Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Drolefille]

I am not ashamed of my so-called "misogyny" whatsoever, many of my female friends are also misogynistic and can't stand the current state of their fellow fairer sex. I would bet a million dollars that if you took a poll of most men, they would rather have a less experienced woman than a more experienced one. If you're going to bring up your own experiences here, were any of those boyfriends in for the long haul by chance?

Yes, women can be misogynistic too, it's culturally implanted. Your lack of shame is your own concern.

You're willing to bet on cultural misogyny, I'm not surprised by that.

Five years long enough for you?

Here's a life lesson you should have gotten in Kindergarten: Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it ok.

 

[Dingbat]

Or for example, the logic just didn't add up to me anymore. I studied under the Jesuits, they taught me to question, I just didn't come to the same conclusion they did. God might have abandoned me, but more likely he doesn't exist. Or if he does, and he's as narrow minded as some of his followers think (only some, many disagree with you) then I wouldn't go back to following him even if I believed in him. Amazing how it's not so black and white.

I could believe in your god and not follow him, but instead I do neither.

I don't believe God or the path to Divinity is as black and white as humanity tries to make it out to be. Humanity loves things in simple, labeled boxes. Nothing in my experience ever fits nicely into any one box unless a person is being purposefully obtuse. To me religion is a very personal experience and I agree with what the Buddha, or Rumi for that matter, says there is more than one path.

 

[dgirl1986]

First off, the distance from "it's said that..." to rumour or old wive's tale is pretty damn short.

Second, if we're engaging in specious generalizations, how about this one: plenty of men are insecure about how they "measure up" in bed. If you think you're a below average lover compared to most men, then your odds of being seen favourably by your partner decrease as the number of men she can compare you against goes up. Women aren't dummies; they can pick up on this.

The worst lover in the world can still be the best man his partner's ever had if she's never been with anyone else. OTOH, he probably knows full well that if his partner's been with a hundred other men, then he ranks 100 out of 100.

OTOH, if a man is confident about his love-making, then the number of men his partner has been with before doesn't matter. He can approach things from the mindset of "you've tried the rest... now try the best."

IMO, this whole notion of "female purity" is just a repackaged version of male insecurity. IOW, it's a polished turd.

THIS! :yes:

 

[NIX]

Of course I could stop believing. I could simply embrace one of the other teachings going around. Teachings like "God isn't real, it's a figment of the imagination.", or "God is a dirt bag who cares nothing for his creation." I could probably find some events in my life, usually ones involving experiences of pain, that on the surface look as though they support such assertions.

I'm fairly suspicious that 'belief' is more about 'going with a thing', 'embracing it', 'taking it as your own', 'living as if', by choice (or 'default'), than it is about anything else.

 

[Shermana]

First off, the distance from "it's said that..." to rumour or old wive's tale is pretty damn short.

Second, if we're engaging in specious generalizations, how about this one: plenty of men are insecure about how they "measure up" in bed. If you think you're a below average lover compared to most men, then your odds of being seen favourably by your partner decrease as the number of men she can compare you against goes up. Women aren't dummies; they can pick up on this.

The worst lover in the world can still be the best man his partner's ever had if she's never been with anyone else. OTOH, he probably knows full well that if his partner's been with a hundred other men, then he ranks 100 out of 100.

OTOH, if a man is confident about his love-making, then the number of men his partner has been with before doesn't matter. He can approach things from the mindset of "you've tried the rest... now try the best."

IMO, this whole notion of "female purity" is just a repackaged version of male insecurity. IOW, it's a polished turd.

And again, this should be for a different thread, but I'd bet you every dollar I have and will ever earn that the majority of men would prefer a less experienced woman for a long-term partner, and it's rather hard to find anything but anecdotal evidence, website forums (LOTS of them), blogs (LOOOOTS of them) and such to back my point, I'll see if I can find studies on the issue.

As for men feeling experienced or unconfident, it's a well known fact that women are attracted to confidence, but I fail to see the relevance.

You can call it a polished turd all you want, but reality is reality, whether you think its a turdy reality you want. Go try telling Orthodox Jews that the emphasis for sexual purity is a polished turd.

 

[dgirl1986]

I'm fairly suspicious that 'belief' is more about 'going with a thing', 'embracing it', 'taking it as your own', 'living as if', by choice (or 'default'), than it is about anything else.

I think there is a difference between having a belief and acting on it.

 

[dgirl1986]

And again, this should be for a different thread, but I'd bet you every dollar I have and will ever earn that the majority of men would prefer a less experienced woman for a long-term partner, and it's rather hard to find anything but anecdotal evidence, website forums (LOTS of them), blogs (LOOOOTS of them) and such to back my point, I'll see if I can find studies on the issue.

As for men feeling experienced or unconfident, it's a well known fact that women are attracted to confidence, but I fail to see the relevance.

You can call it a polished turd all you want, but reality is reality, whether you think its a turdy reality you want. Go try telling Orthodox Jews that the emphasis for sexual purity is a polished turd.

I have to wonder about the sort of men that you are exposed to. I have known plenty of men in my lifetime and the majority of them werent fussed about whether their partner or future partner was virginal.

And in my books, being with a woman counts as sexual experience. SO they would not be virginal by the time the man got to them.

 

[Drolefille]

And again, this should be for a different thread, but I'd bet you every dollar I have and will ever earn that the majority of men would prefer a less experienced woman for a long-term partner, and it's rather hard to find anything but anecdotal evidence, website forums (LOTS of them), blogs (LOOOOTS of them) and such to back my point, I'll see if I can find studies on the issue.

As for men feeling experienced or unconfident, it's a well known fact that women are attracted to confidence, but I fail to see the relevance.

You can call it a polished turd all you want, but reality is reality, whether you think its a turdy reality you want. Go try telling Orthodox Jews that the emphasis for sexual purity is a polished turd.

Why did Judaism come into this?

You're just justifying misogyny. What is way more attractive than a man who is only confident because his partner is less experienced than he is is a man who is confident for who he is no matter what. Same for a woman.

Your confidence is pyrite, the other guy's is gold.

And at least Orthodox Jews demand purity from both men and women. It's repressive but equally so. In theory at least. Again why did you feel it necessary to go there.

 

[Shermana]

Why did Judaism come into this?

You're just justifying misogyny. What is way more attractive than a man who is only confident because his partner is less experienced than he is is a man who is confident for who he is no matter what. Same for a woman.

Your confidence is pyrite, the other guy's is gold.

And at least Orthodox Jews demand purity from both men and women. It's repressive but equally so. In theory at least. Again why did you feel it necessary to go there.

I'm justifying "Misogony" with quotation marks, not necessarily hatred of women altogether, just modern (Liberal) perceptions of "Misogony." (I.e. "Sexually liberated" Feminism).

And yes, I believe in male purity too. The issue however is that purity is more desired by men in women than women in men (in most cases, plenty of women still want their men to be pure).

As for bringing up the Orthodox Jews, it's because the culture itself has this concept of purity entrenched, which was referred to as a "polished turd".

I really should make a new thread on this, all I was trying to do was say that Lesbianism is not forbidden in the scripture and is a potentially wise alternative.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And again, this should be for a different thread, but I'd bet you every dollar I have and will ever earn that the majority of men would prefer a less experienced woman for a long-term partner, and it's rather hard to find anything but anecdotal evidence, website forums (LOTS of them), blogs (LOOOOTS of them) and such to back my point, I'll see if I can find studies on the issue.

As for men feeling experienced or unconfident, it's a well known fact that women are attracted to confidence, but I fail to see the relevance.

You can call it a polished turd all you want, but reality is reality, whether you think its a turdy reality you want. Go try telling Orthodox Jews that the emphasis for sexual purity is a polished turd.

I'd guess a factor in how much of a concern there is about an "experienced" partner (i.e. one that has shared a bed with a bunch of people) would be one's views on sexuality and it's proper uses. For instance, if a person sees no problem with fornication or even adultery, I'm guessing they'll have far less concern about how many people their sex partner has been with. They might even be more likely to view such experience as a plus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And again, this should be for a different thread, but I'd bet you every dollar I have and will ever earn that the majority of men would prefer a less experienced woman for a long-term partner, and it's rather hard to find anything but anecdotal evidence, website forums (LOTS of them), blogs (LOOOOTS of them) and such to back my point, I'll see if I can find studies on the issue.

I don't doubt that there are lots of guys that think this way. There are plenty of guys who worry about these sorts of things ("male enhancement" products sell well for a reason), and there are lots of guys who have had notions of "purity" drilled into them from a young age.

As for men feeling experienced or unconfident, it's a well known fact that women are attracted to confidence, but I fail to see the relevance.

My point was just that a woman, if she cares about her partner, will often not try to undermine his confidence.

If you're going to look at surveys, look at any of the many surveys that show how many women fake orgasms. It's a similar idea: even if a man isn't that good in bed, many women will create a false impression to spare the man's self-esteem. I know it's not that healthy for the relationship in the long run, but plenty of women do it.

You can call it a polished turd all you want, but reality is reality, whether you think its a turdy reality you want. Go try telling Orthodox Jews that the emphasis for sexual purity is a polished turd.

I'm sure that many Orthodox Jews will tell me that "sexual purity" is something that was ordained by God. Hopefully you realize that as an atheist, I'm not going to accept that explanation. We're necessarily going to disagree on the origins of this practice.

 

[Shermana]

I have to wonder about the sort of men that you are exposed to. I have known plenty of men in my lifetime and the majority of them werent fussed about whether their partner or future partner was virginal.

Well then I have to wonder what men you're exposed to. Most men I've talked to even in California regard experienced women as "good for a one night stand" and "wouldn't bring them home to Momma". But again, this should be for a new thread. I'd also wonder if these men you spoke to were lying and what kinds of women they ended up getting with, and if they'd be content to date/marry a well experienced woman, or an ex-"professional" or a porn star, or whatnot.

And in my books, being with a woman counts as sexual experience. SO they would not be virginal by the time the man got to them.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here in context to what I said.

 

[Drolefille]

I'm justifying "Misogony" with quotation marks, not necessarily hatred of women altogether, just modern (Liberal) perceptions of "Misogony." (I.e. "Sexually liberated" Feminism).

And yes, I believe in male purity too. The issue however is that purity is more desired by men in women than women in men (in most cases, plenty of women still want their men to be pure).

As for bringing up the Orthodox Jews, it's because the culture itself has this concept of purity entrenched, which was referred to as a "polished turd".

I really should make a new thread on this, all I was trying to do was say that Lesbianism is not forbidden in the scripture and is a potentially wise alternative.

Are you in the 70s? Because I haven't heard anyone of my generation use the term "sexually liberated" to talk about themselves. We're past that. It's called the pill. Holding women to higher standards of purity, worrying about their "wear and tear" is misogyny. It doesn't matter if everyone else is doing it. It matters that it is punishing to women. Particularly when the acceptable thing for men to do is sleep around - but only with women. You don't see how this could be a problem? Then those "sexually liberated" women are freely called sluts for sleeping around with the men who are encouraged to do so.

That is misogyny. You can believe in abstinence or free love, but when you hold different expectations of men and women it is sexist. And even things that hurt men are typically as a result of misogyny not these modern feminists hating on the penis. If you believe in the value then what other people expect shouldn't matter. IF you believe in the hooking up culture and SOOOO many blogs you site, then your idea of purity is screwed up.

Being a lesbian is not a choice. Being bi/pansexual means that I can choose who to be with, but "lesbianism" is not a fad or a phase or an option or an alternative. And thinking it is shows me how little you think of lesbians and gays.

 

[dgirl1986]

Well then I have to wonder what men you're exposed to. Most men I've talked to even in California regard experienced women as "good for a one night stand" and "wouldn't bring them home to Momma". But again, this should be for a new thread. I'd also wonder if these men you spoke to were lying and what kinds of women they ended up getting with, and if they'd be content to date/marry a well experienced woman, or an ex-"professional" or a porn star, or whatnot.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here in context to what I said.

Oh you know, your average aussies, irishmen, englishmen, etc.

In regards to what I said...you were talking about sexual purity. If a woman has been with a woman (just like if she had been with a man) then you can count the sexual purity as pretty much gone.

 

[Drolefille]

Well then I have to wonder what men you're exposed to. Most men I've talked to even in California regard experienced women as "good for a one night stand" and "wouldn't bring them home to Momma". But again, this should be for a new thread. I'd also wonder if these men you spoke to were lying and what kinds of women they ended up getting with, and if they'd be content to date/marry a well experienced woman, or an ex-"professional" or a porn star, or whatnot.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here in context to what I said.

Hey, the Madonna/Whore complex. Yeah that's not misogynistic. Oh wait, it's ok because that's what feminists say! And we know those feminists just want to be lesbians! Wait, Shermana is ok with lesbians, well now I don't know what his point is.

No wait, I found it: It's ok to insult women for being whores or sluts for being willing to sleep with you. Women are to be sexually available to men, and yet be "pure." And since they can't be both, we have to have the whores and sluts on one side and the wives on the other.

**** that and the horse it rode in on.

 

[Shermana]

Oh you know, your average aussies, irishmen, englishmen, etc.

In regards to what I said...you were talking about sexual purity. If a woman has been with a woman (just like if she had been with a man) then you can count the sexual purity as pretty much gone.

Brits and Australians definitely have a more "lenient" approach to promiscuity, especially New Zealanders. But as for wanting "long term partners", I'd bet it's still the same, I would love to see someone do a study on this or to find something on it. If they can fund studies to teach Thai prostitutes how to watch their drinking, this should easily get funding.

I don't see how a woman who is with another woman is no longer virginal, not in the classical definition at least.

 

[dgirl1986]

Brits and Australians definitely have a more "lenient" approach to promiscuity, especially New Zealanders. But as for wanting "long term partners", I'd bet it's still the same, I would love to see someone do a study on this or to find something on it. If they can fund studies to teach Thai prostitutes how to watch their drinking, this should easily get funding.

I don't see how a woman who is with another woman is no longer virginal, not in the classical definition at least.

Especially New Zealenders? Care to explain.

I cant speak for the other nationalities us generic aussies really arent that fussed as long as you are clean and dont sleep around. Religious aussies are a bit different.

 

[romana03]

But once again, this should probably be the subject of another thread, I was simply making the point originally that Lesbianism is not condemned in the Scripture and is a possibly good alternative for women who are thinking long term and not short.

A straight woman having sex with another woman is not a lesbian. Lesbians are women whose sexual orientation is towards other women. It is also, for some lesbians, part of a woman focussed political identity. What you're suggesting is mysoginist and really rather missing the point.

Maybe men should have sex with other men to keep down the 'wear and tear' on all the straight women?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see how a woman who is with another woman is no longer virginal, not in the classical definition at least.

Arguing that PIVMO sex is the only sex that counts doesn't exactly make your position sound less misogynist.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Arguing that PIVMO sex is the only sex that counts doesn't exactly make your position sound less misogynist.

It is what the sex organs were actually designed for so I think there is at least some merit to the argument. I think this little fact gets lost sometimes in a culture that views these organs primarily as toys.