Information

Secular Sexuality

(NSFW) A no-taboo approach to sexual education and health.

Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality
Members: 670
Latest Activity: 2 hours ago

Sex for fun and non-procreation!

In this world, we can't get away from religion. We've been exposed to false information regarding contraception failure rates and experienced the STD scare tactics. Some of us may even have gone through abstinence-only sex education!

Here in Secular Sexuality we will discuss:

-sexual health in light of peer-reviewed science
-safe for work guides on safe(r) sex (or links)
-questions that would shock the religious

This discussion forum is moderated. Unsophisticared trolls and judging other people will not be tolerated. If you would like to see a topic addressed, or have a question, add it to the comment wall, or message an admin.

Message The Nerd if you want an invite to the X-rated group, for topics not allowed on Atheist Nexus.

Discussion Forum

Cliteracy

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Luara on Thursday. 4 Replies

BDSM

Started by BJ Saylor. Last reply by Joseph P Jul 7. 17 Replies

Sex Tips

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 10. 6 Replies

Ezekiel 23:20 – Bible Porn?

Started by Garaidh Mac an tSaoir. Last reply by Gwaithmir May 14. 5 Replies

What do you yell in bed?

Started by Angie Jackson. Last reply by Gwaithmir Mar 24. 137 Replies

Beautiful Cervix

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Craigart14 Mar 21. 7 Replies

Non-monogamy

Started by Pockets. Last reply by Mink Laubenthal Jan 16. 30 Replies

FREEOK 2013 - Emily Boyer: "Secular Facts on Sexual Acts"

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Jul 2, 2013. 2 Replies

gender reveal parties

Started by dr kellie. Last reply by TNT666 Jun 27, 2013. 25 Replies

Men have sex and women make love. Or do they?

Started by Tom Sarbeck. Last reply by dr kellie Jun 24, 2013. 8 Replies

Clits 101

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jun 18, 2013. 5 Replies

FS: My virginity mistake

Started by A Former Member. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jun 18, 2013. 3 Replies

On sexual objectification and subjectivication

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck May 3, 2013. 18 Replies

Does sex keep you younger?

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck May 3, 2013. 9 Replies

Music during sex

Started by Splurgen. Last reply by Glenn Friedman Apr 10, 2013. 48 Replies

How flirty is too flirty for a married person?

Started by Saint Fillan. Last reply by Kevin Boleyn Mar 27, 2013. 9 Replies

Sexual Harassment and Assault at Hooters

Started by EJN. Last reply by Gwaithmir Mar 22, 2013. 21 Replies

In Soviet Russia Orgasm has You

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 19, 2013. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Secular Sexuality to add comments!

Comment by Joseph P on October 24, 2011 at 7:52am

TNT, I think the primary place you're going wrong is in equating artificial with imaginary.  Yes, we've retarded the emotional maturation of our children with an extended puberty through middle school and high school.  In third-world countries in which people are lucky to get 6 years of education, children have to be ready to act like adults sooner, and so they are.  It's an artificial effect of modern society, but it's very real.

You can't just say, "Well, in our natural state, things would be this way," and create laws based upon your idealized world.  That's what Republicans do.  If you want to make it okay for 14 year-olds to sleep with whomever, you first need to change the way our society effects the maturation of teenagers.  You're going about it backward.

 

Would you seriously be okay with a 30 year old man cruising middle schools and mall food courts, trying to hook up with 12 and 13 year-old girls?  Even forgetting the pure creepy factor, a guy like that is almost certainly going to be emotionally and socially retarded or a horrifying control-freak and will probably leave the girl worse-off for the experience.

 

The age of consent is arbitrary, yes.  It has to be.  There's too much variation between members of the human species.  You have to pick a boundary that is likely to include the greatest number of immature people on one side and the greatest number of mature people on the other.  As a Humanist (correct me if I'm mistaken, and you're not one) you should understand the need to make rules that cause the least suffering.  If you think that 18 is the wrong number, then work to get it changed to what you think is a more appropriate number.

 

Yes, the case that Brother Eduardo brought up is a little fucked up.  I know of an even worse case, in which the guy was 18, and the girl was 17.  They were something like 8 months apart.  They had been having sex while both of them were under 18.  Some disapproving neighbor or family member waited until he turned 18, then had him arrested for statutory rape.  He's now married to the girl (or was at the time I read about it), but he still has to register as a sex offender.

That's why I'm in favor of dual systems, like the one in North Carolina.  The age is 18, and you're okay if both people are on either side of the line.  You're also okay if the two are within 4 years of each other, in age.  That covers most situations that most of society would be okay with.  Any state that only has a solid line can cause some ridiculous and horrifying situations.

Comment by Sean Murphy on October 24, 2011 at 7:44am
Comment by Bethany Sweet 20 minutes ago

Sean, I am not "thinly veiling" my threats.  My threat is quite clear.  Any adult who touches my child is doomed, one way or another.  I am not threatening anyone on here, as I doubt you will ever meet me or my kids.  I speak only pedophiles who have the opportunity and desire to molest my children.  If that's not you, then why worry?


Because you directed your threat very specifically at TNT666 who did not say anything even remotely suggesting an interest in your son.
Comment by Joseph P on October 24, 2011 at 7:30am

Hey!  I was raised Catholic and I ...

 

Well, okay, I feel the same about priests as you.  Never mind.

Comment by Sean Murphy on October 24, 2011 at 7:15am
Comment by Bethany Sweet 18 hours ago
TNT666 - Be glad I don't know you personally.
- I think I am glad I don't know YOU personally. Someone talks about knowledge as  good thing and you respond with thinly veiled threats? Wow. So are you advocating modern Christian sensitivities on an Atheist forum? Or are you knee-jerk-reacting to the inclusion of "pedophilia" and "hysteria" in the same sentence and assuming TNT666 was advocating rape?
Comment by MaleficVTwin on October 23, 2011 at 10:55pm

TNT: Regarding your last point: I was the learner. At 22-23(I honestly forget how old I was) I had only been with a couple of girls, while this 17 year old had been with over a dozen guys and a couple of girls! She had stared at 12(illegal in any state). When we started seeing each other, she had commented that it seemed that only older guys were interested in her. I told her that she acted older than she was. It was mentioned earlier that age is not indicative of readiness. This girl was certainly mature enough to handle it; she insisted that I wear a condom before I even mentioned that I had a box of them in my nightstand. I've since been with girls older than me who got pissed off that I put one on. Age does not indicate readiness, maturity, or responsibility.

 

And Tom, excellent point as well as an entirely new can of worms. :)

Comment by TNT666 on October 23, 2011 at 10:45pm
Yep, best be careful of all the artificial inseminations out there, you never know if you're fucking your sibling!
Comment by Tom Sarbeck on October 23, 2011 at 10:36pm

A friend some years ago did a Master's program thesis on the sex laws of the states. Reading it was an education. How close a relative you can marry also varies.

 

Comment by TNT666 on October 23, 2011 at 10:32pm
@Malefic... exactly why I completely disagree with any concept of universal moralities. We as citizens and societies give ourselves laws, to achieve certain objectives, these objectives vary from group to group. I would theorise that the "objective" of declaring youth sexuality with adults as amoral is because of the religious dogma that requires youth to remain pure/virginal until their marriage...and why this...well... we've discussed this somewhere in these threads... a monogamous family value system functions much better when people have no knowledge of what a crappy mate they have been married to. People with diversified sexual experience tend to marry less, because we are not so blinded by "blind love". Blindness... the opposite of knowledge. Allowing youth to be once again (compared to history) sexually active, with same age or not, with appropriate education by parents, can only make better more knowledgeable human beings. But Christianity must GROW, and so they push reproduction and monogamy, to ensure people have no choice. Once you have children, people become slaves to the corporate/economic system. Stretching that thought a bit further... infantilising youth further ensures youth will turn into subservient adults. Sexualised youth I think are always a bit more rebellious. So the choice then becomes: sexual exploration with an equally inexperienced youth... or sexual exploration with someone they can learn from?
Comment by MaleficVTwin on October 23, 2011 at 10:19pm

Speaking of 'underage', has anyone looked at age-of-consent laws and how they vary state to state? Some states have AOC set as young as 14. This raises an interesting point: does morality change when you cross state lines?

 

I ask this because when I was in my early 20's, I briefly dated a girl that was 17. I live in NV, where AOC is 16. Cali is a 20 minute drive away, where the AOC is 18. We did things that were totally legal in my state, yet illegal if we did them a short drive down the highway. 

 

CA would consider it child sex, NV would not. Thoughts?

 

 

Comment by TNT666 on October 23, 2011 at 9:56pm

@ Cet:

I had both articles open my browser as well as the original post, all the while; neither is of great scientific interest/value, as the language, as often happens in humanities/psychology/EB papers, is too vague to be considered truly conclusive, grrr.

But overall, I found nothing disturbing in there either. Certainly nothing that validated the crazy name calling and hysteria that ensued. The people who get hysterical over this (female and male, though lacking a uterus :P) I think are simply over influenced by religious morals, stemming from their youth, which are against sex initially for all... then being a 'cool' atheist... sex becomes ok for all those above the 'legal age' but remains 'immoral' for those under the 'legal age', and this gets transferred to only being against sex for underage people. I find that to be an extremely prude behaviour.

 

The distinction on the topic of consent is knowledge and maturity, not age. Of course a child that is raised in an infantilised bubble probably does not have much going on sexually, but for any youth out there in the real world with non hysterical parents (and I've know a few in the real world too) exploring sexuality is normal at almost any age. Being attracted to older men is the norm for younger females, yet for males it's taboo... I lean with the articles overall, slightly before full fledged puberty is when humans get moving, parents need to be ready.

 

Members (670)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service