Why Are Women Expected to be the Gatekeepers of Virginity?

Hey Sculpt,

Those are great questions.

As for your example with drinking -- I'm not a complete teetotaler, as I've had alcoholic drinks in the past, but for many years, the only form of alcohol I have is when it's in food products (the last thing I can remember is rum raisin ice cream a few months ago.)

So if I ever got invited to a party or big social gathering (because I was always the resident nerd,) you can immediately guess why -- people wanted me as their designated driver.

I was saying in another post that I am basically allergic to alcohol. Now, does this put a greater responsibility on my shoulders? Should I be held accountable for looking after those who want to drink? I don't think so, but it certainly puts you in that position.

I grew up in Lutheran schools but went to a public college. My suitemates talked me into going out with them one night, and one of them wanted to go home with a guy she just met. I told her, "You came here with us -- as long as I'm driving, you're leaving with us, because if something happens to you, I'm not having that on my conscience."

Well you can imagine how popular that made me. And I never went out with them again. Personally, I'm not keen on people throwing a burden on me that isn't mine to carry, just because they want to be irresponsible for a while.

As far as the differences between male and female sex drives -- although psychology was my major and focus in grad school (though I never actually worked in the field,) social psychology was my major. My knowledge in this field is absolutely worthless now, as all my information would be very outdated.

So I don't know what the official research is. But, my own personal guess, and this is just from my own observations, I think the gaps between the genders (at least frequency, strength of wanting, etc.) may be closing. It's a fact that higher and higher percentages of women are becoming addicted to porn and not just men, and with the liberal culture of the day, everyone, male and female, is being encouraged to express themselves through some sort of sexual experimentation.

We're on a different side of the pendulum, and I think social acceptance of women having drives and desires is decimating what was once thought of as far as women having more repressed drives. Now I'm not saying that some of the differences don't hold true -- I just believe that we are seeing a collision of nature (God-given desires) and a much wider social acceptance of expressing that desire. After all, historically, women who expressed such interests were (and still are, as we see in the church,) heavily condemned.

But the atmosphere today is one of "finding who you are and what you like," and as much as that may head into leftist territory, I can't help but wonder what the research will show regarding a difference in genders between the sex drives after another 20 years of encouraging both men and women to experiment in any way they want.

Horrifyingly, sexual abuse of both genders also seems to be almost commonplace, and again, I don't have the research on this, but all my life, people have been talking to me about the abuse they've gone through -- both men and women -- and I know that for me, I've observed two extremes.

Whether man or woman, the person seems to either shun sex completely, declaring it dirty and sinful -- or goes in the other direction and becomes completely addicted, because someone taught them that this was all they were worth.

Just my 2 cents.

The reason I'm talking about this is because if a couple goes on a date and things start to happen, it's generally always expected that the woman has to be the one to say, "No! Stop! I won't do that!", and not the man.

And if anything DOES happen, it's always seen as being because the woman didn't protest hard enough and did not stop it (therefore labeling her as THE BAD GIRL in the process.)

This is the part that I take issue with.

Just as with my suitemate, it wasn't my responsibility to make the decision for her to keep her safe just because I didn't drink, but yet, I had to make it.

The bottom line was that it was her responsibility to make good decisions for herself -- but she didn't.

So let's say that I didn't say anything, let her do what she wanted, and she went home with Mr. Stranger, and later said that he had raped her.

Who's responsibility would that have been -- hers, or mine?

But yet, someone surely would have come back and pointed a finger at me, because I was the one who wasn't drinking.

I know this isn't a perfect analogy because in the dating scenario, both people really do have the responsibility to say no and stop.

But yet, most church cultures will blame woman if the lines are crossed, and the fact that this just isn't right is what I'm trying to bring attention to in this thread.

Backtracking is not working. You claimed to have heard that people who believe in natural laws/Gods laws, generally are racists and God is the source for the racism. What innocent else could this mean, "human races should not be mixed and should be kept "pure," because this is "God's natural law." ". Seems pretty racist to me.

And again you try to flip it over to me, not working. You called me and God racists. I have clearly stated that I am a very conservative christian and answer truthful and bluntly to all questions. I see goading. I know the tricks of leftists, and the rule on most christian forums is that christians should not goad others by calling their faith false, and stuff like that. So, I am not going into that. I have to accept that others believe what they believe, and only give my point of view, and so should others to me. If people with different denominations want to go at eachother, and false report eachother, I am not entertaining it. So not entertaining leftists on much scripture anymore, after the initial reply to a specific question. Not here to convert you to mine, and not entertaining your mindfulzenhangup. I have never read your entire posthistory and made fun of you with that on later posts. As certain nicks have done to me, regarding family and cats, which is always off topic posts by a select group of nicks on my threads. Do threadsarchology and check.

Now you know how it is, you will get replies to new threads, you will not get me to follow pivots off topic, and I will not be goaded and go off on your denomination. I just state what I believe is the truth. You do you, I do me, and we can coexist here, and do not call God racist again, I do not think christians like that. People who report might not like it.

she did not say that. She quoted that some churches believe mixing races is a sin. @seoulsearch knows this is a man made doctrine

She attempted to redefine natural law/Gods law to be racist, a false premiss to make me out to be a racist, so I defused it. Do burned down that strrawman, instead of letting people follow the false premiss based on a most likely fake anecdote. Discuss the strawman with her if you wish, I do not entertain it, it is a false generalizing of conservative christians.

I'm so glad that this line of thinking is not found in Scripture. Christians will do well to heed Paul's writing to Timothy:

Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity (1 Timothy 5:1-2).

May I ask, are you currently sober?

She attempted to redefine natural law/Gods law to be racist, a false premiss to make me out to be a racist, so I defused it. Do burned down that strrawman, instead of letting people follow the false premiss based on a most likely fake anecdote. Discuss the strawman with her if you wish, I do not entertain it, it is a false generalizing of conservative christians.

Yes, just got home from a visit at my parents house. Do you want to go incommunicado forever? Third day you asked me this, instead of being on topic. What is your agenda by going off topic on me in your own thread? Last chance. There is a limit, either you keep to the topics or you do not get replies, and health, and other personal stuff is off limit for you, unless I divulge anything about it, in a thread where it is on topic.

She attempted to redefine natural law/Gods law to be racist, a false premiss to make me out to be a racist, so I defused it. Do burned down that strrawman, instead of letting people follow the false premiss based on a most likely fake anecdote. Discuss the strawman with her if you wish, I do not entertain it, it is a false generalizing of conservative christians.

Yes, just got home from a visit at my parents house. Do you want to go incommunicado forever? Third day you asked me this, instead of being on topic. What is your agenda by going off topic on me in your own thread? Last chance. There is a limit, either you keep to the topics or you do not get replies, and health, and other personal stuff is off limit for you, unless I divulge anything about it, in a thread where it is on topic. You keep derailing every thread you engage with me on. This is the end

May I ask, are you currently sober?

Since you've talked about your experiences with substances in your other posts, long before you came into this thread, and then said in a previous post here that you'd had a few beers, I'm simply trying to discern whether there is a difference in your writing from when you're sober and when you aren't, and if there is a reasonable time to try to interact with you.

I know it's different for everyone, but with my ex, I didn't have to be around him. All I had to do was ask him a question. When he was sober, he took responsibility; when he wasn't, he would avert the question completely.

So again, I know everyone is different but I'm trying to see if there is any contrast between when you are posting when you are sober and when you are posting when you aren't sober.

But I know you are interpreting all of my posts according to your own way of thinking and nothing will change that, so there's no need for me to try to restate what I've already said. If other people had come in, especially those who have been here a while and are familiar with my posts, and told me I was calling you and God racists, then I would surely take the accusations seriously. I still invite anyone who sees that in my posts to please go ahead and say so.

But the Bible says to go by the testimony of two or three witnesses, and so I will wait for two or three other people to stand up and agree.

I also know that many people here become greatly discouraged when someone answers their posts in the way you have answered mine. But the thing I have learned over time is that many people are posting the way they are because they think they have all the oars in the water, but something else is actually steering them.

By asking you these questions, I am trying to encourage the readers here to hang in there when it happens to them because there might be extraneous influences behind the scenes and they can't be controlled or reasoned with, so all a person can do is hang in there and keep going.

I think he is one of the most sober people here.

Mkay, So on ignorelist, gotcha. Simple task, had to fail it, your choice. And for future reference, you do not want questions answered, you want to make a speech, to say nothing, gotcha. If we encounter eachother in new threads, just accept reality, that you will read comments on point, on topics. No concern of mine if you just type to get a participationtrophy in offenseolympics and virtuesignal league. Not going to give you sweet comforting lies even if that is what you seek. Certainly not on Gods day. Football and God today. Not doing dishonest replies pretending like your fake sexiosm exist, and that you are not just advocating about social engineering, and oppression of christians and other free people. Jesus would never reply to your strawman, he would tell you the truth, so must I.

But I'm still waiting for at least 2 other people to tell me that I accused you and God of being racists (and I would ask them to come here and state that publicly as a witness,) and so far, no one has.

Oh yeah... you don't have to wait after all! You have multiple witnesses that you did not do those things. Witnesses against counts as witnesses, right?

I'm not sure how many. I don't have time right now to go back and count. I know it was more than two though.

Obviously because women are givers of life, and supposed to cherish that gift. And it applies to men too, but mothers are the caregivers so they must be purer. A father guides, he does not nurture. Theese are both evolutionary roles and genderroles from natural law. Why would you need churchpeople to tell you this?