point, as is mine, was that it doesn't matter. Like I said... the girl could have posted a picture of herself naked, and it still wouldn't matter. Lunam's sexual knowledge is irrelevant to the treatment she received on the thread. I actually haven't read Watson's post on the thread in a while, so I don't recall specifically how Watson characterized Lunam, but if she did try to suggest that Lunam was roughly equivalent to the high class, innocent virgin women of teh Victorian era, then of course she'd be wrong. But I don't recall Watson characterizing Lunam like that. I think Watson ignored Lunam's sexual knowledge, specifically because it makes no difference. Not to mention that it suggested that she had an axe to grind and wasn't much interested in a detailed analysis of the problem. For instance, while I could have emphasized this a little more in my first post, it seems to me that, as she suggested in her conclusion to that article, she was trying to portray the entire "atheist community" -- or a very large portion of it -- as largely equivalent to the "douchenozzles" described in her article -- trying to tar a rather large portion of that community with the same odious brush. Just because Watson didn't go out of her way to ensure that all of her readers knew she was only talking about a specific group of men does not mean she wasn't. Honestly, always pointing out that you're not talking about