Women all over the world are seen to be getting more and more active, even in areas which were said to be men's bastions. Why then are there far fewer women atheists compared to men? Are women more religious? Are they still dominated by their men? Or by religious authorities? Are they too busy in their domestic affairs or are they simply not concerned? What is it? 


Views: 4543

Replies to This Discussion

Probably right, especially since I already disclose my sexual orientation.

Joe, asking if a woman is strait or lesbian is none of your business.  And an irrelevant question.  When the vibes are right, it won't matter to you if the person is male or female, the bells and whistles and fireworks just go off.  

I'm reminded of the scene in Yentl:


If you are not familiar with the story, Yentl is a Jewish girl who dresses as a boy so she can attend school.  Her school mate is confused because he has sexual feeling toward this other "boy" and struggles with confusion. Yentl, even though pretending to be a boy, has sexual feelings and frustration.  

Why do most christian women dress attractively and most atheist women do not?

You ask the completely wrong question.    You are confounding cause and consequence.
The question is.   Why are the women, who dress attractively, more prone to be christians, while the women, who are not bothered to dress attractively are more prone to be atheists?

The answer is:   There is a correlation between intelligence and self-worth of women and their choice of a relationship paradigm.

The instinctive relationship paradigm considers a relationship as primarily between bodies and for the purpose of procreation.   The logical consequence is choosing a mate by physical attraction.   For women under this paradigm every possible effort to be as attractive as possible is logical behavior.
This paradigm is propagated by christian religion.

The intellectual relationship paradigm considers a relationship as primarily between personalities for the purpose of companionship.   To chose a compatible mate for intellectual intimacy requires a clear perception of her personality.    Physical attraction directly triggers men's animal instincts and overrides men's better judgment.   Physical attraction lures men into infatuation with any body indiscriminately of the personality inside.
An intelligent beauty is at high risk to be pursued as prey by jerks, who want her body as a commodity in defiance and oblivion of her personality.   An average looking woman has much better chances to be taken for serious, to be recognized, appreciated and chosen by the capacities of her brain as an equal companion.
The women, who are intelligent enough to be atheists are also intelligent enough not to make themselves more attractive than they are naturally.   Some wise and intelligent women just do not want to be attractive.  

You are 100% correct, thank you!


In the case that the 100% correct is concerning my explanation, I am astonished, that at your age this is news to you!!!  

Additional thoughts.

People tend to project their own inclinations, wishes, and priorities on others.   They tend to believe that it is a good method to do to others, what they wish to get for themselves, while they remain ignorant of what the other really wants.

Rationally seen, there is a high probability, that a man's own grooming can be interpreted as an indication and expression of his expectation of women.

For a man, who wants a woman to make herself attractive to trigger his instincts, it is subjectively logical, that he has to do the same.   He grooms himself in the belief that this method attracts all women.  But in reality, this only works for the instinctive paradigm.

A man, who grooms, is a man, who expects a woman to make herself attractive to serve his body according to the instinctive paradigm.
Indirectly, grooming is therefore a method to attract christian women.

But grooming does not work for the intellectual paradigm.   A man, who does not expect a woman to make herself externally attractive, is often also a man, who is himself natural and not bothered to groom.
Therefore a man, who wants to attract natural atheistic women, gives the appropriate signals by refraining from grooming himself.

And this is my personal reason, why I prefer men, who do not groom, as I have declared in another posting.

I disagree with your premise.  I happen to work as a professional consultant with Fortune 500 C-level executives so I "dress up" for work and to go out almost every day - and I'm a life-long atheist.  Most of the atheist women I know have good careers and they dress professionally even if they're working in an academic or government setting.


My religious and political beliefs have nothing to do with my appearance and I doubt those factors influence anyone else's appearance so I don't make judgements about what someone's personal beliefs might be based on how they look at work, at a social event or even at Home Depot.  (Remember the golden rule about judging a book by its cover?)


To address Steven's request that I clarify my prior statement, most of these comments hit close to my intent but I'll try to summarize in my own words.

I believe the question "Why do most christian women dress attractively and most atheist women do not?" puts forth a false premise without any facts to support it.  Furthermore, there are no facts that can support such a statement because, as previously stated here, "attractive" is completely subjective so what's attractive to Joe might be unattractive to Paul, John, etc. and vice versa.

Lastly, I've never seen any women my old or current UU churches, any of the AFS events I've attended or working at the CDC whom I thought were "unattractive" but I've seen PLENTY of christians who've got body piercings everywhere, purple/red/pink/green hair shaved off in odd patterns and wearing military style boots, pants and shirts - all of which qualifies as "unattractive" to me (remember it's all subjective) but they've usually got a guy following them around like a lost puppy and it's pretty clear that he at least thinks that woman is the hottest thing he's ever seen.

My premises are based upon evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.   Both are an eye opener about what goes on in the subconscious mind, where animal instincts are driving people to do things, that are in complete contradiction to what they consciously want and think.   

If Joe R. is a troll, he/she/it evaded recognition longer than trolls I've seen anywhere else.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's story is a remarkable one of life in the Muslim/Islamic world, her genital mutilation, her forced marriage (which she escaped by taking sanctuary in Holland), and her political influence in Dutch politics.  For those of you who have not read of her particular terror, here is an except from http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=708:

"In 2004 she wrote the script for Theo Van Gogh’s film Submission, Part One. Passages from the Koran that call for the domination of men over women scroll over the bodies of Muslim women—a quite literal statement of Hirsi Ali’s thesis in The Caged Virgin that the Koran officially authorizes violence against women, that its words inscribe male power on their bodies. 

"The film was controversial, to say the least; a radical Dutch jihadist of Moroccan descent shot the director Van Gogh on the street, slit his throat, and drove a letter into his corpse with a knife. The letter promised that Hirsi Ali would die next. Since then, she has been guarded by Dutch security twenty-four hours a day; her neighbors have driven her out of her apartment, claiming that her presence endangers them."

Here is the film:

Submission: Part 1 - by Theo van Gogh/Ayaan Hirsi Ali








Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service