KARL D. writes:

This charming photo from a group called “Blue Nation Review” has been making the rounds on Facebook. A man purporting to be a “Feminist Father” is wearing a T-shirt that lays out the “rules” for dating his daughter. The punch line (if you want to call it that) is that there are no rules! Her body, her choice. With fathers like that, who needs enemies?

— Comments —

M. writes:

The shirt you posted would be perfectly at home here in Marin County, California. I will not be surprised if it soon appears on the backs of the local sensitive, enlightened, male feminist-types.  While no male here would invite scorn and publically admit that he beleives otherwise, the vast majority actively embrace these notions.  (I do not.  Unsurprisingly, I have very few local male friends.  Somehow I think I can live with that.)

My two daughters are several years from dating, but they already know that the rules for such activities will be MY rules. They don’t know this because we have talked about dating per se. They know this because we talk about–and live–such quaint concepts as right and wrong, objective morality and truth, the distinct beahvior of gentlemen and ladies, and respect for parents, the laws of God, and the rules of this house.

The sentiment expressed on that shirt makes my blood boil. (Actually, it makes me want to punch the wearer’s lights out.) While the person wearing it may have impregnated a female who subsequently gave birth to a girl, the “man” in that shirt is no father. His is a pathetic attempt to curry favor with a child through permissiveness and passivity.

That never ends poorly, does it? It can’t possibly! His intentions are good, and he’s trying to be his child’s best friend…right?

Thank you for letting me vent.  As before, if you feel any of this comment is worth sharing I would appreciate it if you would assign me a nom de plume…or in this case, is it a nom de guerre?  In any event, please keep my identity hidden.

Abigail writes:

Karl read the “Rules of a Feminist Father” and concluded that the punchline is that there are no rules.  But the T-shirt clearly states that there ARE rules:  “SHE MAKES THE RULES . . . HER BODY, HER RULES.”  And this indeed is a rule of paramount importance — that her consent governs what happens to her body.  It is a wonderful T-shirt because it upends the old cultural trope about how the father should scare his daughter’s boyfriends regardless of her opinions on the matter.

Much of the socially conservative discourse about sexual ethics completely ignores the issue of the woman’s consent.  Women are framed as being “used” even when they have actively consented and are experiencing pleasure and fulfillment from a sexual experience.  This is scary and dangerous (not to mention profoundly disrespectful to women) because it is a point of view that devalues a woman’s agency as to her very own body.  Her body becomes an object of negotiation between boyfriends, fathers, churches, the legislature, and really everyone except the woman herself.

Laura writes:

“The old cultural trope” concerned circumstances in which the daughter faced possible harm. Fathers more often care about their daughters than not. And they generally find it difficult to disregard totally their daughters’ inclinations. Women are not the passive, helpless creatures you imagine them to be. Many can make things unpleasant when they don’t get their way.

Your point about ignoring women’s consent is hysterical nonsense, far removed from the culture we live in and from this conversation about the culture we live in. I am not going to answer for all “socially conservative discourse,” but much of it is a reaction to exaggerated claims of female autonomy. A young girl doesn’t always know what’s best for her. The examples are legion. When a young woman walks around a college town drunk at 1 a.m. in the morning, the consequences may be disastrous.

“Her body becomes an object of negotiation between boyfriends, fathers, churches, the legislature, and really everyone except the woman herself.”

Huh?

Find me a couple preparing for marriage in which the bride is not in control and I will be interested in what you have to say on this issue. You are conjuring scenarios that have nothing to do with our world — and I think it is safe to say that even when marriages were arranged most women were not totally passive and inert objects of negotiation and were not without mothers who had a definite say in things. If women were being dragged to the altar or locked in their bedrooms today, you might have a valid point.

“Women are framed as being “used” even when they have actively consented and are experiencing pleasure and fulfillment from a sexual experience.”

One can be used — and use others — and still enjoy it.

Mary writes:

This is the juncture where being the cool dad meets “I vaguely sense that I should have parental authority over my daughter but she won’t listen to me so I’ll assert it on the guy she’s going on a date with and then I’ll feel better and can watch my Soprano re-runs without guilt.”

Karl D. writes:

Abigail is missing a glaring point here which I thought would be obvious to anyone except those feminist types that react in typical knee-jerk fashion. Any “father” who is wearing this shirt presumably has a daughter who is still a minor and is entering the dating world. I really can’t envision a man with a 25-year-old daughter wearing this thing. As a minor (whom the father and mother are responsible for) she does not have autonomy over her own body in many ways. Especially sexually. She is a child! I don’t want to get too crude here, but what if his sixteen-year-old daughter came up to him one day and said, ‘Dad, I want to sleep with two boys at the same time’? What is his answer supposed to be? Using Abigail’s logic his correct answer would be “Your body, your rules”.

 

Sven writes:

The idea of these “feminist father” rules is repellent, of course.

However, I hope I’m not going off topic when I say that the Christian dating (or courtship) scene has a lot of problems, and way to many Christian fathers are scaring off potential husbands because they think none of them are good enough for their princesses. Rules are entirely necessary, but “conservative,” Christian parents have been unwittingly swept up in the modern feminist ways setting standards so high that a lot of Christian women are delaying marriage or not getting married at all. I know too many Christian girls on track to end up just like the feminist types; old maids searching for men as they stand on the brink of their fertile years.

As our children enter the phase where they begin to look for appropriate mates, let us give them rules that are conducive to marriage, not rules for finding the “perfect match.” In this way, they can tie the knot between ages 18 to 22, which will give them a good start on life and a family.

Laura writes:

Families need the sacraments to avoid a legalistic view of all this. The Bible is not enough.

Paul writes:

The father who would wear this does not understand the difference between consent and informed consent. I hope the father will realize the sanctity of his daughter’s body. I would have been using my dear Janet (my first sweetheart) despite her consent.

Dave P. writes:

Whatever the bug is, it’s made its way from California to the House of Commons, U.K.

Mary writes:

Abigail wrote: “Much of the socially conservative discourse about sexual ethics completely ignores the issue of the woman’s consent.”

Discourse on sexual ethics by conservatives does not ignore the issue of women’s consent as much as it rejects building discussion around the feminist view of women’s sexual experience, which only represents a tiny, skewed sampling of women in general. The radical goal of sexual pleasure at any cost, which forms the basis of feminist thinking, corrupts the possibility of any truly helpful conclusions.

Abigail wrote: “Women are framed as being “used” even when they have actively consented and are experiencing pleasure and fulfillment from a sexual experience.”

I’m surprised at this comment. College campuses are apparently teeming with remorseful young women who, following the feminist narrative Abigail sets out above, go out and party and have sex – and then rescind consent the next morning out of remorse, embarrassment, regret, sorrow, shame. These unfamiliar feelings are unbearable to these young women because they make no sense at all: no one warned them, no one told them they might feel bad after casual sex – it was supposed to be fun, a good story to tell and laugh over, or even the beginning of love. And these sad young women think they have been raped, when they have indeed been “used”, and have “used” someone themselves as well.

Josh F. writes:

The message in that shirt couldn’t be more resounding.

“In matters sexual, MY daughter will fend for herself.”

What is a pathological mindset is taken as wisdom.  One place we see this type of family-centered indifference to the decisions of daughters and their ability to make a good decision regarding men is in the “black” collective.  Although, we really only “see” this by way of both media omission and full media attention on either fatherless black boys or black boys led by “single mothers.”  What is hidden is the total indifference of the “black father” to the sexual selections of his black daughter(s).  In other words, within the black father/black daughter relationship is a mutual valuing of radical sexual autonomy, i.e., black daughter fends for sexual self.  The desire of our “default elite” is to bring this degenerate relationship to the white father/white daughter relationship.  This shirt evidences such an advance.  Which then brings us to miscegenation and what this SHIRT REALLY SAYS…

“I don’t care if my daughter marries outside her race. I don’t care if my daughter racially rejects me, her father. I don’t care if my daughter self-annihilates.”  This is the mentality of the collective “black father.”  This is a pathological mindset.  Real white fathers with children neither feign indifference to their children’s sexual selections nor do they advocate radical sexual autonomy (self-annihilating).  Which is to say, a real white father does not pretend that in matters sexual that all decisions are simply up to his children’s whims.

Donal Graeme writes:

That T-shirt, and the mindset behind it, is yet further evidence that “feminism”, in all its incarnations, is incompatible with Christianity.

To begin with, we should recognize that “dating” is a concept which has no place among Christians in the first place. It is courtship that we should be practicing.

But even in courtship it isn’t the father who sets the “rules.” Or the would-be suitor. Or the daughter, for that matter. It is God who sets the rules on how we should act. We merely choose to obey or not.

And while it may be the daughter’s choice, it is not her body.

¹⁹ Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; ²⁰ you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

(1 Cor 6:19-20)

Her body belongs to God, and that is why He sets the rules.

And while I support strong parental involvement and screening in the courtship process, Sven is right that many Christian parents, fathers especially, drive away Christian men who would make good husbands and fathers.

James P. writes:

Abigail writes that it is “a rule of paramount importance” that a girl’s “consent governs what happens to her body.”

Short version: Don’t rape my daughter.

Does that rule really have to be on a shirt? I would not let my daughter date a boy who I thought needed to be told that. He would be warned in no uncertain terms to get lost and stay lost.

Of course, the wearer of the shirt is a leftist, and therefore he is not making rules that pertain to real rape, but to the phony rape epidemic. From that perspective, the shirt has some value as a warning to the boy that he can be charged with rape for disobeying “her rules”. And oh by the way, son, “her rules” can change from moment to moment, and you can still be charged with a crime if she decides tomorrow morning that the “rules” you followed last night are retroactively invalid.

My own T-shirt would go something like this:

Rules for Dating My Daughter:

1. Bring her back safely at the designated time.
2. Act as if your life depends on doing so.
3. Because it does.

Terry Morris writes:

Back in the ’80s Cyndi Lauper recorded a song that gets to the crux of Abigail’s unprincipled attitude. She “wants to be the one to walk in the sun,” and she doesn’t care whose authority she tramples down in the process, how this affects persons close to her, nor the society at large … because it’s all about Abigail and Abigail’s “pleasure and fulfillment.”

She could give two hoots about what is or isn’t best for women in general, but she has to advocate for universal female autonomy in order to get what Abigail wants, and to be consistent. As the old saying goes, Abigail, “The appearance of the law must be upheld … especially when it’s being violated.”

Or we could liken her attitude to the woman protesting at the Capital building in Oklahoma, proudly displaying an unedited homemade sign that read “If I wanted the legislature in my womb, I’d go out and f__k a Senator.” They oughta make that into a T-shirt: “Rules of a feminist husband.” “Her body, her rules.” “If she wanted you in her womb, she’d use you for pleasure and fulfillment.” “I’m a feminist husband, and I approve of this message.” It was all about Geisy Alvarez, her pleasure and fulfillment too. She cared about no one but Geisy. She basically said as much when she kicked her daughter, Mercedes’s, paternal grandparents out of her life for expressing concerns about her jeopardizing Mercedes’s safety in her choice of boyfriends: “if you can’t be with me [translated: this is what I want; this is giving me pleasure and fulfillment], you can’t be a part of Mercedes’s life.”

Geisy can’t possibly have known at that moment how very prophetic her words would soon prove to be. But that doesn’t matter. I won’t say she isn’t experiencing a deep sense of loss after her daughter’s murder, but to think it will change her overall attitude over the long haul, or that she will have learned from her mistakes that led to Mercedes’s murder, would be a grave mistake on our parts. I’ve been around long enough to know that that’s not usually how it works. But the bottom line is this, as I’ve tried to instill in both my daughters and sons, there is literally nothing you can do or “consent” to that doesn’t have an impact, one way or the other, for better or for worse, on someone else.

Abigail writes:

I had actually considered Karl’s point that a father’s “rules” would be generally understood to apply only to minors.  That point is belied by your comment that young women in college (who are not minors) don’t know what’s best for them and need protection.

It is also worth noting that, even if old tropes involving a father fending off the sexually eager young men pursuing his daughter, are generally understood to apply only to minors, they are never reversed to apply to sons.  Neither mothers nor fathers seem to face the strong cultural expectation of “protecting” their underage sons from sexually assertive women.  Yet sons face all sorts of dangers from sex, just as daughters do (including disease, unwanted fatherhood, tangling with other jealous men or boys, and committing or being accused of committing assault). The overall effect of this disparity is  to undermine respect for the agency and maturity of  girls and women, compared to boys and men.  It results in people making claims that adult women in college don’t know what what’s best for their own good.

Moving on to that claim that young women in college don’t know what’s best for them, I beg to differ.  Do YOU claim to know what’s best for an individual woman? What price have you decided a young woman should pay to avoid sexual assault?  What I’m getting at is that life is full of risk and that it is simply a fact of life that we all have to decide for ourselves what degree of risk we are willing to take, and what costs we are willing to pay to avoid risk.

Laura writes:

That’s just plain ridiculous. Would you send a child who knows nothing about cars and traffic to cross the road himself?

Do YOU claim to know what’s best for an individual woman?

In general terms, absolutely.

What is best for a young woman is not a matter of opinion. It concerns objective truth.

Nov. 2, 2014

Mary writes:

Abigail wrote: “Neither mothers nor fathers seem to face the strong cultural expectation of “protecting” their underage sons from sexually assertive women.  Yet sons face all sorts of dangers from sex, just as daughters do (including disease, unwanted fatherhood, tangling with other jealous men or boys, and committing or being accused of committing assault).”

Abigail is offended by too much protection for teenage girls. Then she admits that not only do girls face many dangers but that boys do, too, and asks why parents aren’t compelled to “protect” them? That is a very good and logical question – but she immediately moves beyond her own point to summarize: “… life is full of risk and that it is simply a fact of life that we all have to decide for ourselves what degree of risk we are willing to take, and what costs we are willing to pay to avoid risk.” This statement is about teenagers, people’s kids. The cold, unwomanly heart of feminism unwittingly reveals itself: don’t protect girls or boys – leave them to their own devices!

Abigail wrote: “It results in people making claims that adult women in college don’t know what what’s best for their own good.” [my emphases]

Random people aren’t making claims, the college women themselves are the ones who are driving this debate. These young women are making claims of rape against college men and not the other way around, so no matter how offended Abigail is by this idea, she cannot get away from the truth that these women are admitting through these claims that they are sexually vulnerable to the men: there is no other logical way to look at it. New laws are actually being created to protect college women not from strangers but from their chosen partners, detailing specific language which must be used throughout the sex act up until completion, only because of the very vocal complaints of these young feminists. It is a preposterous solution.

We’ve obviously moved well beyond Abigail’s worries about women not “experiencing pleasure and fulfillment” in the utopian feminist vision of uncommitted sex that was set out by her elders, and into a new realm. In actuality these young college feminists are crying out for protection from themselves: from their own bad sexual formation and resulting terrible choices. Through this crisis they are telling us they are decidedly not “experiencing pleasure and fulfillment” from casual sexual encounters. Instead they are expressing bewilderment. Read between the lines and they are saying: They told me I’m supposed to enjoy this but I’m not – I feel sad and used! Why didn’t he look at me on line for breakfast this morning? I hope I didn’t catch anything…

In other words, they are looking for help, for ….what’s the word?…..ah, yes, protection, which starts with parenting and used to flow through the culture. We’re in this predicament because both have failed.

Josh F. writes:

Abigail readily admits that radical sexual autonomy is dangerous for boys and men BUT because the reality of this danger is not publicly dispensed on an absolutely equal basis THEN we must completely forego with publicly dispensing this message all together because it only and apparently unfairly reaches girls and women.

That’s the mind of a radical female liberationist…

James P. writes:

Abigail writes,

“Moving on to that claim that young women in college don’t know what’s best for them, I beg to differ.”

Based on the outcomes and behaviors we see, I’d say it is pretty clear that a great many young women do not know what’s best for them.

“Do YOU claim to know what’s best for an individual woman?”

For thousands of years, it was generally accepted that the judgment of adults was superior to the judgment of young people. To claim otherwise is to argue that humans are incapable of learning from experience. Isn’t the whole point of college to gain maturity and acquire better judgment as a result of the experience? (Oh wait, I forgot, the whole point is to drink, rut, and slack off at great expense while expending the minimum possible effort on coursework.) Perhaps Abigail is ready to declare that our grand post-1965 experiment in letting young people decide what’s best for themselves is a success. Personally I am more skeptical.

“What price have you decided a young woman should pay to avoid sexual assault?”

The price that colleges demanded of young women in the 1950s is not unreasonable. The rules back then included:

*No co-ed dorms.
*No men allowed in women’s rooms – men could only visit the lobby of the women’s dorm, and had to sign in at the front desk – or women in men’s rooms.
*Men and women could only socialize in common areas.
*Curfews – women had to sign out and were punished if they did not return before the proper time.
*The standards of proper attire and behavior were prescribed and enforced.

I know I’d be a lot less worried about my daughter going to college if these rules were in force. And if there is truly a “rape epidemic” on campus, perhaps we should return to these rules!

John Purdy writes:

In 1993 I was “dating”, I would prefer to say courting, a beautiful woman eight years my junior. A good deal but not, I think, outrageous. She was a Russian immigrant, intelligent and in most respects a decent woman.

She invited her  mother to visit Canada. Her mother spoke no English and I spoke only tiny amounts of Russian, hardly worth mentioning. So my girlfriend had to translate between us. At one point in the conversation I asked my girlfriend to translate a statement. “I am a successful Canadian man. I make a good living and I love your daughter and I wish to marry her but she will not do so.” The girlfriend was reluctant to do it but she did.

I could not understand a word her mother said but the body language was obvious. “You silly girl! Marry him immediately!” But alas, no marriage.

So, even if you have the support of her parents you can’t do anything with modern women. A funny story or a sad one? You decide.

James F. writes:

The best way for a father to ensure his daughter has the right mindset toward potential suitors is to make sure he, as the father, sets the right example.  A girl who respects her father due to the merit and strength of his character will seek his approval voluntarily.  Let us not forget that the father is the primary male relationship a girl will have during all of her formative years.  He sets the standard through his own conduct toward her and her mother, and it is by this that she will judge all the rest.

The reason fathers need to have ‘the talk’ with the boyfriend is because we are all well aware that when boys and girls get together they sometimes start thinking with their hormones and not their brains.  Since it is the boy who will always take the blame (even if she seduced him) he must therefore shoulder the burden of responsibility for showing greater self-restraint.  If he succeeds at doing this he will gain tremendous respect from her (and the father’s trust).

Most of the females I’ve met have a tendency to blame anyone except themselves, and especially men.  Feminists in particular are somewhat comical in their constant complaining and blaming of men, never quite clever enough to realize that in doing this they are passing all the responsibility to the man.  Then they ignorantly complain about men having all the authority.  These Jezebels are caught in their own paradox.  This is why they are almost always miserable:  they insist on having (or usurping) complete control over everything, but when something goes wrong they won’t take the blame  — so they never improve and the situation never improves.  The unfortunate men in relationships with these women often endure such a battery of constant psychological abuse that they lose their identities and become passive and useless, often turning to drug abuse or defiling themselves in various ways.  I have seen this happen to a number of close friends.

It is for this reason (the natural female tendency to transfer responsibility via blame) that a father must treat his daughter’s boyfriend as a son and give him moral guidance.  It is for the boy’s own good as much as for the daughter’s.  Yes, for some reason God has given us this particular order and balance, and when it is not maintained all sorts of chaos is the result.  The only thing feminism can accomplish is the creation of crass women and eunuch men.  In a sense, and in both cases, a man is to blame for this: an absent or useless father.  From Job 24:

“Why are not times of judgment kept by the Almighty,
and why do those who know him never see his days?
Some move landmarks;
they seize flocks and pasture them.
They drive away the donkey of the fatherless;
they take the widow’s ox for a pledge.
They thrust the poor off the road;
the poor of the earth all hide themselves.”

 Mr. Morris writes:

Abigail said: “It is worth noting that … they are never reversed to apply to sons.”

Never? Reversed? I don’t presume to know what kind of company Abigail keeps, but she must not be spending much time around traditionalist families. Our eldest son, Jeremy, and his younger brother, Gabriel, would both be quick to beg differ with Abigail on the matter. I’ll not belabor the point with countless anecdotes I could tell, but my own father, in many ways, watched me closer than he did my younger sisters during our teenage years, and into early adulthood. Nevertheless my sisters would cherry-pick, each in her own way, instances in which our father would give me a bit more rope, throwing them up in his face as some sort of “double-standard” he was applying to his girls vs. his boys. And, of course, that he would rein me back in when I would attempt to stretch an inch into two feet seemed somehow to completely have escaped them. Selective memory, I guess. Seems to be more a female, than a male trait.

Speaking of which, I will say to Abigail (and every other person reading this discussion) that if you haven’t raised girls to adulthood, you barely have any clue what you’re talking about when it comes to childrearing (to quote my feminist sister-in-law, “Who do you think you are: God?! You think that since boys have a “thing,” and girls don’t have a “thing,” this makes them somehow “different?!” No, to the first question, Yes, to the second as stated, but there are innate differences you have no capacity for understanding, in part because you’ve only raised boys.). I appreciate M.’s confidence in his methods’n all, but I would strongly urge him to take a step back and consider that the existing culture is influencing the thinking of his daughters in subtle ways he’s likely not detecting on the one hand (it’s inescapable unless one lives in a cave), and that once they hit puberty and their hormones begin to rage, there is a strong possibility, given the foregoing cultural influences, that one or both of them will disappoint him and betray, at least for a time, the strong father-daughter bond he has formed with them as little girls on the other.

In other words, the Abigails of the world (and their male cheerleaders) are all around us, everywhere. Often it’s extremely difficult to know who they are because they’re very good at giving a false impression of themselves, their beliefs, their motives and so on. And we Christians tend to be a bit gullible at times. Credit where credit is due, Abigail is at least open and honest (at least in this context) about where she’s coming from.

Mr. Morris adds:

Also, I feel compelled to point out that this notion of Abigail’s that a young girl like Hannah Graham, because she’s 18 and legally no longer a minor, is all of a sudden perfectly capable of making good decisions for herself in every situation, AND, that she must be given the opportunity to decide for herself what risks she’s willing to take, is just plain crazy talk. It’s pure insanity. But here again, most everything feminist(ic) is.

James N. writes:

It seems to me that the feminist commenters are missing the major point about fathers and daughters.

Fathers don’t know anything (much) about girls. They are as much a mystery as women are. But fathers know a hell of a lot about boys. We know more about boys than our daughters will ever know – or at least we know about boys in a different way than girls ever do.

It’s this deep knowledge about BOYS that motivates us to substitute our judgement for our daughters’ judgement, especially when our daughters assessment of a given situation is premised on a false understanding of boys and what makes them tick. Until they have husbands who are bonded to them sacramentally, only their fathers can look out for/look after them in this way.

Much trouble and heartbreak is thereby avoided – or at least that’s the idea.

Laura writes:

Feminist fathers apparently don’t understand boys.

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

Apropos of sexual morality and the institution of consent, I recently made the following so-called bawdy-song by the English writer of popular songs Thomas D’Urfey (1653 – 1723) the text of the day in my course on “The History and Development of the English Language.”  (The words are sung to the Irish tune Lilliburlero.)

My Thing is My Own

I, a tender young maid, have been courted by many
Of all sorts and trades as ever was any.
A spruce haberdasher first spake to me fair
But I would have nothing to do with small ware.

Chorus:
My thing is my own, and I’ll keep it so still
Yet other young lasses may do as they will.

A sweet scented courtier did give me a kiss,
And promis’d me mountains if I would be his,
But I’ll not believe him, for it is too true,
Some courtiers do promise much more than they do.

A fine Man of Law did come out of the Strand,
To plead his own case with his fee in his hand;
He made a brave motion but that would not do,
For I did dismiss him and nonsuit him too.

Next came a young fellow, a notable spark,
(With green bag and inkhorn, a Justice’s clerk)
He pull’d out his warrant to make all appear,
But I sent him away with a flea in his ear.

A Master of Musick came with an intent,
To give me a lesson on my instrument,
I thank’d him for nothing, but bid him be gone,
For my little fiddle should not be plaid on.

A Usurer came with abundance of cash,
But I had no mind to come under his lash,
He proffer’d me jewels, and great store of gold,
But I would not mortgage my little Free-hold.

A blunt Lieutenant surpriz’d my placket,
And fiercely began to rifle and sack it,
I mustered my spirits up and became bold,
And forc’d my Lieutenant to quit his strong hold.

A crafty young bumpkin that was very rich,
And us’d with his bargains to go thro’ stitch,
Did tender a sum, but it would not avail,
That I should admit him my tenant in tayl.

A fine dapper taylor, with a yard in his hand
Did proffer his service to be at command
He talk’d of a slit I had above knee,
But I’ll have no taylors to stitch it for me.

A Gentleman that did talk much of his grounds
His Horses, his Setting-Dogs, and his greyhounds
Put in for a Course, and us’d all his art
But he mist of the Sport, for Puss would not start

A pretty young Squire new come to the town
To empty his Pockets, and so to go down,
Did proffer a kindness, but I would have none
The same that he us’d to his mother’s maid, Joan.

Now here I could reckon a hundred and more
Besides all the Gamesters recited before
That made their addresses in hopes of a snap
But as young as I was I understood trap.

Last chorus:
My thing is my own, and I’ll keep it so still
Until I be marryed, say men what they will.

When I asked about the implied character of the song’s monologist, the first answer, volubly seconded by about half the enrollment, was that she must be a “prude.”  Thus began the long discussion about virtue, a concept that, to judge by the confusion it caused, is nowadays undiscussed in education, at any level.

Here is a performance of the song by Ann and Nancy Wilson.

Hurricane B. writes:

“Woman’s virtue is man’s greatest invention.” – C.O. Skinner

And that is why girls and women need a lot of supervision.