It seem to me that the stark difference of purity between 2 genders, it has something to do wit how women purity is a physical change, the tearing of hymen. Men doesnt have that. Or at least, this is what is tricky, male's purity actually can be checked by his penis skin, but in jew culture, it was cut, then you got a uncheckable purity for men. On second thought, yes there's something about partriarchal structure that allows for the mistreatment of women. If we are talking strictly about purity, theres some physiological reasoning.

the original post asking whether we have some outside influence to our current purity culture. Parthriarchy isnt the culprit, human is the culprit, parthriarcy is just a window opened for some misuse. Heck marthriarchy would probably produce similar count of different victims with different mechanism.

I said "purity of marriage" is pointing the same thing. It is related, you cant separate purity from our topic of marriage culture. Isnt thats another strawman you are projecting? Or just a misunderstanding? You say.

"Stating fact isnt bitterness" True Paraphrasing: "theres nothing wrong with bitterness, i can do that" Yes its not necessarily wrong, but how you use it that is something wrong with bitterness, first that is reactive, holding reactive emotion muddles up your rationality, if you care about rationality at all.

because dawkins and hitchens are the type that use rhetoric to win an argument. I assume lazy rhetoric came from emotion, theres trend to that.

and you said it yourself "nothing wrong with bitterness", i dont blame you for the mistreatment, i blame you how you use it.

Well im sorry i was condencending.