Sex and Atheism
Offline I read a study a few years ago that concluded that college educated people tended to be more sexually adventurous than non-college educated people. It quoted statistics such as the likelihood to have engaged in oral sex, anal sex, bondage, homosexual activities, S&M, role-playing, threesomes, and group sex, all of which were apparently greater among the college educated. (I can't seem to locate the article now so if anyone stumbles across it please provide me a link.) The study cited influences such as exposure to different types of people, an atmosphere that encourages intellectual and creative freedom and curiosity, and removal from the environments they grew up in and therefore the traditional and cultural restraints that may have existed in those neighborhoods and communities, as possible reasons for this difference. This of course got me to wondering. Are atheists more sexually adventurous? It would certainly make sense. Sinnce most sexual taboos are religious taboos the absence of religion should lead to greater sexual freedom, but has it? What do you think? Are atheists more likely to have engaged in oral sex, anal sex, bondage, homosexual activities, S&M, role-playing, threesomes, and group sex? Or have we shrugged off the trappings of religion while retaining the same puritanical religion-based sexual hang-ups?
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
- Login to post comments
... just read this thread in the middle of a college lecture ...
Generally, atheists are probably more likley to be "sexually adventurous" because atheism has roughly the same corrolation to education and intelligence.
Not all of us, of course, but probably something around "most".
Personally, I never got over my Catholic upbringing and remain something of a prude.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I can only speak for myself. Yes as the hardcore atheist amongst my friends I am probably the most adventurous of them all. Not to say that the majority of them aren't. However I tend to be far more open minded about new experiences. My religious friends.....well lets just say that besides the missionary and her on top......there isn't much imagination there..at least that's what the GF's say to me. Now with that said, many of my friends and I go to swinger clubs or have gone to them at some point, many of us have gone with our GF's or BF's to a strip club with as a couple or with a bunch of friends. We have all had public sex of some sorts and tried as many karma sutra positions as we feel comfortable doing. Many of us are open about our sexuality and talking about sex, I myself have not had homosexual encounters, I know a few girls that have, and men, and have friends in the Gay and lesbian community as well. But sex between most of my friends is a topic we are at ease talking about. Now my religious friends get their backs up really quick and just get....well...embarrassed about it all.
Sex is the only time I get religious. ("oh god! oh god! oh god!"...)
I don't know of any studies comparing atheism to sexual adventurousness, but I'd wager a guess that they would be correlated. As someone else mentioned, I'm not sure that atheism could be established as the cause or the only cause. Sexual liberation tends to be correlated with intelligence, and atheism is also correlated to intelligence, so maybe intelligence is the cause of both.
JillSwift brings up an excellent point. Many atheists are ex-religious, and unfortunately, it appears to me that sexual attitudes are harder to change for a lot of people than religious ones. It's one thing to make the intellectual decision to drop god from the roster, but it's quite another to decide to have a threesome when your emotions tell you it's too kinky or dirty. We can power through the emotional backlash of leaving religion, but particularly for women, when it's the penetration of your physical body that we're talking about, it's a lot more difficult to justify "just getting over it." Why bother, if the sex life you have is at least satisfactory?
As far as my own experience goes (and yes, I consider myself among the sexually liberated. No, I'm not going to tell you how.) the vast majority of people I've known who were also sexually liberated were not religious. They were not necessarily self-identifying atheists, but to put it another way, I can't remember knowing a deeply religious swinger or fetishest.
However, and I think this is really important to note, there does appear to be a lot of private or hidden sexual acting out among the deeply religious. It's quite possible that religious people are secretly as kinky as atheists. Perhaps atheists just don't feel guilty about their kinks, and religious people do their best to hide it, which includes denying it on surveys, which would mean the study you read was inaccurate.
So, maybe what you're asking is this: Are atheists really more sexually adventurous, or are they just more open about their desires and/or practices?
To that, I have to say I don't know.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yeah, about the only time I think about jesus too, "Oh Jesus, I'm cumming!" lololololol hahahahaha
On a more serious note I wonder how many christian men would turn down a four way with the Playboy Girls Next Door if they knew they wouldn't get caught...... well by anybody except god
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Ditto!! LOL!
But seriously, I would say that there is a correlation. As Hamby said though, correlation does not imply causation. It's possible that intelligence, rather than atheism, is the "liberating" factor.
Or it could be your avatar that's the liberating factor. Dayum!
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Isn't she hideous?
But seriously, Goddess, have mercy on our poor weak hearts.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I don't know, more affirmed believers that I have met aren't as open to new sexual experiences, even those that have gone to higher education, I believe it's more of a mental repression, all depending on the religious sects views on sex, however that is my experience, it could be that they are many out there, as sexuality is part of the human nature.
Finally, someone said it. Greek Godess is rediculously hot. And I can't spell.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
I think we all have said tha at one point, shit I offered her free trips to Argentina, New York, Germany, London, Tokyo, all paid for too......no luck, her BF is one lucky bastard, to have a beautiful woman like that.
Thanks for the compliments gentlemen!
Oh, and things with the bf haven't been great lately, but I haven't decided what to do about it yet. He may or may not be around much longer.
This just in... bigots, homophobes, prudes, and preachers are wrong again...
Source: Syndey Morning Harold
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well....if ya need to get away....free trip to T.O., lots of food, parties, live music, shopping and great sites, with tons to do....
, we also have the best part of the Niagara falls. Oh and a good amount of agnostics/atheists and those religious nuts jobs that are common in the US are kinda limited to the Fraser Valley in B.C...in the west coast.
So prostitution is legal in Canada?
Foxy Lady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb7ln5vlS_k
Girls are still evil this day?, and wasn't Jimi a great prophet !
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Foxy+Lady
FUNNY - Waynes World - Garth Dance-Foxy Lady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7QoiXdo-fY&feature=related
Wrath knows ....
Atheism Books.
Don't skip out on Alberta... years of Ralph Klein and fundies had more than just a small affect. Besides, Highway 1 bypasses Abbotsford (shit, look at the damn name) and gets you right into Vancouver, home of some of the least religious people in the country.
Anyway, nifty topic. Like most here, this is all from personal experience. My religious friends are a little uptight and definitely uncomfortable even talking about sex. The rest of us... it's a part of who we are. Got one friend who will preach the word of "The Ethical Slut" (now in paperback) every chance she gets. She's also one of the most edumacated in our group of friends. And the sex show at the trade and convention centre is one of the biggest shows each year around here. I wonder why.
Cheers,
UR
There are two seasons in Canada, Hockey season and not-Hockey season.
Canada: 16% Atheist and growing.
Alberta is ok......although it does have a higher percentage of religious right than the rest of the country....as for Vancouver yeah love that city too, any city that i can get weed offered to me within 15 minutes of getting off the plane is a good city. However Calgary was fun....expensive as hell but fun. Edmonton, if ya like shopping at least, has the largest mall in Canada with the West Edmonton mall. However for party city I have say Halifax was probably the greast time I have had, good natured folks, everyone is friendly and lost of drinking spots.
Oh and the 2 seasons are Hockey and pre-hockey
Yes. It's only public solicitation that's illegal.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
I've lived in Calgary for quite a while now and I've never seen the religious right nutbags yet. I agree that anywhere in Nova Scotia is a great place to party, although Calgary gives it a run for it's money during Stampede.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Not so much Calgary, Edmonton has a few and I recall, I just can remember what city a religious right was running for office for mayor I think in Alberta using the christian morality for his platform, and how the previous candidate was morally corrupt etc, etc, etc.
On the side note when the flames make it in to the playoffs calgary can be fun....but the biggest party will be when the leafs win the cup......if they ever win the cup again fucking bunch of corporate fuckers and stoooopid fans that support them by going the Air Canada Centre fuck.....WANNA WIN THE CUP PEOPLE STOP GOING TO FORCE THEM TO CHANGE, NO MONEY MEANS THEY NEED TO CHANGE AND WIN THE CUP TO BRING BACK THE MONEY!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
Sorry fellow Canucks. But I grew up in the USA and baseball and football are still my main sports. Go Jays! Go Argos!!! Go Pats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok Jays and Argos aren't doing much lately but the NFL is starting soon so it's GOOOOOOOOO PATS!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Sorry I forgot the topic here was sex and atheists: I'm in favor of both.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Here is a link to a webzine I write for: http://www.kasidie.com/ ...it's a socio/political zine that centers around sexually liberated lifestyles. Some interesting, topic related stuff on there.
My wife and I became swingers before we acknowledged our atheism...If nothing else, its been my experience that most people in secular lifestyles realize the futility of religion. Some still hold onto that ingrained fear of burning for all eternity...so they claim some kind of belief...
Even the concept of monogamy is religion based...one could easily make the case that our natural inclination often lean in the other direction.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Dear Rich, click the link and meet your Christian swinger counterparts....
http://www.libchrist.com/index.html
Not exactly. The concept of uniformly enforced monogamy appears to be largely religious in nature. If you haven't read my articles on this, you should:
What Science Says About Human Sexuality
On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture
The thing is, we are in something called an evolutionarily stable strategy between monogamy and polygamy. That is to say, polygamy and monogamy are both viable mating strategies for both males and females, but because of our environment, the percentage of each is somewhat fixed.
Here's a simple example. Suppose you have two kinds of personalities in a population. We'll call them hawks and doves. (These aren't different animals... we might as well have said liberals and conservatives, but that brings in too much baggage, so we're just going with arbitrary labels.) Here's the behavior breakdown:
Hawks: Always fight, only retreat when seriously injured.
Doves: Threaten and posture, but always run before physical violence ensues.
Now, arbitrarily, we can assign point values to interactions between these two classes: 50 points for a win, -100 for being seriously injured, and -10 for wasting time during a long contest. The points don't matter at all. This is illustrating a principle. All we need to realize is that there is real evolutionary value to certain behaviors, and natural selection need not be aware of numerical values to realize the mathematical execution of the formula.
Anyway, here's how it works. If we have all doves, then each meeting will result in a non-fight in which one member backs down before the other. One will get +50 for a win and -10 for a long waste of time, so +40. The loser will get -10 for wasting time, and no penalty for being seriously injured. Therefore, the average payoff for each contest is +15 (the average of +40 and -10 is 30/2 = 15.)
Suppose that a hawk emerges. In every fight, he's going to win, gaining 50 points. With no loss from a prolonged staring match, he is at a huge advantage over all doves. He'll just go around winning 50 points every time, and all the doves will go around losing -10 every time. We will expect hawks to proliferate. However, we must consider what happens when two hawks meet. In all cases, one is seriously injured, and takes -100. The winner gets +50. The average between the two is -25, which is significantly worse than the +15 for doves and doves.
On the flip side, imagine a population of all hawks. They'll be very busy beating each other up, losing -25 on average. A single dove, on the other hand, would have a magnificent track record. He'd never win, but he'd also never get seriously injured, and would always get a payoff of 0, which is significantly better than -25.
The math is very simple, actually. With a 7:5 ratio of hawks to doves, taking into account the probability of meeting a hawk or a dove in any particular encounter. The average payoff works out to 6.25 per creature, whether it's a hawk or dove.
Here's where evolutionary stability comes into play. Once this ratio is reached through blind natural selection, it will tend to stay right about where it is. It makes sense, of course. If hawks increase, even by a little, their average payoff drops, and doves become evolutionarily favored.
Now, why would we expect this kind of evolutionary stability with human mating? The most compelling reason is that polygamy is extraordinarily bad for males.
---
---
Yes. I know. I just said polygamy is very bad for males. Rich, in your case, it works out pretty well, because you get to have sex with lots of women and only be married to one. That's awesome for you, but in a population, this breaks down. The thing is, women are geared towards selectiveness and monogamy. They have no significant reason to keep more than one man, biologically speaking. Men, on the other hand, have every reason to try to screw as many women as possible, biologically speaking. So, all things being equal, more men than women are going to want multiple partners. We can see this clearly all over the world across history and cultures. Polygyny, which is the specific kind of polygamy where one man has multiple women, is virtually the only kind of polygamy that has ever existed. Women simply don't need multiple men, and men have a nasty habit of trying to kill each other when they are both interested in the same woman.
So, take an equal population of men and women. Suppose that our instincts tell us that every man ought to have two women. If there are 100 men and 100 women, that means that IF our instincts were obeyed, 50 men would have 2 women each, and 50 men would go celibate. Now, you know what happens when you get fifty celibate men together in a group, right? Either a big gay orgy, or a war, whichever comes first. Usually, they'll decide to go take some women from the men who have extras.
This is an extreme example, of course, but if you understand the gist of it, you'll see why polygamy isn't naturally our universal strategy. For every man that monopolizes two women, one man gets none.
This isn't as simple as hawks and doves, of course. There are lots of human mating strategies:
* Monogamy
* Monogamy with cheating
* Serial monogamy
* Mild polygamy
* Strong polygamy
* Open marriage
* Homosexuality
* Bisexuality
* Celibacy
Of these, strong polygamy and open marriage are the least stable. The reason for that is that for open marriage to work, you have to convince the woman. Most women, as you'll recall, don't really want lots of men. Women who are interested in making a nest and pumping out babies do not want multiple men. They want stability, and that means one man. This is programmed into our genes. It's not just cultural.
It's no mystery why most swingers and open couples are over 35. That's when the reproductive drive in women starts to become less pronounced. After people have done what child producing they're going to do, the instinctual drives start to lose some of their force. As genes are concerned, their work is done. Retirement, in genetic terms, is menopause. Even before menopause, reproduction becomes much more difficult, usually in the late 30s. (Think about it. In our primitive environment, women didn't live much past 35. Our genes simply don't care what old people do.)
Soooooo....
Long way around my asshole to get to my elbow and say that something approaching serial monogamy is the most "normal" human state, where normal means average. There will always be fringes of open polygamy, just as there will be fringes of homosexuality and self imposed celibacy.
As I've said before, I don't pretend to think that everyone can overcome our natural emotions and live in a love-fest swinger utopia. That kind of relationship will always be a minority. However, I do think a better understanding of human nature would allow those who do practice polygamy to do so without such harsh criticism from the middle, and it would give more people who might be inclined in that direction the freedom to give it a try without feeling like God or the Rethuglicans would be pissed at them.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yeah, men and women are not the "same". It's funny how many arguments I've had trying to explain that. Thanks for that post Hamby. Adding it to my saved PC files.
Prozac, One score for the "liberated" christians !
Atheism Books.
Sex is most healthy when there is mutual openness, comfort, and freedom from guilt or shame. Atheism helps prevent against any sexual guilt or repression. I think a lot of religious people are secretly kinky, they just keep it very private or are ashamed.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
You are so pretty and liberating peppermint. Eye candy and and words of wisdom to boot. Dayam you make me happy to be a man ! LOL, to all you wise girls, challanging them traditional boy rules. Go girl power.
Atheism Books.
Yes. I think that may well be the case as seen by the number of sexual scandals among high profile religious people like Jimmy Swaggert, Jimmy Bakker, Ted Haggard or the anti-gay senator (forget his name) who was caught soliciting a cop in a public toilet...indicating there maybe a lot of low profile people who just don't get caught, or the 'scandal' is confined within a small group and hushed up.
I think it likely that the only difference in sexuality is that the religious are more hypocritical about their sex whereas atheists don't feel the need to hide it.
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
It could be a bit more complex. One of the things that stands out to me is the incidence of sex crimes compared to religiosity. The hypothesis is that as people become more and more sexually repressed, the more they obsess over it, and the more they lose contact with healthy expression. In other words, it's possible that the Swaggarts, et al, who have what we ought to be calling normal, healthy sexual interests like BDSM, crossdressing, or exhibitionism, are creating a reality in their own mind where they are impure, deviant, and evil. They cannot change their interests, and find that the more they try to make them go away, the more strongly they assert themselves.
We would predict that repression would develop into obsession which would cause serious problems with the ability to make rational decisions. Whereas the emotionally healthy crossdressing atheist can think rationally about his enjoyment of some silky underthings once a week or so with likeminded friends, the obsessed and repressed theist has no hope of ever feeling fulfilled. When he does act out, it will be out of anger, resentment, and desperation. These emotions are what lead to dangerous behavior.
This is all somewhat speculative, but it's not off the cuff. There is virtually ubiquitous association of repression with particularly drastic sex crime. This doesn't guarantee causation, but the hypothesis is extremely parsimonious.
So, wonder of wonders... it's very likely that the very people who say that atheists are obsessed with sex are the ones who are actually obsessed. Projection, yet again.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I am sure you are right. The repression of sexual urges is what likely causes the problems and is often a consequence of religion with its 'unnatural' sexual expectations from its adherents. People are just NOT made as neatly as religion would have them be, which is a built in way to maximise the 'guilt trip', source of religion's power.
But, though religion overall may produce the most damaging forms of sexual repression,it is not always religion, surely. Sometimes it can be as a result of particular family or cultural mores. The Japanese culture for example places a lot of emphasis on exquisite restraint in behavior and emotions. It is a beautiful but highly repressed society, which seems to result in some fairly grotesque sex crimes...as per the old movie 'Realm of the Senses'. It certainly produces some of the best porn, often with kinky overtones, which I enjoy, no doubt because of the sexual repression in my religious youth and its lingering effects.
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
Complex, what isn't god? .... one with the [ insert a word ] lol , no separation is possible from [ insert word]
Atheism Books.
This ought to go without saying. Defenders of theism often accuse me of saying that only religion causes this or that harmful effect. I've always found that baffling. First, I have never said that. Second, it's as if upon discovering that both cigarettes and asbestos cause cancer, we stop worrying about asbestos regulations because, gee, after all, it's not just the fault of asbestos that we get cancer! If religion does cause sexual repression, which leads to sexual malfunction and/or crime, why is it even important to mention that other things do it, too? If eliminating asbestos from the world reduces cancer by 5%, then there's 5% less cancer in the world, and that's good. If cigarettes still exist, and still cause cancer, that's an issue, but why mention it in the same sentence as asbestos? They're two different issues.
I was discussing the Japanese just a couple of days ago. The difference in the cultural mores is very interesting. In America, if we found out that Joe Schmoe likes to dress up in women's clothes and play with blow up sex dolls in his basement, we'd plaster it all over the evening news, and upon seeing the news, thousands of concerned citizens would express outrage that the man could do such a perverted thing. In Japan, if the same scenario were to play out, thousands of concerned citizens would express outrage that such a thing was being made public!
The difference is not insignificant. On buses in Japan, people routinely read explicit porn magazines. The social faux pas is not the reading of the magazine, but calling attention to it in any way.
The Japanese emphasis on restraint is much more perceptual, where America's is contextual. That is, in Japan, it's a horrible gaff to appear unseemly. What you do in your private time is your deal as long as you behave properly in the proper places. In America, it's about acting properly, regardless of appearance. As you can easily see, each of these has the potential to create its own problems.
I've watched that movie three times. I can't comment on the second time properly because I fell asleep. The other two times, I have been equally fascinated and creeped out. Just for shits and giggles, I'm curious if you've tried to think of that movie in terms of Japanese taboo, not American. It's really hard to remove our own biases and try to think about what, exactly, is so shocking about that movie to a typical Japanese audience (aside from the fact that the genetalia aren't blurred.)
For comparison, what are the worst things you can think of in American movies? Last Tango in Paris comes to mind, for some reason. Probably just because of the rather explicit sex scenes (connect the dots with Realm) but it is illustrative anyway. Marlon Brando is a truly repulsive asshole. He treats Maria Schneider like a piece of meat, degrading and humiliating her in every possible way, and using sex as a weapon. The taboo here is not the sex. There were more graphic sex scenes in mainstream movies by 1973. The taboo is the brutality and distance. The sex is a vehicle for dehumanization and manipulation. Both characters get on with their life after it's all over, each having suffered privately for their sins committed in private.
In the Realm of the Senses goes exactly the opposite way. Sada Abe is a former prostitute, and ends up in the house of Kichizo Ishida, who makes no secrets about his sexual indulgences. Within his own house, he frequently engages the hired help for a little extra cleaning. There's a scene where one of the maids comes in while he's screwing Abe, and he's rather nonchalant about it. No, in this film, the sex is not the downfall of the characters. Abe becomes more and more obsessive, to the point where it is impossible for either of them to engage in a proper life anymore. The rather grizzly castration scene at the end represents (IMHO) not punishment for sexual indiscretion but impotence as a result of uncontrolled desires. [EDIT: This is a subtle, but important distinction. It wasn't the affair with the maid that caused the problems, but the handling of the affair with the maid! Not controlling one's sexual drives is viewed differently... it's not about total restraint. It's about appropriate restraint. In American movies, affairs are pretty much always the sin -- it's the actual sex that's the sin.]
Well, if you're into sex taken to extremes, I can't think of any reason for you not to watch Baise Moi (literally, fuck me, or alternatively, rape me). It's a French film (duh) about two women who go on a brutal sex and murder spree after being brutally raped. Not for the faint of heart, but if you are truly interested in the darker side of sex being frankly examined, it's hard to go wrong with that one.
I've heard mixed reviews about 29 Palms. I found it to be a really tedious way to make a point, but I have to admit that the point is well made. If anything, it's a really good expose on the space between individuals and the insignificance of individuals.
Intimacy is another decent one. All about isolation, loneliness, and sexual disfunction.
I just ordered Short Bus from Netflix. I'll try to remember to post my thoughts on it after viewing. It's been a long time since I've seen any of the ones I just mentioned, so don't hold me to specifics.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Chris-tian 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or his teachings.
a-nom-a-ly 1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
Yet another example of a Christian anomaly. A website for transgendered Christians: http://www.rachelmiller.info/linksp3.htm
( Edit: Although usually small in numbers, there seems to be a Christian equivalent for every social / sexual phenomena known to man. God really does work in mysterious ways.
)
This is a standard trick of theists in my experience, to absolve themselves by accusing non-theists of the same thing they are guilty of. A common theist mantra is, for example, “atheism is just as much a religion as theism is”. Apart from being a meaningless statement it somehow seems that by making atheists the same as they are, they are making atheists 'accessories after the fact'. The inescapable implication seems to me that yes they know their beliefs are irrational and stupid, but atheists are just as bad as they are...SO THERE!
It seems to me that the fact remains that the greatest cause of sexual repression in the world is religion and repression is a destructive force in society and a cause of great suffering among individuals who can't, for whatever reason, conform to the narrow range of acceptable behavior imposed by a sexually sadistic god.
I wonder if this has to do with the physical nature of how the Japanese live. Often their houses are small and have paper interior walls. Privacy of any sort would be virtually impossible so, in a sense, there would be no “private time”. Every fart would be heard and every fuck would be audible AND possibly visible as shadows. Even a visit to the bathroom, haven for many in the west, would be a public event within the family unit. I wonder if, over the centuries, it became acceptable practice to simply not mention what is known by all...a selective deafness and blindness. Surely, that must create an entirely different sensibility to the west.
I somehow missed Last Tango, although I heard about it and did some butter experiments with a friend as a consequence. And my memory of Realm of the Senses is blurred, being a long time ago. My (probably faulty) memory of it was of a grand passion that progressively became ever more pathologically disturbed to the point, ultimately, of developing into a crippling and destructive obsession. I don't think the sex, as such, was shocking to either the Japanese or us, but the obsession was clearly abnormal...especially being based on a true story.
Thanks for the tips. I will get hold of them and view them all in due course, although to avoid resorting to razer, blades for the wrist, I had better intersperse them with the likes of something wholesome like Batman (smirk).
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
Hi Hamby,
As ususal, you prove to be the best read in the forum. I would love to sit down one day and discuss this with you. Dinner is on me. There are a few points you make that I will respectufully disagree with (Swinging and Polygamy are two entirely different lifestyles...swinging is consentual, negotiated non monogamy, My experience with polygamy is much different) . An interent forum may not be the best venue to discuss something as complex as relationships and human sexuality. Besides, as I write this I am still on my first cup of coffee...
In my seminars I discuss at length how the "Mars/Venus" roles have been asign by religion and the self help business, and how women have been made to bear the burden of guilt for sexuality. I suggest that women have every right to express their libido as men do, and no one should ever have to apologize for their natural inclinations, or for their feelings. This is why I call my brand name "UnLEARN"
I will say this though...The monogamy standard is clearly failing us. Over half of all marriages in this country end in divorce, and I will maintain that the vast majority of the remander are either miserable, or in denial. The sorry state of matrimony has become a punchline in our evenings sitcoms. There are *litterally* millions of swingers in this country...most of whom have exceptional, happy, loving...and most importantly *INTERDEPENDANT* relationships.
Most people think they can remain monogamous when they get married (we've all seen too many walt disney movies), and discover after not too much time that we don't all live happily ever after. Being married is hard enough...between our lousy jobs, paying the mortgage, the kids, the in-laws, the leaky pipes the crab grass and who is going to pick up grandma for thanksgiving it can become overwhelming. Once we factor in the stress of an unfulfilling sex life (inherent in traditional monogamy)...the burden can be too much to bear. Sexual frustration will invariably seek expression, whether its through extra marital affairs (physical or emotional)...or arguments about finance...in short...people need to get their freak on.
Is swinging (or any other secular lifestyle) utopian? Absolutely fucking not. I would be quite the douche if I portrayed it as holding the key to the vault that contains any special wisdom or enlightenment...but it is a viable marital option for a lot of people.
Apparently, this God fella doesn't seem to want us to enjoy sex, unless its done the way our governments "Abstinance Education Standard suggests: one person for our entire lives, once a month with the lights out in the missionary position...The *first* thing we need to "Unlearn" is the ingrained guilt over the nature, the manner, and the frequency we we enjoy sex, which has been dictated to us by religion.
Time for another cup...hope this was remotely coherant.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Oh, and Prozac...
Thanks for the link...ironically, someone had sent it to me just a few days ago in an email asking me to write a piece on it. It is some really interesting reading.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
No disagreement from me here. I didn't go into a lot of detail about swinging because it's really a subclass of polygamy. Though the emotional experience is quite different, the form of it is not significantly different. It's still having multiple partners as part of the deal with a spouse.
Speaking of respectful disagreement, I'd suggest that the internet is exactly where it ought to be discussed more often. How many forum geeks do you think could use a little primer in relating to the opposite sex?
You won't catch any disagreement from me on these points. I know you can sense the "but" hanging like the Sword of Damocles...
I'm going to take you up on dinner, by the way. Anyway, here's where I think the swinger community stands to benefit from science. Clarity and precision benefit anyone who is lucky enough to have them, and though the above paragraph is compelling, it's not as precise as it could be. The monogamy standard is not failing us. It is virtually unchanged for hundreds of years. It has always failed us. Before the divorce rate went through the roof (because of legalized divorce) abandonment made up the difference. There were no social security numbers in those days, so men simply packed their bags and moved far enough away that their wives were unlikely to find them. Brothels have always been the place where respectable men got away from their wives for a while. Street corners are where less respectable men went.
The people most affected by the divorce culture are children, not the adults. Serial monogamy is the most common form of mating in humans. We're just not designed to be with one person for fifty years. The exceptions exist, of course, but the vast majority of humans on the planet will have between five and twelve sexual partners or so. The fact that these numbers are so consistent through all cultures ought to be very telling.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing the intent of your message. I agree with it. There's no justification for villifying or criminalizing swinging, open relationships, or other sexual "variant lifestyles" and our culture would be a happier place if more people accepted the fact that it can and does work for many people. The primary disagreement I have is in the content of your message, which seems to say that women ought to approach sex the same way as men. Perhaps you don't mean to say this, but it's the impression I get.
As I've stated a couple of times (I hope you read my articles!) women and men are substantially different in their evolutionary approach to sex. While the Mars and Venus stuff is essentially postmodern Freudian claptrap, it's rooted in a glimmer of truth, in the same way that Freud's obsession (HA!) with childhood repression was to be somewhat vindicated by research into imprinting. In other words, what I'm suggesting is that trying to suggest that men and women should have the same attitudes about sex is to make one of two errors. Either you're averaging their behaviors together and getting an amalgam that is neither male nor female, or you're trying to force one model into a space clearly designed for the other.
I think that as long as the edges of the culture pay respect to the middle, you're essentially right. I want to avoid the same kind of us-them mentality that has been imposed on the sexually liberal. That is to say, for some people, "getting their freak on" might be as mundane as going to a strip club and getting lap dances, or watching a dirty movie with some friends. Some people might be happy getting a "happy ending" from their local indentured servant down at the Tokyo Spa. In other words, the open lifestyle is not for everyone, and those who have either lower libidos or whatever, shouldn't be made to feel as if they're abnormal because they prefer monogamy.
I agree. I think probably a more limited kind of fooling around is a more comfortable option for a lot of people, as just the concept of swinging is really scary to a lot of people. Especially when you get to the part about swinger clubs, you can scare off a lot of people. I would say that the idea of consentual nonmonogamy is a broader option, and includes swinging.
I'll let you know next time I'm heading up the east coast. Maybe next time I visit Sapient and crew, I'll hop the Chinatown bus and we'll grab that dinner in Manhattan. (Did I mention that I'm an incurable foodie?)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I know a few spots in Chinatown
Allow me to clarify a point I was attempting to make. I don't think that women *should* approach sex the same as men...I think that they have the right to. It all boils down to personal choice...& having the liberty to express our libidos as we see fit, without having to suffer the moral indignation of the sex-o-phobic, religion based, self -help encouraged masses. As progressive as we Americans think we are...When a woman is sexually empowered in this country she is still labeled a slut or a whore.
Swinging is something that a couple does together...recreational extra marital sex is nothing more to us than any other hobby that we can mutually enjoy... Its success is predicated on *everyone* enjoying themselves. As much of a pathetic egomaniac as I am ...and as much as I love being able to bring the woman I love to orgasm...never would I be so delusional to think that my magical penis is the only one on the face of the earth that can provide her with that experience.
Oh...and I think *everything* can benefit from science.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Love me some Chinatown
Excellent. Should, as I have previously written, is a loaded term at best. I think one of the healthiest ways to approach any "lifestyle" is with an understanding of why it is attractive to each partner. On average, women are attracted to swinging and polygamy for different reasons than men.
Kohlberg may not actually have been proud, but he should have been.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
this is totally the nurse in me talking... one thing that isn't mentioned here is the risk of HIV and other incurable diseases (certain strains of syphillis and gonorrhea are infact incurable now). if someone wants to swing, that's great. fine. it's great to be sexually liberated. but for the love of Dog wrap it up! the last thing i think anyone would want to do is bring something nasty home to the spouse. oh, and another point...it's possible to be too "liberated". i very clearly remember watching Maury (yeah, i know, it's dumb), and seeing one woman test 7 men to determine the father of her child and NONE of them were a match. Mein Gott, a person has to have a standard of some sort! it's great to be sexually adventurous, but you gotta learn when to say no too. just because someone is sexually available doesn't mean you have to screw them.
I'd rather be a moral atheist than an amoral theist.
Which sucks.
I wasn't even raised in a religious house, quite the oposite actually, and I've still got sex hangups that I can't shake. Granted, through years of effort and some really great tutors I have managed to cover quite a bit of ground
To the OP: I agree with previous posters that there seems to be a positive relationship between intelligence and sexual liberation. Since atheism is a stance (is it a stance?) that is not buried up to its neck in backward dogma reinforced by the back hand of an uber-powerful super-wizard... I would say it lends more toward intelligence than the theism side does.
Note: I can't be sure but I picked up the sense that one of our posters thought polygamy had some kind of negative social impact. The reason polygamy leaves a sour taste in many peoples mouths (not counting religious idiocy) is due to its being practiced among slave traders (Compound Mormons). How many wives a person has does not dictate his view toward civil liberties... forcing women to BE his wives does. We should take care not to confuse one thing with the other.
Shag away atheists, shag away.
That's very sweet.
Can I be God too?
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
As a disclaimer, I want to make sure to let you know that I don't disagree with the need to take STDs into consideration when deciding on one's sexual behavior. HIV is a pretty nasty bug, to be sure, and herpes is no fun either. Having said that, in the spirit of thinking critically about one's own opinions, I want to offer this counter-opinion.
I honestly think it's fair to say that just like cigarettes, pretty much everybody is aware of STDs and the risk associated with having sex with multiple people. There are tons of people who smoke despite knowing that they are much more likely to get cancer or other smoking related diseases as a result. This is an informed decision, and while you or I might disagree with the decision personally, it's kind of difficult to come up with any other grounds to try to convince them to quit.
Obviously, sex is somewhat different because it usually involves two (or more) people. If someone knows they have HIV and they have unprotected sex without mentioning it to their partner, that is a serious crime, in my opinion, since AIDS is an eventual death sentence at this time. It's a really low thing to have sex without mentioning herpes or HPV, but with the exception of the increased risk of cervical cancer from HPF, it's not life threatening.
Having said that, 9,999 out of 10,000 sex acts are between consenting adults. (Yes, I just made that up, but I'm sure it's somewhere close.) Each one of those consenting adults is responsible for whether or not their happy part touches another person's happy part with protection or not. Condoms are incredibly effective at preventing HIV, HPV, herpes, and pretty much every other STD out there. Even having sex with an HIV positive partner is pretty damn safe if a condom is consistently and properly used.
I say all of that to say that I'm tired of hearing people use STDs as a scare tactic to enforce monogamy. People who practice consentual nonmonogamy and always use condoms are no more likely to catch diseases than supposedly monogamous couples who cheat on each other in secret. The issue is not monogamy or polygamy, because that issue has been dealt with already. Humans are not monogamous. When they try to be, most of them end up either in serially monogamous relationships, or cheating within one monogamous relationship, or unhappily celibate within a monogamous relationship. The numbers don't lie -- at least not in this case.
I cannot find a philosophical justification for telling people not to live a certain lifestyle because of STDs. I recognize that you were not saying that they should. I'm just addressing a broader tactic that I have seen my whole life. STDs are used as the ultimate trump card for enforced monogamy. There are two really important things to remember about STDs and lifestyle choices:
1) If someone always uses a condom, they are incredibly likely to stay STD-free, regardless of the number of partners they have.
2) Most of the STDs that people do have are not life threatening. Women who contract HPV often have to have a nasty outpatient procedure that sears off part of their vagina with a laser, and that's certainly not the most wonderful thing in the world, but in the broad picture of a lifetime, it's not the worst thing, either. There's medication for herpes that keeps it relatively at bay. HIV, the worst of the worst, is still not an immediate death sentence. With proper care, people can live very long, relatively healthy lives, even if HIV positive.
In other words, yes, STDs are bad, and people should use condoms. However, there's no legitimate reason to use them as justification for any particular lifestyle choice with regard to the number of partners a person has.
Please be careful with this. I know what you're saying, but let's be honest about what's really happening here. Assuming these guests were real (a big assumption), Maury found the most fucked up situation he could find so that he'd get good ratings. Rich Woods is our resident nonmonogamous representative. I'm sure he can tell you that either he, or someone he knows has safely had sex with more than seven people and not gotten onto daytime TV as a result.
To be clear, there is a HUGE difference between making a sober, mature decision to have sex with multiple people in a responsible way and arbitrarily poking it in any hole that presents itself. I can't speak for Rich, but my guess is that it's probably pretty insulting to group people in the swinger lifestyle with the people you saw on TV. Most of the people I've known who were in open relationships were very smart, very sophisticated people who had talked about their decision in great detail.
I dunno. To me, this sounds a lot like another scare tactic. I just don't see how these two things are connected. It's sort of like the marijuana debate. Though there's simply no such thing as a bunch of hoodlums knocking over a 7-11 to get money for pot, the anti-drug people will send the message that pot is a "gateway drug" or that people who use pot are just a baby step away from lying in a gutter with six syringes sticking out of each arm. It's simply not true. In the same way, informed consentual nonmonogamy is only related to those folks on Maury in the broadest sense -- that being the fact that sexual intercourse was involved in both instances.
Gee... I really hope Rich chimes in on this thread because I feel like I'm speaking for him too much. I don't personally see the link between polygamy and indiscriminate fucking. Why would anyone assume that a person with two or three sexual partners wasn't selective about choosing them? I mean, hell.. think of it this way. For most single women, there are a dozen men or so at any time who have asked them out on a date, or would like to if given the chance. Presumably, out of a dozen, there are at least two or three who seem cool enough that they might be date material. Suppose the woman picks guy number one, and they date for a few weeks, and it doesn't work. Then she goes to guy number two, and likewise to guy number three. She's still had sex with three guys, and was still selectively choosing her partners. How is that different from deciding to try them all out at the same time? She's still not just picking names randomly out of a hat. She's picking the ones she's most attracted to, and who seem the most legitimate.
Anyway, I don't want you to feel like I'm totally coming down on you about your post. You're right that STDs are a going concern, and that everyone, regardless of sexual habits, should use protection unless they are absolutely sure that they and their partner are clean. That's just it, though. There's no particular reason to single out any lifestyle choice for this message. I don't know if you're even aware of it, but the latent social bias we've been talking about is evident in your post. There's no reason to equate Maury Povich's guests with mature, educated, rational adults who decide on nonmonogamy, yet you did. It was very subtle, but there it is. "Sexual liberation is great... BUT.... STDS!! .... Maury.... Some people will fuck anything that spreads its legs..." That's not an argument. It's just word association.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
There's no accounting for reckless behavior.
Leave it to that one guy/girl to fuck it up for the rest of us.
HA! ...Hamby...the fact is you probably answered this better than I could have.
I will say this much...over 10 years of my wife & I engaging in negotiated non-monogamy, and the truth is that we have *NEVER* heard of one instance of an STD, let alone HIV. I would be an imbecile if I suggested that the possibility didn't exist...of course it does.. But protection is the standard...almost all swingers mandate using condoms. I have never been in a situation where someone even suggested *not* using them. Whereas in the "Vanilla" world, when clandestine extra-marital conjugation takes place (which happens *A LOT) they *rarely* use protection.
Here is an article I wrote on how rampant "cheating" is in the world of traditional, allegedly monogamous marriage: http://www.kasidie.com/static/magazine/2008/09/do-as-we-say.html
As far as "Maury Povich" is concerned...do I really have to respond to that?...hahahaha Needless to say, there is a huge difference between consenting adults engaging in the lifestyle known as "swinging"...and some neighborhood "ho" who goes on daytime TV to get some child support. Without intending to come across like a self indulgent asshat (I do that regardless)...this lifestyle tends to be very affluent, and educated. Whithin this lifestyle, I have never heard of an extra marital pregnancy either. Comparing swingers to those paternity test knuckle draggers on daytime TV is like comparing apples to hemeroids.
And as far as "saying no"...I hope that the implication was not that swingers are all sex crazed psychopaths who jump into bed with anyone who is willing. The facts are that a lot of things have to fall into place in order for a negotiated non monogamous liason to happen. My wife & I get "hit on" all the time by people *outside* of the lifestyle...I wish I had a dime for every married woman I have politely turned down...My wife has quite a following herself. Any self respecting swinger will only screw people who are fully understanding about the nature of mediated inter-marital carnal knowledge.
Fucking is not only fun...it is fundamental.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Informed, responsible decision making:
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
i did draw an unfair comparision between a "ho" and a swinger. i apoligize for that. i'm glad to hear the explainations you gave. however you have also drawn an unfair conclusion. swinging is just as much an extreme as one person for your whole life. most people fall into the serial monogamy bell of the curve. being a swinger doesn't make you more sexually liberated or superior to someone who is truely monogamous. being truely monogamous doesn't make you morally superior to a swinger. even in the realm of serial monogamy there are partnerships that exist with mutual satisfaction and without 3rd party involvement. there is even satisfying sexual adventure with one partener for an extended length of time. sexual liberation isn't about who you screw or how you screw, whether it's one partner or serial monongamy or swinging. its about staying out of someone else's bedroom unless they want you there, and it's not going to hurt someone else in the process. the threat of STD's is a very real thing, and condoms can break or even fall off. (i personally had to face the humiliation of having a doctor extract a condom. I can laugh about it now, but at the time i was mortified). people tell me shit they won't tell others because i'm a nurse. they seem to think that because i'm a nurse i'm interested in their syphllis or chlamydia or herpes. it's more common than people think it is, simply because it's not talked about. that's why i mentioned it. It's great to have lofty discussions about the benefits of sexual freedom, but if you don't bring up the potential negative impact it can have it's pointless to talk at all. there is also the point of "not telling people". you can't tell someone if you don't know. HIV, Hep B and syphillis can be latent for years before symtoms arise. men will feel symptoms of gonorrhea and chlamydia about 80% of the time. That means 20% of time, a man will have an STD and not know it unless he gets tested. for women the numbers are reversed. Women will most often not know they have an STD unless 1)they go for random testing, 2)they are named as a sexual contact of a partner who tests positive or 3)they can't conceive when they want to because of STD induced PID. condoms don't protect at all against HPV and herpes, plus if someone has a syphllis sore developing condoms may not help either. this is not a "trump" card for strict one person only monogamy. this is a voice for taking deep care in the selection of partners because they may not know what they have, and the more partners you have the more likely you are to be in contact with someone with a disease. it's called probability. I also know 5 women who have children now because the pill failed. 2 are due to being on low dose pills, one due to not being told her antihistimines would counter the pill, and 2 due to not being told antibiotics can counteract the pill. this is what happens when people are not told about possible negative impacts. (FYI, all the kids are happy and healthy and well cared for, and not regretted) this has nothing to do with being "vanilla". i know i got my point across very poorly before. i hope i've got it across now. i'm not about to tell someone they need to have one person for life, not even my own kids. it's not realistic. i'm more than happy to share the stats with people though, and that is something i will tell my kids about when they are ready (they are still very young). and yes, condoms greatly reduce the risk of disease. I think they should be free in every school and every bar. i also think birth control pills should be free. and yes, i will tell my kids that if they are going to be sexually active that condoms and birth control pills must be used. hell, i'll be the one to buy them if they are too embarrassed to do it themselves. but they will also be told of the need to be extremely selective about partners and why.
as far as the rate of consentual sexual encounters...most are consentual. however 1 out of 3 women have been sexually assaulted in some way during the course of their lives. 1 out of 4 men have been sexually assaulted in some way during their lives. almost all of them by someone they know and trust, usually a family member or close friend. like i said, sexual liberation is staying out of someone's bedroom unless they want you there. it's about not devaluing someone based on their sexual choices, even if it's too "vanilla" or "liberated" for you. we are a long way from being sexually liberated as a society, at least by this definition.
I'd rather be a moral atheist than an amoral theist.