RoR: Forum

I knew a female college freshman back in 2002 who left religion after she discovered Ayn Rand. She later admitted she had a strong motive to do so because of her desire to have sex with her boyfriend. Unfortunately, her newfound sense of reason did not override some unreason regarding sex. Because she relied solely on the pill and yet forgot to take it regularly "just once," she became unexpectedly pregnant since both she and her boyfriend held the opinion that "condoms suck." She had resolved before the pregnancy never to have an abortion despite her atheism, but finally relented upon learning that her boyfriend wanted nothing to do with fatherhood. (We had extensive discussions about the Objectivist pro-choice view long before this happened.) She took a long time to draw this conclusion and nearly missed the legal "first trimester" window to have one. Her mother was extremely upset with her but apparently this young lady found financing for it anyway.

She shared this story with me a year after the fact after having disappeared from my chat window for that length of time, offering it as an explanation for her absence from chat.

My point in sharing this story is ... well ... even Objectivists do not always follow reason rigorously, especially young ones brand new to that way of thinking. But reality will not be evaded. A is A.

Post 1

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 2:34pm

Luke: thanks for sharing that. It is something to consider. There are studies on how the hormones for sexual drive demote the rational activities of the brain. We know that intuitively; but it seems to be empirical.

I found the basic paper itself at the publisher, an atheist organization, IPC Press.
http://ipcpress.com/index.php?id=42#
You must register; but registration is open and easy.

Over 14,500 people participated in an internet-based survey with over 9500 finishing the survey during two weeks in January 2011. ...
Results: ... It appears that the effects of religion are more easily eliminated than predicted.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/25, 2:36pm)

Post 2

Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 11:54am

The study doesn't actually show that atheists / agnostics have the best sex lives. What it shows is that a self-selecting tiny minority of people -- those who abandon their religious beliefs and are also willing to talk with strangers about their sex lives -- report having better sex lives afterwards.

It doesn't survey all religious people versus all non-religious people and ask about their sexual satisfaction. And, even if they had done that, it is unlikely that the religious people would answer the questions truthfully, or that they would get anything like a statistically representative cross-section of religious people to open up about their sex lives.

Finally, since people who marry are presumably more likely to be religious than people who choose not to marry, and married couples on average report more satisfying sex lives than non-married couples, there are counter-factual studies arguing the opposite of what this one alleges to have found. I've known some really happily married Mormon couples who are much too prudish to talk with anyone about their sex lives, and such people would thus not be included in any statistical study about sex.

Shorter answer: people lie about sex, or refuse to talk about it, so it is really difficult to know what is actually going on.

About all this study really shows is that there is a possibility that if you are religious but are feeling extremely guilty about the prohibited sex you are having, or that you wish you could be having, then maybe being religious isn't a good fit for you.

Post 3

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 2:58pm

I don't know why this made me think of this, but what should atheists and/or agnostics scream out when they are coming, so as not to come across like fucking hypocrites?

Literally.

"OH ...NOTHING!....OH!....NOTHING!.....OH!.....NOTHING!"

It hasn't been a problem. I didn't mean to make it one.

Post 4

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 4:15am

Ideally it would be the name of the person you are with. As long as you don't screw up. Long ago, I mean ice ages back, I had a German teacher in the 7th grade who used to say, "Always call your wife Honey, then you will never have any problems."

Kama Sutra is a Hindu practice. I wonder how they score.

As religions go, Hindusim perhaps has the same problems as the Greeks, Romans, and Vikings, their roots all being common. The conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India are deep, and perhaps similar to the strains between pagans and Christians in the Roman and Greek contexts of the 300s CE or the later conversions of the Visigoths and Franks. Many Catholic saints earned their martyrdom bringing the Word of Salvation to the Germans. Today's Wiccans point to the witch hunts of the late Middle Ages as evidence of the continued conflict.

The silphium plant of Cyrene was a natural contraceptive. Its seeds are "heart" shaped and may be the source of the that shape for the "heart" as a symbol of love. Ancient hearts here: http://www.coin-newbies.com/articles/hearts.html

(Cyrene was where Benghazi in Libya is now. It was a Greek town. Benghazi comes from "Berenike" - the wife of Ptolemy, her hair is a constellation. See Wikipedia for: "Berenice II of Egypt, daughter of Magas of Cyrene, wife of Ptolemy III of Egypt and traditional namesake of the constellation Coma Berenices.")

Post 5

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 10:24am

@ Fred -- are you really encouraging people here to post pornographic sample texts of what they might say just prior to orgasm? Are you getting complaints about your ability to seduce using words, and soliciting advice?

Fine then. You asked for it. A simple, "Do you want me to cum in you now, baby? Does my beautiful (wife / lover / girlf / mistress) like having my (blunt anglo-saxon noun for male sexual organ) in her (word that in other contexts means "baby cat")? Can I cum now baby? Yes? Yes yes yes?" or words to that effect avoid both hypocrisy and the possibility of getting the names wrong, plus tactfully ensures you have her full and enthusiastic consent. ;)

Let me know if that was too explicit for the unwritten rules of this site.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/28, 10:27am)

Post 6

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 7:57pm

Jim,

I'm no prude, but that was too explicit for me. Please tone it down. I can't force you (I don't run this site), but I'm asking you to be a little more indirect or coy about it. An example of this -- from the "female" or any receiving-partner's side -- might be:

"Ohhhh, honey, if you keep using your premise like that, then you are going to give me a syllogism!"

:-)

Ed

Post 7

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 8:27pm

Ed, Michael (and probably others): Sorry, misfired attempt at humor in reply to Fred's post, with its hilariously unintentional double entendre -- and that was the CLEANED UP version. I sometimes have trouble gauging what "normal" is, since I'm used to being around people who are OK with rather salty language -- for example, I hang out at Reason.com's Hit and Run, which is pretty hang loose on the use of profanity. Plus, I occasionally write erotic fiction for an internet site, using far more graphic language, and get fan mail asking for more.

Chalk it up to me being mildly aspergerish and thus socially challenged.

This site won't let me edit the post -- it's giving me an error message about it being too old to edit. Is there some way to apply for an exception to this "no edits" rule, given the community sentiment that I should clean up or delete the post?

Ed: "I'm no prude, but that was too explicit for me."

May I wryly and lovingly note that prudishness is subjective, not objective -- pretty much by definition, if you find something to be "too explicit", then by the standards of the person or community you are rebuking you ARE a prude.

The above sentence delivered by, say, a Mormon with a Temple Recommend in their wallet or purse, means something different than the same words delivered by a rock band member with a scantily clad groupie on his lap.

I remember one talk given at a Mormon Stake Conference where a woman was talking about how the Church's rule that one should avoid R-rated movies wasn't strict enough for her, that she lost a boyfriend when she told him that PG-rated was too strong for her, and about how she was OK with the consequences of her plethora of strict standards, still single despite being in what appeared to be her late 30s.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/29, 8:45pm)

Post 8

Monday, May 30, 2011 - 6:36am

Michael:

Ideally it would be the name of the person you are with...honey

That is really good advice. Now, if only we could think of a way to be in a state of mind to be thinking clearly when we need to be applying that good advice. Above a certain age, we're just trying not to pass out.

I'm thinking that inarticulate grunting seems to be easier to remember at the time.

Post 9

Monday, May 30, 2011 - 8:06am