Ah fair enough. I love my longbow and if you have never shot bows before then you might just as well learn on a longbow as a recurve. When people talk about them being more forgiving, they are typically (I believe) referring to the fact that if you torque the string on a longbow, it makes little difference whereas the same flaw in form can cause difficulties with a recurve.
Not sure that matters much - just don't torque the string and you should be fine with either. One of the best archers in the history of the planet (Howard Hill) was a longbowman. He tried recurves and couldn't get the hang of them. Conversely, tons of other outstanding and well-known archers (Fred Bear, not the least) shot recurves well but not longbows.
I will say that if you have experience with a recurve or a compound bow, then shooting a straight-handled long bow will take LOTS of getting used to. It's worth it, or was to me but others may certainly disagree.
If you are up in the air on the choice, then I'd say select what you like and learn to use that (just like with knives). Otherwise, you'll eventually end up getting both anyway - heh.
For me, I bought a compound first because that's what was available. Didn't enjoy it and never had it set up for me so I never really practiced much with it. Traded that for a used Damon Howatt (Martin) Hunter and shot the *heck* out of it. Loved that bow but was always infatuated with longbows. I saved my pennies and bought a Howard Hill Halfbreed custom made for me (a bit over $500) and have never looked back.
p.s. This thread needs more pics.
Here I am looking devilishly sophisticated in my wool gear and drawing my Howard Hill...
... and this is my son, imitating a bush while drawing his Bear Kodiak Magnum...
---
Beckerhead #42