I think it's fine, like i said, i'm not against people expressing themselves. I don't like the message we send out time and again as a society that we should manipulate sexual fantasy into logic and reason. If this site is about rational response, well, it's not a "rational" response. But it could be taken as a "fun" response. Either way, i'm personally not a supporter of endorsing images of intelligent women manipuating their sexuality to get a "logical" reaction.

You have a magnet "another reason for atheism" or something like that... with some girl on it. It's not another rational reason for atheism, christianity has lots of hotties. If this is a rational response site well... cudos. But... like i said, i'm not a fan of endorsing women into this train of thought. As much as we want to liberate Christians from their God prison, it's too bad that women aren't liberated from the sexual prison they are in. Some are, good for them, but they are still putting those images out to incite a sexual response, not a rational or intelligent one.

I'm not against people exploring their sexuality, just not at the expense of mixing the worlds up and the message to send out. It's ok to be sexual, intelligent and freethinking, but projecting an image of sexuality onto atheism isn't rational, philosophical or anything. It might be aligned with the way this site represents itself but i hope it's not an image that christians adopt of the rest of us atheists.

That magnet was created by Darth Josh. Meet Darth Josh:

C'mon men, get sexy wit it... post some pics of you with an RRS sign.

Is that a "Responders.com" in your hand, or are you just happy to see us?

BTW, I have it on good authority that Darth couldn't have made that sign any smaller.

I might have to make one of these. That's a threat, not a promise.

I disagree. The fact that people are attracted to certain body types (albeit with individual preferences, but as a generalization) is in fact an evolutionary mechanism. Men like boobs because that is an indicator of a woman's readiness for reproduction. Men are attracted to younger women because they have more reproductive years available and are more likely to survive pregnancy and childbirth and produce a child with fewer genetic defects. Women do not generally have the same kind of response to visual stimulation because from an anthropological standpoint women chose their mates based more on the ability to protect and provide for their offspring, and also because women are the scarcer resource from a biological perspective. Just about any post-pubescent man is capable of reproduction.

I in no way feel that I am in any kind of "sexual prison". Conversely, I feel very much in charge of and proud of my sexuality. If anything, I feel that the men are more imprisoned by this than the women who may or may not choose to use it to their advantage.

Nobody is projecting an image of anything onto "atheism". Atheism is made up of individuals, and those who choose to be sexy can be sexy and those who choose not to don't have to. As far as I'm concerned, and I believe that I stated something similar in the "Atheist diversity and RRS criticism" video available here and in the show from last week in which Jake did individual interviews of each of us, but if somebody was more interested in us or our site (or even wasted time talking about it in their blog or forum--whatever) because they saw me on Nightline and thought i was hot or had nice tits or whatever, my ultimate goal of getting people here and getting people talking was still served. And, not to sound arrogant, I have a feeling that there were more than a few of those based on the feedback that we've gotten. As a matter of fact, I had an email in which a man specifically said that he had never heard of us and was sitting around flipping channels when he saw me and stopped. He then watched the rest of the debate and even went through the trouble of getting my contact info through the site to tell me that. So...yeah. We need more hawtness, not less.

LOL, Landover Baptist had the "Convert to Cristianity and get a PS2" deal, I'm thinking Kelly is a bit more bankable than electronics to the vast sexually repressed theistic crowd out there.......

/twists moustache and cackles nefariously

Kelly,

It's your website, not mine. It's my opinion, obviously not shared by you. All good. I'm not going to say women can't be hot, i'm not about oppressing anything. I don't even disagree on your logic about attractiveness on evolution. 

If you don't mind using your body to futher your agenda and the site, that's up to you. If you are comfortable with that, it's your perrogative and really not my business nor is it my place to agree or not agree. What i was saying, perhaps in a convoluded way, is that by mixing the atheist rational response to religion with sexual fantasy isn't logical. You might get guys to show up cuz they want to fantasize about you and further the numbers on the site but... it's not elliciting a logical response to the atheist/religious question. 

I already heard your interview, and i already knew your position. I just hope that Christians or religious people don't think that all of us exploit our sexuality to get people to listen to us. I also hope that while we are always seeming to fight the stigma that atheists are ammoral, that this doesn't backfire on an image that i hope goes away. I'm not saying what you are doing is ammoral, but what i am saying is that in the CHristian view of things, it is. Exploiting ones body isn't a christian concept, even if you gain. So, while trying to reach christians in a rational way and if engaging them into this line of thought is one of the agendas of this site, i would suggest that this is not a totally great way of going about it.

It's not a personal slam against you Kelly or anyone else who has tons of confidence in their body image and celebrates their sexuality. Cudos for that, it's just i think to reach people who are slowing trying to reconcile their doubts about religion and are searching for knowledge, their conditioning would make them withdraw because of this image.

Maybe that's not what this site is about. I could totally be mistaken. Perhaps this site is about a common ground for atheists, for atheist so share rational responses and isn't about educating or trying to reach Christians in doubt. I could totally be off on my assumptions and if so and it's just a chilled out place for atheists to do whatever and express whatever then i take it all back and conceded without contest that these opinons have no place here. 

It's a good thing I'm not the jealous type...cuz if I were I'd say "back off you piece of vomitus mass! You scum sucking vile remnant of a diseased amoeba! You loathing degenerate strip of slug scum!"...if I were jealous…which I’m not…jealous.

Kidding, I can’t fault a man for having eyes… I liked her so much I married her!

Cheers!

Indeed, I just didn't want to be the first to say so

The issue here is simply that the owners of this site (and their close associates) feel that we can educate "the irrational" without shielding them from sex.  You seem to disagree, that's fine.  Keep in mind we live in a country in which about $50 per year per person is spent on the porn industry. And you should see what the porn industry is like in some of the heavy Islamic countries, it's worse!

 Sex doesn't scare people... it attracts them.  This thread is starting to make me think that if "you got it" and you don't flaunt it to help the world overcome religion, than you are not doing enough (assuming you feel comfortable with it).  I'm not there quite yet, I know that's a bold statement... but I'm starting to ponder it. 

Sapient

I have no problem with how you want to run your site. I'm stating an atheists opinion. My own rational atheist response.

It's not about porn that i'm attacking, it's not about me against people getting off or whatever. It's about sending a message about atheism that isn't atheist. Atheism is not a philosophy, atheists have their OWN philosophy. Athism is an opinion, it's a perspective on spirituality, the devine, the whatever happens after life, and on the individuals interpretation for their existance.

To address those issues on theology is one thing. Talking theology is a big asset in helping those dealing with it. Talking about ones own lifestyle choices is another. Period. Mixing a message of atheism into sexuality doesn't help people who don't make that association with it. Like me, i htink it's a negative image of what i think of as astheism. Atheists can react any way they want with their knowledge, but atheism is just a premise, and should not be distorted into sexual fantasy.

Thanks Marcus... i really like the feedback.

I totally expect the majority not to understand where i'm coming from. I perfer the view the majority sees of us as being activists in getting separation of religion from state. I prefer them seeing us as people who simply challage the validity of religion. Atheists can spin it to whatever they want but... as a collective image i don't think we are helping our cause any, we just give fundamentalists, and all other christians who are slightly imballanced to make our lives relaly difficult.

I have nothing but respect that Sapient and Kelly went on TV and publically challenged Christians and all other theists. I totally admire their courage. My simple statement was about mixing sexual fantasy with atheism. It just doesn't have a place.

Again, majority rules and if everyone is totally hip to having half naked women with RRS signs on them and having, no offence, larger men making a joke of it from their side. Well... shows to me the progress of nature as going in the ditch. This world is disappointing enough with the lack of respect between the sexes. It's these responses that show there is not much to look forward to in finding equality for everyone, not just between the sexes, but for those women who aren't physically "gifted" and men who aren't bright enough to make tons of money to be "providers".

If we are going to stone age thinking where it's survival of the fittest, then... honestly, God help us. 

That wasn't the analogy I was going for. It would be more like the sign that makes a product/place either stand out from its surroundings or that makes it appear attractive and enticing. Like the cheap beer ad that gets you into the store where you buy a $40 dollar case. 

Well, you can't have it both ways, first of all. Either appearance matters or it doesn't. In this idealistic world where everybody is equal, there should be no standard by which to judge your attractiveness, nor should you gain pleasure from it. In the real world, people are judged on appearance all the time. I firmly believe that every job that I've ever had has been based in part on my appearance, and that doesn't include my current line of work. It can also be a disadvantage, particularly when other women (who tend to be jealous) are placed in a position of power over you. Anywho...I think that the benefits of attractiveness are no less important than the benefits of intelligence and that I should be free to use all of the assets that I have to further my goals in any area. 

I never said that you were - in fact, your argument was based on the fact that theists/christians would be put off by overt sexuality, so I'm not getting that point. 

I believe that the "rational response" is to stop trying to create an impossible idealistic fantasy world where everybody is on equal footing. In the actual world, equality doesn't exist. I'm not saying that as far as basic rights go everybody isn't entitled to the same ones--I'm saying that we aren't equal in terms of intelligence, attractiveness, wealth, or any of the other assets that determine your status in society. It is better to accept that and work with it, and hopefully benefit from whatever assets you possess, IMO. 

I don't recall saying that I thought that I was great at all.  And the fact that you are claiming that I am responsible for anybody else's oppression is ludicrous. Everybody can do whatever they choose regardless of my choices. Do you think that I am also responsible for the oppression of those who are less intelligent than I am by using my intellect to further my goals, or is that an acceptable asset while physical attractiveness is not?

They very well may. Fortunately, I am entitled to my own opinion and the choice to behave and present myself as I choose. That is the worldview that I want to promote, not one in which I am somehow at fault because other women feel pressure to maintain a certain appearance or appropriate level of attractiveness.

You are using your own "philosophy" of atheism in order to label something as being unrelated or harmful to the image. Kind of hypocritical, no?

Well, phooey. We had this discussion several months ago shortly after Amanda sent in the pictures in question. Happily, this one seems to be going a little better than the last one, so that's progress, anyway.

Sapient and Kelly have made good points, but I'd just like to throw in a few pennies worth of thoughts as well.

* The Rational Response Squad is not just about religion. It is about any irrationality, particularly those that cause demonstrable harm.

* The notion that there's something wrong with women who revel in their own sexuality is irrational. Science backs us up on this statement. Women who are happy and comfortable with their sexuality are healthier and happier.

* The notion that using sexuality to promote something is somehow bad is irrational. There's nothing wrong with sex, and there's nothing wrong with advertising. Advertising is, after all, how we get sex, reproduce, and propogate the species.

* If one repressed woman comes to this site and sees people like Kelly, Fyre, and some of our other happily unrepressed members, and it helps her free herself from her own irrationalities, then the RRS has accomplished one goal.

There's precious little hard science regarding female sexual social behavior, largely because religion and male-dominated cultures haven't seen fit to examine the facts in detail, and because some wings of radical feminism have become compliant bedfellows (sorry!) with the radical religious. There are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, don't want to know for sure that women have created a bizarre and unhealthy religio-cultural wet blanket to throw over themselves, particularly in America. If a few saucy pictures of women who think atheist websites are cool will help get the discussion on more tables, that is a good thing in my humble opinion.

Thanks.

Doesn't have a place in what? Your personal ethical code? Great. Don't do it. You need to realize that you are criticizing us based on your opinion of what we should represent as atheists, which you confusingly also say does not have a philosophy to represent. Well, we represent ourselves. That's it. Take it or leave it, I guess. Everybody is free to participate in whatever ways they choose here.

This is nature. Equality is not a part of nature--sex is. Natural selection is. Ethics and "rights" are man-made constructs based on what we have decided is beneficial to having a productive, semi-harmonious society. Nature just is what it is, and as I said before, I find it more advantageous to adapt to it and hopefully prosper as a result. I assume that you will be giving away whatever money that you make that doesn't go to an absolute necessity to others around you in order to level the playing field. I assume that you won't pursue a degree so as to put you at an unfair advantage over those not fortunate enough to be able to afford college educations. I don't mean to sound hostile, but if you really lived as you claim we all should--promoting equality above all else where nobody is unfairly "gifted" with resources and assets, that's what you should do. And, honestly, I wouldn't want to visit the place where things like intelligence and appearance are no longer important or recognized as being advantageous. Should there be a balance--sure. Am I advocating a caste system--no. Do I wish that intelligent, attractive people would out-breed everybody else--yes. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit that. Fortunately, though, I don't expect everybody to share my opinion.

I am interested in your response to my question about using the "gift" of intelligence.

Excellent, I respect all views and humbly acknowledge that majority rules.

I don't disrespect anyones views. I just put out mine. But just as a moment of clarification, i have no problem with women being sexually happy, healthy beings. I had a problem with it being involved in an atheist message. But again, it's perception and majority rules.

I respectfully withdraw while keeping my own conclusions. I'll still be the "repressed" woman but... i can look at my less fortunate friends  who have to fight in this world without Kellys "advantages" knowing that i don't take advantage of mine. And i with draw knowing i have personal pride in that.

Again, it's interpretation. Live and let live.

PS. Kelly, i'm not attacking the way you look, i'm against a mindset. I don't care if you are large chested or not, personally, i think it makes sex fun and have entertained the thought of "reinforcing" my fun because after 3 kids, i could use some stability. I have no problem people thinking i have fun with my body, with the person i share my body with, and i invite people to see me as a sexual being, i like it. What i wouldn't do is use it as an asset over a man. Men and women are equally intelligent. I wouldn't want to be picked for a job that a man was equally qualified for just because my boss could imagine me sexually. It's not my charactor i guess. I also think that women wouldn't want to backstab other women so much if those women who feel threatened didn't feel inferior on grounds they can't possibly compete on. Everyone can better their intellect, but women gotta have money to make themselves look better, and considering Cher... even that is relative. It's a very selfish attitude, it's arrogant and in general, a mindset that will get women more disdain and disrespect than anything else.

Feel free to contact me further, as I am always prepared to back my opinions and engage with other intelligent women on them. I just see that htis thread has a consistent majority rules thing going on and it's not my place to dictate the site. I conveyed my point based on my principals, nuff said. 

I suggest that you believe your position is rational only becuase you were raised in a society that objectifies women. You are validating the entire concept by supporting the images going up.  The entire discussion is a catch 22.

The objectification of women in our society IS a direct result of the mysogonistic nature of the Abrahamic religions.  Bottom line is, we shouldn't need naked pictures on this site simply because we shouldn't even care at all if women have their tops off - if we are truly to escape the dogma, we should all be as free and open sexually as those tribes men and women in Africa that wouldn't even understand this debate because they don't have the sexual objectification concepts even built into their cultures that created this debate. 

Bottom line, this debate shouldn't be about nudity or sexual images be allowed, this debate shouldn't even happen if we are truly free from the Abrahamic dogma.

Women shouldn't feel the desire to post sexual images of themselves and conversly women shouldn't feel the desire to take issue with that -- to be honset, you all sound like a bunch of christians hung up on sex!

NO WAY Drea! You're doing great, this is one of those really stimulating topics. You've got everyone thinking and that's a good thing. Granted, from what I can tell you are in the minority on the opinion itself, but fuck all who say we have to agree.

I believe that the path to understanding has to begin with questioning. Questioning of our social standards is, I feel, one of the most important directions we can take our intelect. It is the one that defines our world, and we should always be checking to make sure we understand where our morals come from.  

Oops, spelling correction: a "come hither" look

Well, poop. I'm going to be the bad guy, I guess. Drea, I would like for you to do something. You don't have to post about it, or acknowledge to us in any way that you've done it, but I think it would do you some good.

Remember, this site is about helping people overcome irrationality, not just religion. Having said that, I would like you to go to some other threads, and read the entire threads. What I want you to see is a particular pattern of argument.

Theist: Such and Such is true.

Atheist: No, it isn't, because of X.

Theist: Yes, but Such and Such is true.

Atheist: You didn't even talk about X. Science, logic, etc... went into X. Can you argue against X? If not, then you must admit that your argument is irrational.

Theist: My argument isn't irrational, because Such and Such is true.

Atheist: But... but... dude... I just showed you in print that you're wrong.

Theist: Yes, but I'm right.

Atheist: How?

Theist: Because Such and Such is true.

....

Anyway, this goes on ad nauseum. The atheist makes a valid statement of fact, and the theist ignores it, and goes on ranting about this or that aspect of their belief in god. The atheist presses the theist. The theist re-asserts. The atheist presses. The theist goes away without answering.

Now, in this very thread, Kelly and Sapient both have made some excellent observations, and asked you some very good questions. Atheists and theists alike are responsible for personal honesty, whether they like the conclusions they reach or not. You, Drea, have not answered the questions. You've just restated your own opinion, and now you've said you're leaving the discussion because of "majority." (Sorry, I'm not buying this as the reason you're ducking out of the conversation.)

We respect your right to your own opinion, but that's as far as it goes if your opinion isn't backed up by sound logic. I'm not trying to rake you over the coals here, or make you feel bad. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help. I want you to address the questions you've been asked, and if you find that you can't answer them, well, it might be that you have some irrational beliefs about female sexuality.

Really, this isn't entirely accurate. Our society is particularly obsessed with breasts (mostly because they have removed from their biological function as a mechanism by which we feed babies), but indigenous tribes are not as sexually free as you want to present them. The typical African man doesn't care about breasts, but he sure is turned on by thighs, which are generally concealed. The nudist tribes may not have an issue with nudity, but if a man gets an erection in public, it is cause for shame. There are also many strange rituals and beliefs surrounding sex in these cultures. NO culture is completely free of some kind of cultural mentality surrounding sex, just like no culture is free of some kind of conditioning concerning going to the bathroom.

Thanks Marcus, i won't say i'm out-classed but i sure am outnumbered.

I'm prepared to keep going on this but i can also call a spade a spade. I respect everyones rights to their opinion as i expect them to respect mine. I don't have to agree, and i'll probably fight against it still, but... i won't persecute anyone for their values or opinions. Sounds kinda moronic i know... not persecuting by fighting but... i just mean that i won't subscribe to their agenda, and i won't support it and i'll side with the people who have my views. But, i won't be going out to slander anyone for their views either. For me, this post gave me to introduce my own ideals, my own perspectives. You all have yours, i have mine and hey, i celebrate that, and i LOVE that people can challenge mine, i've had my mind changed so many times over the years that i question my mental stability sometimes  (not too much, i really don't need the little bus, and my helmet hasn't seen use in ages).

I do like to get people thinking, to challenge values. I'll go so far as to say that contemporary christianity has had some good philosophies in it. In an effort to remove the irrationality from religion, i hope society doesn't go so far as to remove the good stuff too. While this liberal view might be the majority here, i would suggest it's not the majority elsewhere. I can think of a few strong independant brilliant and internally beautiful women who woudl back me we are agnostic or atheist. I'm comfortable with that knowledge and am not seeking hte approval of everone here nor should I. It's the beauty of life.

I'm going to very tentatively put my two cents in. 

Sexual-ness is subjective.  As Kelly said, breasts are the big thing here, but perhaps in Japan its the back of the neck.  Back in the day, a lady showing an ankle would create a scandal!

I don't think using your looks is necessarily a bad thing; in fact we probably do more than we even realize.  But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Some people fine me attractive; others certainly do not.  Some people might find my avatar very sexy.  Others might think I look stupid or something.  It's all relative.

The only picture I ever really see when I go on this site is the one on the top banner, with everyone in their t-shirts.  These pictures that have created this hullabaloo aren't representative of the RRS.  I don't see them plastered everywhere.  We're not forced to view them.  RRS can't be entirely responsible for everything that is written/posted here for fear that it would offend.  People use swear words; others find that offensive and could argue that atheists are uncouth because of it. 

Sorry, hope that made sense, I'm at work and trying to do this quickly!