Editor’s note: This letter was written in response to Hannah Rogers’ article on purity rings that appeared in the Oct. 29, 2010 issue of The Reflector.
I was extremely surprised to see an article on purity rings in The Reflector. I was even more surprised to be informed that wearing a purity ring means flaunting sexual choices in other people’s faces.
I completely disagree. As someone who wears a purity ring (which I hate to bring up after what Hannah Rogers said in the article, but feel I must to show my point), I find it a constant reminder to myself to remain sexually pure.
It has nothing to do with other people, and I don’t feel wearing one is flaunting anything. I do agree that spending hundreds of dollars on a purity ring might be a bit much, but that must be left up to the individual families.
 Rogers talked about parents “slapping rings on [kids’] fingers” by the time they are in middle school and their “want to control their children’s sexual activity.”
I don’t think you can make broad statements like this. Perhaps some parents do treat it this way, but I know mine certainly didn’t.
Growing up in a Christian home, I learned pretty early on the difference between right and wrong and was taught that sex was reserved for marriage.
When I turned 13, my mom sat down and had a talk with me about sex. She had ordered a ring for me from the same company that made my dad’s wedding band and asked me if I wanted to wear it as a reminder to save myself for my future husband.
I agreed and I’ve worn it ever since. I don’t go around proclaiming to people that I wear one, nor do I think that it makes me a better person. It’s simply something I think is important and have chosen to do.
In this day and age, how can Rogers say it’s flaunting to wear a purity ring when most teenagers and college students  wouldn’t want anyone to know they are virgins? Rather, it’s a contradiction against the norm in spite of possible social rejection.
Attacking people who choose to wear one sounds like a lot of hate stemming from somewhere. Wearing a purity ring isn’t a statement. It’s not meant to be an announcement to the world. It’s personal.
If someone does point out the little gold ring on my left ring finger, I see it as an opportunity to share with them my beliefs. There have been times when people see it and ask if I’m married. When I answer in the negative, they ask me what it represents. I then get the chance to explain to them that it’s a purity ring, because, as a Christian, I feel it’s an important thing to practice what God commands. The conversation may continue from there, or that may be the end of it.
I have never had anyone accuse me of being insensitive or flaunting my sexual choices by wearing one.  Rogers addresses how some people would feel if they broke this promise of purity and if continuing to wear the ring afterwards would be living a lie.
I believe it would be because they have broken what it stands for. Rogers says people would notice if someone took it off and would find out what happened.
That may or may not be true. I think lots of people wouldn’t even notice, but even if they did, don’t you think that people are bound to find out anyway? Dirty laundry often doesn’t remain in the dark. And if a person is caught in a lie like that, he or she would probably feel more humiliated than if he or she had just removed the ring in the first place.
I’m still in shock that there is even a printed article about this in a college newspaper, but more so feel it’s important to stress that purity rings are a personal conviction between the wearer and God.
It’s not a “shiny object” meant to announce anything. It has nothing to do with flaunting sexual choices.
It does serve as an outward sign to others, but it is primarily an outward reminder to oneself.