I have an objection in general to the sort of atheist, or at least secularist, propaganda where a woman who grows up in a sexually oppressive cult finds it just liberating to set aside her abstinence and purity indoctrination when she leaves home.
Some recent examples:
I Once Signed an Abstinence Pledge and Wore a Purity Ring; Now, I’m a Sex-Positive Former Christian
Namely, that this kind of sexual liberation doesn’t necessarily work symmetrically for young men who grow up in similar religious environments. Women naturally hold the gatekeeping position, regardless of what their elders brought them up to believe about sex. So even average-looking women who decide to break away from these restrictions usually have a relatively easy way to do so.
But because of the asymmetry in human mating, the sexually unattractive young christian man who wants to break away from his sex-negative upbringing will discover pretty quickly that his apostasy hasn’t increased his sexual market value. Instead he becomes just another sexually yucky and frustrated secular guy.
Yet atheist bloggers like Hemant Mehta keep publishing these dishonest stories by or about young, formerly christian women who decide to take off their purity rings and start hooking up with men. This sounds like a sexist way to make the case for the benefits of atheism: Wow, look at the fun all those women have when they become atheists and lose their sexual inhibitions.
It just doesn’t work that way for a lot of guys who leave religion, however. Referring to the story I linked below about the male virgins in Silicon Valley, I doubt that they wound up that way because of christian upbringings. Silicon Valley doesn’t have a reputation as a christian sort of place, and I suspect most of these guys have secular outlooks.
You state that these stories are dishonest; do you have anything to support that?
You also state that you object to this sort of “propaganda” because it does not apply in the same way to males. I agree that differing sexual attitudes towards men and women lead to different experiences for men and women in the situations you’re describing. But why would this lead to an objection? Pointing out life events that have helped some people (and likely wouldn’t help some others) seems like a positive thing to do to help those who could be helped (in this case, women with sex-negative upbringings).
So even average-looking women who decide to break away from these restrictions usually have a relatively easy way to do so.
What does “relatively easy” mean here? Doing well in a sexually open culture may be especially hard for males with some sort of religious baggage and no real education in the matter (you have argued this quite persuasively elsewhere, and I broadly agree), but I doubt that it’s anything easy for females in the same condition. Even the most un-inhibited folks have preferences and standards for their sex lives that don’t boil down to just “having sex, and as much of it as possible, regardless of the circumstances and risks involved”.
Not that I find much useful in the post you’re responding to, but your response seems written to mislead. The age range is suspicious, and looks cherry-picked (the original post was talking about young people, and 30-34 doesn’t match that). The author talks about the difference in experiences between virgin men and women, and you instead talk about the prevalence of virginity. The author’s focus is on the way atheism is “sold” to young men and women as a way to improve their sex lives, and how this is misleading to young men, and your focus is instead on how rare the target audience of this kind of sales tactic is.
the original post was talking about young people, and 30-34 doesn’t match that
No, he referred to a 40 year old virgin in Silicon Valley. In general advancedatheist argues that young people who don’t learn the requisite skills of mating when they are young don’t learn them afterwards.
The author’s focus is on the way atheism is “sold” to young men and women as a way to improve their sex lives, and how this is misleading to young men, and your focus is instead on how rare the target audience of this kind of sales tactic is.
Where does the assumption that improving one’s sex life is impossible if one already has sex come from?
If you believe that sex is bad than you will have less fun with it. It becomes harder to communicate with a partner about what one desires. Plenty of women who do have sex have no orgasms.
No, he referred to a 40 year old virgin in Silicon Valley. In general advancedatheist argues that young people who don’t learn the requisite skills of mating when they are young don’t learn them afterwards.
I don’t see that reference. It’s possible it’s been removed—the comment/post has been edited—but either way that’s both still not the right age range, and a red herring anyways.
Where does the assumption that improving one’s sex life is impossible if one already has sex come from? If you believe that sex is bad than you will have less fun with it. It becomes harder to communicate with a partner about what one desires. Plenty of women who do have sex have no orgasms.
Null. Improving one’s sex life requires having a sex life in the first place, the absence of which is rather central to his comment/post.
That’s because you read the post without the context.
This post includes the sentence “Referring to the story I linked below about the male virgins in Silicon Valley, I doubt that they wound up that way because of christian upbringings. ”
That post refers to a 40 year old virgin.
Null. Improving one’s sex life requires having a sex life in the first place, the absence of which is rather central to his comment/post.
Then you just contradicted yourself. You wrote “atheism is “sold” to young men and women as a way to improve their sex lives”
Namely, that this kind of sexual liberation doesn’t necessarily work symmetrically for young men who grow up in similar religious environments.
What, going from under the control of others to in control of yourself feels better than going from in control of others to only in control of yourself? Why, who would have ever guessed??? Shocking!
This was not very productive. Overall power imbalances do not prevent it being the other way around in certain subfields. Whites can have most power still blacks can decide who gets to make a career in hip-hop. This is perfecty normal and in fact you should expect this. The problem with the current feminism narrative going back straight to Hegelian philosophy is that it is a one way interaction between oppressor and oppressed. It is never so. People react back and make their own structures. Nobody is fully passive.
I have an objection in general to the sort of atheist, or at least secularist, propaganda where a woman who grows up in a sexually oppressive cult finds it just liberating to set aside her abstinence and purity indoctrination when she leaves home.
Some recent examples:
I Once Signed an Abstinence Pledge and Wore a Purity Ring; Now, I’m a Sex-Positive Former Christian
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/27/i-once-signed-an-abstinence-pledge-and-wore-a-purity-ring-now-im-a-sex-positive-former-christian/
Sex as a Southern Woman: A Story of Shame
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2015/04/21/sex-as-a-southern-woman/
I could’ve been a Duggar wife: I grew up in the same church, and the abuse scandal doesn’t shock me
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/28/i_couldve_been_a_duggar_wife_i_grew_up_in_the_same_church_and_the_abuse_scandal_doesnt_shock_me/
After a First Time, Many Second Thoughts
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/style/after-a-first-time-many-second-thoughts.html
Namely, that this kind of sexual liberation doesn’t necessarily work symmetrically for young men who grow up in similar religious environments. Women naturally hold the gatekeeping position, regardless of what their elders brought them up to believe about sex. So even average-looking women who decide to break away from these restrictions usually have a relatively easy way to do so.
But because of the asymmetry in human mating, the sexually unattractive young christian man who wants to break away from his sex-negative upbringing will discover pretty quickly that his apostasy hasn’t increased his sexual market value. Instead he becomes just another sexually yucky and frustrated secular guy.
Yet atheist bloggers like Hemant Mehta keep publishing these dishonest stories by or about young, formerly christian women who decide to take off their purity rings and start hooking up with men. This sounds like a sexist way to make the case for the benefits of atheism: Wow, look at the fun all those women have when they become atheists and lose their sexual inhibitions.
It just doesn’t work that way for a lot of guys who leave religion, however. Referring to the story I linked below about the male virgins in Silicon Valley, I doubt that they wound up that way because of christian upbringings. Silicon Valley doesn’t have a reputation as a christian sort of place, and I suspect most of these guys have secular outlooks.
I do not think that a lack of symmetry is sufficient reason to scuttle an improvement in people’s lives, which sex positivity appears to be.
I also observe that the sympathy one receives for a hardship is not linearly proportional to the amount one advertises that hardship.
I would probably call it “negatively correlated” X-/
You state that these stories are dishonest; do you have anything to support that?
You also state that you object to this sort of “propaganda” because it does not apply in the same way to males. I agree that differing sexual attitudes towards men and women lead to different experiences for men and women in the situations you’re describing. But why would this lead to an objection? Pointing out life events that have helped some people (and likely wouldn’t help some others) seems like a positive thing to do to help those who could be helped (in this case, women with sex-negative upbringings).
What does “relatively easy” mean here? Doing well in a sexually open culture may be especially hard for males with some sort of religious baggage and no real education in the matter (you have argued this quite persuasively elsewhere, and I broadly agree), but I doubt that it’s anything easy for females in the same condition. Even the most un-inhibited folks have preferences and standards for their sex lives that don’t boil down to just “having sex, and as much of it as possible, regardless of the circumstances and risks involved”.
Just because religion isn’t the root of all evil doesn’t mean that it doesn’t produce any of it.
In the US in the age bracket of 30 to 34 years only 2 percent never had sexual contact and less than 5 percent had no sexual contact in the last year. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
That doesn’t mean that hardship of both male and female virgins doesn’t exist but the numbers don’t tell the story that you try to tell.
Not that I find much useful in the post you’re responding to, but your response seems written to mislead. The age range is suspicious, and looks cherry-picked (the original post was talking about young people, and 30-34 doesn’t match that). The author talks about the difference in experiences between virgin men and women, and you instead talk about the prevalence of virginity. The author’s focus is on the way atheism is “sold” to young men and women as a way to improve their sex lives, and how this is misleading to young men, and your focus is instead on how rare the target audience of this kind of sales tactic is.
No, he referred to a 40 year old virgin in Silicon Valley. In general advancedatheist argues that young people who don’t learn the requisite skills of mating when they are young don’t learn them afterwards.
Where does the assumption that improving one’s sex life is impossible if one already has sex come from? If you believe that sex is bad than you will have less fun with it. It becomes harder to communicate with a partner about what one desires. Plenty of women who do have sex have no orgasms.
I don’t see that reference. It’s possible it’s been removed—the comment/post has been edited—but either way that’s both still not the right age range, and a red herring anyways.
Null. Improving one’s sex life requires having a sex life in the first place, the absence of which is rather central to his comment/post.
That’s because you read the post without the context. This post includes the sentence “Referring to the story I linked below about the male virgins in Silicon Valley, I doubt that they wound up that way because of christian upbringings. ”
That post refers to a 40 year old virgin.
Then you just contradicted yourself. You wrote “atheism is “sold” to young men and women as a way to improve their sex lives”
Ah. I see. Well, I’m not interested in winning points in a pedantry contest, so good day.
What, going from under the control of others to in control of yourself feels better than going from in control of others to only in control of yourself? Why, who would have ever guessed??? Shocking!
You don’t understand how patriarchy works.
This was not very productive. Overall power imbalances do not prevent it being the other way around in certain subfields. Whites can have most power still blacks can decide who gets to make a career in hip-hop. This is perfecty normal and in fact you should expect this. The problem with the current feminism narrative going back straight to Hegelian philosophy is that it is a one way interaction between oppressor and oppressed. It is never so. People react back and make their own structures. Nobody is fully passive.