Nancy Gibbs, one of Time magazine's ace reporters, wrote a superb piece called "The Pursuit of Teen Girl Purity." It told about "purity balls," Cinderella-ish events attended by fathers and daughters that stress the role of the father in a young girl's life, and encourage abstinence and responsibility on the part of girls.

I'd never heard of purity balls, but they seem like a worthy thing. And the type of thing that the mainstream media might savage. But Nancy Gibbs wrote a very fair, positive article. She poo-pooed the criticism "dressed up in social science."

One story, about a man who was there with three of his daughters, made my eyes tear up. He had had nine children by seven women. An older daughter, now an adult, said, "It's great for girls to have a Cinderella night with Dad, but families still need a good strong father role model. I didn't have that....But my siblings do. He really stepped up to the plate. He's a great dad now. I say that with a tinge of jealousy." Her father has inoperable lung cancer. "He won't be at their wedding," she said, referring to her young siblings, "but they can look back and remember the dance they had tonight."

Gibbs's last few paragraphs are superb as she talks about the critics vs. the advocates of purity balls.

Culture war, by its nature, pours salt in wounds, finds division where there could be common purpose. "Purity" is certainly a loaded word--but is there anyone who thinks it's a good idea for 12-year-olds to have sex? Or a bad idea for fathers to be engaged in the lives of their daughters and promise to practice what they preach? Parents won't necessarily say this out loud, but isn't it better to set the bar high and miss than not even try?

There is no evidence that giving kids complete and accurate information about sex and contraception encourages promiscuity. On the other, a purity pledge basically says sex is serious. That it's not to be entered into recklessly. To deny kids information, whether about contraception or chastity, is irresponsible.