Christian Writer Argues Against Disabled People Having Sexual Surrogates Because, You Know, Jesus

In the 2012 movie The Sessions, a poet who has never had sex due to his polio gets in touch with a sexual surrogate who helps him lose his virginity (and they develop feelings for each other and *cue conflict*).

I find it hard to fault what the poet did. For people with serious physical or mental disabilities, finding someone to have sex with isn’t always easy (hush with your jokes), so the idea of a surrogate makes sense to me. What a cruel life it would be to go without one of its great pleasures, especially when you didn’t choose that life for yourself. Who would deny anyone that form of happiness if they wanted it and weren’t hurting anybody in the process?

Ashley Moore would.

Writing at Christianity Today‘s her.meneutics blog, Moore says that such a person would be better off sexless for life.

Because sex should only be between a married man and woman.

Because… Jesus.

As a Christian, I can’t defend sex as a need. We’ve forgotten that sex was created for a purpose. As my pastor recently pointed out, sex is made for bonding (and babies). It draws us to one another. Scripture refers to sex as two people becoming one person, one flesh.

Jesus Christ walked this earth for 33 years, unmarried and undefiled, spotless, stainless, and, to be frank, sexless. He lived a perfectly human life — a fulfilling life — but God didn’t work sex and marriage into the short life plan of Jesus on earth, and Jesus didn’t demand it.

Those who are facing a life without marriage and sex, for whatever the reason, are just like the rest of us. And that’s why there’s no catch-all, pat answer. But I do know this: love isn’t a therapy you pay for. We weren’t created to be surrogates; stand-ins for love. Christ paid dearly so that love could be free.

I can only imagine the conversation Moore had with herself as she came to this arrogant and unintentionally cruel conclusion:

Sex is about babies!

(But not everyone can have babies.)

I mean, sex is about love!

(So you’re okay with gay couples having sex?)

NO! I mean, um, sex is about love between married people! I mean straight married people! I mean straight married people who would want to have babies if they could even if they can’t! Sex is for everyone except young people, single people, unmarried people in new relationships, unmarried people in serious relationships, married gay people in serious relationships, and priests. OH! And the disabled.

Moore is a young woman who will likely be married one day so the idea of Mandatory Virginity for Life isn’t one she has to think very much about — and she readily admits all that. But she has no problem explaining why others should deprive themselves of the same physical experience. (It’s not just her, either — think about how many Christians say they have no problem with people who are gay… as long as they never act on it. They’re just as tone deaf as Moore is.)

At least she’s right that you can’t pay for love, but sexual surrogacy isn’t about love. It’s about a unique kind of physical release that those who request it can’t really get anywhere else.

This is the sort of opinion you get when you prize virginity for more than its worth and think of sex as the ultimate pinnacle of your relationship with someone else. What Moore refuses to acknowledge, and what I think a lot of readers would understand, is that there’s more to sex than just the emotions and bonding that sometimes accompany it.

Dianna Anderson, who’s also a Christian, has an excellent response on her blog (emphasis hers):

At what point did American Christians become so entitled that we actively and knowingly speak on topics to which we are fundamentally unqualified to discuss? Have we taken “Jesus as the answer” so far that we offer responses to experiences we will probably never have, and have no business lecturing people on?

Don’t answer that. Of course we have.

Moore’s piece would have been more powerful if it were written by someone who is disabled and choosing to be celibate. But coming from Moore, it just sounds like someone pretending to be an expert in an area she knows nothing about and trying to deprive others of joy by guilting them into thinking they’re doing something evil. What’s worse is how she feels justified talking about it because Jesus something something yada yada Bible.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Rain

    God didn’t work sex and marriage into the short life plan of Jesus on earth, and Jesus didn’t demand it.

    He did however work the smiting of a fig tree into the short life plan of Jesus. For which we are grateful, because apologists are freaking hilarious when they make up convoluted explanations for it, lol. Anyway I though Jesus and God were the same person. *shrug*

    • KrisDStar

      So, then technically, if god and jesus are the same person, jesus did have sex. With his mother.

    • Fentwin

      “Anyway I though Jesus and God were the same person. *shrug*”

      Reminds me of a “prayer” Jesus might make; “God are you there? Its you, Jesus.”

      • John

        I prefer a slightly different version: “God, are you there? It’s me, you.”

        • Fentwin

          Thats it! I recall hearing it once and couldn’t remember the actual joke. :)

        • Jaydee

          LOL!!!

  • BobaFuct

    I would take Dianna’s response one step further and say, “when did Christians become so entitled that they actively and knowingly try to dictate the rules and mores of people that do not profess the same beliefs?” Despite being a rhetorical question, the answer is “since always.”

    If Ashley had said “disabled Christians shouldn’t have sexual surrogates, because Jesus” I’d be find with that. If a subgroup wants to hold itself to a stricter moral code than the rest of the population, I don’t really give a shit (provided there’s no physical coercion and the rules don’t conflict with the law), but when it comes to the moral code of those outside your little group? Shut.the.fuck.up. I mean, look at the Amish…crazy Puritanical whackjobs, but they keep to themselves and don’t expect anyone outside their group to believe what they believe.

  • DKeane123

    How does show know that Jesus didn’t have sex? I bet he was bit of a freak and performed some “undocumented miracles”.

    • Greg G.

      In Ruth 3, Ruth is told to watch where Boaz beds down to sleep, then to go and uncover his “feet” in the dark in order to persuade him to redeem her. “Feet” is used as a euphemism. Now think about when Jesus has his “feet” washed in John 12 or when Jesus washes the disciples’ “feet” in John 13.

      • 3lemenope

        “Feet” is a common euphemism in ancient Hebrew for genitals (as I pointed out elsewhere on the thread, “thigh” is even more common). However, that particular euphemism, so far as I know, does not exist in Koine Greek, which is what most of the the NT was written down in.

        • Greg G.

          I expect that Mark took the idea of foot washing from the Odyssey where Eurycleia recognized Odysseus. But the gospel writers used the Septuagint which would have translated the euphemisms into Greek so they would have had an influence that no other Greek authors had.

        • Greg G.

          2 Samuel 11:8 has David telling Uriah to “Go down to your house and wash your feet.” David has just learned that he had impregnated Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, while Uriah has been at war and now doesn’t want to leave his men to go to the comforts of home. David is telling Uriah to go have sex with his wife so Uriah will think the baby is his. David must resort to Plan B to save embarrassment, which involves getting Uriah killed in battle.

          • 3lemenope

            Right. 2 Samuel is OT. The claim I made was about the NT. Since the original question was about Jesus and feet.

            • Greg G.

              Actually the claim you made was about Koine Greek in general. This example would have been in the Septuagint which was written in Koine Greek. Since the gospels quote, make allusions to, and rewrite OT stories into Jesus stories, from the Septuagint, never from the Hebrew texts AFAIK, it is relevant.

              I posted the item because I thought you would find it interesting, not as a challenge.

  • Bitter Lizard

    Why does the Christian assume Jesus never had sex? Because he was handicapped? Jesus banged his own mother before he was even born, and the weirdly unique incest situation in which he became his own father is probably what led to the developmental problems in the first place.

    • Tainda

      Maybe the whole Roman nailing him to the cross was a metaphor.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      Also, that heretical sect that argued Mary was Jesus’s wife (they got wiped out pretty early). The Bible never says Jesus never had sex- Christians assume that all on their own. It’s a doctrine, but it’s not biblical per se.

      • KeithCollyer

        after all, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, or at least that’s what xtians tell us when we say there is no evidence for god

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          See above reply to Bitter Lizard.

      • Bitter Lizard

        As if it wasn’t bad enough that he was his own father. Did Jesus’ family look something like this?

        • Bitter Lizard

          …although, now that I think about it, Jesus-God should have been married to Mary. Christians are okay with rape, but sex out of wedlock is a no-no.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            And there’s actually circumstantial evidence! Mary wandered about with 13 guys, supposedly. The only way that could be societally acceptable is if she was married to someone.

            There’s also the miracle of water to wine for a wedding, I think? I know there was a miracle at a wedding, but I don’t remember if it was the water/wine one or the loaves and fishes one. Anyways, whose wedding was it? Some people argue it was Jesus’s wedding.

            • Bitter Lizard

              I realize you’re talking about Mary Magdalene and not Jesus’ mom Mary, but it’s still weird. So Jesus marries a prostitute who just happens to have the same name as his mother who he raped when she was a teenager…I don’t think Jerry Springer would touch this one with a ten-foot pole.

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                Heh, yeah, that one always was a bit, um … odd.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              The wedding was the water-to-wine thing, and it never does say exactly whose wedding it was.

        • 3lemenope

          OK, that picture is creeping me the hell out.

          • Tainda

            “the hell out” hahaha

    • 00001000_bit

      Do we have any biblical scholars in the discussion? We know that sometimes “foot”/”feet” were used as a euphemism for “penis” elsewhere in the bible. It would add a fun twist to the story in John 12:3 where Mary pours oil on Jesus’ feet.

      • 3lemenope

        “Thigh” is the by far more common euphemism for genitals, Biblically speaking.

      • Tainda

        Was it the tingly kind of oil?

        • 3lemenope

          LOL. If Jesus really wanted to show his God-chops, instead of water-to-wine at Cana, KY “Yours and Mine” as a wedding gift two thousand years before its invention would have done the trick.

          • Tainda

            I snort laughed

            • 3lemenope

              Then my work here is done.

      • Greg G.

        2 Samuel 11:8 has “washing the feet” used as a euphemism for having sex.

  • Art_Vandelay

    Jesus Christ walked this earth for 33 years, unmarried and undefiled, spotless, stainless, and, to be frank, sexless.

    Doesn’t the bible omit like two thirds of Jesus’ life? Maybe the council of Nicaea took the teenage years and twenties out because it’s all just Jesus jackin’ it and nailing prostitutes. I mean, it seems unlikely but you never know, right? Him and that Magdalene chick had that weird foot fetish thing going on.

    • Raymond

      The Bible doesnt say that Jesus pooped either. Are we assuming therefore that Jesus never pooped?

      • baal

        Jesus was holy and pure in all ways. While he was entirely human in every detail, his divinity solved the problem of living the most holy, pure and sin free life by having his poop disapperate into oblivion the instant it left his body (alternatively he teleported it to keep the 7 quiet or to feed the beast in the pit in the Changing Land).

        • 3lemenope

          And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the orthodox and definitive answer to the Problem of Holy Shit.

        • Paul Reed

          “disapperate”

          You’ve embiggened my vocabulary with that cromulent word. Such things are possimpible with the right linkativity.

      • katiehippie

        A friend of mine went to Church of Christ where they don’t allow instruments in worship because the early Christians didn’t have instruments. I told her the early Christians didn’t have indoor plumbing either and did they follow that as well.

        • RowanVT

          How do they know they didn’t have instruments? Even a table can act as a drum.

          • 3lemenope

            Not to mention archaeological evidence showing that functional flutes made from bone started appearing only thirty-five millennia before Jesus. Not centuries, mind. Millennia.

        • 3lemenope

          If they were in a major city in the Roman Empire, chances were pretty good that they in fact did have indoor plumbing. I would have gone for the electric lights, myself.

          • katiehippie

            You’ve got a point there.

          • Spuddie

            The one person who really tried to Romanize Judea is well reviled in the NT, Herod Agrippa.

            Cue the Life of Brian clip for “what have the Romans ever done for Judea”

      • sam

        Dude, you just blew my mind (and you probably just created an entirely new branch of xianity in two sentences: the christafecalists?).

      • Kodie

        That’s why he was so mad at the fig tree.

  • joey_in_NC

    I enjoy the euphemism for prostitution.

    • Bitter Lizard

      If God had access to prostitutes, maybe he wouldn’t have raped that Jewish teenager.

      • robert chacon

        Youre a comedian I see. An ignorant and not very funny one because if you actually knew Christianity you would know that God asked Mary if she would be the mother of Christ. So even though youre trying to be funny, youre simply a bigot and a hater.

        • Todd Heath

          I’ve read the story many times and none say or imply God asked Mary her opinion on becoming pregnant. In fact she was not given a choice and neither was her “husband” Joseph.

          • robert chacon

            I posted the Lukan description. Yes, He did not get a contract, but He did more than just ask her opinion. He told her what would happen and she said let His will be done. She could have rejected, or worse aborted. But she did not.

            • baal

              I’m not sure she had a free choice (i.e. a right to say no and fear no consequences).

              • RowanVT

                Exactly. If God turned a woman into a pillar of salt for the heinous crime of looking back on her home, surely he would do something far worse to a girl refusing to do what he said he was going to do anyway.

            • Fentwin

              Could the “son” of God even be aborted?

            • Bitter Lizard

              He told her what would happen

              And this is exactly the part where consent breaks down. Telling and asking are not the same thing.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              Yeah, she didn’t have a choice in the matter.

              She was voluntold.

              • RowanVT

                That…. is a beautiful term.

        • Bitter Lizard

          Please direct me to the part of the Bible where God asked for permission and gave Mary a clear opening to say “no”.

          Also please direct me to the part of the Bible where it says Mary was old enough to give consent in the first place.

          • robert chacon

            Luke 1:38
            But Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done according to thy word”.

            She gave her consent! No, God did not have her sign a contract or written permission slip, but the angels tells her what SHALL come to pass, future tense. She could have said nor, or as you might might have wished aborted. Instead she says let God’s will be done in the immediate future! Even if she simply accented to what had happened to characterize as rape is unwarranted. In any event your description is offense and disgusting and you appear to be the hater, not the Christian who believes in it.

            • RowanVT

              If the angel told her what SHALL come to pass, future imperative, it is effectively a command. It WAS going to happen, no matter what. That is how it was going to be. She submitted to that command, and she had no choice in it. Besides which, God has been willing to mess with free will in the past (pharoah) so even if she said ‘no’ he would have changed her mind.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#Future_imperative

              • Bitter Lizard

                Exactly. She only went with it after God’s stooge made it clear an all-powerful deity had already made his mind up. “She didn’t fight back” is a frequent rapist excuse, but not a good one.

            • Oranje

              Yes, and Luke was the contemporary stenographer to this. Not a parable at all.

        • Fentwin

          “…if you actually knew Christianity you would know that God asked Mary if she would be the mother of Christ.”

          I’ve been looking in your owner’s manual and all I can find is this; ”

          Matthew 1:18
          18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

          and this; By some fellow named Luke (no last name given, yet I am assuming the last name is not Skywalker, nor nicknamed “cool hand”)
          29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

          Where is this permission of which you speak?

          • Bitter Lizard

            It somehow makes it even worse that he sent one of his thugs to inform her of what was going to happen. What kind of villainous shit is that? He can’t even be bothered to address his victim directly?

            • robert chacon

              Again, why such heinous portrayal , “Thugs, villainous shit” ? I posted how it was not at all how you are describing.

              • Fentwin

                “You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ” (Cool Hand Luke 1:31)

                You will do this (get pregnant), you are to call this kid a certain name!

                Sounds thuggish to me;
                No pretense in asking anything close to permission from Mary to be impregnated. The utter lack of any consideration for Joseph, at least not until after the fact that his newlywed wife got knocked up by the creator of the universe before he could have a go at it. Then he’s just basically told to shut-up, marry the girl and get over it, it’ll be a hoot.

              • Bitter Lizard

                And as several people pointed out, based on the Bible’s description it was a woman acquiescing to the commands of an infinitely powerful being she had no chance of effectively resisting after he had already made his mind up with no regard with her feelings on the subject. That is not a good case for consent.

          • robert chacon

            I gave it above.

            • Fentwin

              Y0u mean the statement “…if you actually knew Christianity you would know…”?

              How do you define “actually know”?

              Where does the Bible “actually” say that Jesus asked Mary if he could take up residence her uterus?

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Jesus, if you’re going to project and screech semi-coherently about your book of magic spells, could you at least read it first?

          Also, crybaby, the word “bigot” does not apply. Please read a dictionary before reading your book of magic spells, you enraged little man.

          • robert chacon

            Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of
            their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred,
            contempt, or intolerance. The portrayal of Marys rape is used with contempt and disgust out of prejudice, out of unwarranted fear of Christians.

            • RowanVT

              It’s not fear of christians. I certainly don’t fear christians.

              I do like that you admitted she was raped. It is this casual acceptance of her rape that we find contemptable and disgusting.

            • 3lemenope

              I think we will keep our own counsel on what is warranted.

            • baal

              “The portrayal of Marys rape is used with contempt and disgust out of prejudice, out of unwarranted fear of Christians.”

              I suggest there is another way to consider the comments you cite. We’re disgusted by the mental gymnastics the christians use to sugar coat some rather unsavory aspects of their holy book. We’re also disgusted, in particular, by how that book is used to make women second class citizens in the U.S. These are not arguments from fear of christians and flat bigotry against an out group (tribe). They are arguments based on the words in the text and from observation of how the most vocal political actors who take actions against women are doing so in the name of the christian lord jesus.

        • RobMcCune

          youre simply a bigot and a hater

          Nice case of projection got there.

          • robert chacon

            Not in the least my friend, but when someone uses offensive language with an disrespecting tone he is not loving and a bigot. Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance

            • RowanVT

              Offensive language is not bigotry. Disrespect is not bigotry.

              If someone tells me that it’s my fault if I get raped because of what clothing I wear, I will tell them exactly what I think of that with extreme disrespect and a fair amount of foul language. This does not make me a bigot.

            • baal

              No, you don’t get to call someone a bigot by negative inference. You have to show that the bigot hates a group merely for being that group – i.e. gays for being gay, christians for being christian. Not every act that happens to harm a gay person or happens to harm a christian is due to their identity in that group (think tornadoes or some one cutting a power line in a city). Hate of a person is not bigotry when there is a reasonable reason for the hating that person for something they have done (or thought actions too).

              Also note in this case that you’re calling Bitter Lizard a bigot for his ‘hate’ of god. God seems like a right immoral fucker to me. Genocide is bad. So is evil (shocking, I know).

            • RobMcCune

              So you’ve just got the tone, not the offensive language? That makes it so much better. By the way, Bitter Lizard didn’t use any offensive language either.

              Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot:

              All of them, or just the bigoted ones? Also, doesn’t that contradict your first statement where you said bigotry was tone and language?

              treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance

              Haven’t read all your posts, but so far you’re three out of five. Does that count?

    • RobMcCune

      Whatever floats your boat.

    • smrnda

      Why is prostitution bad to begin with? I mean, painting a portrait can be a labor of love. It’s something you might do for money if you are an artist. I don’t see why an artist doing art for money is bad, so I don’t see why having sex for money is inherently bad. It’s bad if it’s exploitation, but it’s bad if working in a meat packing plant is exploitation.

      • joey_in_NC

        Why is prostitution bad to begin with?

        Well, that’s my point? Why did the author simply say prostitution instead of “sexual surrogacy”, unless he thinks there is a fundamental difference between the two that would make one less moral than the other.

        • 3lemenope

          Words that mean the same thing (denotative synonyms) can have different connotations. Which I’m sure you already knew; seriously, I can’t think of the last time a Christian came armed ready for battle with durned atheists and didn’t know about, for example, Greek synonyms for love (agape/philia/storge/eros) and their wildly different connotations. People use different synonyms to imply differences in the deep structure of the same surface idea.

        • smrnda

          It’s more than connotations. Sexual surrogacy requires therapeutic credentials. Prostitution has no such requirements. It’s not about morality, just accuracy. It’s how someone can say “I’m a handyman” if they can do some work around the house, but saying “I’m an electrician” requires a shit-load of credentials.

  • Tainda

    I think prostitution should be legal so this sort of thing really drives me crazy.

    • Edmond

      Isn’t it dumb? You can have sex for free. You can give someone money for no reason at all. But if both happen at the same time? CRIME!!

      • Bitter Lizard

        And if you videotape it, it becomes pornography, which is legal.

        • Tainda

          That’s my biggest thing! If porn is legal, why isn’t prostitution? Those people get paid to have sex also. Is it because both parties are getting paid?

          Also, it’s my body I will do what I please!

          • PinheadX

            Yes… if you pay someone to have sex, even if you videotape it, it’s not legal. If both parties are hired by a third party to have sex, and it’s recorded, then it’s legal.

  • Miranda Flemming

    The documentary Scarlet Road was interesting. A sex worker that specialises in severely disabled individuals that would otherwise never have a sexual experience http://www.theage.com.au/national/willing–able-20121201-2aoc7.html

    • Neartmhor

      I probably should have scrolled down before posting- I also recommended Scarlet Road. Great minds

  • joey_in_NC

    …that there’s more to sex than just the emotions and
    bonding that sometimes accompany it.

    Absolutely! Sometimes sex actually results in the creation of additional human beings! Who woulda thunk?

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      And sometimes friends-with-benefits (and contraception) leads to being better friends! And scratching that physical itch without taking it too emotionally close. Sex has lots of purposes! Who woulda thunk?

      • joey_in_NC

        And sometimes (many times) contraception fails.

        • baal

          So I shouldn’t rely on my car to take me to work since it occasionally has a dead battery?

          • joey_in_NC

            Seriously? You’re really attempting to compare a woman’s unintended pregnancy with a dead car battery?

            In the latter case, I simply fix the car and go on my merry way. I don’t think the former is case is nearly as trivial, but that’s just me.

            • baal

              My point is that you’re over valuing rare catastrophic events. Also, you need to split STIs and pregnancy as two different issues (as they don’t have the same solution). All too often, folks in your camp argue against condom usage (they break! leading to pregnancy) when promoting condom usage is the best way to reduce STI rates.

              • joey_in_NC

                All too often, folks in your camp argue against condom usage (they break! leading to pregnancy) when promoting condom usage is the best way to reduce STI rates.

                Uh, no. In “my camp”, we see that condoms can break leading to unintended pregnancies AND STIs (duh). That is why in “my camp”, we promote abstinence.

                • TurelieTelcontar

                  Yes, and if you compare typical use rate of abstinence with typical use rate with condoms, than you totally lose. Because with typical use rate of abstincence, you get about 47% success. At least with condoms, it’s over 95%. (I’m too lazy to look up the number, so this is what I remember.)

                  So, deciding for yourself to use abstinence, because you think you can beat the typical use rate – go and do it. Assuming it will help if you try to force other people – well they won’t keep to typical use, and the result is much worse.

                  Edited: Okay, typical use rate of the condom is only at 82%. It’s still better than abstinence. Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/08/abstinence-a-birth-control-method-that-is-100-effective.html

                • joey_in_NC

                  Because with typical use rate of abstinence, you get about 47% success.

                  What the heck does “typical use rate of abstinence” even mean?

                  If it means that you’re very likely to become pregnant if you fail to be abstinent and have unprotected sex, then whoop-dee-doo. That’s more or less common sense.

                • baal

                  It means that if you teach abstinence-only education, at the population level, you will have worse outcomes than if you teach condom useage (+ safer sex guidelines). It is wrongful to have the STI / pregnancy debate at the single person level. The relevant basis of the discussion is the population level.

            • RowanVT

              Well… unintended pregnancies can be ‘fixed’ too, especially if done early when the whole process is a lot simpler and less invasive.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          Did you have a point?

        • Fentwin

          Is that a confession as to your origin?

          • joey_in_NC

            Are you suggesting there is a problem with people born due to contraception failure?

            • Fentwin

              Depends on how the accidental gift (speaking as one myself) reacts to their less than expected arrival.

              Point being, whats your point.

              • joey_in_NC

                Depends on how the accidental gift (speaking as one myself) reacts to their less than expected arrival.

                Accidental gift? Are all unexpected pregnancies accidental “gifts”? I so happen to agree with you and think they are indeed gifts. Though, many people who choose the abortion route probably don’t think similarly.

                So, you still think they are “gifts”?

                • http://www.devithehuman.com/ Devi Taylor

                  Abstinence is not foolproof. Ask any celibate woman who was raped and subsequently got pregnant. Yes. Those women do exist.

    • Nathaniel

      And sometimes writing things leads to showing the entire world how stupid you are! Who woulda thunk?

    • RobMcCune

      Who woulda thunk?

      You, all the time in fact. It seems to be a fetish of yours.

    • RowanVT

      And sometimes the creation of ‘additional human beings’ results in permanent disfigurement and disability for the woman who has to carry it. Sometimes she even dies.

      But you think that’s totes okay.

      • joey_in_NC

        Who says I think “permanent disfigurement and disability” is okay? That’s ridiculous.

        • baal

          Rowan is talking about giving birth (or having a c-section). It’s not an easy process. If you have a choice between ‘Plan-B’ and giving birth, the former has -0- or next to -0- impact. The later has a measurable death rate.

  • baal

    Ashley Moore’s argument is the type of evidence that lead me to be an anti-theist. Absent religion teaching the whole ‘because jesus’ line of thinking or the ‘sex is only for making babies” line, I can’t see a secular philosophy getting to the same harm maximizing conclusion.

    • 3lemenope

      I think that secular political ideologies have the same potential, probably second only to religion in realization of such harm. Any comprehensive way of ordering the world whose operative clause can be reduced to one word or phrase is dangerous, whether that word or phrase be “freedom”, “the greater good”, or “Jesus”.

      I guess this is by way of saying that religions have bad effects not just because of their content, but also simply because of the nature of the task they are intended to fulfill. Anything that seeks to explain the entire world in simple terms is a tool that in incompetent or evil hands can be used to produce maximally bad outcomes. Even if Jesus didn’t have the heebie-jeebies when it came to sex, I’m absolutely confident that religious authorities would still have found a way to “apply his teachings” to sexuality in a way that gave them a great deal of control.

  • advancedatheist

    Men don’t have to suffer from a disability to experience sexual rejection and adult virginity. Just try to pick godless women at atheist conferences.

    • baal

      Will you please go crawl back under the rock you normally live under?

      Atheist conferences aren’t there for you AA to find casual sex. And anyone and everyone has an absolute right to tell you ‘no’ for any or no reason at all. And you must respect that. Your bitterness and hate about normal human – human interaction is something I think you should work on with a therapist. It’s not healthy.

    • somanynouns

      Finally made a discus account just so I could down-vote this entitled BS.

    • Ibis3

      Maybe if you stopped treating women like sex vending machines and started thinking of them as autonomous human beings you’d be happier.

      • 3lemenope

        At the very least they’d be happier.

        • onamission5

          +eleventy to both of you

      • joey_in_NC

        Wait a minute. Isn’t prostitution viewing women as “sex vending machines”, since both a prostitute and a vending machine require money in exchange for the product? That is why I’m against prostitution, simply because I don’t want to view women as sex vending machines, nor do I want this image to perpetuate.

        • Tainda

          You do know men can be prostitutes as well, right?

          As long as someone chooses to be a prostitute, that’s their business.

          • joey_in_NC

            As long as someone chooses to be a prostitute, that’s their business.

            That doesn’t mean I have to approve of “their business”. I’m not even discussing the legality aspect of prostitution, which is a different debate altogether. Just whether you approve of prostitution or not. (Not everything that I don’t approve has to be illegal.) And I don’t approve of prostitution because it perpetuates women being viewed as sex vending machines.

            • Tainda

              You can personally approve or disapprove of anything you please.

              And, no it doesn’t. The people who view women as “sex vending machines” are going to view us that way whether we sell it or give it away.

        • Bitter Lizard

          Well, it’s a good thing you’ve made this decision on behalf of all women, otherwise they might have to make up their own pretty little minds on what they can and can’t do.

        • 3lemenope

          Do you think of the people behind the counter at Dunkin’ Donuts or Krispy Kreme as “doughnut vending machines”?

          • joey_in_NC

            Not the people themselves, but their occupation can certainly be viewed as “doughnut vending machines” (if you think all they do is simply dispense doughnuts and nothing else).

            The difference is that it is okay to objectify the product of a doughnut maker, which is a doughnut. I don’t think it is okay to objectify the product of a prostitute, which is a woman’s body.

            • baal

              How about a personal services model? like a masseuse, hair cutter or physical therapist? Prostitutes aren’t usually selling a fake love service (though you can pay more for that and it take a slightly different person).

            • 3lemenope

              The woman’s (or man’s) body isn’t the product. It’s the means by which the product is produced. The product is the sexual experience.

              Not the people themselves, but their occupation can certainly be viewed as “doughnut vending machines” (if you think all they do is simply dispense doughnuts and nothing else).

              I don’t understand how the two are legitimately separable. If the entity that dispenses doughnuts is always a person, then the occupation cannot be understood as “doughnut vending machine”, because this denies their personhood.

              • Bitter Lizard

                Right. Last time I checked, all jobs require ownership of a body and the utilization of said body to do said job.

    • RowanVT

      Yeah, ’cause I would totes be at an atheist conference just so some guy could attempt to convince me to have sex with him. Because I couldn’t possibly be there to make friends and listen to the speakers and have intellectually stimulating conversations or anything like that.

      • onamission5

        Don’t you know that the only reason women go out in public is so that we can be pawed and leered at by the likes of AA? There’s literally no other reason for us to ever leave the house. Also, if a man such as AA paws or leers at us, it’s a compliment, and if we don’t pay out compliments with teh sex then we’re frigid teases.

        It’s not like we could be at a conference to, you know, do our jobs, or to meet friends, or to share new and interesting ideas with other like-minded human beings, or anything. Nope.

        *spits*

      • Tainda

        You know we only come out of the cave to find a mate that will protect and provide for us

    • Edmond

      Define “pick”.

      • Tainda

        I think he meant “pick up” because you know atheist conferences are just about the pussy!

        • Edmond

          I still would’ve asked for a definition. He makes it sound like it’s the women’s fault for not agreeing, rather then men’s fault for having such a shitty approach.

          • Tainda

            That’s exactly how he feels

      • RobMcCune

        If he’s as old as the guy in the photo he should know picking at it just makes it worse.

    • LesterBallard

      Ah, so things become a bit clearer. It’s just him and his hand, and probably always has been.

      • baal

        >.<

        There is nothing wrongful or wrong about masturbation.

        • LesterBallard

          Who said there was?

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            You, uh, you kind of implied that masturbation is only for those pathetic folks who can’t get a mate.

            • LesterBallard

              No, I implied that asshole couldn’t get a date. And that was why he makes comments like the one he made.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                Same difference, it’s still a douchey comment to make.

                • LesterBallard

                  In what way?

                • RowanVT

                  Read wmdkitty’s response upthread just a little.

                  It reads that only assholes can’t find mates and have to masturbate. So if you masturbate, you must be a loser asshole that no one will ever sleep with.

                • LesterBallard

                  My original comment was directed toward, or was about, “advanced atheist” and his remark that seems to suggest that the only reason women are at, or should be at, a conference, is to be picked up. I was going for something like his fucked up attitude is why he has no mate and only masturbates.

    • Matt D

      Being an “advanced atheist” certainly hasn’t improved your romantic side, if it even exists. Not only is it very desperate to seek sex at something like a conference, it’s shallow and self absorbed to think you can pick up sex partners anywhere you wish.

      • Miss_Beara

        Here is what he thinks about women :

        Of course, today’s “atheists” don’t really believe in free thought,
        otherwise they would at least engage the idea that perhaps men and women
        might not belong in the same moral framework, namely, that generally
        good things for men and society – higher education for the men who have
        the cognitive goods to benefit from it, and careers – turn into bad
        things for women and society when women pursue them.

        Among other delightful things. And yet he thinks women should be willing to sleep with him and if they say no then they are bitches and boo hoo hoo poor men everywhere.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Such an entitled ass…

        • RowanVT

          There are no words.

          If a guy tried to say that to my face I’d probably get arrested for assault for biting him.

    • David Kopp

      You’re going about this all wrong… you don’t pick up women. You need to show them you have something to offer them more than just simply having a dick and being a “nice guy”, and they’ll actively want to be with you. Because that’s how human relationships work.

      Nobody’s required to sleep with you. Feel free to pay for sex if that’s all you want to use a woman for. If you want an actual relationship though, try bringing something to the table first before blaming others.

      • Miss_Beara

        ^^^^^^^^^!

    • Miss_Beara

      Why hello there MRA.

    • onamission5

      This post didn’t actually have anything to do with you, your bitterness with atheist women, or conferences, or with this apparent grudge you hold against anyone who won’t sleep with you. But hey, way to take a post discussing the very real difficulties of some disabled folks, and the Christian right wing’s inability to show anything resembling empathy or flexibility toward them, and make it about you. Really, great form, way to go.

      Have anything of substance to say about the relevant topic?

    • islandbrewer

      advancedatheist, I think the problem is that you might just be too intellectually intimidating.

      Do your dates usually go like this?

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-mans-intelligence-probably-just-too-intimidat,33916/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview%3A1%3ADefault

      • RobMcCune

        I’m sure thats what keeps them from seeing his winning personality.

    • Anathema

      Advanced Atheist, in the past you’ve said that women who are promiscuous are a danger to society. And now you complain that women won’t sleep with any random guy they happen to run into at a conference.

      Do you see the contradiction here?

    • Spuddie

      Well, you don’t anyway. Your personality guarantees a lifetime of celibacy. You have already admitted to being unable to deal with women who can articulate a need for sexual gratification. So barring a commercial transaction, we can be sure you will remain celibate in any form of consensual sexual congress.

    • RowanVT

      Wow. I just read your more recent comment over at a post called “all women are sheep”.

      You know why you don’t get laid? Because you treat women like shit, like they are things instead of people. Blaming herd mentality for everything; the other men there claiming women are stupid, vapid, and the original poster saying that women at gyms have bitchy cunt faces…

      You know why women might look unapproachable at the gym? Because, shockingly, most of them are NOT there for you to hit upon. They are there to work out and getting constant comments about their body or leering remarks is going to make them angry.

      You are an asshole. That is why no women will sleep with you. My boyfriend, his friends, and my brother all instantly grasped why YOU suffer from ‘adult virginity’, and they all agree that the fault is not with the women.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        OMFG, I found that post, and wow, what a bunch of whiney babies!

        • RowanVT

          It gets even better. He’s showed off his incredible racism in even newer posts.

          per him, blacks just aren’t as smart as white folk, and because 2 of his grandparents had irish names, he’s as white as white can be!

          I mean, with that sort of attitude it’s a wonder women aren’t tripping over each other in a mad rush to have sex with such an advanced atheist. /sarcasm

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            *facepaw*

            He’s a real catch, that one…

  • joey_in_NC

    At least she’s right that you can’t pay for love

    Who says? You can buy sex but not love?

  • robert chacon

    What, are all of you teen age boys? Your discussion about the topic seems to demonstrate a complete lack of appreciation of sexuality, other than your own self gratification. The comments here suggest you cant even begin to fathom the gift it is except for the gift of getting yourself off. If these comments represent the totality of your thoughts about sexuality,and they all represent atheistic mindset, then its clear why atheism lacks in its ability to impart what it means to be fully human. It apparently reduces human sexuality to simply the stimulation of ones genitalia.

    • KeithCollyer

      A gift implies a giver. There is no giver. Having read the comments, there is a lot more depth than you are prepared to admit – or possibly you are just too emotionally and intellectually stunted to see that

      • robert chacon

        No keith, I am not stunted in either way, and I know there are thoughtful comments but there are way too many stupid comments about Jesus raping His mother. Does that nonsense really help. I am referring to that stuff. Sorry to generalize too much, but there is enough of that garbage to confuse it with anything helpful here.

        • 3lemenope

          If an idea is a good one, it should be able to survive being stated in an unflattering way. If an idea is a bad one, often times its badness is revealed by being stated in terms not preferred by its purveyors.

          The “relationship” between the God in the Bible and Mary is problematic on several levels, and from a modern perspective, would indeed qualify as rape by coercion. If you don’t like that, you can certainly waste a lot of time complaining that people have the temerity to point this out, or you can grapple with the actual problem it reveals.

        • KrisDStar

          The religion that she is using to justify her claims has a sexuality problem all of its own. People are pointing that out in a humorous way – it doesn’t negate the fact that there is still several sexual problems with the bible.
          She’s using the bible to claim some kind of moral superiority based on a book that has huge issues with portraying sex in any kind of moral way to begin with.
          We can point and laugh at it all we like.

    • baal

      ” It apparently reduces human sexuality to simply the stimulation of ones genitalia.”

      Hardly. The primary point I’m seeing is that we agree that Moore is harming other people by foisting her religious beliefs on them. We support healthy sexuality and everyone, including the disabled, having access to the partnered sex (or any sex at all depending on the severity of their disability).

    • Bitter Lizard

      So God is Jesus, and of all the people in the world he could have forcibly impregnated, he chose Mary, who was also his mother. So you worship a mother-raping deity.

      Who do you think Jesus thought about when he masturbated?

      • Tainda

        Himself

        • Bitter Lizard

          His dad. I mean, his son. Oh, no, wait, you had it right.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Paul Bettany.

          • Bitter Lizard

            STALIN!

          • Tainda

            No C.L., that’s just us lol

    • smrnda

      I’ll answer this one, since I’m not sexually active since I am asexual (don’t have a desire to have sex, I am not an amoeba.)

      To me, I think of sex the way I’d think about going to a movie, cooking a meal, going on a walk through the woods, or any other activity that’s fun, enjoyable, and that you can share with another person. Shared experience can be enjoyed when shared with the person you love most and are committed to for life, when you share them with someone you at least like, or someone to whom you are only casually connected. We don’t think it’s horrible that someone might go see a movie with someone they don’t know well but think seem like they’re alright, so why is *sex* uniquely causing this freak-out? It’s somehow *uniquely* bad to just have casual sex for pleasure, but it’s not bad to have a casual evening of dinner and a movie.

      • baal

        The level of intimacy is usually higher in sex than for a movie. Sex also tends to more and deeper emotional involvement than sex free dating. not everyone has the same emotions, however. It can lead to problems when one person is just having fun and the other thinks that this means they finally found true love.

        That being said, I’m still pro-casual sex and think folks need more mature handling of relationships and intimacy. We’re severely lacking in good models for both in pop culture and much of the rest of the culture is so polluted with christianist sexuality and intimacy models that I despair a bit. Even less christian segments like the feminists have an anti-healthy sexual relations bias (though clearly that view is not shared by all feminists).

        • Tainda

          I agree. Communication is the key in any relationship in more ways than just one. As long as both parties know it’s casual, I’m all for it. The hurt comes when one of them expects more and doesn’t get it.

    • onamission5

      (insert rant here about what a negative opinion you seem to have of teen boys)

      But forcing celibacy on someone against their will and depriving another person of making a living at their chosen profession has nothing to do with a lack of appreciation for sexuality or an unhealthy focus on what other people do with their genitalia.

      Sex itself is, of course, not the be all, end all of human sexuality. It is however a component, and for some people, as discussed in the above post, it is an important one. Here we have two consenting adults, one who enjoys the experience of sex and another who makes a living providing sexual services, no harm no foul. Then we have a third adult, who is not involved with the other two in any fashion, attempting to moralize about the sex lives of other people with whose experiences she has zero first hand knowledge because she would like those people to live their lives according to her interpretation of her religious edicts.

      Who is it who’s unhealthily focused on what other people do with their genitals again?

    • EdmondWA

      No, we are trying NOT to reduce human sexuality to ONLY ONE purpose. We are pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with recognizing MANY purposes of sex, INCLUDING “getting yourself off”. You can’t advance the argument by claiming that we are trying to reduce sexuality to only gratification, while you are also trying to reduce it to only reproduction.
      The REAL POINT here is that the woman featured in this blog post, Ashley Moore, seems to think that because she has a religion, she is entitled to tell SOMEONE ELSE that they are doing sex wrong. Not to mention that she’s discussing someone who lives a DRASTICALLY different life than she does.
      Sexuality means different things to different people, of course, and it’s up to each individual to become comfortable with their own context for it. No one should be “reducing” sexuality down to ANY definitions for OTHER people. If 100 different people want to have 100 different concepts of sex, that’s up to them. If they live a life that allows them to reduce it to anything, that’s up to them. No one’s superstitions qualifies them to criticize something SO personal for other people.

  • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

    Religion wants you to stay a virgin because it is a form of ignorance. The more you know about the world, the more likely you are to reject faith, and sexuality is a big part of the world that contradicts a lot of religious teaching. There are a lot more scary questions people ask when they start schtupping and it turns out to be nothing like what their often celibate witch-doctors described…

  • ptfe

    Great time to point to this 2010 audio documentary on sex workers specializing in the disabled (Australia):

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/360/the-too-hard-basket/3093916

    It was produced by — and features — the (now late) John Blades, who had MS and was confined to a wheelchair for his late adult life. It documents the training and experiences of people on both sides of the trade. I don’t recall a discussion of sexual surrogacy, but most of the sex workers involved are acting in a capacity that is only by degrees less regimented toward the relationships.

  • Guest

    Must be southern baptist lol

  • KBrent Alexander KThomas

    She said “Jesus Christ walked this earth for 33 years, unmarried and undefiled, spotless, stainless, and, to be frank, sexless.”

    How do we know this when like it skips over his teens and twenties in the bible?

    • Ron

      From the Secret Gospel of Mark:

      “But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.”

    • katiehippie

      But they also say he endured every temptation common to man.

      Ah yes, here it is Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

      It doesn’t say if he was subject to the same sinning laws that we are. God seems exempt from his own sinning laws so you would think jesus would be too. God can kill someone but he’s God so he can do whatever he wants. But Jesus is God too. So he could have sex or whatever and it’s not a sin because he is God.

      I feel a headache coming on. ;)

  • Neartmhor

    I would like to point people to an excellent doco by the name of Scarlet Road (available free on YouTube, last I checked). It is about an Australian sex worker who provides service to those with a disability, and has set up a charity which brings together the disabled and sex workers.

  • lorimakesquilts

    Assuming Jesus was a real person, who’s to say he was a spotless virgin? I could just as easily say that Mary was his wife in all but name (more likely than virginity.) Although she seemed to be pretty close with Mary (the mother) so its just as unlikely, after all what woman’s mother-in-law actually likes her. lol

  • Daniel Campbell

    Anything that people think they know about “Jesus” is all hearsay. The only record of his existence is in the bible. You know that book, written by MEN. If this woman is really a Christian she would not have to make up what Jesus would have had to say on this. He already said it. What so ever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me.

  • Neartmhor

    I’m a disabled person who is (currently) choosing to be celibate- although certainly not for religious reasons, more that I can’t be bothered with making the effort to meet people to have sex with.

    I fully support sexual surrogates, and also sex workers who provide service to the disabled. Sex is a basic human drive, and disabled people have just as much right to sexual agency and to be regarded as sexual beings as any able bodied person.

  • LesterBallard

    Fuck her. So to speak.

  • Bruce Martin

    Moore said: “Jesus Christ walked this earth for 33 years, unmarried and undefiled,”

    But she and most Christians are just choosing to believe this without evidence. The bible doesn’t even convince Saint Paul (the founder of Christianity) that Jesus was ever on earth. He could have spent all his life in one of the lower heavens. You know, between here and the moon. And then Satan could have crucified him up there. So Jesus could have lived an earth-free life, too.

    And remember that Paul’s views (sick) are in his letters in the last quarter of the bible, but were written before any of the so-called gospels were composed.

    So is silly to talk about the life of Jesus in details not specified by any of the authors who invented an Earth setting for his fable.

  • Oranje

    “Jesus Christ walked this earth for 33 years, unmarried and undefiled, spotless, stainless, and, to be frank, sexless. He lived a perfectly human life — a fulfilling life — but God didn’t work sex and marriage into the short life plan of Jesus on earth, and Jesus didn’t demand it.”

    Citation Needed

  • Brian

    Bible doesnt even mention what Jesus did between 13 and 30 years of age. Kind of ironic that during his most virile age, there does not exist any documentation of where or what (or who) he was doing.

    • islandbrewer

      Oh, you know, dude hung out. Backpacked around, couch surfed. Chilled.

      All until his old man told him he was wasting his life, and he decided to try to start his own business.

  • daryl carpenter

    They’ll deny it, but this type of thinking shows that most modern Christians are simply docetists. They think Jesus only *seemed* to be a human being. Did young Jesus have impure thoughts? Did he ever get anything wrong? Did he ever hit his thumb with a hammer in Joseph’s woodwork shop? Of course not! Ridiculous!

    If they only realised how heretical they are being in believing such things…

    • baal

      XP – ALLY – Docetists?

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        I’m ashamed to admit how long it took me to get that.

      • ufo42

        Good one! :) LOL

  • Mairianna

    Oh, how I tremble at the thought of what would have happen to Miss Moore if she had heard the presentation by one of my medical colleagues recently on sexual paraphernalia for paraplegics! She would have just passed out!

  • somaticstrength

    “Jesus Christ walked this earth for 33 years, unmarried and undefiled, spotless, stainless, and, to be frank, sexless.”

    I think it’s telling that she puts “sexless” alongside words like “undefiled” and “stainless.” For all the talk about how sex is this holy thing if it’s within the context of marriage, a lot of Christians still espouse this kind of talk that reveals how much they consider the act of sex to be dirtying and defiling. Seems like it’s not that sex is any less dirtying and gross within marriage to them, it’s just that that’s the only time that being dirty and defiled is okay.

    • KrisDStar

      Because it is the only way to “go forth and procreate.” If there was a viable, cheap option to sex to produce offspring, I am sure that they would be first in line.
      Dirty sex is dirty, but it seems that they aren’t passing that wisdom down the line – states with high religiosity tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates.

      • Anna

        What’s weird is that there is a totally free way to create offspring without intercourse. Just have the man ejaculate into a little cup and insert the sperm via syringe. I guess the man would still be “defiled” by the act of having to masturbate, but the woman would have her virtue intact.

        You’d think sexless reproduction would be heralded as superior by those who think the urge for sex is sinful, yet it’s usually attacked as unnatural. It’s a strange religion. Christianity lauds virginity and celibacy as long as you’re single, but as soon as you’re married, it’s seen as bad.

  • ufo42

    “Puritanism.
    The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” -H. L.
    Mencken. The American Taliban never evolved past the abhorrent ideology
    of the Puritans.

  • guest

    I’m just finding it curious that the term surrogate is used and not prostitute. Let me clarify, I’m all for prostitution, it should not be illegal. I just find these term substitutions funny.

    • JohnnieCanuck

      I’m not sure, but I think that in some places,if you go to a psychiatrist for help with a dysfunctional sex life, they may recommend a surrogate sex partner. This would be someone trained in providing specific sexual activities as therapy. You don’t just pick and choose from a price list of what you would like as you might with a prostitute.

      Some people would still conflate the job descriptions, especially someone like Moore.

      • guest

        I would still conflate the job descriptions. I guess the women downtown should just tell the police they are Freelance Sex Therapists

      • guest

        How do you go about getting such training to be a sex therapist that actually has sex with their client? Can I study from home?

  • UWIR

    ” God didn’t work sex and marriage into the short life plan of Jesus on earth, and Jesus didn’t demand it.”
    There’s lot of things Jesus didn’t demand. Like living past 33. Or not being tortured to death. There’s something seriously wrong with anyone who sees Jesus as an example of someone who got everything out of life that one should have. (And saying that Jesus had a fully human life is really begging the question). Isn’t the whole point of the Jesus story that he was a sacrifice? As in, missing out on something?

  • Miranda Flemming

    Moore admitted she was in her twenties, unlikely to be a virgin forever (someone would probably marry her) and she judged a man twice her age that would otherwise never have a sexual experience. Maybe she’ll rethink her views as she gets older, especially if god doesn’t provide as spouse. And if someone marries her, she’ll have to adjust her beliefs from sex being forbidden, dirty etc to something she needs to satisfy her husband with (and presumably he repressed his sexual desires until marriage too). Apparently Jesus was asexual and never had a wet dream. Jesus said that lusting after a woman was adultery, but didn’t say anything about lusting after a man. He enjoyed the close company of a dozen men.

  • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

    It amuses me that all these moralisers who tell us that sex is bad also seem to think that sex is the be-all and end-all of love (which is supposed to be good). It’s a very crude and simplistic view that really doesn’t hang together if you think about it.

    • http://www.devithehuman.com/ Devi Taylor

      I agree with this. It’s so confusing. From one side of their mouth they say sex is the devil’s work but out the other side of their mouth they say it is a blessing from God. Which is it? I guess the blood of the hymen washes the sin away…?

  • Johnny

    I don’t see any evidence that supports the historical Jesus, but if for the sake of argument he did exist, am I to believe he never enjoyed an early morning fap? First one awake, house dark… Come on Jesus, you know you choked that holy chicken.

  • MorAvFire

    According to Leviticus 21. 17-23 God hates the handicapped anyway, right? So if they are going to hell, according to God why exactly shouldn’t they have sex? Is there some additional punishment I’m not aware of?
    “Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or broken-handed…. “and on and on covering everything from scurvy to scabs.

  • MorAvFire

    According to Leviticus 21. 17-23 God hates the disabled. So if they are going to hell anyway according to God why should then not have sex? Is there some additional punishment I’m not aware of?
    “Whosever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or broken handed…” and on and on covering everything from scurvy to scabs.

  • Nancy Shrew

    If I could turn water into wine, bring people back from the dead, or walk on water I wouldn’t give a shit about sex either, but being human sex is probably the closest to magic we’re going to get outside of eating certain foods and doing drugs, so.

  • http://www.devithehuman.com/ Devi Taylor

    I read those comments on the original article and all I can say is those people need help so, so badly.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X