Dear Chastity Speakers, Please Stop Speaking

I'll cut straight to the chase today, not having the patience to write a hooking intro. 

My decided topic today: 

I'm sick of chastity talks, and the chastity movement. 

Here's why. 

Other than the obvious, that they are more concerned with preaching abstinence (the dry turkey sandwich of the teachings on sexuality going around right now), the biggest issue I have with the chastity movement is that it still addresses, much like its promiscuous adversary, the human person as an object for claiming--as fresh ground to be marked for one, and only one gardener (note that it's women who are always designated the untainted soil, because male virginity isn't a topic worthy of addressing, apparently) while completely missing the point of teaching healthy sexuality in the first place: 

You are not an object, and you shouldn't treat yourself, or someone else, as one either. 

"Think about your future spouse when you're out on a date with someone. Would you want them doing with their date what you're wanting to do with yours?" 

"Save yourself for your future husband. Give him all of yourself for his touch alone." 

"Revealing yourself in complete intimacy should be for one man's eyes only." 

Yes, these are well-intentioned phrases, but the older I get, the more I realize good intentions more often than not hide poisoned wells of perception and ideology (check out my recent post No, Good Intentions Are Not Good Enough). 

What do all of these phrases, recycled through SO many chastity talks, have in common?

They all address the person as a future possession of someone else. Aka, as an object. Aka, as a receptacle for someone else's release. Aka, as fertile ground to be tilled. 

All acting on the presupposition that by having been with someone else, their union with their future spouse doesn't mean much--or worse, doesn't mean anything at all. 

Chastity talks like to speak to the sexual issues of our age by acting as though treating female reproductive organs as thrones for one man's possession (as though our persons were created just for our bodies) will eradicate the evils that have been brought up on men and women in the senseless use and disposal of the other in played (and abused) sexual games. But although their argument looks prettier, it's still treating virginity, sexuality, and the marriage bed as nothing more than an object, as the secularists do, only with one great difference: the hedonists are at least pursuing objectification for the sake of pleasure, and hopefully one that both sexual partners feel; whereas the chastity movement upholds objectification for the sake of a cold "divine" calling that sacrifices the woman's pleasure to appease unflinching ideology. 

The modesty movement and the chastity movement here go hand in hand: your body is a walking reservoir of sin; cover it to prevent others from sinning just by looking at you. To prevent sin (because we all know that the victim in sexual objectification, harassment, and assault is always the one to blame), we must treat women's bodies like objects, inherently created to drive otherwise decent, moral men into depths of depravity. 

Let's keep going, breaking down the inherent argument hiding behind chastity talks: 

Sex is not just about procreation.

Let me say that again: 

SEX IS NOT JUST ABOUT PROCREATION.

Let's think about just one of the basics here. 

Why would God bother giving it such an innate, universal, undeniable pleasure? Such that men have LITERALLY DIED fighting over the women they were sleeping with?

If sex were only for reproduction, why would the Lord bother making it pleasurable? In the anatomy of relations, pleasure or enjoyment of any kind could very easily be removed from the equation, especially for the female party. The seed has been planted, therefore the act is complete. Never mind that the fertile ground thus tilled and planted is a human being with equally human desires, needs, and hopes, and has just made herself the most exposed one can make oneself, only to be told that it doesn't matter if you didn't enjoy it, or didn't feel what you'd hoped to feel. If sex is only for making babies, then the women's longing for her own peak of pleasure and realization is a mute point because her pleasure is unnecessary in order to conceive. 

Unless the woman is, in fact, just an object. 

Unless I'm mistaken and we have once again become Puritans who believe pleasure to be inherently evil, it is okay to enjoy the release, the intoxication, and the physiological adrenaline overdrive that happens in consensual intimate relations. 

No, this post isn't to advocate for one night stands, sexual gratification through objectification, or the anarchy of the sexual revolution exhibited so disastrously in the 60's. 

But I will not let my love for my future spouse, or anyone for that matter, be determined by whether or not they've had sex with someone, marriage or not. They are not my possession that I can determine their value based on use, if it was in fact use, nor am I their Creator that I can suddenly dictate their capability to be loved based on any number of variables, much less intimate relations. 

Oh, you gained some weight, that's too bad. 

Oh, you don't wear a veil in Mass, that's a disappointment. 

Oh, you've had sex outside of marriage, move on down the line. Next contestant. 

Love does not ask for a checklist, or categories for approval, or grade points. 

Love sees the lover within, the human heart with the soul of infinity, created by none other than the Hand of God, asking to be loved just for being themselves. 

Without needing to be asked first if they've loved someone else, made a mistake, or tripped and fell. 

Without needing to prove that they are still capable of being loved because they're no longer a virgin. 

Without needing to provide a list of flaws to be approved of before saying their vows. 

Without needing to tear out their sins given to them at the recent chastity talk. 

If we cannot love beyond sexual sins, to accept each other, in marriage or out, how can we love them at all?