Boy, nobody likes my posts on Hemant Mehta’s Friendly Atheist blog any more. I can see why, because the Newish Atheists like Mehta want to maintain for propaganda purposes the claim that religionists, and especially christians, suffer from all this horrible sexual repression that just mysteriously disappears when they become atheists, or at least when these believers start to question their beliefs and head in the direction of a secular world view.
I keep pointing out that this might work for christian women whose parents have subjected them to abstinence pledges, sex-negative indoctrination and the like; but it doesn’t necessarily work for many christian men who have low sexual market value to begin with. The sexually yucky christian guy who becomes an atheist discovers that women will still reject him, despite all the propaganda about atheists’ sexual freedom and fulfillment. I find it funny and weird that atheist authorities and christian authorities both agree on this myth about atheists’ wonderful sex lives, when many men discover a quite different reality.
But no, the Newish Atheists apparently don’t want to hear about this reality check because it conflicts with their ideological commitment to the alleged sexual advantages of becoming an atheist.
The only talk I’ve seen about “the sexual advantages of becoming an atheist” other than specifically christian women dropping celibacy commitments has been people taking stuff Christians say about atheist sexual freedom and saying “oh, yeah, look at all this sex we’re having just all over the place” in a really sarcastic voice, so I really doubt anyone’s ideologically commited to its existence.
No, what people are getting mad at is, that talking about men with “low sexual market value” is steeped in an ideology that most atheists consider disgusting and abominable, because especially the “Newish Atheists” tend to be very feminist compared to the general population. Even if you don’t actually mean to push that whole memeplex to them, it’s like complaining that someone’s opinion is influenced by their privilege in the comments of a right-wing or anti-SJ blog.
Christian sexual repression is about the “sex is bad” and you should only have it to reproduce ideology. That’s no fun ideology and it’s worthwhile to get rid of it.
I haven’t seen any atheist who argues that when men switch to being atheists women won’t reject him any more. That seems to me like a strawman.
I’m also not aware of any studies that suggest that atheists men are more or less likely to get rejected.
I’m also not aware of any studies that suggest that atheists men are more or less likely to get rejected.
And even if such a study was performed, I wouldn’t generalize from a study performed in (say) northern Europe to (say) the southern United States or vice versa.
Boy, nobody likes my posts on Hemant Mehta’s Friendly Atheist blog any more. I can see why, because the Newish Atheists like Mehta want to maintain for propaganda purposes the claim that religionists, and especially christians, suffer from all this horrible sexual repression that just mysteriously disappears when they become atheists, or at least when these believers start to question their beliefs and head in the direction of a secular world view.
I keep pointing out that this might work for christian women whose parents have subjected them to abstinence pledges, sex-negative indoctrination and the like; but it doesn’t necessarily work for many christian men who have low sexual market value to begin with. The sexually yucky christian guy who becomes an atheist discovers that women will still reject him, despite all the propaganda about atheists’ sexual freedom and fulfillment. I find it funny and weird that atheist authorities and christian authorities both agree on this myth about atheists’ wonderful sex lives, when many men discover a quite different reality.
But no, the Newish Atheists apparently don’t want to hear about this reality check because it conflicts with their ideological commitment to the alleged sexual advantages of becoming an atheist.
The only talk I’ve seen about “the sexual advantages of becoming an atheist” other than specifically christian women dropping celibacy commitments has been people taking stuff Christians say about atheist sexual freedom and saying “oh, yeah, look at all this sex we’re having just all over the place” in a really sarcastic voice, so I really doubt anyone’s ideologically commited to its existence.
No, what people are getting mad at is, that talking about men with “low sexual market value” is steeped in an ideology that most atheists consider disgusting and abominable, because especially the “Newish Atheists” tend to be very feminist compared to the general population. Even if you don’t actually mean to push that whole memeplex to them, it’s like complaining that someone’s opinion is influenced by their privilege in the comments of a right-wing or anti-SJ blog.
Christian sexual repression is about the “sex is bad” and you should only have it to reproduce ideology. That’s no fun ideology and it’s worthwhile to get rid of it.
I haven’t seen any atheist who argues that when men switch to being atheists women won’t reject him any more. That seems to me like a strawman.
I’m also not aware of any studies that suggest that atheists men are more or less likely to get rejected.
And even if such a study was performed, I wouldn’t generalize from a study performed in (say) northern Europe to (say) the southern United States or vice versa.
How about spending some time without relying on the “sexual market” hypothesis?