why the desperation in a site designated for rationality? I wouldn't prevent someone's urge to strip if they wanted, but if I want porn I'll go to a porn site. The net is so full of women objectifying themselves for the sake of a few lude comments from complete strangers, and if that's what gets you off go for it. But to be honest Im sick of having this kind of thing saturate everything I visit on the internet, and I just wish people would use their powers of cognition to think about when it's appropriate. This site is about thought, and these pictures took very little.

It would be hard to disagree that the internet is saturated by images like this, but it seems awfully presumptuous of you to assign motives to this free-thinking individual of whom you know nothing other than the fact that she likes this website and thought some of us would like to know that she's pretty. Maybe she's making a statement about her freedom from the repressive sexual morality preached by Christians. Maybe she's saying, "Rock on, you sexy atheists! There are sexy atheist women out here, too!"

I disagree with your idea that this is porn. Nudity is not irrational, is it? Maybe this is as close as this girl could get to art with a webcam. If this was done in photoshop and looked like it had had a lot of time put into it, would you still say it was porn? Is porn always bad, or did a Christian tell you that, so you still believe it?

Maybe you're being a little harsh on her, eh?

For the record, my first thought on seeing the photo was, "Wow, what a cool girl!" My first thought on seeing your response was, "Wow, I didn't see that at all." Is it somewhat sexual? Sure! I think that was the point. Is it bad to be somewhat sexual? You tell me. I know the Christians say it is.

Oh, and unless I miss my guess, I think this lady is a singer from Australia, and some of her photos are quite artistic.

Desperation? You posted the same comment on both provocative pictures, are you maybe projecting desperation of your own to be heard? Yes this site is designed for rationality, and as such I must ask you, what is the proof or evidence at least that one showing off their body equals desperation? Do you have any other evidence of desperation other than these pictures? As I see it these pictures are merely evidence that the posers are rather sexually free, in my opinion a rational position. The flipside position might be the irrational closed sexual views of a religious person.

I wouldn't classify that as porn but ok. Anywho, I guess this isn't the site for you then. There are no taboos on this site. Someone might even bring up beastiality at some point! Oh noes!

Actually I believe these women were more interested in getting peoples attention so they would come visit this website about thinking rationally. Some people react to that more than they react to solid logical argumentation which is why most of the culture around us is dominated by capitalizing on peoples sexual desires.

As for lewd comments... you were the first comment.

Maybe you should start a Porn Response Squad, or stop using the internet, or stop worrying about how other people choose to present their body.

When exactly is it appropriate to enjoy the bodies of other humans? Religion tells us to wait for marriage... I say fuck that.

These pictures took very little thought as well, and yet they all reside on our site. Do you have something wrong with these:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/image/tid/2001

Am I maybe showing a little too much arm? Is my hair clearly calling to women to be attracted to me? I notice Todangst has a smile on his face, is that a little too sexy for this site maybe?

Hamby,

Your comment about Blue Moose desperately posting in both threads about desperation was deleted when I removed the comments from the other thread. There is no need to have the discussion twice. And I agree that posting the comment twice was a desperate attempt to get others to think like Blue Moose all while preaching against desperation... IRRATIONAL. Someone actually interested in discussion of the issue would need only post it once.

First you might want to define what you mean about thought I know if someone likes women they might get a thought or two from that pic.

The thing is what would be pornographic or unseemly? In the past ankle was unseemly. Now the beach is a great place to show off the body, but wear that shit in the wrong place people wheel out the cross and get ready to throw down roman style.

As for seeing it everywhere, yeah you do, it works. Honestly sex sells and it isn't going away anytime soon. I'm not sure what big breast have to do with a messy burger, but I remember Burger King.

I remember talking to a girl in highschool and she was asking what "worked" for guys, like what got their attention, and she asked me about short skirts. I told, "yes, it will get a guys attention, but probably not the kind you're looking for." I remember seeing her in a short skirt later on so I guess she wanted attention any way she could get it...

If you think about our sex drive is a good motivator. I would think any women that has threatened to "cut off" a man knows this. But also shocking or unexpect images or ideas are a very good tool to get a convo going. People talk about it, remember it, and think about it. Hopefully in this case about RRS, but I don't think this image comes with that guarantee...

I realise most people don't share my opinion here which is fair enough. I guess my comments were totally out of place in a site that is dedicated to discussing religion, although I do notice more than one comment alluding to how my views appear to coincide with some religious views.

As it happens my views on this matter come from a more feminist background than anything, which can be a bit of a provocative word these days. Again, I realise this is not the time or the place...

A close friend of mine pointed out that to post a message like this isn't exactly going to endear people to me. I guess he's right, it was my own personal beef about a subject that, although I think does have some pertenence to the subjects discussed in this site as most things do, really wasn't that important.

I'd hate for anyone to think I'm advocating censorship, that wasn't my intention at all. I was only posting an opinion and quite expected it to be largely disregarded.

I see this kind of thing as 'selling out' to a market that largely doesn't think, and I am aware of my wide generalization here. I don't believe that followers to a cause that have no idea why they are following it can do the cause any good. In fact I think they can do an awful lot of harm.

But all of this is by the by. I do accept that my posts were rash and not as appropriate as I first invisaged, I humbly ask that you give this post more consideration than I gave to my first one.

Well it would've been nice if you posted a blanket statement in the freethinkers anonymous forum, but we're here now, so no biggie.

Shouldn't there be something embedded in feminism that takes pride in women who are sexually free without inhibitions? Or has feminism come the way of the prudish nun?

Why did you think it would be disregarded?

I personally think that the most important thing to come out of a discussion like this is the need for us rational thinkers to accept the we each have our own opinions. These opinions may differ but I have no doubt that Blue Moose, as well as those that opposed her initial assertions, all came to their views through a process of critically evaluating their experience of the world. This is what we want isn't it?

I'm a great believer in the idea of perspectivism. Two people can have opposing views and both be equally rationally justified in their positions. This is obviously not always the case but I do think it happens a lot more than we tend to note. Each of us has different experiences of the world that shape our values. So long as our experiences are evaluated through rational thought of the evidence then the subjective outcome is a secondary concern.

I think that if our purpose is to encourage others to critically evaluate their surroundings and dispense of fundamentally irrational beliefs, such as the belief in a personal God, then there are no battles to be fought here. Blue Moose, Sapient and everyone else here has critically considered their experience of the world and come to rational conclusions. The last thing we can really afford to do is to start being divisive. Do we really want to end up with rational denominations in the same way that Christianity has branched into a million offshoots? We must stand together and respect each others diversity of opinion.

I also think that it is important that we don't label every opinion that we do not agree with as being irrational or based upon the irrational doctrines of religion. I don't think we're here to compete as to who believes in God the least We're all on the same side here.

I also think that Blue Mooses response deserves credit for having the courage to concede that her initial post may have been 'rash and not as appropriate' as she may have invisaged. It is harder for someone to do that than it is to continue to blindly argue ones point as a matter of pride. I think that is commendable and something that we could all benefit from doing a little more. It is peoples' opposition to doing so that makes it so hard to convince religious individuals that they are wrong.

I believe there is a place for all of us here. Lets try and stick together as much as we can and focus our attention on those who hold IRRATIONAL beliefs before we start on each other

Great post Slag...

Yes it is what we want and I think all participants in this thread "got that," you're just the first to note it.

More importantly I think is a willingness to change your beliefs should enough evidence to the contrary be provided to prove your beliefs aren't as rational or logical as other beliefs.

I think to some degree we need atheist disagreements for brain food as the Christian brand of brain food offered is not too fulfilling. In theory your idea is an ideal world that doesn't happen. We're not republicans that can get behind a particular ideology and stick with it no matter what happens. We're freethinkers who all think very differently and in a world full of freethinkers there will be just as many disagreements as one full of atheists and theists.

Agreed, however we need to be true to how we view those opinions as well. I respect diversity of opinion, but like I say towards Christianity I don't respect irrational beliefs. I can respect the believer but not the belief, and I refuse to be hypocritical and give irrational beliefs a free pass when it's a non theist holding them.

I agree, some beliefs do tend to get to that line however. I was sort of joking when I said she was being irrational, but at the same time I see serious religious connotations in her thinking.

I love this idealism but in practice it's untrue. We're all on the same side regarding atheism/theism, nothing more. We have many disagreements among us, and I don't think there is much wrong with that.

While I'll agree it's nice to see courage to concede points, none of the actual points being scrutinized were conceded. In fact quite a few poignant questions were posed for her (including comparisons to religion) that were unanswered. I hate moving away from the unifying spirit of your post, but had real concessions been made Blue Moose would have expressed that her view has changed. Instead she told us merely that she didn't think about the type of reaction she'd get or maybe it was in the wrong place, this trivial points aren't of interest to me. The issue at hand is what interests me here, it's why I joined the thread.

I hope I didn't take too much away from your points. I agree with the tone and the feeling behind it. I think we can have these discussions with a sort of mutual respect that we are all wise enough to reject deity belief, but that this similarity is not everything.

Thanks for the considered response Sapient. I would like to clarify myself on a few points as I'm not sure if they came across as intended.

This may be true. However, I do not think that the issue being debated here can be 'proved' for either side of the debate. Whether we are correct or not in showing our naked or semi-naked bodies in public is, if not directed by religious indoctrination, an issue of apposing rational moralities. From Blue Mooses response I trust that her views are not religiously motivated but come from another source regardless of their similarities with views expressed by theists. I believe that your views also are derived from sources external to religion. My belief is that morality is a subjective process. Someone morally disagreeing with someone else simply states that they personaly do not like that kind of behaviour. Any opposition to this is the same. If this is the case and there is no objective morality floating around somewhere, then we can debate our views but are unlikely to come to a satisfactory conclusion in the majority of cases.

Don't get me wrong, I love to debate issues (see this post for example) but I think that both yourself and Blue Moose are completely justified in holding the beliefs that you do.

Yes, I totally agree. I just don't think we gain anything in discussions about morality or ethics. These are subjective entities that, although based on experience of the world, are based upon different experiences dependent upon the individiuals circumstance and can be equally rationally justified given these experiences.

I don't think that there is a need for Blue Moose to concede that her moral view was wrong. It probably has an equal rational standing to your own. My post was meant to underline the fact that neither of you need to concede your moral opinions. You are both equally entitled to hold onto your subjective positions.

I do believe she did refute any religious comparisons when she explained that her views are based upon things along a more feminist line. That's enough for me. I don't think she needs to prove it to us any further than saying so.

I'm completely aware that disagreements are natural and can be productive in the right circumstances. I guess I just can't see anything to be gained in this instance.

I just want to agree completely with this statement in relation to debates that can be settled by objective fact.
Thanks again for the considered response.

As I understand, it's the gripe of feminists that men seuxally objectify women, however doesn't feminism allow for women who are sexually uninhibited to show their body however they choose to show it? If it does not then feminism is not the embodiment of feminity but more of a way for prudish snobby women to bitch and moan. Now, I take that liberty because I know some feminists who are not inhibited, I personally would gladly fight for equality among women any day. But I got a message for women who want equality... you want to be equal to men? Well most men would have no problem showing off their six pack or biceps if they thought it would get them somewhere. And most men wouldn't assume that this action equated to others thinking they were brainless. It ocurrs to me that being mad at sexual objectification should be more of an attack on prejudice. Just because someone is sexy does not mean they are smart or dumb, and assuming so would make one prejudiced.

Oh I just have so many problems with the thought that covering up ones body is the preferable thing amongst people who consider themselves thinkers. This whole conversation developing over the equivalent of a bikini being worn just seems ridiculous to me.

/rant

I hold a lot of views that are difficult for many people, even atheists, to swallow. I have what I believe to be empirical backing for those beliefs. If I am proven wrong, I am proven wrong, and I'm prepared for that. This is what I expect from other free thinkers.

My objection to Blue Moose's objection was that she was obviously projecting her interpretation of nudity onto a person she didn't know. I don't claim to know Amanda's motivation any more than I know Blue Moose's. I suggested that Moose might be influenced by religion because I've seen many "feminists" who are driven by anger and resentment -- and in almost all cases, they have been oppressed or repressed by Christian dogma. I submit that freedom from Christianity does not equate to freedom from Christian repression, and that nudity is not inherently wrong, even if it happens to be a young, attractive female who happens to be nude.

I am threatened by young, attractive males with six packs. I admit it. They get more hot women than I do. I am human, and I dislike it when more desirable males get to move to the front of the pecking order. Am I bitter? Maybe a bit. Do I resent them for getting the women I'd like to date? Yeah. Do I think it's wrong for them to do that? No. It's the way the species works. I was gifted with a lot of things, but devastating looks -- not one of my strong suits. We all use what we have to get the mates we think are in our league.

I am sorry for everyone who has been repressed, oppressed, or abused by Christian morality. I am sorry for everyone who has been abused by blatant sexual exploitation. Nevertheless, I can't understand the argument that any sexual display is exploitation. That argument falls apart in the same way as the argument for god's existence. There's a leap of faith necessary -- and I'm not willing to make the leap.

Wow. With all of that out of the way......

When can we expect a picture of you, Blue Moose, with an rrs sign?

Here, I'll be fair.

Her face is attractive, but from this angle it appears that she could stand to gain a few pounds.

Blue Moose is probably upset because she is not nearly as attractive.

ouch.

I'd suggest that you might be projecting a little yourself. You might be right, but based on what little info you have, you might be wrong, and that's a damn touchy subject.

I'd suggest that there are a lot of alternatives to your theory, and we don't know enough about Moose to know.

I'm very interested in knowing if Moose has a defense for her suggestion that a semi-nude picture of a girl she doesn't know is automatic proof that the girl is desperate. I'm not particularly interested in how she's going to react to being called less attractive than a girl who you think could stand to gain a few pounds. My guess is she'll not be particularly happy with the suggestion, and will be defensive, even if she happens to be very attractive.

It's getting awfully... um... hormonal in here...

maybe we could get to some rational responses to rational questions?

From what I've read I seriously don't think that Blue Moose was calling any individual desperate. It appears that she is calling the act of using sex to sell something a desperate measure.

I seriously don't think that personal attacks have ANY place in rational debate and am quite disgusted with some of the remarks I find above in this discussion. I thought that these forums where a place to rationally debate issues that are genuinely debatable. Once again we are onto subjective issues such as who finds who most attractive given the minute amount of information that is presented. How is this at all appropriate?

I thought these forums may also be a good place to meet like-minded, people who accept that they have differences without the need to insult each other. People who don't feel they need to continue to attack someone who has retracted their statement but wishes to hold onto their moral views. It appears that some people want to argue for the sake of argument and I seriously wouldn't blame Blue Moose for not responding. I certainly don't want to associate myself with this kind of disagreement as it borders on childishness.

And before I'm accused of defending the view that men/women should cover themselves up in public, I actually don't believe that personally. However, my justifications for this are not the final word in this SUBJECTIVE matter. No-one is going to change anyones mind here, especially not by throwing out and out insults or veiled insults in the form of subtle digs within their 'rational' responses. I'd expected more of intelligent individuals such as yourselves.

I'm actually not surprised by this thread at all. Almost everybody here is an ex-Christian, and if there's one thing that's more difficult than giving up irrational views about god, it's giving up irrational views about sex. God, after all, is a figment of people's imagination, and being filled with the holy spirit is a made up act. Sex, on the other hand, is very real and personal, and if you've grown up with even one fucked up delusion about sex, it can spill over into many, many areas of your life. Ex-Christians are as vulnerable to those delusions as anybody else. Remember, just because a person's dealt with the god-myth, it doesn't mean they've necessarily even thought about their own delusions about sexuality.

To soothe any ruffled feathers, I'm not talking about anybody at all! I'm pointing out that the defensiveness we've witnessed in this thread is a good indicator that there are some irrational views on sexuality being tossed about. Could be me, could be moose, could be insidium, could be slag.... But I do think that discussions of sexuality are relevant on a board about rational responses because Christianity has such a repressive cultural model, and there are lots of delusions floating around regarding sex.

Since I got that disclaimer out of the way, Moose, if you'd like to have a discussion about your post...

Well, yeah. That's because many of us have noticed how Christianity teaches women that their bodies are for private consumption, and only then in certain situations. We wonder why that should be so when the very biological responses in question seem to be pre-programmed in a very different manner. It seems very logical to assume that in an overwhelmingly Christian culture, many women's views on sex would be colored by the Christian morality. Feminism, in particular, one would expect to be directly related to Christianity, since it is the Judeo-Christian patriarchy that handed us the repressive and oppressive views we hold today.

Just to reiterate: Christianity, in large part, made feminism necessary. In a way, feminism is like atheism. If there were no irrational beliefs about the sexes, there would be no need for feminism. Where feminism and atheism differ is that many versions of feminism DO try to substitute their own brand of truth. It appears to me, Moose, that you'd like all of us to also be offended when we see a woman take her clothes off and send us a snapshot. I'd submit to you that first, you need to make a rational argument that there's anything wrong with it.

In a way, yes. It is your problem, not ours. However, we specialize in pointing out cognitive dissonance, and quite a few people on this board specialize in logic. If it is a "problem" we can quite possibly help.

I submit that a society capitalizing on a thing is not inherently good or bad. Are you saying that women's sexuality is something that should not be marketed? Why?

Ok. I completely respect Hambydammits view that these are things that he feels should be discussed. My main concern was pointing out that any subjective arguement that is based upon opinions that cannot be justified by objective, evidence based fact will always infinitely regress. By inifinite regression I mean that one can ask "Why?" after every assertion in order to ask for a justification. If at any point someone says 'just because' or words to that effect then the chain of justification is broken and everything that is based upon is is equally as unjustified. I was asking less for a cease to debate and more for a mutual respect based on the fact that no-one can KNOW what is right and wrong as these are subjective and each side of the arguement infinitely regresses.

I, however, would like to say that I don't think that any of my negative statements about the way people are approaching disagreements (rather than whetrher they're worth having) with each other applies to Hambydammits assertions. I think your last two post show the type of respect that is needed if we are to avoid begging the question (which, in Philosophy terms, means to presume ones own conclusion to be correct from the outset and thus put others down for opposing views before their justifications have even been fully established.)

It was merely a call for mutual respect which I think is generally accepted by people on here but not always put into practice. Thanks for taking these thoughts into consideration though. I hope Blue Moose hasn't been put off by the more extreme comments here as it would be interesting to hear her responses to your questions.

I haven't stated an opinion. I have pointed out that the opinions that have been stated haven't been backed by rational argument.

That's not begging the question. That's begging for backing.

In an argument, (discussion, whatever... I'm using argument in the logical sense) the person making the claim is responsible for presenting evidence. I've just asked for evidence to back up the claims that seem to be inherent in Moose's post.

(either that or a clarification of what she meant if I've interpreted her meaning incorrectly)

I'm not disputing any of the above post and haven't in any of my previous posts as far as I am aware.

I misread this paragraph, slag. I thought you were saying I was begging the question. I see what you were saying now.

My bad.

No probs mate. It's easily done

What? I was speculating on Moose's motives for her reply. Your accusation of projection on my part is baseless.

I think you could consider it desperation if Sapient was posing in the nude behind a RRS sign. I really don't understand why people freak out when a little skin is showing, especially considering the fact that she is quite beautiful. I admire her boldness. It would take a lot of booze or some serious chemicals to get something like that out of me.