I recall once in my "lurking" days a thread about cheerleaders wherein some self-proclaimed asexual expressed negative stereotypes about cheerleaders. I was at first skeptical of these stereotypes; my sister alone was an exception to many of them.
But then I saw a few people merely assert; without proof, that the person express them must be "having difficulties getting laid;" and everyone else reiterated this assumption by failing to challenge it.
Now I'm kind of left wondering if "disagreement with these stereotypes" was cut from the same evolutionary cloth as willingness to believe (and/or pretend to believe) unverifiable assumptions about people based on evidence so flimsy as their forum posts, and therefore, if my sister was an anomaly in all of this.
For all the left's ability to call out unfalsifiability and false dichotomies in religion, they sure seem to repeat the same mistakes when partaking in virgin mockery.
There are 2 ways to interpret this.
1. If someone fails to "get laid" they have failed to prove themselves in the supposedly-highest goal; sexual desirability; and asexuality is no more nor less of a valid exception than legitimate fears of STDs and poverty-inducing child support bills. Then again, such people often get indignant at the same statement made about failing to achieve the promiscuous lifestyle in particular, even though it's only a difference of degree, if even that. (Obviously, this argument doesn't work on women, since males aren't known for pickiness.)
2. If someone doesn't have "personal experience" with sexuality they have no credibility on it. As if this medium weren't so rife with people so blatantly ignoring the personal experience they already have that they type at length, for free, about how profit is supposedly the only thing motivating hard work. You never hear anyone complain about that one. (No, not even me; I'm invoking this to make a point, and as much as I hate that characterization of human nature I can't afford to rule out the "only exceptions will point out the rule" possibility.) "Personal experience" deserves no sway in the cesspool of lying that is the Internet. As well, this one could theoretically apply just as well to a woman who is a virgin for religious and/or practical reasons. But it isn't used against women, and it isn't used by people who distance themselves from variant #1, so it can be presumed scarce.
Is this itself a false dichotomy? Is there a third possible explanation of this that I am missing?
As well, might it solely be in the nature of the sort of people this website attracts, rather than necessarily in human nature as a whole?
