Dear Chastity Speakers, Please Stop Speaking

Dear Chastity Speakers, Please Stop Speaking February 9, 2020

This post is edited from a piece in my previous blog. You can read the original here. 

I’m sick of the chastity movement. 

Here’s why.


Other than the obvious, that it is more concerned with preaching abstinence (the dry turkey sandwich of sexuality teachings), the chastity movement 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).

These toxic teachings miss the entire point of healthy sexuality:

You are not an object.

And you shouldn’t treat yourself, or someone else, like 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. 

What do all of these tired, recycled phrases have in common?

They all address the person as a future possession of someone else.

As an object.

As a receptacle for someone’s release.

As fertile ground to be tilled. 

All acting on the presupposition that by having been with someone else, a sexual union with their future partner 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 treating female reproductive organs as thrones for one man’s possession—that this will somehow miraculously eradicate the evils that have been brought upon us in the senseless use and disposal of the other in played, and abused, sexual games.

Their argument may look prettier, but it still treats virginity, sexuality, and the intimate act as nothing more than an object, as the secularists do—only with one great difference:

The hedonists are pursuing objectification for the sake of pleasure, and hopefully one that both sexual partners feel.

The chastity movement, however, upholds objectification for the sake of a cold “divine” calling that sacrifices the woman’s pleasure and the man’s tenderness to appease unflinching ideology. 

Let’s break down the inherent argument poorly hidden behind chastity talks: 

Sex is not just about procreation.

Let me say that again: 


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

And this doesn’t even begin to cover the pleasure and love in hidden homosexual relationships that were lost to oppressive history.

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 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 she didn’t enjoy it, or didn’t feel what she’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 to conceive. 

The woman is just an object, after all.

Unless I’m mistaken and we are Puritans who believe pleasure is inherently evil, it is more than okay to enjoy the release, the intoxication, and the physiological adrenaline rush 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 ANYONE be determined by their sexual history, 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 dictate their capability to be loved based on any number of variables, much less intimate relations. 

Oh, you gained weight, that’s too bad. 

Oh, you don’t wear a veil, 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, asking to be loved just for being themselves. 

Without needing to be asked first if they’ve loved someone else.

Without needing to prove that they are still lovable because they’re no longer a virgin. 

Without needing to feel suicidal after leaving their 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?



Image source:

About Jennifer Riley
Jennifer Riley is our co-leader. She’s an emotional writer, engulfing people in her tidal wave of life experiences and interpretations. She’s a bad Catholic, a good sinner, and a pernicious writer who tries to find who she is to herself and to God through her words. You can find her writer page at You can read more about the author here.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ame

    While the title makes it sound antagonistic towards every chastity speaker, I do love your underlying message concerning chastity movement as an abusive culture and heterodox theology. There needs to be chastity talkers focusing on wholeness and interior growth, purity in intention and undividedness rather than being “unstained.”

  • Naters

    John Paul II said that there were two types of objectification. One was lustful, and the other was a more stoic form of objectification, and according to JPII, this objectification is worse than the first one. The chastity movement advocates this type of objectification, and people can see how much more awful it is than any Super Bowl halftime show they’ve ever seen.

  • Sean

    Âme, don’t kid yourself. This very angry author wants you to shut up…and she means it.

  • Ame

    You are in error. She has very strong, complicated opinions. And as long as you don’t act like a troll, she’ll let you express your own strong, complicated opinions. But I gather that she has a busy life and cannot always moderate the comments section to our satisfaction at times. People have lives.

  • Iulia C

    Seriously, what chastity speakers have you listened to? I have never come across the message that you so vehemently (and rightfully) attack in my 1+ decade of listening to chastity speakers. Are you addressing Protestant circles because this doesn’t sound even remotely familiar in the Catholic ones.
    For 1, many of the chastity speakers in Catholic circles are non-virgins or have married non-virgins and their message is more or less: you are never damaged goods.

  • sedfghj

    I am tired of disorganized cri du couer blog posts from Catholic writers that sound reform minded, but don’t actually prove their points.

  • Jim Sheridan

    Good comment. I want to learn more about this.

  • Naters

    I wish I could pull up where he said that, but I haven’t been able to find it.

  • Carrie

    I assume you probably have already read or recommended the book, “Pure,” by Linda Kay Klein (and if it is mentioned in this or a previous post, my sincere apologies for being redundant!), but I wanted to mention that resource here for any readers who may also find themselves grappling with the conflicting messaging of the Chastity/Purity movement. It opened my eyes and allowed me to finally realize I was not alone in questioning the damaging messages of my youth.