritial, judgmental and unthinking mccain/palin-voter. (two days ago, my mother said she was no longer going to wear her cross around her neck, because she found that people were making judgments about her. i find that tragic.

remember: the christian right is neither christian, nor right. :)

I guess according to these people I'm not a feminist because I'm still a virgin.

As soon as someone uses the term "slut" or "whore" I stop listening to them.

Wow... I actually clicked through and went to read the comments on a couple of the pages. The blindness and utter lack of reading comprehension (oh, and expressing "educated" opinions on the book's OBVIOUS purpose and message, based solely on the cover) just... amazes me. What misogynistic drivel! I would be tempted to try to refute some of the babble, if I weren't sure that they would misread, misrepresent, mock and then ultimately delete my posts with a smug sense of having shown that hairy, lesbian Commie feminist what for. My teaspoon feels so tiny today.

On a happier note, I'm really excited for the book! It should be really interesting to see your complete take on it (though the neck sprain from all the [assumed] nodding along might be a bit of an issue).

As soon as someone uses the term "slut" or "whore" is when I stop listening to them. They've already demonstrated they are biased, irrational people.

As soon as someone uses the term "slut" or "whore" is when I stop listening to them. They've already demonstrated they are biased, irrational people.

@Rachel
I had a similar experience in my teenage years. Purity Pledges were a big thing at my youth group. We had ceremonies, picked out rings, and were given 'Certificates of Purity' that were handmade by my youth pastor's wife. I took the pledge when I was 14. I remember at the ceremony after we had made the pledge, my youth pastor showed us a particular verse (can't remember it now) that said something along the lines of how it is worse to make a promise and break it than to commit the 'sin' without having made a promise in the first place. My youth pastor looked me in the eye and said breaking this promise I had just made was damnable. Even when I got older and stopped believing a lot of it, that thought always stuck with me, that I would go to Hell if I had sex before marriage. And the truth is, I did wait to have sex until I got married, and still to this day I feel relief that I upheld that promise, not because I believe premarital sex is a damnable sin (which I don't), but because of how deeply those terrifying words impacted my young self.

It makes me wonder if I would have been less insecure if I had been taught to embrace my sexuality instead of fear it like I did.

I posted this information on Dad Reformed's site. I was really shocked to see what they were writing about Jessica in the comments. Why is their vile shaming OK, but talking honestly about teenage sexuality is evil?

Hi Jessica! Been reading for a few months, first time commenter... Can't wait to read the book!

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-feminist bloggers secretly DO understand what you're saying, but they're so afraid of the message- and how that message might begin to unravel male hegemony- that they PRETEND to miss the point, and grasp at the most idiotic, simplistic, banal attacks possible.. Their criticism makes so little sense that I have to wonder if they've thought about it at all. Saying you want to "turn girls into sluts"? It's so absurd and backwards. They are obviously trying to protect the status quo.

Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit here...

@ Raven: too funny!!! I, too, am infected with The Commonsense Virus... and I think it's contagious ;)

Jessica, I have a "Reading Comprehenshun: You cn haz it" lolcat a friend made me while I was in an online war with a few trolls. I'll email it to you when I find it again. I think it's saved on the home computer.

But I pretty much agree with everyone else above. I can't wait to read the book and if seeing me read it gets those assheads to piss off without talking to me, then DOUBLE-WIN!!!

So much of it is hilarious/terrifying, but I love how the bulk of it is "because our made-up-in-this-century, vaguely 'Christian', hate mongering 'GOD' says so." I guess everyone who read the New Testament, Jews, Catholics, and pretty much everyone in the Eastern Hemisphere just doesn't exist.

Le sigh. Lazy assholes who can't bother to read the book, but why would they bother when they've already put it into a little bin and blamed it for the downfall of Western morality?

Wow...as a hardcore feminist virgin, I'd probably make their brains explode. (Fun?)

It's posts and comments like those linked above that make me proud to not be an American.

However, it's blogs like this one and posters right above me and books like Jessica's that make me proud to be a woman - a sexually active non slutty woman.

Oh, hilarious! Jessica, I hope you're proud of yourself. You've gotten the right-wingers in a tizzy. And it's excellent. I can't wait for your book!

"And once again, why is it that only WOMEN'S moral character is based on their virginity, and not men's, according to them?"

I arrive late to the party, so people will have forgotten this was even mentioned before they even get down to my comment. Woohoo!

Anyway, men approach the problem from the other direction. Much as women are meant to be virgins, men are specifically not meant to be virgins. Admittedly, it's not a moral characteristic so much as a... I suppose you would call it identity. Having sex doesn't make us good or bad, but not having sex does imply that there's something wrong with us in some way. A girl who has sex is still a girl, but she's a "bad girl," or whatever. A boy who doesn't have sex isn't really a boy.

There is a certain half-hearted pressure from some quarters to "save it for marriage" or whatever, but it's always with a nudge and a wink. The "boys will be boys" scenario, which is one of the weirdest cases of sexism to be applied to men (men aren't capable of controlling ourselves! We're weak and powerless against the will of our persuasive phallus!) Men aren't men until we have sex. Who we're supposed to have sex with seems to be a mystery, since women are supposed to keep it in their pants (metaphorically speaking) but dealing with the bad logic and hypocrisy of tradition and sexism is something for someone far stronger than I am.

Well that's weird cuz my idea of feminist dialogue often includes a heavy criticism of the over-sexualization of women. Maybe these right-wingers have a very different idea of feminism than what I've come across.

"Congrats, Jessica, for getting "Reformed Dad" so fired up he can't type and he wants to puke. Just his name is creepy. My dad never got involved with my sex life. He just saw that as a line that he wasn't going to cross as a father. I feel so sorry for people whose daddies don't have a real life and believe it is their duty in life to keep guard over their daughters' panties."

That creeped me out too! My dad has zero interest or involvement in my sex life, and that's the way it should be. I think Reformed Dad needs to get laid and stop worrying about how slutty his daughter(s) is/are.

Looks like ol' Reformed Dad would prefer to leave my comment languishing in moderation purgatory, so I'll repost it here:

Dear Dad -

The main point - the ONLY point - is that you threw up a hysterical post about a book that you hadn't read yet. After you acknowledged that you were attacking a scholarly work based on its title and cover art, any attempt at an argument is meaningless, the empty-headed rantings of someone who has intentionally chosen ignorance.

You then add a gratiuitous personal attack on the author based on - the advertisements on her profile page? Which one specifically had you so riled up? I'm guessing it's the ad opposing Prop. 4, the CA parental notification statute. So you're saying that putting a scared young girl's most important life decision in the hands of parents who may be valuing religious orthodoxy over the idea of what's actually best for their daughter is, as you put it, "selfish"? Interesting worldview you got there, pops.

The bottom line is that this is not something that intellectually serious people do. We all know the old line about how everybody's got an opinion - but yours is something much worse. While feigning bemusement ("I suppose it would be better for me to become “hard-core” about my beliefs just as she is about hers.") you have created and disseminated an opinion formed intentionally when you lacked knowledge of the thing you were judging.

You CHOSE ignorance. If people attack you for that, be man enough to acknowledge it.

Lastly, your responses to the commenters show, very clearly, that you have bought the myth itself, part and parcel. Again, be man enough to acknowledge it. Put it right out there:

"Rather than raise my own daughters to be thinking, feeling individuals who make their own reasoned decisions about physical intimacy, I wish them to blindly accept my own worldview about how they can and cannot use their own bodies, and follow my rules about how they may acceptably physically express affection for any pre-marital suitors."

Wow. When you put it that way, it sounds so ... selfish.

So, who else wants to start a Feminist Virgins for Jessica Valenti club?

Dear Feministing -

I barfed in my mouth a little when I read Cassy Fiano's post and many of the comments there, but it reminded me to thank all of you for using reason to fend off the crazies. There is a lot of frightening and hate-filled anti-feminist rhetoric out there, and you are some brave folks for countering it.

Thank you all,
Sean

I'll join the Feminist Virgins for Jessica club. The fact that I'm a radical sex-positive feminist who's also 25 years old and technically a virgin might cause a rift in time-space for the conservatives.

Hahaha. I'll join "Jessica's ilk" too! Heck, I'll even make the t-shirts.
I'm picturing hot pink... no wait, leopard print. Plunging v-neck to show off our feministic breasties. Cropped way too short, of course, to show off our belly-button piercings complete with dangling jewelry of a plucked daisy. That'll take care of the feminists are sluts message. Oooo, and we should cut off the sleeves, make it a tank top so we can show off our man-hating arm-pit hair too.

I'll teach these varments to mess with a feminist who owns a sewing machine and a printer that makes iron-on transfers!!!

Nah, I'm just kidding. I'll be too busy reading Jessica's new book to have time to sew :)

@Paul:

"There is this frightening celebration and glorification of the "slut" archetype... I can't help but be disgusted at the empowerment some women appear to find in living up to the "stud" standard."

First of all, as others have pointed out, there is a false dichotomy between virgin and whore going on in American culture right now, and that contributes to this.

Second, though: what's the common element between churches and parents pressuring girls to stay "pure" for their fathers and future husbands, and misogynist frat boys pressuring girls to bare it all for the cameras, to act "hot"? That's right -- it's all about what male-dominated portions of society want for young women, not about what young women want for themselves.

It's no one else's business whether a woman decides to have sex with a man, with a woman, with both, or with nobody. It's not for anyone else to frown and shake their fingers if she decides to become a celibate, a sex worker, a monogamous girlfriend, or a polyamorous wife. What matters is that she's made an informed decision based on facts and self-examination, and that she's acting with safety and consideration for herself and her partners (if any).

Something else to consider is that the label "slut" has been used for ages to keep women from pursuing or even acknowledging their own pleasure, no matter what their individual desires or real-life behaviour might be. Because of that, some of us have decided to reclaim the word.

Just found this interesting...Reformed Dad's link has been taken down or moved...

Thought you might like to know that Dad Reformed took down his post. Maybe even he knows you shouldn't judge a book by the cover.

If abstinence was truly being promoted here by these kinds of folks, then why are purity balls only for girls and their daddies and there exists no similar kind of event promoting abstinence to boys?

Rachel -- There actually is such a thing as a mother-son "Integrity Ball." (Because the name "Purity Ball" wasn't nauseating enough without the comparison.) The difference is, at Purity balls girls pledge not to have sex because they need to stay virgins. At Integrity Balls, boys pledge not to have sex because... girls need to stay virgins.

The language is all, "Remember that this is some other man's future husband! Think of what you're doing to him! Imagine how you'd feel if you knew that your future bride had already given herself to someone before she even met you."

Nope, no double standard!

people suck. i'm sorry. i for one can't wait to read your book :)

Yup, feminists are the ones purchasing "Girls Gone Wild" and those girls in the videos are all "feminists" too. ;)

I would join "Jessica's ilk" any day. This made my day, and I am absolutely going to post about it on my blog. I can't wait to get your book!

I want to join "Jessica's ilk" too! Can we have T-shirts?