Atheists Make Better Lovers, Says Billboard

The Backyard Skeptics and American Atheists have joined forces to put up this billboard in Westminster, California just in time for Valentines Day:

It reads: “Atheists make better lovers. (After all, nobody is watching.)”

“Atheists make better lovers because they have less guilt about sex, while people believing in religious superstitions attach a negative aspect to sex,” says Bruce Gleason, the Backyard Skeptics founder. “We do not think a supernatural deity is watching us — neither in life nor in bed.”

For what it’s worth, that’s roughly the same conclusion Darrel Ray came to in his book Sex & God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality.

The Backyard Skeptics and American Atheists placed another billboard up in CA just last month.

Hey, if the media is paying attention, might as well keep putting them up…

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • BrianE

    This isn’t true – I’m terrible in the sack. Just ask your mom.

    /sorry, just kidding. About the mom part anyway.

  • SAM

    At the risk of stating the obvious, this does not follow.  Those atheists who enjoy exhibitionism have to make an extra effort to find an audience to satisfy their fetish. Superstitious exhibitionists need not make any effort. They can be sitting at a desk at work & become instantly titillated knowing that a supernatural audience is staring at their naughty bits.

    • Jett Perrobone

      This gives me memories of a cartoon I saw once, which showed a father on bended knee with one hand on the shoulder of his young son standing next to him.  The father said to him:

      “Yes Johnny, Jesus does watch you masturbate.”
      :P

  • CD2186

    I hope they bought the stock photo before putting up the billboard. 

  • Anonymous

    Unless it’s a threesome. Or in public.

  • http://andythenerd.tumblr.com Andy The Nerd

    To be fair, it’s fun when people watch too.  ;)

  • Anonymous

    Funny, christians have said for generations that atheists engage in swinging promiscuity, a claim which must have contributed to atheism’s allure for a lot of young men. Though recently I’ve heard the exact opposite claim, from Vox Day as I recall, that atheism attracts socially retarded guys who have trouble finding girlfriends. Apparently christians can’t get their story straight about atheists’ sexuality

    Yet, ironically, these christians have engaged in false advertising about atheists’ sex lives when you compare their traditional propaganda against  reality. Just look at what happened to Elevator Guy last year, and how many atheists couldn’t do enough to excoriate him for daring to ask Skepchick to come to his hotel room for coffee. 

    • TiltedHorizon

       “christians have said for generations that atheists engage in swinging promiscuity”

      I just spend the last twenty years being monogamous and NOW you tell me I could have been sowing my wild oats. Geeeesh.

    • Anonymous

      You’re just like Ray Comfort continuously bringing up that lame question about how the newly evolved male dog can find a mate, even after it’s been explained a thousand times that’s not how evolution works.

      The admonishment of Elevator Guy was not for the asking itself, but for all of the other things: context, location, timing, and ignoring the other person’s already voiced preferences. The excoriation was reserved not for Elevator Guy himself, but for those who, instead of listening and trying to understand, defended his behaviour by wading deep into the misogynistic undertow.

      If you want to respond to this message by again asserting that evolution can’t be true because there would be no female lions for the new male lion to mate with, don’t bother. It will only display, once again, your own ignorance.

      • amyc

        I also don’t like the implication that sexual relations depends entirely on the male. Girls can be promiscuous too! I don’t know that advancedathiest meant it that way; he could just be reporting what Christians have claimed, and in that case, Christians listen up: girls can be promiscuous too! and I would also add: It’s ok to be promiscuous (actually, when done safely, it’s lots o’ fun) ;-)

  • http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/ Garren

    Great billboard. It gets people talking. It has a positive focus. The graphics are simple. Feet are gender neutral, so you can imagine any pairing you like.

    They could stand to be a bit darker color so you can imagine a wider range of racial backgrounds too.

  • Andrew Morgan

    Sample size is too small.

    • Anonymous

       That’s what she said

  • http://twitter.com/ThyGoddess Michelle

    …the stockphoto watermark… They didn’t print that right?

  • Lina

    Did they really put up a billboard with an unpurchased stock photo? Because that’s what I see in the sample…

  • Icaarus

    That same stock photo was used on a chlamydia poster in Canada a couple of years back.  

  • Marguerite

    Heh, I just ran across that image on iStockPhoto yesterday while looking for images for my work. It’s a cute one, and fits the sentiment well. But why on earth would they send out a copy of it that still shows the iStockPhoto watermark? I’m sure they bought it before having the billboard made, right?

  • SJH

    This billboard reflects the misinformation about Christianity and sex. Unfortunately this misinformation is often due to a lack of education regarding Christianity, usually from Christians themselves.

    For a Christian, there should be no guilt about sex unless performed improperly. This is something everyone can agree on. As an example, I should feel guilty if I rape someone but not guilty if I share in a loving relationship with my spouse.

    When done properly, sex is better for the Christian because you reach a physical, emotional and spiritual connection that cannot be reached otherwise.

    • ReginaldJooald

      You’re No True Scotsman’ing this. You know that plenty of Christian sects do indeed place a stigma on sex, yes?

      • SJH

         Yes, I understand that there are plenty of religions, including some Christian denominations that place a stigma on sex and it is very unfortunate that they have not put more thought into their theology.

        • amyc

          It’s really sad that you think that non-christians can’t share a deep physical and emotional connection during sex (I leave out spiritual because I’m not sure what people mean when they use that word).
          There’s no such thing as a non-married, non-christian couple engaging in awesome consensual sex?

          Now who’s putting a stigma on sex?

    • Anonymous

      And for most Christian sects “improperly” is anything outside a straight marriage. Some just have more extreme ideas about it than others, but just about every mainstream sect is sex-negative in one way or another. Which is no surprise given that the people who came up with Christian theology were sexually dysfunctional and just all around screwed up when it comes to sex and human relationships

      • SJH

         To whom are these sexually dysfunctional, screwed up people which you are referring? Have you reviewed their theology?

        • Anonymous

          Paul and Augustine  of Hippo mostly. The latter’s struggles with his lust and sexuality are well documented. He had personal problems with it, hated himself as a result and then projected his own inabilities and insecurities on the entire religion he made up

          • SJH

            Interesting. I will look into that. Thanks

            • Rwlawoffice

              Here is a good article on Augustine and sexuality;

               http://www.jknirp.com/aug3.htm

              • Anonymous

                Just Christian propaganda that completely ignores the many centuries of damage he caused

                • Rwlawoffice

                   The article explores what he actually said, not how it may have been used over the centuries. 

        • Anonymous

          Rick Santorum. running for PRESIDENT, on contraception, sodomy, homosexuality:

          “It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t
          exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that
          was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the
          contraceptive case — and abortion…

          ” You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the
          basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s
          antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether
          it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical
          to a healthy, stable, traditional family…

           “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

          Thinkprogress 2011  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/rick-santorum-homosexuality-man-on-dog_n_1187103.html

          • Nena

            That is horrifying.

            • amyc

              Everything coming from Santorum is horrifying. He also doesn’t believe that marriage is a right, and I saw a video of him from 1999, arguing that abortion is somehow related to the Columbine shootings. He’s disgusting.

    • Xeon2000

      And what is “improper”? Are dildos okay? Crazy sex positions? Whips? Handcuffs? Threesomes?

      Who gets to decide? God? Ok… then who gets to tell us God’s opinion on dildos? Your grandma? Your preacher? The Pope?

      Oh wait…. I know the answer! “God will tell you his opinion on dildos if you believe in him and pray”. Hallelujah!

      Weird…. Wtf…

      • SJH

         Our sexual nature is much more complicated then a simple revelation from God or a lesson from Grandma. I do not have time for it now but perhaps it would be worth your time to look into the more intricate, complex ideas communicated by various Christian churches. It is very interesting an possibly enlightening even if you do not believe in God.

        Atheists should not be so quick to assume that Christians base their beliefs on something as simple as a Pope’s opinion or Grandma’s traditions.

        • Xeon2000

          Oh, I don’t assume that at all. I know first hand they don’t listen to Grandma.

    • Aurelia

      If you recognize that the “spiritual” connection you speak of is just an interpretation of the physical and emotional connection, there really isn’t much difference.  Good sex is good sex, bad sex is bad sex.  

      Atheists are more likely to have good sex because they haven’t been taught (or have relinquished) to feel guilty or ashamed of their carnal desires.  That you refer to “proper” sex is an example of this.

  • http://nadiawilliams.wordpress.com/ Nadia Williams

    Absolutely love it, more of the same!

  • SJH

    After posting my comments, I read through the others. Although they make for humorous reading, does anyone have anything serious to say about this? It seems that, if these posts represents a cross section of the atheist community, then I can say that sex for atheists is definitely less fulfilling because it has no deeper purpose then fulfilling our carnal desires. Please, someone step up and speak seriously about this.

    • Guerilla Surgeon

      No deeper purpose. Aside from procreation and expressing love you mean. Those are not confined to believers. Jokes are just jokes.

      • SJH

        Procreation, obviously. The sharing love part certainly sounds deep. Please explain from a atheist’s perspective. What exactly does that mean? How is the love shared? Is love an emotion or an action? Is love purely for procreation? Is it for fun? Please explain.

        • Nena

          You really think atheists can’t love? That is baffling.

          • SJH

             I never said that atheists can’t love. That would be incredibly naive.

        • Anonymous

          Are you genuinely that unfamiliar with love as a human experience?

          • SJH

             I am not unfamiliar with it. I was hoping to spark a conversation about what others might believe it to be. Its an interesting topic and I would like to hear other perspectives.

    • Marguerite

      I’d say “fulfilling our carnal desires” about covers it, really. Why do you think this is innately less fulfilling than other purposes? Atheists can have sex outside of marriage, or with same-sex partners, without feeling guilty about it, so presumably someone in either of those categories will find sex more fulfilling than a Christian would. And oftentimes, the “sex is icky” feeling spills over into marriage, too, which means that Christians often wind up feeling guilty and conflicted about the natural process of “fulfilling carnal desires.”

      Guilt-free sex seems to me to be more fulfilling than sex riddled with guilt and shame, but to each her own *shrugs*.

      • SJH

         You have a point, for people who fall outside the scope of what would be considered an appropriate relationship such has homosexuality may not be able to practice sex and therefor would not have fulfilling sex to any degree. This unique group aside, limiting yourself to sex outside of marriage is limiting your fulfillment. If you don’t practice sex in what I believe to be its fullest, most complete form then you choose to limit your experience. This however  points to the fact that Christian sex is better sex because it reaches a fuller potential.

        It is true that some still have that “sex is icky” feeling but guilt riddled sex is a product of bad parenting not bad theology.

        • Nena

          I have very intimate, beautiful, wholly fulfilling sex with my partner. Just because we are not married does not make it any less fulfilling than your sexual relations with your spouse. 

          I also have very gritty, dirty, rough and rowdy sex with my partner. That is also fulfilling, and for you to claim that it is somehow limited in comparison to your sexual experiences is incredibly pompous and rude.

          • SJH

             I am not speaking about my sexual experience. Perhaps yours is more fulfilling then mine. I am as imperfect as anyone else and have my own set of issues. The question that we must each ask ourselves is; is our sexual experience as fulfilling for me and my partner as it can be? Am I the best partner I can be? Is my partner the best partner he/she can be? Do we treat each other in a way that maximizes our love relationship? Sex is not as simple as our carnal desires. It is an intimate relationship which, if not tended to properly, can cause pain and long lasting scars. Do we participate in a way that reduces this effect as much as possible for imperfect beings?

            • Nena

              I do everything I can do to be the best partner I can be. That is part of the ‘love’ part that you seem to think atheists can’t have.

              There is more to the relationship between my partner and me than our carnal desires, and it has nothing to do with a god. We care about each other’s happiness, we try to make each other’s lives easier, we try to make each other happy, we enjoy our time together. We love each other. We do not need a god to help us do that.

              I don’t understand what god has to do with your questions. Yes, my partner and I try to be the best we can be for one another. No god comes into the equation.

              • SJH

                 Again, I never stated that atheists cannot have a loving relationship. If you are trying to be the best you can be then that is great. I admire that.

                I also not yet made any assertions about God but I do think that if He is a part of your relationship then it will be better for each of you. That is just my opinion. You are welcome to look into that option or ignore it. That is up to you and your partner. I am only presenting the alternative perspective proposed in the image posted.

        • Anonymous

          What YOU believe?! It’s all about you isn’t it? You get to determine how others are supposed to have sex and you get to judge how they are the most fulfilled. You get to determine how others live their lives. This isn’t the first time you said crap like that. I can’t think of anything more arrogant and preposterous.

          That guilt isn’t the result of bad theology is more of the flat out ignorance and nonsense that one must expect from you. The fact is that there are therapists who specialize in healing people from spiritual abuse and the sexual dysfunction they have as a result of church attendance. And some of those include adults who only became fundamentalists later in life.

          • SJH

            As I replied in the post above, I am not telling anyone how to have sex or that they are going to hell because of it. All I am doing is making an assertion that sex inside of a loving Christian marriage is the most fulfilling sex. This is similar to what the image is saying. I am only stating the opposite. Am I not allowed to disagree? Do you assume that I am claiming authority just because I disagree? I do not know any more about our existence then you do. I am only trying to have a discussion about something which we disagree.

            I would like to correct what I said before about guilt. Guilt can be a product of flawed theology and flawed parenting. I cannot speak for other religions (or all of Christianity for that matter) but for those Christians that I know, it is mostly a product of flawed parenting. Many of us are not properly educated about what Christian churches teach about sex. Because of this many cannot answer their children when they raise questions so they resort to fear tactics in order to prevent them from making bad decisions. This is an unfortunate path and leads to many angry, resentful or perhaps uneducated adults.

            • amyc

              You said sex inside a loving christian marriage is the most fulfilling, but I don’t think you have any comparison outside of your own personal experience.

              You keep making this assertion, but you have no evidence to back it up.

              When you say this, you are judging other people’s sex lives as not being good enough. You’re saying that the sex life I have with my partner (or partners*) is not and can never be as fulfilling as it would if I started believing in Jebus. Spare me.

              If you enjoy your sex life, great, I’m happy for you. But don’t come on here claiming that nobody else’s could ever be as good because we’re not having threesomes with Jesus, and then claim that you don’t have a stigma against sex: you clearly do.

              You have stated that there is a clear-cut correct way to have sex (within a christian marriage) and any other way is not as fulfilling and possibly evil/sinful/dirty (the only other types of sex you mentioned have been: rape and same-sex, both of which are things that you clearly think are wrong (also, rape is technically not sex)). That is a stigma against sex.

              *I have no problem with polyamory, and being bisexual, find it to be a nice way to express my sexuality in a fun, safe and honest way with my partners

              • SJH

                 You tell me not to make the assertion that Christian sex is more fulfilling yet the image posted on the blog makes that exact assertion for atheists. How am I doing anything different than the atheist who created the image or the atheists who are supporting the image?

                • Anonymous

                   The billboard is based on a book, for which the author did research

                  You on the other hand just regurgitate the nonsense your church programmed you with

                • amyc

                  Because atheists don’t necessarily have weird hangups about what is and is not improper sex. For me, I know that sex inside a “Christian” marriage (by your definition) would not be fulfilling for me, because I am bisexual and my partner and I am open to inviting one or more other people into our relationship. I know this would not be allowed in a “Christian” marriage. Of course, I would also never argue that my kind of relationship is objectively better for somebody else. If somebody else is comfortable with only one person, then that’s great. Since atheists generally don’t get involved in other people’s sex lives and we generally are a sex positive group it would logically follow that atheists have better sex (or at least are more open about making the sex they do have better). The only thing improper is if the parties involved are not giving enthusiastic consent.

                • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

                  Agnostic/atheist, here.

                  You know what, SJH, that was a very skillfully done “gotcha”. I tip my hat to you. ;-)

                  I agree, you are indeed relating a message that is similar to the one the billboard is relating, and of course, people here on this blog thread don’t appreciate it when a similar message is aimed right back at them.

                  Do I smell hypocrisy? Yes, I think I do.

                  For the record, I usually hate the billboards that American Atheists produce. Almost without fail, they make atheists look like a bunch of smug assholes who think they’re better than everyone else. I’ve said as much on many other Friendly Atheist comment threads.

            • Anonymous

              You’ve made it very clear that you aren’t just expressing an opinion, but a definite standard about how people are supposed to live

              And of course you ignore that the “bad parenting” is the direct result of the bad theology and the lies told to them by their churches. Too many parents in fundamentalist and evangelical circles only do what their pastors tell them to do and/or turn to Christian books and guides about how to parents. And all of them are sex-negative and authoritarian in the extreme. They wouldn’t do that kind of damage to their children if their churches stopped telling them how to raise them

              • Rwlawoffice

                 “And all of them are sex-negative and authoritarian in the extreme.”

                Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly as a blanket statement

                • amyc

                  Can you direct us to some sex-positive christian literature from fundamentalist and evangelical circles? All the stuff I read (and was taught when I was growing up in the church) was very sex-negative.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Here is just a short list of the books on this subject. And no I don’t think any of them will promote a polymory lifestyle, but they do show that sexual intimacy and fulfillment is encouraged in the Christian community.

                  http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=31866&sp=82680

                • amyc

                  All of those books refer only to sex within marriage, between a husband and wife. I certainly don’t have time to read all of them, but it’s obvious they aren’t sex-positive. Sex-positive means being comfortable with your own sexuality and with sexuality in general. All of the books make the implication that you can’t have positive sexual encounters outside of marriage. That is not sex-positive. They do not show that “sexual intimacy and fulfillment is encouraged within the Christian community,” because it implicitly denies the existence of any good sex outside of marriage.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  You can’t change the definition after the fact. These books promote and encourage a fulfilled and happy sex life. But you are correct, they do not promote bisexuality and promiscuity.

        • Marguerite


          If you don’t practice sex in what I believe to be its fullest, most complete form then you choose to limit your experience.”

          You “believe” sex within marriage to be its fullest, most complete form, but obviously others don’t. And that’s fine. Problems occur, it seems to me, when we tell other people how they should have sex, or that there’s only one “real” way to do it. Have sex however you like. And enjoy!

          • SJH

            The image posted has nothing to do with having sex in any way that you choose. It is making the assertion that Atheists have better sex. From what I can tell at this point, I disagree. I do believe that sex inside of marriage to be in its fullest and there are many reasons for that which are grounded in human nature, science and theology.

            I am not telling anyone how to have sex though I can make the assertion that there is a more fulfilling way to do it.

            • Anonymous

              *replied to wrong post. never mind*

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

    I THINK the actual billboard doesn’t have the watermark (at least I bloody well hope so)

    http://i.imgur.com/N44AW.jpg

  • Rwlawoffice

    If the premise of the billboard is that atheists have better sex because God disapproves of sex then it is simply wrong. God invented sex and you should read Song of Solomon for a very beautiful poem regarding love and physical attraction.  Granted it has some compliments that probably sound better to a society based on shepherding but it is beautiful nonetheless.

    If the premise is that atheists can have better sex because they lack the morals outlined in the Bible when it comes to sexual relations then it is inaccurate. Look at where unfettered sexual promiscuity gets a society and what harm it can do to individuals. A monogamous sexual relationship within the confines of a marriage makes for a very satisfying sex life and is actually something that is encouraged in Christian churches. It seems that the only benefits (which are short lived at best) that comes from divorcing sex from emotional attachments is a shallow physical feeling and a relief from “guilt”.  The long term damage is much greater.   

    • Marguerite


      God invented sex and you should read Song of Solomon for a very beautiful poem regarding love and physical attraction. ”

      I’ve read it. God apparently invented porn.

      “…the morals outlined in the Bible when it comes to sexual relations…”

      The morals outlined in the Bible regarding sex? Are we talking about having seven hundred wives, polygamy, incest, or teenagers being inseminated by deities? Frankly, the sexual relations depicted in the Bible don’t come across as outstandingly moral, as far as I’m concerned.

      • Rwlawoffice

        Then you don’t understand the Bible.

        • Anonymous

          Predictable troll is predictable

          • Rwlawoffice

            Typical how you try to stop a legitimate discussion with an attempt at an insult

            • SphericalBunny

              By attempting to portray Marguerite as either ignorant, foolish or stupid, instead of addressing her very valid and poignant points on biblical sexual ‘morality’, you have done the very thing that you complain about. There’s a biblical quote about that too that I’m sure you’re familiar with; motes and planks may ring a bell. In modern parlance – please try harder not to be such a flaming hypocrite.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 I took from the tone of Marguerite’s comment that she did not want a serious discussion of the topic but I had no intent to insult her and apologize if I did.  But if she believes that this is what the bible teaches about sex then she does have a serious misunderstanding

                • Marguerite

                  I didn’t respond to you a second time because I did take you for a troll, as the poster above suggested. But no, I don’t have a serious misunderstanding. I know what’s in the Bible, thank you. My point (if you really want a more serious one) is that there are all sorts of horrible things depicted in the Bible that don’t reflect any sort of higher moral standards about sex. There are men handing off their virginal daughters to crowds of men for sexual use. There are daughters seducing their fathers.  There are passages about how women are essentially second-class citizens. And so forth and so on. Little of it seems a good recipe for the best sort of sexual relations to me.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   The events you bring up in this comment (dads handing off their daughters etc.. ) are in the Bible but where does it say that God approves of that behavior?  As far as women being treated as second class citizens then I would suggest you read, the book of Ruth or Esther to see how they are depicted.  Read about Priscilla, the wife of Aquila,  and see how she is praised by Paul. See how Jesus treated the woman at the well. She how Jesus treated his mother. The overall depiction of women in the Bible is far different then as second class citizens.

                • SphericalBunny

                  Does your God approve of the nasty and blatant sexism Marguerite refers to? Perhaps it is telling that when God disapproves of something in the bible, there are explicit words or actions taken that express this…In the story of Lot, where he offers his daughters for gang rape, he is positively rewarded for his actions by being spared from the city’s destruction. In fact, Lot’s wife is turned to a pillar of salt for merely looking back. Paul may have praised one woman, but he also admonished people not to let women speak in church. The problem could be equivocated to race in that if you wish to see the white black divide, you do not look to the stories of Oprah and Samuel L. Jackson to judge whether racism exists.

                  That Paul also  “taught that men are to love their wives as much as Jesus loved the church” speaks to the idea that women, biblically speaking, are to be treated differently – else there would not have to be this teaching given to men, and separate instruction to women to ‘submit to your husbands’. Spin it how you like, but that is not equality. 

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Too skinny to respond here.  We will have to continue another time. Needless to say I dont agree with your view.

                • amyc

                  Does Lot ring a bell? I’m pretty sure he was passed off as a “righteous” man, and yet he offered his daughters to be raped by a crowd of men.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Actually not every act of Lot was considered righteous and this certainly was not one of them.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   I should have added this to the comment which I think is actually below this one now.  Paul taught that men are to love their wives as much as Jesus loved the church.  Have you ever thought of what all that would entail? That entails a love that would be deep enough to be willing to give his life for her, sacrifice himself  for her good, overlook and forgive any hurts that she may cause him, care for her, protect her, respect her, build her up, etc.  What a beautiful relationship that is and what a beautiful basis for a loving and fulfilling sex life.

                • amyc

                  You either lied about Lot, or you just haven’t read it in a while: I just read Genesis 19:1-29, and Lot is never punished or even admonished for offering his daughters up to be raped. So how are we suppose to know that God didn’t approve of it? In other parts of the Bible, if God doesn’t approve of something, he explicitly states it.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   I know the story of Lot.  He had his flaws and he made mistakes. Despite his “offer” to the God had a larger plan for Lot and his descendants and saved his daughters from harm.  You cannot imply from the silence that God approved of his “offer” to the crowd. It would have been rape and adultery which is specifically decried as wrong in the Bible and this type of behavior that the crowd wanted to engage in was one of the reasons Sodom was destroyed.

              • Marguerite

                Oooh, I’m poignant! Thanks for that! *preens*

    • Nena

      I have not read all the replies to this post, so this is only in reply to the original poster…

      I am in an open relationship with my partner. He and I are very very happy, very very in love, and very very satisfied with our relationship. I am bisexual, and therefore have sexual relations that are outside of the confines of the biblical sexual rules.

      My relationship with my partner is loving, happy, fulfilling, and just as wonderful as anything you have in your christian relationship. It is infuriating to me when you people try to cheapen my partnership just because it differs from yours.

      Your god is a made-up fairy tale to me. Why should I take into consideration your narrow sexual ideals when deciding how to live my life?

      • amyc

        I agree completely with you, and it looks like we have the same situation with our partners.

      • Rwlawoffice

        You are free to live your life however you want, no one is telling you otherwise.  If you are happy now and think this is the best way to run your life then I hope it works our for you and doesn’t provide a source of pain either now or in the future. But check back in few years and see how this open relationship is working out for you. The history of our society, either based upon religion or not, of marriage and monogamous relationships as being the societal norm is not just because it is Christian values, it is because it works and demonstrably provides the most happiness. For me, I find that having both my physical and emotional needs fulfilled with my spouse and with no need to look to others  is what works.

        • Nena

          I have been in a traditional christian marriage, and I can honestly say that it did more emotional damage to me than anything I can imagine doing now.

          • Rwlawoffice

             I am sorry you went through that pain.

            • Nena

              Thanks. Me too. But my point was actually that being a christian marriage or a secular marriage or an open relationship or a pagan handfasting or whatever kind of relationship does not, in itself, give fulfillment or happiness or whatever. What fulfills us is the relationship itself; when you have a good one, it doesn’t matter what you call it or what legal or religious documents are involved or what the relationship structure is. If you find someone who makes you happy, the happiness comes from being with that person. 

              I don’t know if I made any sense up there or if I sound drunk…

        • amyc

          “The history of our society, either based upon religion or not, of
          marriage and monogamous relationships as being the societal norm is not
          just because it is Christian values, it is because it works and
          demonstrably provides the most happiness.”

          Monogamous marriage as we know it (in a legal sense with a contract
          and/or license) didn’t start until about the 11th century (I might be a
          century or two off, it’s late and I’m tipsy). I can’t remember exactly when the church started recognizing marriage, but it was after it became recognized legally. The history of marriage shows that up until the last century, people didn’t marry for love or happiness. Marriage was about property. It was normally a kind of business transaction. People didn’t care if you had a healthy or happy relationship. You seem to be of the mindset that because this is what Western society has done for so long, it must be the best way. I don’t accept traditions at face value.

          You obviously have a problem with polyamory. You told her to  “check back in [a] few years and see how this open relationship is working out…” That seems a little bit condescending, especially after you just said that you hope everything works out. For your information, there is a thriving community of polyamorous couples in the United States, and it seems to work out for them.

          I don’t believe there is one person out there for everybody, that doesn’t make any sense. There are 7 billion people on this planet. Chances are that whoever you end up marrying, there will be somebody else out there who is better suited for you. Why should I or anybody else have a limit? As long as everybody is being safe and honest, there are no problems.

          I love my partner, I don’t own him; I don’t have any rights to his body, so I do not control his sex life. I am a part of his sex life, and he is a part of mine. Like I said before in another post–I’m bisexual, therefore there is no possible way that my current partner could fulfill all of my needs. I’m only one person, I understand that I cannot possibly fill all of his needs. We both understand and respect that. Being in a relationship without all of the jealousy and restrictions has been so freeing and it has only deepened our commitment to each other. Please, take your condescension toward polyamory elsewhere.

          • Rwlawoffice

             AmyC disagreeing with you on a lifestyle choice is not being condescending. I know more about this subject then you might imagine and understand the dangers of these lifestyle choices.  Of course there are some that can make it work, but in the long run and over time the vast majority of these type of relationships do not prosper.  To say that as long as everyone is being safe and honest there are no problems is very naive.

            I know you will not agree with her, but an interesting article from a marriage counselor with 18 plus years of experience has a good take on this subject:

            http://www.drkarenruskin.com/998/polyamory-loves-new-frontier-or-relationship-suicide/

            • amyc

              The reason you were being condescending was because you immediately jumped to the conclusion that she might be hurt by the relationship. You didn’t give a thoughtful response as to why she might be hurt, you just assumed it and took a paternal tone to the whole idea. Disagreeing is not the same thing as being condescending: disagreeing and not giving a valid reason and then paternally acting concerned for someone’s well-being without knowing the full situation is being condescending. We are adults, we can make adult decisions and have adult conversations. If you wanted to discuss the pros and cons of poly then you should have done so.

              Now you’re calling me naive because I have studied the movement and found that yes: when people are honest and safe with all involved, there is not a problem with these relationships.

              And that article is a joke. She doesn’t even give an accurate representation of what polyamory is. In essence, she tackled a straw-man. She characterizes polyamorous relationships as one person not being fulfilled and seeking out others for the sole purpose of sex. She gave one sentence to the idea that maybe it’s not all about teh sex, but she brushed it off without a thought.

              She started to discuss the guidelines that are mutually agreed upon, but abruptly said that eventually one or both in the couple wants to change the guidelines and cited this as a reason why it doesn’t work. Aren’t there guidelines in monogamous relationships too? Aren’t there problems when one or both want to change those guidelines and they don’t agree? When this happens, do we simply chuck out monogamy as a valid relationship form? No, we find a suitable compromise and work from there, and that’s exactly what polys do.

              I almost finished the article, but then I scrolled to the bottom and saw she is a regular contributor for FOX, Bill O’Reilly and Hannity. No thanks.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 Amy I didn’t think you would agree with the article but the author does have 18 years in marriage counseling including couples in these types of relationships so she has a basis for her opinions.

                As for monogamous couples having “guidelines” I am sure they do not include the rules about having a physical and emotional relationship with another person to fulfill their needs.  If it did they would not be monogamous.  So I am not sure this is a good comparison.

                 If you have studied this lifestyle then I am sure you are aware that one of the repeated topics of discussion is how to avoid jealousy and insecurities with your partner when this relationship is engaged in. It is such a risk that it is a common topic at workshops and forums that discuss this. And if you don’t think that adding another person to your relationship, even if it is done honestly and safely doesn’t increase the risk for there to be jealousy and insecurity then in my opinion, you are being naive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joe.zamecki Joe Zamecki

    A sexually oriented billboard promoting Atheism? Sex is a side-issue. Also aren’t a lot of kids likely to see that? It’s in public.  

    I don’t like that. Just being honest. 

    • Nena

      You have a problem with kids seeing sex illustrated as a positive, natural thing, Joe? That surprises me.

      • Anonymous

         Never mind that children below a certain age won’t necessarily associate that picture with sex

        • amyc

          Honestly, I would rather kids see this sex positive billboard that is neither sexist nor heteronormative (I can’t tell what gender the feet are) than all the other sexist ads they are bombarded with.

    • Daniel Schealler

      Why don’t you like it?

      Just being curious.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X