Welcome to Gaia! ::

I can perfectly understand it. The father after all is the person who gives away the daughter at the wedding day, thus why they played on this theme and made it as if, she is contracted so that when he gives her to her husband. He is giving all of her. And she too is giving him all of her.

It a great concept. Anything that will stop girls from feeling used, abused, boost self confidence, and lower prematerial sexual relationships is okay by my books. I mean. So many girls do thing they end up regreting, with some support ensured by the father is a beautiful thing. Stop looking at the name and the way it done and look at the concept. It a great one. Although be it the way it's done is a bit werid to those not participating in it.

Hey guys. I happened to read the issue of Glamour where they got mail regarding this article--alot of people felt that it was blown out of proportion--that the focus wasn't supposed to be on control over sexuality, but about how amazing it is that in our society today dads and daughters can put aside their disagreements and really commit to being there for one another and for fathers to be dependable and trustworthy to their little girls. Which is, all around, a good thing--God knows I'd love to have a dad that was able to put aside his own crap and see my point of view--even if the message was a bit skwered.

While I'm sure that's all well and good, I personally would never make a promise to my father regarding something so personal. My sex life is mine and mine alone.

Also, I would avoid including me in the collective of this guild. I am the only active non-Christian here, and many in this guild don't share my opinions on many issues.

If you look at it like that it is.

But if you look at it as the father saying "Darling, you can talk to me about anything at all, I want what best for you, so let both agree to signing this contract that say you won't give it up til your wedding day"

ACCORDING to BIBLICAL princable.

It a biblical thing there trying to do.

"because as a young Woman she will be making a great number of those decisions."

Your still a minor in most thing til at least 18. (to the expection of everything you gotta' pay for. Your an adult for that! But not for privilages oh no![/rant])

I not speaking from no experience. I have a friend she had sex first at 14. She felt she was old enough and ready.

She said she wish she could take it all back and be a virgin again.

--------

I'm assuming you all know it a biblical principle to have only one sexual partner, and that prematerial sex is frowned upon?
That not assuming too much?
Right?

Well that a stupid question Pirate. They don't sign the contract. It something they both agree on. Duh. And if they don't, well there father would of probable done it anyway. The concept is that the father and daughter agree on it. Your just ignore it for arguements sake.

Woman where never property. It was never a biblical princiable that woman where property. If your going to say that at least have biblical backing up.

I'm pretty sure you just said exactly what I said. I said your a MINOR in most thing til AT LEAST 18. Your still a CHILD til 18. Thus your father is your legal guardian.

No, but my friend talking from her experience. I'm sure she repersents a large fraction of those who do it. You're arguement is "Well there going to get metally messed up for it" I didn't want to say this before, but that's a load of crap. Complete and utter crap. Being not allowed to have sex at 13 - 16 isn't going to metally scar someone. And if they do that person pretty much should die cause if that the most metally scaring thing they come across in life then there so lucky. Getting pregnant. Getting aids. And giving it up to the first guy. Is something more worth avoiding than a little bit of anger cause you can't do what all the cool kids are doing. It simple, all the girls I've spoken to are simple not ready for such a commitment at 13 - 16, they don't know what there getting thereself into.

There are some exceptions. Backing up would be nice. Its the standard for any debate, and yes in old times there where multiple partners. But that a lust issue now. If you come to the new testiment it says to only have one, as it was no-longer acceptable anyway, they WHEREN'T religious laws. God never said "Thou shall have many wives" the ten commandments kind of say you shouldn't, adultery and all. As for the whole widowed woman remarrying brother, that was a custom not a rule again. It was so the widow wouldn't be poor, and there was no chance of adultery cause she would of been married to the brother. As for the virgin having to marry their rapist. I've never seen that ever in the bible. Rapist where KILLED for raping, so I'd like to see your biblical backing for that.

ooo, intimidation. a fine argument tactic.

i don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand, though.