‘Atheist Chicks Are Easy,’ Says Conservative Talk-Show Host

There’s a Midwest Freethought Conference taking place in Omaha, Nebraska next month and conservative radio host Scott Voorhees wanted to talk about it on his show this week (MP3).

(You can assume this won’t end well.)

Among other things, Voorhees was mad that the University of Nebraska – Omaha was hosting the event — how dare taxpayer money support this event?!

Scott Voorhees (standing)

But then it got worse.

The host invited Luke Hoffman, the former president of the UNO Secular Student Alliance, to speak with him about “militant atheism.” Luke tried to explain why that phrase was a misnomer, but the host kept interrupting, making accusations about how PZ Myers damaged a communion wafer and that’s the worst thing ever. (Apparently, that’s synonymous to other “extremist” actions like killing abortion doctors…).

Luke correctly pointed out that, even if you disagreed with that action, one atheist didn’t speak for all other atheists. But the host wouldn’t let him get a full sentence out… anyway, the whole segment was frustrating all around and that’s before he made his most inflammatory comment.

Finally, Luke said that his group received an award last year from UNO for being the Outstanding Student Organization of the Year in large part because they put together a free debate in conjunction with Campus Crusade for Christ (a.k.a. CRU) that brought in 130 people from various backgrounds.

Here’s how that went down (14:00 mark):

Hoffman: … That was why we were such a big deal on campus, because we hosted this event that was–

Voorhees: So you didn’t go out and help build any homes, you didn’t clean oil off of birds, you didn’t help any poor people…

Hoffman: … We participated in democracy…

Voorhees: … you didn’t do any food drives, you didn’t help the homeless. You had a debate. You know why the Christian kids helped you out in your debate? Because atheist chicks are easy. And a lot of them are goth and hot.

Hoffman: Wow… now that’s disgusting, dude. Seriously.

Voorhees: Thanks a lot for your call. [Hangs up on Luke.]

On his website, Voorhees describes the atheists who called in to complain as people who don’t “have a sense of humor.”

Not only did Voorhees make an offensive statement about female atheists, he offended the Christians in CRU who worked on this debate, suggesting they had ulterior motives for putting it together.

This wasn’t a joke. You can sense it in the host’s tone. Nobody was laughing except Voorhees himself.

I doubt anyone will punish Voorhees — conservative talk-show hosts say dumb shit all the time and get away with it — but you can always send an email to 1110 KFAB, the station that plays this garbage and let them know it was completely inappropriate.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001627228091 Alexander Ryan

    Yep, and they say we’re the ones who stereotype. But what’s a religion without tons and tons of hypocritical statements?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Bryne/100002441143047 Arthur Bryne

      Sigh. It’s a stereotype, being used stupidly; not all atheist girls are “easy”, not all theist girls are “difficult”. Contrariwise, the stereotype that atheist girls (or guys) are more sexually active isn’t entirely without substance.

      EG, the GSS dataset (PARTNERS or PARTNRS5 against GOD, control on SEX, and perhaps filter MARITAL) slightly supports that atheists tend to have more sexual partners in the past year or five than convinced theists of the corresponding sex. Some but not all of this appears an effect of atheists tending to be younger, who tend to be more sexually active and unsettled than their elders; and it’s not that large, percentages and partner-count wise. However, it looks to be at a statistically significant level.

      And of course, it’s a separate question as to whether being more sexually active is a “bad” thing — which is an implicit connotation to the use of the term “easy”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

    Ughhhh. What the fuck…
    And really, that’s insulting to both sides. Atheist girls are easy and Christian guys would totally abandon their deeply held beliefs at the sight of a hot girl.

    And what does goth have to do with it? Most goths I’ve known are very into spirituality.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      And now I just realized that I have a permanent look of disgust on my face.

    • http://www.facebook.com/JamesVonBorcke James Von Borcke

       In all honesty, as an Atheist I must admit… The easiest girls have always been those evangelical daughters. A lot of them are into some uber-kinky stuff.

      • Spherical Basterd

        Halleluia Brother!

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Which still doesn’t beat those Catholic school-girls… though I just might, if one asks me. ;)

  • Hibernia86

    Typical Conservative Christian hatred of sexuality. They want to stereotype Atheist girls as always having more sex because it allows them to put two things they hate (atheists and pre-marital sex) together. That’s the same reason they call Obama a Muslim.

  • Mylo

    I think all female atheist should flood this stations facebook site   http://www.facebook.com/1110kfab

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      All atheists period.  One does not have to be female to be offended by that shit.  Heck, I hope even #FTBullies can get that one.

  • Mistermister

    There is that generalization that conservative christians love to generalize and never understand the complexity of things. 

  • 0xabad1dea

    No, I’m not particularly easy… in fact I’m definitely a hard mode boss

    Good on the person whose immediate reaction was “dude, that’s disgusting”

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    I take that to mean that atheist chicks do the same things that religious ones do, they just don’t feel guilty about it. Oh, and atheist chicks are generally smarter, so the Christian kids should probably look elsewhere for their kicks. I hear Catholic girls are easy.

    (And did he stop to consider what he’s saying about the morals of all those Christian kids, champing at the bit for some hot, goth atheists? Wow.)

    • 3lemenope


      (And did he stop to consider what he’s saying about the morals of all those Christian kids, champing at the bit for some hot, goth atheists? Wow.)

      Nah, those kids aren’t responsible for those feelings, being as they are enthralled by the sly devils of secular media. 

    • Cary

      1) the statement of the host is ridiculous, obnoxious, crude and wrong. But to call it wrong or “sick” or whatever you want to connotate wrongness indicates that some rightness exists.

      2) your comment: “Oh, and atheist chicks are generally smarter, so the Christian kids should probably look elsewhere for their kicks. I hear Catholic girls are easy.” is just as baseless as his. besides that it seems, and i may be totaly wrong that in the following parenthetical you have misunderstood temptation and acting on that temptation. Temptation is a part of the human condition…morality is (in part) how we respond to those temptations.

      Sincerely,
      Cary

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

        1) Of course rightness and wrongness exist. It is wrong to cause physical or emotional harm to others. It is wrong because it is in the best interest of everyone to keep everyone healthy and happy. Just because morality exists doesn’t mean there’s anything supernatural about it. It just means that we value it, and we value it because it is in our best long-term interests.

        2) He was just trying to make a point that Christian girls have sex too. While “easy” can be a bit offensive, it’s in mockery of the original statement. If having sex before marriage makes women easy, women in most categories would be easy. I doubt he actually thinks of women as easy just for having sex.

        Pretentiously,
        Julie

        • Cary

          on 2) i was more so responding to the claim that “atheist chicks are generally smarter” which seemed less of a mockery of that which deserves mockery (the host’s statement) and more of an atempt to state a fact which is not a fact in fact.

          cary

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

            Well, of course we’ll probably disagree on that. I do think that atheists tend to have better critical thinking skills and are less likely to believe things just because their parents or pastor told them something. Smarter is too general a term. Rational or logical might fit slightly better.

            I understand the offense. I was pretty smart as a Christian and I would have been just as offended as you are. However, Christianity kept me believing some very stupid things and I have grown so much intellectually since I left it behind.
            It’s not that they’re born more intelligent or anything, they just don’t have anything impeding their rationality.

            • Johan Malmsten

               Now, on average, I do think that the general atheist can beat a general theist in a wide range of subjects. But from that to go to Atheists are inherently smarter is a bit of a… well… leap of faith…

              There is, for example, nothing in the word atheist that stop you from being a firm believer in David Icke’s ruling class of shape-shifting super-aliens. Or quantumstate-induced homeopathic remedies based on crystal energies. You can be extremely irrational and still, by definition be an Atheist.

              On the same note I find it interesting that he equates female atheists with sexy goth-chicks. Since only a small fraction of female atheists would readily describe themselves as “goth” even in a superficial manner. And in my experience, goths are more likely to go for pagan or wicca beliefs and are therefore not even strictly atheistic. And calling them sexy? Well… um… that’s a matter of personal taste I suppose. I find the stylishness of nunsploitation more titillating, if you ask me. I don’t know what that says about the fantasies of both him and me, though.

              I also find it depressing that we’re still stuck with the notion that liking sex makes you “easy”. And being easy equals “low worth”. Yes, using sex as a tool to control people is low. Using sex either as abuse-tool or being abused is even lower. But if the acts are between consenting adults, then why not accept it and let them screw around like happy bonobo’s? Why should I get offended? Jealous, maybe. Since I might feel like I’m missing out. But shaming them for having consenting fun? That would be the worst thing to do.

              Those are my watered down two cents on the matter. :)

              • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

                Being smarter on average doesn’t mean that all atheists are smarter, or that all theists are dumber.

                The suggestion that atheists tend to be smarter is more than  a leap of faith. It is supported by a good deal of evidence looking at IQ and education, and indeed, makes sense. Most atheists became such through reflection and analysis- the tools of intelligence. Becoming an atheist is like becoming a physicist or becoming an author: a filtering mechanism that tends to concentrate people of higher intelligence. On the opposite end of the spectrum, people with lower intelligence tend to think less about their beliefs, and are more likely to stick with what they grew up with- which is usually religion.

            • Patterrssonn

              I think atheists come out ahead only if you eliminate the libertarians as outliers.

              • Guest

                Can you explain what you mean by this? I am an atheist libertarian.

                • Patterrssonn

                  I could, but with you being a libertarian there’d probably be no point.

                • guest

                  Ah, the explanation is that you’re an asshole.

                • Patterrssonn

                  See we managed to skip all the back and forth arguing, you trying to defend libertarian dogma etc., and skip straight to the ultimate libertarian argument.

                • Rillion

                  “You’re an asshole” is not the ultimate argument, libertarian or otherwise. It’s simply an observation one makes about someone who declares people stupid based on nothing more than a general idea of their political leanings.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  And yet there remains a disturbingly high correlation between libertarianism and the tendency to be a ragin asshole.

                • Patterrssonn

                  I don’t know, I think anyone who claims allegiance to a doctrinaire utopianist belief system like libertarianism, Marxist-Lenninism or say Fascism, is fair game.

                • Patterrssonn

                  I mean really all anyone has to do to prove the inherent stupidity of libertarianism is mention global warming.

          • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

            I believe that atheists are, on average, smarter than theists, so I have every reason to believe that “atheist chicks” are, as well.

      • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

        Of course it’s baseless. I was making fun of his statement. But it’s worth noting that my comment at least carries the weight of a strong cultural stereotype. Consider what popular music has to say about Catholic girls, from Frank Zappa to Billy Joel. Want to try a little experiment? Make sure your Google family filter is engaged, and search on “catholic school girl”. Compare the results to what you get with “atheist school girl”. Not hard to see where the winds of popular culture are blowing here.

        (And if I can add another parenthetical… I think his comment about hot, goth, easy atheist chicks reveals a lot more about where his fantasies lie than it does about the Christians who helped with the debate under discussion.)

      • Baby_Raptor

        Nope. It’s been solidly documented for awhile now that the devoutly religious have the lower IQs. Google around, you’ll find it. Atheists ARE generally smarter. 

        Also, note that it’s the Red (IE highly religious) states pushing abstinence only and faith in gawd that have the highest pregnancy rates. 

        Lastly, I can speak from experience when I say that Christian girls ARE easy. And I was a closet lesbian getting laid!

      • Georgina

         ”Temptation … morality … ”
        I think you missed the point, he was talking about sex and about how atheist girls are less hypocritical and therefore “easier” in their minds, enabling them to better judge when and with whom to have sex, and use contraception and protection from VDs (STDs). 

        This is why so many religiously blind idiot females end up having abortions or unwanted children who are made to suffer for being illegitimate, or unhappy marriages.

  • Michael

    Can I just state for the record that not all atheist chicks are easy, and some christian chicks are very easy? Though I expect it’s old news.

    • Spherical Basterd

      Church camp, mid summer nights and pastor’s daughters, sweet memories….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-De-Fleuriot/611844223 Mike De Fleuriot

    And let me suggest that Atheist guys are hard….
     

    • flyb

       +1

    • AxeGrrl

      Very nice :)

      (and the wordplay was good too ;)

  • http://twitter.com/Outcast_Kyle Edgar

     From my experiences atheist girls aren’t easy at all, actually quite the contrary, actually the girls I know that are popular for being with all the guy follow the schedule of party hard on saturday night; go to chuech on sunday morning for cleansing. Although this doesn’t make religious girls easy, there are sluts in all groups.

    • amycas

       sluts? Do you call the guys who do the same thing sluts? Vorhies’ statement was offensive enough without others in our own community slut shaming.

      • http://twitter.com/Outcast_Kyle Edgar

         The guys who do the same are called assholes, simple as that and you can find religious and atheist assholes too. Sorry but I don’t like t play the game of political correcness; I call the things by their name.

  • Rillion

    The slut-shaming is strong in this one. Apparently being more willing to have sex than average is worse, if you’re female, than being willing to pretend to support a debate that you actually don’t, just because you want to get laid, if you’re male. Honest sex if female and too willing = bad. Dishonest sex by obviously very willing males = fine. 

  • Skizzle

    That guy is a jackass.  I totally understand being upset about the generalization which, from the conservative Christian viewpoint, is an insult.  I should also add that I’m a gay guy, so I can’t even give anecdotal evidence about religious vs. nonreligious women.

    That being said, Hemant, you’re just engaging in some backdoor slut-shaming.  By calling it “an offensive statement,” rather than just an untrue statement, you’re saying that if female atheists were indeed “easy” then this would be a point of shame.  The response shouldn’t be “Nuh uh, being easy is a bad thing and atheist women aren’t easy,” it should be “Fuck your condescending, misogynistic nonsense.  The person/s that female atheists have sex with is the business of nobody but the people involved, and the fact that you consider what you just said to be an insult points to your own fear of female sexuality.”

    Consider an analogous situation: if this guy said that all atheists are homosexuals (and assuming he meant it as an insult, rather than a roundabout way of complimenting our design sensibilities), it would be inappropriate to respond by saying saying that it’s offensive to call all atheists homosexuals because that indirectly condemns homosexuality.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      Might just be a semantic issue because I obviously agree with you. It’s offensive to me both because it’s untrue and because it suggests that anyone who enjoys sex is a slut. Even the atheists I know who openly enjoy sex are not “easy.” The implication is offensive to me in a way that calling me a “homosexual” isn’t.

      • Skizzle

         Then how do you define “slut” or “easy” in such a way that they are still considered insults?

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          What matters to me is his intent, which is very clear.  He wasn’t saying atheist women aren’t afraid to enjoy sex.  He was saying atheist ‘chicks’ are inferior based on his own value system.

          • Skizzle

             I agree with you 100%.  His intention was to disparage all female atheists with a ridiculous generalization that nobody with a brain could believe for a second.  He’s a misogynistic jackass through and through.

            That being said, what I say will almost certainly have no effect on what conservative Christians think about women so I’m focusing on our collective reaction to it.  We should not act like female atheists are being accused of a crime.  Accusing female atheists of murdering people for fun or of burning down churches would be offensive, because those things are generally recognized by atheists as being bad.  There’s no reason, besides sexist popular culture, for atheists to think that being “easy” is an offense against morality. 

            Even if the accusation were true, which is virtually impossible just by virtue of its broadness, so what?  Promiscuity, so long as it is practiced safely and with the consent of all partners involved, does not cause harm to anyone and so should not even be considered a question of morality.  Accusing them of being “easy,” at least in my mind, is the same thing as accusing them of all liking the color blue.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      “Easy” really is offensive because it’s not the same as just enjoying sex. If he said that all atheist women have sex, it would be more comparable to calling all atheists homosexuals. It may not be true, but so what? It’s not like it’s a sin to have sex or be gay.
      But “easy” is definitely an insult. “Easy” implies something much trashier and careless.  It’s someone who lacks good judgement. From the guy’s perspective it means that he assumes he can get with her before he even asks her. Calling a woman “easy” turns her into a sexual object with no choice in the matter.

      • Skizzle

         Why should we consider “easy” offensive?  Calling somebody easy is just shorthand for saying that they are easy to seduce, implying that they enjoy the act of sex with little regard for the quality of their partner.  Obviously this goes against the teachings of conservative Christianity, but I don’t see what’s wrong with that given our shared atheistic worldview.

        • Rillion

          Umm, maybe because atheists don’t generally like being told that they have little regard for the quality of their partners?

          • Skizzle

            I still don’t get it; if we’re able to decouple morality from consensual sex, then why would it matter whether atheists are picky about their partners or not?  Since it’s such a broad generalization, it’s bound to be wrong anyways.  And what’s wrong with just enjoying sex for what it is rather than for who it’s with (ie, hooking up)? 

            I’m not saying that all atheists have to be sexual libertines, but I see no reason to take offense to the accusation that atheist women are allowed to have the same attitude towards sex that men are encouraged to have.  I think we should just get rid of the religously-based idea that women are not allowed to feel lust.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Abigail-McDufford/100000296865417 Abigail McDufford

              I’m a female atheist and I personally view being easy as a negative thing. Even if both parties are consenting, it can and does often hurt the people directly involved as well as others indirectly (children, family, etc) From my own observations of relationships I’ve noticed these “easy” folk are usually the least happy or stable individuals. They may act happy on the outside but true turmoil is within. I’m sure this isn’t true about all of them, but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them did have problems. Most humans suck at identifying their problems and act out in other ways, a lot of times sexually. I’ve also noticed a lot of atheists, at least the atheists I know feel similar to how I do and are mostly monogamous individuals. The idea of monogamy or valuing sex and your own body enough to save it for the right individual is not some ridiculous notion that only religious people adhere to due to their doctrine. 

            • Kas Roth

              Very simply, from my perspective, when someone calls a woman “easy” it doesn’t mean that she enjoys sex or that she has many partners. It means that “any man can have her” and more dangerously, leads some men to believe that any man has a RIGHT to her. The word “easy” has connotations that mean a woman is something to obtain, and that’s why I find it insulting. 

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

                ^^Exactly what I was trying to say :)
                We’re not saying it’s a bad thing to have lots of sex with many people. We’re saying that “easy” has a much worse meaning than that, so calling someone easy is an insult.

      • AxeGrrl

        Calling a woman “easy” turns her into a sexual object with no choice in the matter.

        How so?  If a woman is ‘easy’, how does that suggest she has ‘no choice’?

        A woman could sleep with a different person every night of the week and that fact wouldn’t necessarily make her a sexual ‘object’.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

          I never said sleeping with lots of people makes her a sexual object. I have nothing against people having sex and having sex with many different people. My point is that the word “easy” is an insult. Similarly, I have nothing against homosexuality, but the word “fag” is an insult.
          It turns her into an object because it is from the perspective of the man who assumes he can have her. “She’s easy” also means “I could definitely have sex with her.” While it doesn’t automatically mean she has no choice, it does lead in that direction. When a guy assumes that he can have sex with a girl before he even asks and when he assumes that he can have sex with her just because she had sex with a few guys before him, that makes him less likely to accept it if she says “no.”
          Now from the girl’s perspective, she might have had sex with a few different guys, but she chose to do it and she enjoyed it. That’s fine. But when the guy is calling her easy, it implies that she will sleep with anyone. She might have rejected other guys, but this guy doesn’t know that. All he cares about is that he knew she had sex with a few other guys, so therefore she’ll totally have sex with him. He’s not thinking about the possibility of rejection because she’ll supposedly sleep with anyone, so he’s less likely to accept it if he is rejected.

          • amycas

             Thank you for the clarification.

      • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

        What he said was offensive, but that doesn’t mean we need to take offense. Doing so just feeds his ego- people like that get off on getting a rise out of others.

        We should take offense when somebody we respect says something offensive. That is rightfully disturbing. But in this case? Does anybody here really think this guy’s ideas are even worth the respect of finding them offensive? What he said is better described as ridiculous or absurd. And I think the correct response is to mock it, to ridicule his lack of intelligence, his lack of wit, and his lack of grace. Quite simply, he’s an intellectually challenged boor, and you have to wonder about any radio station that would hire him.

  • ChemicalSerenity

    As someone who has visited both sides of this particular comment, let me just say that preachers’ daughters are far easier.

    • texting_and_scones

      Way to go, Mr. Enlightenment! …You realize that making assumptions about ANY woman’s sexual habits is rude, right?  Not to mention some of us are BOTH preachers’ daughters AND atheists?  (The mind, it boggles!) Bravo, you champion of feminist atheism, you.

  • Gerreyn Jack

    LOL sooo many sterotypes 

    “Muslims will flip out and kill ya”

  • Beaujames1954

    I expect that this fellow, Scott Voorhies, has never found ANY woman easy, even the goth ones (who he seems to have an unrequited yen for.)  Just sayin’…

  • http://www.facebook.com/UnitedCoR Fred Edwords

    I’m not ready to give up and just say that Scott Voorhies won’t be punished or have to publicly retract his statement. He will if we make him. And I’m not ready to reduce this matter to counter jokes about evangelical college women. It’s time to flex our movement muscle here and address this.  

    Forget that his name is Scott Voorhies and pretend that it’s Don Imus. Then imagine him saying, “Black Baptist babes are easy because they’re all a bunch of nappy-headed hos.”  You know the black churches and the NAACP would be down his throat immediately. Or imagine if he’d said something similar about Jewish college women, or Muslims, or Mormons. They wouldn’t accept this host’s, “It was a joke; you have no sense of humor,” defense.

    Well, in this country we godless folks outnumber the Jews and the Muslims and the Mormons combined. And this is a perfect opportunity to prove it. We don’t have to take this sort of crap anymore. 

    I appeared on this show after the slur had been made. But since I was there by telephone hookup from out of state, I had no idea what had been said prior to my getting linked in. So I played nice with Voorhies. Now that I’ve listened to the recording,  I’m furious! So I’m encouraging action on this. 

    I hope you’re furious too.

    • baden26

      Fred, even though I am no longer president of the Omaha Atheists, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to take action. If there is anything you need me to help with here in Nebraska, please let me know.

      I will be writing to the station, as well as the other news outlets in the city. The idea that a statement such as that can be made without consequences is not acceptable.

    • Pascale Laviolette

      I am furious!!   I began writing an email to the radio station about Voorhies comments — I just wish I could explain how discouraged and frustrated I feel without them interpreting it as another whiny “chick” that just can’t take a joke.  It’s always just a joke…

      On a more positive note — it’s always so nice to read the comments here and be reminded that some people DO get it, and that our group is growing steadily!

    • Spherical Basterd

      Fred, the thing that strikes me about Mr. Voorhies’ and Don Imus’s comments are that they dehumanize the subjects of their comments. They talk like the particular people the are talking about are less (less value, less human) than themselves because they are different in their beliefs, values and outlooks. That is what makes me furious.

  • Tainda

    Just because I enjoy sex doesn’t make me easy.  I’m choosy as hell and I certainly wouldn’t give it up to anyone who believes in a god.

    On another note, is he any relation to Jason?  The slight spelling variation doesn’t hide the fact!!   Yes, I’m joking about it because anything that comes out of that mouth is a non-issue.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      I’d take Jason over this guy.

      (What, I can’t be the only horror fan who just wants to take that poor, broken man-child and hug the hell out of him.)

  • baden26

    We should not making comments about Christian girls being “easy” anymore than Scott Vorhees making comments about atheist girls being “easy”. This is about someone implicating that girls (women) who like sex are somehow less deserving of respect. That is unacceptable. It doesn’t matter which side says it, it is indefensible.

    • Onamission5

      Yes, this.

  • atheistgirls

    The host was horrible,  but also just plain wrong.  If I had to guess, I’d say atheist women are decidedly less attractive than the general public.  Especially so if we consider the increasing percentage of atheist women who abide by the modern religion of radical feminism and the risible movement for “fat acceptance.”  Being mostly middle-class, atheist women are probably slimmer than average, but that’s about it. 

    • Miss_Beara

      lol?

    • Baby_Raptor

      There’s not a desk hard enough for my head to hit after reading this…

    • AxeGrrl

      bwahahahahaa

      damn, you could have at least prefaced your comment with a warning to people who have beverages in their mouths :)

    • Xeon2000

      That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      th’fuck did I just read?

  • Cayora Rue

    As an atheist woman, who  also happens to be goth, I have to say this sort of comment is depressingly common.  Although, usually people do assume I’m a pagan/wiccan type thing, rather than an atheist.  That’s actually the first time I’ve heard of goth and atheism being linked.

  • Rich Orwell

    My 20-year old granddaughter isn’t very tall.  She takes after her grandma who was 4’11″ — actually, she still *is* 4’11″.  My granddaughter stars in pornographic movies in Hollywood.  They always dress her in a Catholic schoolgirl’s uniform, to make her look even younger — underage, actually.  You know, pigtails, a pleated plaid skirt, white socks, blouse and (I haven’t watched any of the videos long enough to see this, but I imagine) white panties, too.  I am proud of her.  What an actress.  She isn’t even Catholic.  I mean, nobody taught her to get on her knees and open her mouth.  Good girl.

    • Spherical Basterd

      My brain is now full of WTF. You sir, win non-sequitur of the day..

    • Xeon2000

      I think I wanted to throw up and laugh at the same time. You should write dark comedy.

  • Guest

    Now, I’m definitely upset about the ‘atheist chicks are easy’ thing – excuse me, why don’t you just try to get in my pants because I’m ‘easy’ and see how far it gets you – but frankly this is insulting to just everyone involved. The Christians in this scenario, and in other scenarios across the country – got together with the atheists in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation . . . oh wait, sorry, it’s because they wanted to get laid. OH WELL.

    And sorry, did the Christian organization hold a food drive or help the homeless? No, they also held the debate. I guess Voorhies will just ignore all the atheist charities out there, as well as all the churches that don’t do jack.

  • smrnda

    I’m guessing in the absence of anything intelligent or true to say, you just make a blanket offensive/ridiculous  statement about the group you don’t like. I said ‘offensive/ridiculous’ because I don’t like the slut shaming and sex negativity, but I was acknowledging that his statement was meant as offensive.

    Also, lots of women who enjoy sex, and enjoy casual sex don’t necessarily have sex with just anyone. Perhaps it’s just envy that hot atheist women aren’t having sex with him?

  • Ian Reide

    After reading that “interview” I am ready to move to a new planet. One with an iq based immigration quota. Now.

  • CelticWhisper

    “Atheist girls are easy?”

    No.  We atheists are exactly as “easy” or as “hard” as we, as individuals, WANT to be.  Wow, fancy that – people who are ruled by their own sense of self-direction and good sense rather than by irrelevant and unenlightened mores developed by bronze-age goat-herders.

    • AxeGrrl

      Wow, fancy that – people who are ruled by their own sense of self-direction and good sense rather than by irrelevant and unenlightened mores developed by bronze-age goat-herders.

      Bingo.

      The biggest insult here is their attempt to assert their sexual ethics as being the ‘objectively right’ ones.

      Which is precisely what I see so many believers try to do with everything ~ despite the fact that they can’t justify the ‘objective’ claim.

      To me, this is the most infuriating aspect of all such Christian attacks on everything that isn’t Christian.

  • Redbutterfly13

    well that is offensive to me a little since iv only been with one guy, and im an atheist,a mother and in some was a goth O.o but alrighty then sweeping generalization!  

    • redbutterfly13

      excuse me ways***

  • Keulan

    It’s almost like there’s a requirement that if you’re a conservative talk radio host, you must be a complete asshole and say ridiculously dumb things. And you can’t ever let a guest you disagree with finish a sentence. That last bit isn’t limited to conservative radio though. Fox “news” hosts love to interrupt everyone they disagree with too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roccim Marlo Rocci

    Then why are all the christian teen girls pregnant?

  • David McNerney

    This idea of “easy” is a load of pants.  And if I think about it, it’s probably some bullshit made up by religious conservatives.

    So what if “Atheist girls are easy”.  What does that even mean?  You can go up to any atheist girl and ???, sex!  Good luck with that.

    And if you think it’s a license to rape – the “easy” isn’t the issue, it’s you.

  • Josh

    I don’t like what he said, and wish he and people like him wouldn’t say it. However, I don’t think that’s justification for censorship.

    • http://askanatheist.tv/ Becky Friedman

      We as consumers of radio content are free to pressure channels to modify said content. Some of us are even radio advertisers.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/eileen.hargreaves.7 Eileen Hargreaves

    Referrd to as `Conservative`, my thinking: I assume this must be heresay/ a misnomer, surely Conservative males don`t indulge in casual sex?? and why associate with atheists? My thinking on Goth, not as described in my dictionary “very gloomy and horrifying” they may sometimes opt. for black clothing, but that is merely a facade adopted “shock tactics” for people like yourself!!

    • http://askanatheist.tv/ Becky Friedman

      Considering his July 4th post on his radio show website is “40 best quotes form Ronald Reagan”, that his June 28th post is decrying SCOTUS upholding most provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act, that his public facebook posts decry “leftwing hack-job[s]“, I’m thinking there is no misnomer here.  Conclusion based on observation from the horse’s mouth is hardly heresay.  

  • Joe Rockhead

    He’s on an AM station in Nebraska! I think life has punished this guy enough!

  • http://karlaporter.com/ Karla Porter

    “_____ girls are easy”  is an immature negative male attitude that transcends cultures, races, socio-economic indicators, and belief systems. This isn’t an atheist problem any more than it is the problem of the religion of the day. If nothing else, it’s a human, sociological, developmental, educational concern – a remaining thorn of inequality. When others in the conversation tolerate it and do not immediately denounce the inappropriate comment, part and parcel they position themselves as passive supporters. 

  • Hotatheistchick

    The “easy” remark is telling. I don’t think Mr. voorhies would find it very easy to sleep with an atheist chick. I gotta think they’d see right through him and his controlling, patriarchal misogyny. Maybe the comment is just sour grapes. Some cute goth atheist wouldn’t give him the time of day and he’s lashing out the best way he knows how.

  • Corey

    Fact: Teaching teens ‘abstinence only’ education leads to more stds. That all I need to know because Conservative Christians LOVE to teach that to teens, even if they know it doesnt work. It is the easy way out, because then they can say: “We told you what was right and you were weak and/or pissed of God, now suffer the consequences while we cut more funding for single moms, after school programs for kids which would allow a parent to actually get a full time job, nutritional help for those pregnant both during and after the birth (etc)” If some of you still dont believe that is how the conservative Christian (who have taken over the Republican Party) movement thinks, you need to dig deeper, because when Newt Gingrich (sp?) was the Speaker of the House and pushed that program to Christianize America, listed those I mentioned in ways to deter young from having sex. As if any law detered a criminal, telling a teen they will not get help if they get pregnant isnt a way to teach, it is a threat, and again, a way to take any empathetic responsibility off those who are conservative Christians, so they can “wash their hands of” and demonize those who they claim have turned their backs on God. We all know this is also a convient way to not help those in need, or those not politcally connected, because those that are do not usually have to ask for money or help, so rules and laws created to control behavior, really are created, as they always have been, to control the “common folk”.

  • kabbee

    Atheists chicks are  easy? Pffff….

    You’ll never get an atheist shrieking, “Oh God! Oh Lord! Oh Jesus! Oh God!” while they’re discovering their sexuality…

    Let’s see how much of a sense of humor the evangelical crowd has with this one…

    And devout girls know never to “fake” it. It is wrong to take the name of the Almighty in vain…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KIDZFDXNIVYSUSZBZDUJIQD3II Exploerer

    Wife works there.
    Vorhies is just trying to drive up his page views.   He got a really impressive site hit when he said some malarky about PZ a few years ago and is figuring to cash in again.

    I’m saying hes got an ulterior motive as well as being a despicable person.

  • Wayne Moore

     Below is an Open Letter sent to President Milliken of the University of Nebraska on the morning of July 13, 2012.  KFAB may be a private radio station free to speak and behave in any manner it chooses, but this station has strong ties, through the broadcast of Nebraska football, to the University.  Speak up, let the president know, that such ties with prejudice and hostility are not acceptable.

    President James B.
    Milliken

    University of
    Nebraska

    (402) 472-8636

    president@nebraska.edu

     

     

    July 13, 2012

     

     

    President Milliken,

     

    On July 10, 2012, the University
    of Nebraska’s Director of University Relations, Tim Kaldahl, spoke publicly, on
    1110 AM radio KFAB, with the station’s morning talk radio host Mr. Scott
    Voorhees.  Mr. Voorhees’ program for the
    day (link to the program below) was titled “Godbusters” and throughout the
    program Mr. Voorhees took every opportunity available to him to find ways to
    “tweak atheists this morning.”  During
    his interview with Mr. Kaldahl the DJ “absolved” the University of its
    responsibility for permitting the presence of the upcoming Midwest Freethought
    Conference scheduled on the UNO campus, August 3-5.  In doing so Mr. Voorhees described the
    University of Nebraska as functioning as a binary entity referring to “that”
    University of Nebraska which works to benefit the community, as opposed to the
    other University of Nebraska that permits such horrific things as a Secular
    Student Alliance and the upcoming Freethought conference.  Mr. Kaldahl failed to defend the Secular
    Student Alliance, and diversity on campus in general, and instead chose to
    focus only on “that” other part of the University of Nebraska in which
    “hundreds of students go out into the community and do service learning
    projects, renovate homes, work at non-profit agencies.”  It is important to see how clearly Mr.
    Voorhees sees secular, non-theistic students as apart from this more virtuous
    idyllic university, and it is doubly important that you see how clearly your
    Director of University Relations failed to challenge this prejudice.

    Following this discussion with
    this member of your administration, Mr. Voorhees then conversed with a student
    from the University, the past president of the University’s Secular Student
    Alliance, an individual identified only as Luke.  During this brief conversation the show’s
    host was consistently dismissive of his guest, accusing him of failing to
    contribute to the good of the University, the community, repeating how the
    student and his organization had failed to build houses or provide well-being
    to the poor and homeless.  Then finally
    he closed the interview by informing the student that the only reason the
    Secular Student Alliance on the University’s campus had been recognized and
    supported by the campus community is because “atheist chics are easy”.  He would return to this theme toward the end
    of the program, when he alluded to Sandra Fluke, the “girl who went to
    Georgetown University and said someone around here needs to pay for my contraception
    or my abortion.”  He connected her to
    “militant atheism” seeing her, I must assume, as Mr. Limbaugh did, as a “slut”,
    a “prostitute”, like he describes the women of the secular student community as
    a whole.

    Mr. Voorhees is a substantial
    voice within the KFAB broadcasting network, the University of Nebraska’s
    affiliate network for its football programming. 
    His attacks upon the atheist/secular community in general, and its
    female members in particular, are prejudiced and hostile and in no way should
    be supported by the University of Nebraska. 
    As president of this public institution you should be taking action to
    cut ties with this individual, this network; or do you really want the
    University of Nebraska, and Nebraska football to be tied to such prejudice?

    How would you react if Mr.
    Voorhees had attacked the African-American community in such a way?  Or Catholic students?  Jews? 
    Muslims?  What would you do today,
    what would the University of Nebraska and Nebraska football do today, if Mr.
    Voorhees had said “black girls are easy”, “Catholic girls are sluts”?  Would the University continue its
    financial/media ties with KFAB and Mr. Voorhees in such a situation?  I think not, but it is your decision.

     

     

    Thank You.

     

    Wayne Moore

    Missoula Area Secular Society

     

     

       

     

    http://bit.ly/NmcGaG
     
    Interview with Tim Kaldahl: 0:00 to 6:30
    Voorhees’ comments on UNO hosting of secular event: 6:30 to 9:20
    Interview with secular student: 9:20 to 14:32
    Primary offensive remarks: 14:16 to 14:32
    Reference to Sandra Fluke and the Georgetown/Limbaugh situation: 53:20 to 54:25

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • TimothyWells

    Atheists around here are pretty sex-positive. So we’re pretty easy to each other. We don’t fuck conservatives though.

  • thebigJ_A

    Crap, I guess I have to stop being an atheists. Goth chick just aren’t my style. 

    What a misogynistic bigot.

  • http://couturediva22.myopenid.com/ Div

    Not sure what the big deal is, what he said wasn’t wrong.  Atheist women are more promiscuous, simple as that.

  • Der

    Strictly speaking, what he said was accurate.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/TUE6PZJZJWHHW4XSFSS4WTJEDM Oblivion Approaches

    There must be something real about a Creator when you have people organizing in union for the sole purpose of believing that there is no God.  You don’t really have a group against lochness monster, moonians, fountain of youth, big foot, or the existence of King Arthur.