|It's called "love-making" not "a loss of purity."|
Short Answer: Yes, they do.
Long Answer: I understand that for Rachel Held Evans, being a woman, she would naturally write from a woman's perspective. Well and fine. And the "purity" that is enforced by implication or pledge on young women is a crass control that demeans and degrades the oceanic and beautiful force that is womanhood. Such pledges do exactly what one of the writer's described as pinning her name and vagina to the corkboard. In other words, it gave power of control over natural desires to a capricious ideology that, from its Sumero-Babylonian inception, has been viciously patriarchal and violent toward women.
The original 'sin', in my opinion, was sex. And since that time of natural, idyllic knowing, the implacable father-figure of Judeo-Christianity has loomed like a grinning and twisted cosmic gynecologist over the lives and sexual impulses of women. Its outrageous, sickening, and infuriating.
A woman is a beautiful creature. That beauty is not diminished or damaged if she sleeps with, has sex with, fucks, or copulates with 1 man, 3 men, or 25 men. Each consenting sexual act *is* an act of purity *because* the very nature of sexual contact is the co-mingling of complimentary energies: masculine and feminine (taken from my heterosexual perspective simply because I don't feel like going through the permutations of other sexual orientations).
And from the man's side of the spectrum, the implication that a man has spoiled, violated, or made a woman unclean by penetrating her is a massive insult that, were we in the kind of warrior culture that I really appreciate, would warrant the death of the one making such insulting declarations. In other words, if I were to take a woman to my bed, experience her fully for the first time in her life, I would not be taking anything from her. Instead, I would be giving my own complimentary sexual energy in an amazing moment of time. And if anyone insulted me or my woman by saying she is now "impure," I would want to literally kill that person.
So when it comes the the Christian notion of "purity," what is actually being said is that women are whole and pure only until a man penetrates her. At that point, she is less than pure, or "dirty." More than that, the implication for the man is that, instead of bringing and offering his life-energy, his strength and power to penetrate her like he penetrates the world, he is bringing the woman filth, and thereby dirtying her.
Such a perspective on the natural co-creative capacity of human beings is nothing less than insulting, and the bronze-age, oppressive ideology that brought it about really ought to be killed as mercilessly and efficiently as possible. Eat, drink, and be merry. Have sex as freely as you feel comfortable with. Fulfill your needs responsibly, lovingly, and unconditionally. Enjoy the power of sexual energy, of sexual intercourse, of widespread flirtation because by doing anything less, you deny your humanity, your very core. And *that* is, sadly, a loss of purity. It's not the act of sex that makes people impure. It is a misappropriation of human nature, sexual energy, and sexual communion that is a blight on men and women; denying natural human interaction is an "impurity," not the other way around, as religion would have people believe.
What are your thoughts?