Atheists Make Better Lovers, Says Billboard

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.

Unless it’s a threesome. Or in public.

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. 

Sample size is too small.

 That’s what she said

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

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?

Absolutely love it, more of the same!

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.”

😛

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

”
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!

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.

 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.

 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.

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.   

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. 

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

 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?

Interesting. I will look into that. Thanks

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

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.

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

 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

 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

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

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…

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

 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.

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

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.

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.

“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.

 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/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.