Using religion as a reason not to date me

Post Reply New Topic

As many of you know, I am a Christian. And as also many of you know, I have trouble attracting women.

Don't get me wrong: both religious women and secular reject me all the same. I mean, even though I wouldn't date a witch, I am totally open to dating atheists -- but I can't attract atheists either, which is why I am still single. I had three long-term girlfriends. The first one (who lasted 8 months) used to be liberal protestant and then became unitarian after we stopped ating. The second one (whom I dated two years) was catholic at the time we dated and rejected her beliefs afterwords. The third one (who also dated me for two years) was a very strict southern baptist who never drank, never partied, never had a kiss, and still lived with her family at the age of 30. So this statistics should tell you that my main concern -- which is getting *into* relationship -- has nothing to do with religion of women, since the three times I happened to be lucky kinda fell on the opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Although perhaps "opposite ends" is the key: maybe one has to either not judge me because they are liberal (like the first girlfriend) or because they are sheltered by their parents (like the third one), but anybody remotely normal would reject me.

In any case, if I look at the situations where the women that rejected me *happened* to be Christian, they cite religion as a reason for rejection. And that is *despite* the fact that their reasons for rejecting me parallels the reason secular women reject me. Basically, the secular women would give a secular reason -- and religious women will put a religiosu substitute for it. But when they bring God into that, it hurts even more since they are basically telling me God has rejected me.

Let me give you some examples:

1) Secular women would say they want someone popular or that they are embarassed to date me in front of their friends. On the other hand, religious women would say that when their friends disapprove of me it is "God speaking through people". That concept of "God speaking through people" really pisses me off since this is *not* what Jesus taught. If anything, Jesus taught just the opposite: he was uplifting the rejects and rebuking the mainstream society that rejected those people. So I don't get why Christians don't see it. The other area where I disagree with some Christians is what is called "prosperity gospel": that being rich is supposedly a sign of God's blessing. Jesus preached against it as well: He was uplifting the poor and rebuking the rich. So is "popularity gospel" part of the same phenomenon of "prosperity gospel" -- both of which were rebuked by Jesus, yet both of them are being upheld by Christians today? But, once again, Christian girls are not the only ones that do that. Secular girls do that too -- they just don't bring God into it. And I disagree with both secular and religious girls on both secular and religious grounds. So it feels like there is this misperception all across the board and then religious girls just use God to back it up.

2) Secular women would say "dating someone is not important, just try to be happy with yourself". The religious women would say "dating someone is not important, just try to seek the Lord". See the parallel here? And I disagree with this on both accounts. As far as secular statement goes, I disagree with it for the following simple reason. Being happy in a relationship is *easier* than being happy with myself while single. So saying "you have to be happy while single first" is like saying "you have to learn to lift 100 lbl before you lift 10 lbl". Don't you see how ridiculous this sounds? As far as the religious women are concerned, I can "sort of" see their point (I mean Jesus did preach against seeking glory from men) but still not quite: God said "its not good for man to live alone", and God is the one who institutted marriage. But, even more importantly, those Christians are being hypocritical. As I pointed out in part 1, they erroneously believe that being popular is a sign of God's blessing. Well, if thats what they believe (regardless of how wrong it might be) then why are they telling me not to care about being popular (I mean one of the main reasons I want a girlfriend is to be popular)? I thought they believe being popular is important when they are judging me based on their friends opinion -- but then they go and contradict themselves and tell me that being popular is "not" important because God is more important. But if they believe God acts through people (which is what *they* said, not me) then telling me God is more important than people kinda contradicts that point, doesn't it. And, last but not least, how come *they* are seeking a relationship? If I were to take what they say at a face value they act as if they reached this profound realization that we should all be single since God is so much more important (so are they saying God wanted us to all die out a couple of millenia ago?!) yet this concept singularly applies just to me. And once again, I have this quarrel with secular women too, not just religious ones. As far as secular women go, they tell me "you shouldn't care what people think ,you should just be happy with yourself"; yet *they* care what their friends think -- which is why they rejected me on the first place -- so why are they telling *me* to act any differently? And then religious women take this exact hypocricy that secular women have and attach God to it.

3) Secular women say that when I complain about stuff I am not confident and lack of confidence isn't attractive. The religious women say that the man is supposed to be the leader, so when I am complaining too much I don't have a leadership qualities. Now when Christian women talk about the leadership they very much bring Christian connotation to it, they basically say its the way God intended it to be and I supposedly can't fulfill God's purpose since I want the woman to lead me rather than the other way around. But, interestingly enough, secular women -- who don't even believe in God -- *also* are turned off by lack of confidence. Which makes me think that religious women simply act on society's concensus and bring up God to justify it.

4) When I argue too much and come across as rude, the religious women say I "tear them down spiritually". But that doesn't agree with what Jesus said either. Jesus said "put the other cheeck". So how is them "putting the other cheek" would be detrimental to their spiritual walk?! And, once again, secular women are put off by my arguing as well -- they just don't bring God into it.

It just really upsets me when religious women put God's stamp on something secular women do as well. It just magnifies the hurt since -- apart from feeling rejected by those women -- they are now telling me I am rejected by God Himself.

Good observation. If you're not completely within the norm yourself, someone else who isn't either may be more likely to not mind.


Another good observation. Attraction works (partially) the same no matter if one is religious or not. What someone wants out of life is also partially similar no matter how religious or non-religious the person is.


Exactly, the religious and non-religious girls have the same reason, but the religious feel a need to justify their actions in a religious way. And they may believe their reasoning. After all how religious beliefs come to be and change over time isn't independent of culture and human psyche. Some religious beliefs may counteract natural tendencies of humans and others may be in line with them.

I don't agree with 'embarrassed to date you in front of their friends' being a missperception though. If they just mean dating someone more popular is better for their social status and showing off, then it's a shallow reason. If they mean you constantly make them feel uncomfortable and put them through situations they do not enjoy, then this is a simple matter of people wanting to spend time with others if they enjoy spending time with that person but not if that person keeps making them miserable. That's what an emotionally healthy person would chose to do.


It's an empty platitude either way. Secular people use a secular empty platitude, religious ones a religious one. They didn't necessarily think very hard on it. They may not personally relate to your situation. Maybe they think saying it will make them sound sympathetic, even though that's not how lonely people usually experience it, or maybe they hope to end the conversation like that.


It goes both ways though. If you want a relationship, being happy in a relationship is easier than being happy single. However, attracting a relationship partner is also easier if you're happy than if you're miserable. You'll have to do one of these two things while you're in the situation where it's harder.


They probably didn't think really hard on it. It's just something they say, because they think it's the right thing to say in that situation. They either think it's a nice thing to say or they hope to end the conversation like that.

In principle it's not wrong that it's a good thing to not be too anxious about other people's opinions. However, most people I have heard say 'you should be happy on your own' or something similar are people who have many friends, have an easy time getting into a relationship, have an easy time having fun with strangers and have perhaps never in their life had an actual reason to feel lonely. That makes it somewhat less convincing that this is such an easy thing to do.


Yes, it's not too different what religious and non-religious women find attractive in that regard, although secular ones don't necessarily want the man to be the leader but might see their roles in the relationships as more equal. Religious women justify it with God, but are probably not dishonest in their reasoning. Historically the man being the leader has been more pronounced than nowadays and women were more dependent on their husband. Religion can shape society and society can shape religion. Natural human tendencies too can manifest in a cultural or religious context. Thus it is no surprise that these things align.


It's a situation that makes them uncomfortable and stressed. It's natural for humans to avoid such situations and seek out more enjoyable ones. Staying too long in a highly stressful situation can be detrimental to one's emotional and physical health.
As for 'putting the other cheeck', is that something you'd do too in the relationship or just something she is constantly supposed to do?


By their interpretation of God. That's not necessarily exactly what you believe in and you can tell why some of their beliefs are inconsistent.

Arguing constantly with someone would be bad for anyone’s spirituality (inner person, spirit, or whatever), religious or otherwise. It’s not a relaxing or peaceful environment to be in.

When it comes to relationships, people are choosy. They aren’t just looking for someone who is good enough. They want someone who is positive, brings out the best in them, and who just makes them feel good. If they think that a guy doesn’t do this for them, they’ll think that he’s just not a good fit for them. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be good for someone else.

When you are rejected, you just need to move on and learn from the experience.

With people who are very religious, they often tend to tie in everything with their beliefs. If they feel like someone is bringing out the worst in them by drawing them into arguments, they could feel as though that would be hurting them spiritually because it’s not helping them “cultivate peace.” Of course, it’s not great for anyone’s inner person to deal with constant conflict.

In any case, religion in these situations is not the sole reason why someone rejects you. It might not even be a minor reason.

People can have incompatible world views. I probably wouldn’t date someone who was very religious because, to put it mildly, I’m not and a very religious person wouldn’t want to date me, either. It’s important to have stuff in common with the other person. There’s such a thing as being too different.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 13 Jan 2020, 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

My wife likes to argue. If I knew this beforehand, I wouldn’t have gotten involved with her.

Dude, people will use any excuse to not date someone they don't like. With you, it's your religion; with Marknis, it's his lack of religion.

I'm sure that there are other factors involve in both of your situations.

With me (way back when), it was the length of my hair, the brand of shoes I wore, the car I drove, where I lived, what classes I was taking, my choice of restaurants, who I voted for ... it took years, but it finally dawned on me that the single most common factor in all of those rejections was me.

Women simply did not like me, but they were too 'nice' to say so. Instead, they criticized everything about me.

I stopped caring about what they thought and worked on improving myself through education, hard work, and the development of artist talents. It took a while, but people stopped criticizing me and started wanting to hang out with me.

Try it!

The idea of "cultivating peace" is actually interesting. You can take it to next level and say that if you help the poor then it would stress you out financially so you wouldn't "cultivate peace". If you hang around with people of low social status, then you would be stressed out about dirty looks people will give you, so you won't cultivate peace either. This would explain why some Christians look down on poor and undesirables -- except that this happened to be the opposite to what Jesus taught.

But here is the next question. Buddhists are going a lot further with cultivating peace thing than most Christians -- as evident from the fact that Christians don't meditate for hours and Buddhists do. Yet the traits of looking down at poor and undesirables are only associated with Christians -- not Buddhists. Is it because when the Buddhist has trouble cultivating peace he views it as a challenge to overcome, but when a Christian has trouble cultivating peace he views it as a sign of divine disapprpval?

The other thing that puzzled me about Protestants specifically is the length they go to in separating faith from works -- particularly since Bible says "faith without works is dead". Could this also be about peace? You don't feel peaceful if you have to run around doing all those works? Is "faith" then a Christian version of meditating -- except that Christians wouldn't want to use that term? That would kinda make sense: when Buddhists meditate they don't do many works either.

The Bible actually does advocate meditation. Some Christians think of it as meditating on the Bible or on God himself. Sometimes they meditate after reading the Bible. Prayer could even be considered a form of meditation. Here are some scriptures associated with meditation:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/meditation

Anyway, I think most people try to strive for balance. If you are expending so much time and energy volunteering that you are cranky and not nice to family and friends, you probably need to cut back a little or schedule some rest and relaxation.

It would be bad for an individual to damage relationships with loved ones. Most people think that one’s first duty is to exercise kindness towards those he or she is closest to. 1 Timothy 5:8 says that people who fail to provide for their household are “worse than a person without faith.” While this scripture is primarily about financial support, people usually interpret the scripture with a broader meaning. There are certainly scriptures that are less family-oriented.

Buddhists don’t do good works while they are meditating. It doesn’t mean that they don’t do any at all.

Depending on the nature of one’s religious beliefs, religion can make people quite judgmental.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 13 Jan 2020, 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

In a marriage there is some give and take. Generally no couple is an exact fit. But couples do tend to accommodate each other, especially on hot button issues, like religion and politics.

My neighbor is a strong Catholic but he married a Buddhist. He remains a strong Catholic and she is now a strong Catholic. They made accommodations and it seems like their marriage is healthy.

One of my coworkers was a strong Republican and his wife was a strong Democrate and feminist. In 1984 election Ronald Reagan ran for president with George H.W. Bush for vice president on the Republican side and Walter Mondale ran for president with Geraldine Ferraro for vice president on the Democratic side. What I found very unusual was the bumper sticker they put onto their car. They took 2 political bumper stickers and spliced them together. It read "Reagan/Ferraro" and that is what they put on their car.

Couples do make accommodations.

I think that when couples have such disparate beliefs they need to set boundaries as far as what they will or won’t say to each other to avoid potential conflicts.

You really have to be good at compromise.

Properity gospel is a con just some preachers trying to get rich off of religion like Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakker did.

If someone act like their beliefs are better then yours I wouldn't consider them marriage material anyways good riddance.

I recommend being friends with as many girls as you can and not be worried about being stuck in the friend zone. I had a lot of friend that were girls before getting married most were friends only and were never going to be anything more but I didn't care because it helped me draw more interest from girls not in my group because they were curious as to why the girls hung around me, and also helped me be more confident talking to girls because I did it every day even today I find it easier to talk to girls then I do guys

In my experience when more women hung around me, more people thought I was gay. They assumed I was a gay male friend to women so they felt "safe" with me.

I never thought of it this way. My concern is whether people would think of me as gay for not having a girlfriend (I have no idea whether they do or not because they wouldn't say things like that to someone's face -- which is why I drive myself crazy about the possibility). But it never occurred to me that having female friends is gay. On the contrary, I was assuming everyone has female friends except for me which is why I keep resenting not having them.

As far as an offer of LJBF -- yes I will typically reject it -- but thats not because I think having female friends is bad. Not at all. Rather, its because if a woman doesn't want to date me it means she has low opinion of me; and I don't want to be friends with anyone -- man or woman -- who has low opinon of me. On the other hand, if the topic of dating never came up (so she never "rejected" me) then yes I would be glad to have female friends -- and I am frustrated that I don't.

But now that you said people think of you as gay when you have female friends, this bring some really interesting insides. For one thing, it seems to imply most men don't have female friends. So then I was misinformed all along when I though I was the only one without female friends?! Do you think when I saw guys and girls interacting, they were actually dating each other and I wrongly assumed they were friends? Is this it? Or are you saying they do interract, just not in the level of friendship?

Here is the question: If I say women don't say much to me beyond hello, is it unusual or is it the situation a lot of guys find themselves in?

I didn't know about that verse before. Thanks for bringing it up to me!

The verses that drew my attention were "take what you have and give it to the poor" (Matt 19:21) and the one where Jesus encouraged people to abandone their family duties to follow him in Luke 9:57-62 as well as Matt 4:22 Those verses were actually driving me crazy because I took them literally. So I thought that, in light of Matt 19:21, I literally have to get rid of *everything* including the place to live, food, etc. and, in light of Luke 9:57-62 and Latt 19:21, I should quit my school, end contact with my family, and live on the streets -- or else I am not saved. I never done this by the way, I was just obsessing about it.

So yeah, I really appreciate the verses such as 1 Timothy 5:8 since they counter this and make me realize that maybe it is still possible to live a reasonable lifestyle and still be saved, after all.

But then again, I didn't know about 1 Timothy 5:8 until you just mentioned it now. I used to comfort myself with verses "whoever doesn't work shouldn't eat" (2 Thess 3:10) "don't you have houses to eat and drink in" (1 Cor 11:22) "you shall be saved and your household" (Acts 16:31) "Peters mother in law" (Matthew 8:14–15), the marriage discussion in 1 Cor 7, as well as "whoever divorces his wife commits adultery" (Matt 5:32). I know this was not the primary purpose of these vereses, but to me they just shown me that believers still had families, houses and jobs, after all, which helped me convince myself that Jesus didn't ask *everyone* to abandone everything but only select few in some specific cases. Believe it or not, the verse about selling "half of the posessions to the poor" (Luke 19:8) also made me feel better since I told myself "see, he didn't sell everyhting to the poor, only half of it, and Jesus was still happy".

Anyway, back on topic. Even though I knew that I was taking it too far when I was worrying that Jesus expects us to live on the streets and starve ourselves, I was still taking it for granted that He was discouraging the focus on material posessions. Thats why when you cited 1 Timothy 5:8 I found it quite surprising. Also the part "worse than unbeliever" is even more surprising. Didn't Paul say that faith is more imprtant than works? Yet "worse than unbeliever" part indicates that he viewed works as more important than faith in this particular context.

But in any case, as far as my own material situation, I wanted to be a theoretical physicist all my life, but I have hard time getting published. Since that job is very competitive I can't get it until my publication record improves drastically. A lot of people tell me that I should get a job other than my dream job -- for example, instead of being a professor at the university I can teach at community college, or work in the laboratory, and so forth. But I don't want to give up my dreams. So I decided to go back to graduate school instead. I am doing my second ph.d. even though I already have first ph.d. The way I made it look legit is that my first ph.d. is in physics and the second one is in math. When I am in graduate school, I get graduate student salary for baing a TA (teaching assistant) so I don't have to look for a job. But my salary is low -- it is around 1500 a month -- and I have to pay rent. So I got myself into debt with going to conferences from time to time and not spending money carefully, so my mom helps me pay my credit card. I had no idea the Bibe had anything to say against it.

But in any case, the women that said "God speaks through people" weren't talking about my ability to provide financially. They were more focused on my social skills. I don't think most people know my financial situation and even if they do I don't have any evidence that this plays the key role in them rejecting me.

I can think of at least one exception though: the girl in this thread viewtopic.php?t=383637 who told me that "God spoke through her dad" also told me that part of the reason her dad disapproved is that I can't seem to provide financially. I guess I was more focused on other issues than on this because what she told me is that her dad said I won't be able to "take care of her", and I took the expression "take care of her" as in emotionally and relationship-wise. But could it be that she actually meant financially, and simply used that vague expression since being explicit about the money part would be awkward so she just used those other "polite" expressions hoping I would guess what it means? Because you see, my response to her was "look I took care of my second ex when she was sick". But no I didn't take care of her financially; I took care of her in a sense that she couldn't walk and I was brining her food and stuff. She ignored me when I told her about taking care of my ex so I thought she didn't believe me. But could it be that she believed me and simply didn't care since her focus was the money part?

I can think of some scenarios that fit what you described -- yet people actually meant it. I dated my very first ex back in 2003 -- 2004. I told her about my Asperger right away, but during the first two months she was treating me as if I was normal. But then I started having arguments with her. From those arguments she concluded that she can't treat me as normal -- she has to educate herself on Asperger and treat me based on what she reads in those books. So then she stopped taking me to places because presumably I have sensory issues and its too loud for me. I kept telling her over and over that no its not too loud for me, but she didn't believe me.

But remember how I told you that she used to treat me as totally normal before I drove her crazy with those fights? So from this perspective its not about Asperger but about my behavior. But, on the other hand, my behavior never included any senseory issues, yet she assumed them -- so then it is about Asperger. So which way is it? Well I can combine those seemingly contradictory things into one single mind process. Basically she tried to look for an explanation why she couldn't deal with me, and she found one: I have Asperger.

And this brings me to the point I was trying to came: Could it be that when people with different beliefs don't get along, they look for explanation, and find one -- namely their belief differences. In actuality it has nothing to do with their belief differences at all -- as evident from the fact that I have same exact problems when interacting with people of my own beliefs. But they -- mistakenly -- decide that it has to do with belief differences and then the belief differences *becomes* their legitimate reason for the rejection?

If so, then maybe something else happens too. Maybe prior to meeting me they didn't think that God disapproves of dating an aspie. But after they met me -- and it didn't work out -- then they decided that God disapproves of aspies as a whole and, therefore, they wouldn't date next aspie that comes after me as well.



I did education thing my whole life, and this didn't help. I guess maybe its because I am too one sided with the whole lifetime student thing, so in my case it would have to be anything but this?

By the way, how did people know when you developed "artist talent". Were you selling your paintings or what did you do? If not, how did people find out about it? Are you saying they have a way of knowing based on the first 30 seconds of conversation somehow -- and so what seems to me like lack of social skills is, in actuality, them "reading between the lines" that my life is boring? If so, can you give me some examples of how this might happen?

I think part of the issue for me was that I never had many guy friends & I don't exactly conform to the image of the stereotypical male.

I got accused of being a Rooster in the Hen house by some of the guys but never as being gay. I just laughed it off as I have never been a player never wanted to be using people is stupid.