Information

Secular Sexuality

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

Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality
Members: 669
Latest Activity: yesterday

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

The other side-women and sexual freedom.

Started by Cheryl Kerkin. Last reply by SBMontero Dec 20. 39 Replies

Cliteracy

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Luara Jul 10. 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

Comment Wall

Comment

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

Comment by TNT666 on January 1, 2010 at 9:25pm
It's been my understanding that there is not a single early scripture reference to anyone called JC, that this supposed JC was «written into» the past around 600 years after the fact. There is no archaeological evidence either. Even mentioning JC in paragraphs dealing with known facts is like atheist Zionists claiming Jews were owed a homeland due to millenia of persecution. One simply cannot claim atheism and accept biblical «evidence» over archaeological evidence. I used to have a plausibility compartment in my mind for a real life JC years ago, but the lack of evidence makes him even more implausible than gawd itself. Especially after that the film «The Last Temptation of Christ» I thought if JC had existed, he surely would have appeared to be like in that movie... a nice dude who had a normal sex life! But I've let go that fantasy as well. And since the concept of JC was the single only interesting aspect of Christianity, it really pulls everything down as a giant farce :)
Comment by Jaume on January 1, 2010 at 8:31pm
The four gospels are at least consistent in NOT denying that JC liked his wieners topped with sauerkraut.
Comment by TNT666 on January 1, 2010 at 8:03pm
@JoJerome, in addition to agreeing with Julia Baumann comments on the numerous outright misrepresentations in the DaVinci Code (which was a very entertaining read, albeit not very high literary quality) I also am surprised by your statement regarding the gospel of Mary referring to JC. From my own armchair studies, I've read not a single historical document even suggests the existence of JC, that this dude is a literary creation of later years...
Comment by Jo Jerome on January 1, 2010 at 6:32pm
@Jan Galkowski - I'm a bit lazy this New Year's day so this is all off the top of my head, but...

The Nag Hammadi codices were discovered quite by accident in the 1940s, hidden in clay jars in a cave, roughly 400-500 AD. Just my own assessment, but the timing makes sense. This would have been soon after the burning of the Library at Alexandria, when the last bits of non-church-approved literature were being hunted down and destroyed.

As fate would have it, the boy who discovered the codices brought them home and before taking them to see if they were worth any money, his mother, thinking they were scrap paper, used most of them to start a fire in the stove. Interesting the little things in life that can change history!

Anyway, the texts - some of which existed beforehand in scraps and references to them - have come to be known as the Gnostic Gospels. Gnosticism was one of the offshoots of Christianity which did not win Emperor Constantine's popularity contest. It is almost closer to Buddhism than orthodox Christianity, one of the core differences being that Gnosticism places far more importance on the power of and divine within the individual: That God and even Jesus himself are less tangible entities and more figurehead ideas to be found within oneself.

Obviously, "You have the power within you" doesn't go well with "Listen to us, do what we say, we are your governing body, we are your necessary doorway to the divine. Pay up front please." So, no surprise the Church chucked them out.

There is a gospel of Mary Magdalene. Gospel of Thomas contains some of the most intriguing and controversial writings on the character of Mary. Gospel of Thomas also portrays Mary as an equal and possibly favored apostle, including a reference that could mean Mary was Jesus' lover. It's most of the basis for Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code."

On a side note, from my own armchair studies, all the facts in the DaVinci Code seemed true enough. Of course, those facts are sparse and can be interpreted many different ways, as they are by different characters. I always find it funny how many people get hot under the collar about how 'wrong' the book/movie conclusions were. Brown himself doesn't really make any conclusions. Different characters do, pursuant to their individual slants and takes on the facts at hand.
Comment by TNT666 on December 30, 2009 at 11:06pm
Economic necessity, what an insult :(
Comment by Alex Tyler on December 30, 2009 at 11:08am
@Simon Miller - that was funny, especially if those scientists didn't already guess that much... LOL.
Comment by John on December 27, 2009 at 1:28pm
Remember-all that biblical crap was VOTED ON (and "in"!), by a bunch of pathetic, control-freaks at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Now if it could all just get voted OFF and OUT!
Comment by Jo Jerome on December 27, 2009 at 1:25pm
Actually, nowhere in the bible does it say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That status was decided upon by the Catholic Church in 591 and then very quietly rescinded in 1969. Very quietly.

There is actually only one mention anywhere in the bible of Mary Magdalene; as a witness to the crucifixion and first person to see Jesus resurrected. Though apparently it doesn't count because she's a woman - the Catholic Church names St. Peter as the first to see Jesus resurrected.

There are lots of other Marys in the NT and as is common in mythology, one Mary gets lumped together with all the other Marys, which is how the prostitution bit came about. Though the NT makes a clear distinction between Mary Magdalene and Mary Sister of Martha, the church decided they were the same person. The later had been absolved of sins by Jesus and the Church decided (with no biblical evidence) that the sin must have been prostitution.

Start reading other, non-cannon gospels, and not only was Mary Magdalene not the camp whore, but she was a full-fledged apostle. Has her own gospel and everything. Her principle rival for power was Peter. We see which of the two won that popularity contest, and it's only tradition to smear the name of the loser.
Comment by Little Name Atheist on December 3, 2009 at 12:16pm
Wow, a test group of twenty het men who are twenty years old definitely proves that all men watch porn.
Comment by TNT666 on December 3, 2009 at 10:07am
I fantasize about a world without a virgin Mary, without any virginity issues, how different sex would have been for women!
 

Members (669)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service