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: Nov 11

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 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

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 Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on July 2, 2009 at 4:56pm
I agree with meabh, in that there needs to be a conversation between the two parties. If accommodation cannot be reached than the next step is analyzing the marriage.
I can not imagine keeping my wife from sexual enjoyment if I for some bizzar twist of fate stopped enjoying it. Of course I want her to enjoy it any way she wishes now, but that's just me.
Comment by Little Name Atheist on July 2, 2009 at 10:38am
Hmmm... maybe Realizer's question would be better posted as a discussion in the Secular Sexuality Discussion Forum, as I can see this going on for a bit.
Comment by Angie Jackson on July 2, 2009 at 10:27am
@Realizer - Well it's certainly disrespectful and has the potential to be tremendously hurtful also. Do the feelings of the wife matter to this fellow?
Comment by Little Name Atheist on July 2, 2009 at 1:57am
Realizer: Is it permissible to look around and try to find a lady about the same age in the same situation? Is it sinful, is it illegal, is it immoral, actually is it socially acceptable?

How does his wife feel? If they made a monogamous commitment to each other, then he should probably discuss this with her before going outside the marriage for sex. If she disagrees, then he may have to reconsider his desire for another human being to have sex with, or his marriage. If she agrees, I don't see any issue with it, as long as he is upfront about his situation with any future lovers.
Comment by Joshua on July 1, 2009 at 10:37pm
I really don't like viewing the last 3000 or so years of human history. This age is a competition of ideals that really began in the Middle East long before Egypt was a global power and extends all the way up unto this day. For this time, the name of the game is centralized control, which is what you see across almost all areas of our society, including sexuality. I think that prior to the rise of civilization, humankind would have been much more innocent and open minded about sexual experiences. I doubt severely that many humans would lock themselves into a monogamy or hetero/homosexuality. To look at our closest relatives, it is highly suggestive that the female orgasm mechanism is based upon a model of multiple simultaneous/successive partners and the shape of the male glans is designed to act as a scoop, reducing the likelihood of competitors sperm making it to a fertile ova. Honestly, I think that it is very likely that humans were much like chimps/bonobos, pretty much anything went, so long as no one complained.
Comment by Realizer on July 1, 2009 at 10:16pm
A hypothetical situation...Suppose we have a male in his mid 60s stuck by econonomic necessity to stay married to a wife who HATES sex. Is it permissible to look around and try to find a lady about the same age in the same situation? Is it sinful, is it illegal, is it immoral, actually is it socially acceptable?
My theory about Adultery is it was made sinful so the prophet and his minnions could keep the hoards away from their harems. I would be willing to bet that homosexuality was not so prevelant by choice, but rather by necessity, ie all the nubile ladies were locked up in harems.
So if this person is not destined to eternity in hell, then the only visible risk is getting beat up or shot, is this acceptable behavior? (not the getting beat up or shot,but looking around)
Comment by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on July 1, 2009 at 9:33pm
Despite the fact that most brothels were staffed with slaves both male and female , has nothing to do with the fact that Romans and Greeks both engaged in such behavior. And found it acceptable.
Govt. regulated prostitution would work just fine as it does in Amsterdam.
Comment by A Former Member on July 1, 2009 at 8:01pm
@ Habman, I have moved our conversation here, because it has veered away from the topic of this group. Also, let's both try to work on our brevity, or else I won't be able to keep this up!
Comment by Habman on June 30, 2009 at 7:40pm
Hmmm he is honored by a 2 inch phallus shaped mushroom being named after him. I believe he needs to get a life. lol
Comment by Habman on June 30, 2009 at 7:30pm
It strikes me that it was only an illusion of regulation, not actual, real regulation itself.

So then what is regulation? If 1000's of pages of law is not then is 2000, 5000, 10000, 100000? So what would you say is "real regulation"?


Totally agree. But it does not seem to me that this is a problem with regulation, or even the concept of regulation, but rather a problem with corruption and regulation poorly done. We saw this in the EPA in the last 8 years. Industry insiders were making the decisions.

And insiders will always be making the decisions. Is the Obama administration consulting you regarding what the new regulations for the banking industry should be? No they are being written by industry insiders who have bought and paid for them and the regulations will in the end benefit them and they companies.

No I am not. The government should serve the people, not the other way around. It is run by the people, it employees the people, and it is there to create and enforce laws, deal with foreign matters, protect the economy and the citizens through democratic means. The government is not some kind of alien force that has come to the earth and imposed its will upon us. It is our government, run for and paid for by us.

Please name one thing that government does well. If they can't correctly regulate the banking industry after 200 years then how in the heck can they run the economy? And no the government is not an alien force it is much more insidious. It provides us with the appearance of freedom, but is actually the tool which the powerful and connected use to gain advantage over the unwashed masses, namely us.


Not the same thing. Our gov currently regulates prostitution. It says it is illegal and you cannot do it – giver or receiver. That is the way the laws are written now. What I am suggesting is the opposite of that: you have the freedom to do it, just like you have the freedom to shop or eat or socialize as you like. It’s not about judging or prohibiting anyone’s sexual needs or tastes or inclinations. It is about using common sense to protect the consumer and the worker.

It is exactly the same thing just a different form. If you believe that the government has the right to regulate any non-violent activity you have given them power to regulate all non-violent activities and they will grab that power like a 4 year old grabs a lollipop.

All government is force plan and simple. Government is the measured application of violence again anything they deem unlawful.

Also, the government regulates who I can sleep with or marry now, as it is. In Texas sodomy is no longer illegal, but it is not like that in all states. And I can’t get married in TX either.

I totally agree that they do, and that is why I oppose government in all its forms.
Your life is the basis of all your property and as such, it is you that should decide how it is used. Period. If you want to ingest a drug for what ever purpose, have at it. As long as you do not intrude on me or my property, you have that un-alienable right. Marriage is another example of usurpation by government.

Marriage was historically a function of the church with no state involvement. Slowly the government transformed it from a religious rite to a state license.

So if an industry dumps toxic waste into a river and ends up poisoning or killing thousands of people downstream, whose fault is it? The industries, or the victims? Shouldn’t the gov be able to regulate toxic waste to prevent that from happening?

As it currently stands industry can dump toxins poisoning and killing people downstream and as long as they stay under the government regulatory maximums those injured are powerless to do anything about it. They cannot sue for damages because the industry was "operating within the allowable limits". And if the government fines them for dumping the injured parties again get nothing it is the government that benefits.


Another example: I don’t understand math very well. Never been good at it, or numbers in general. I can’t remember phone numbers, birth dates, etc, either. I always have my taxes done each year. I pay my hard earned money to others to do it for me. Shouldn’t I be able to expect, in good faith, that these people are qualified, responsible, and are subject to the same rules of fair play and accountability as everyone else? I think so.


Another perfect example. Exactly how does any regulation in the books protect you when you get your taxes done? What actually protects you is the accountant wanting to stay in business. Government regulations in no way insure that the accountant is competent, intelligent or honest. What they actually do is drive up the cost of having your taxes done but limiting the number of accountants available. Just as medical schools where implemented by doctors to limit the number of doctors practicing by limiting the number that are allowed to graduate.

Additionally, if we all had to adhere to “if you don't understand something you do the research in to it. Then you get screwed over you have only yourself to blame…’’ then we’d all have to be experts at everything. Medicine, law, construction, physics, politics, foreign policy, etc.

Do you ever go to the doctor? Do you understand medicine? If not, are you to blame if your doctor turns out to be a quack who makes bad decisions? Shouldn’t he have to adhere to some form of regulation and oversight in order to protect his patients who go to him in good faith to help them solve their problems? I think so.


Again another example that proves my point. Doctors mistakes kill more people each year that guns, cars, planes and drowning. But we don't see a movement to ban doctors and what where does regulation protect the patient from bad doctors?

In fact every instance you've brought up is handled just fine under civil or criminal law.

Did you understand every word of your mortgage contract for your home when you signed it, or did you act in good faith that it was legal and fair. Did you rely upon the state or federal gov to exert some control over the industry so that you would not be screwed?

Our society functions out of reciprocity. Regulation, law, punishment and the like help it function, and also punishes those who act in overly selfish or anti-social ways, doesn’t it?

Punished for overly selfish or anti-social ways? Was anyone punished in the banking collapse? How about AIG?

No! In both cases in fact some of them received huge freaking bonuses paid for with the fruits of my and your labors in the form of tax dollars for doing so!! This is the product of government regulation.


I just heard that the SEC audited Bernie Madoff regularly and never found any problems. But this is an issue with incompetence and perhaps poor funding or too much cronyism, and not necessarily with regulation.

But an investment broker with 30 minutes and a pencil figured it out and contacted the SEC, explained the fraud and what did they do about it? They ignored it! Why because Bernie was connected, hell he ran the NYSE. Just proves my point once again.

Fraud is already as illegal as it can be, so why in the world would we need another level of laws to protect against it? Regulations of any industry are put in place to allow cover for certain companies at the expense of others.

Take the NAFTA "free trade" agreement, 12,000 pages of regulation to define "free trade". I can define it in one paragraph, but want it actually did was protect certain companies from having to trade freely in an open and fair marketplace.

I find it amazing that only when it comes to government are people willing to throw more and more money into a organization that fails time and again.

Would you take your car back into a repair shop that when returned to pick it up after an oil change found that the wheels were missing and then told you that if you just paid them more to begin with it would have never happened? I bet not, so why do you buy into the idea that if we just give them more they will be less corrupt?

Sorry Dallas, but it just doesn't add up.


So just extend this to the sex trade and you will have just one more mess. The reason that they keep the sex trade illegal is it produces millions in fines and fees that feed the government system with it's prisons, police, judicial and legal systems.

There is real money to made by creating black markets that can then be used as a reason to fleece the citizen to stop the immorality of it all.

Government creates imagined boogie men to justify its existence, and it is time we see through it.
 

Members (668)

 
 
 

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