Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
Making an argument is not the same as forcing your beliefs on others. Many atheists would like to see a world without religion…. but we don’t want to accomplish that by making religion illegal, or in any way forcing people out of it. We want to accomplish it by — snicker — persuasion. We’re crazy dreamers that way. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
When David plucked up the courage to open his eyes he saw that Catherine was back at the easel again, resuming her work, cold and professional, as if her treatment of him had been nothing out of the ordinary. She resumed her low unconscious growl of concentration: a growl punctuated every so often by a shudder that ran through her body before she continued her work. He knew that his cock was erect before him, but he fought the impulse to look down, not wanting to see the alien object protruding from it.
Please note: This story contains content that some people may find disturbing, including borderline consent and extreme SM activity. If you’re not interested in reading stories with this type of content, please don’t read this story. If you are, and you want to read more, read the rest of the story. (Not for anyone under 18.) Enjoy!
And though it’s hours to go until midnight, these two are on each other as if they were only a few minutes away from the privacy of their bedroom. They stroke and pet while juggling drinks and canapes in the depths of Jacqueline’s sofa. They discreetly goose each other at the sideboard, and they sit half in and half out of each other’s laps at the Scrabble table. Lips go to ears, and toes to calves. All the while, they’re alert and gregarious, and they relish the tension of being in public and yet being intensely horny.
To read more, read the rest of the story. (Not for anyone under 18.) Enjoy!
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
Intuition is important and useful. But it’s also very fallible. Among other things, it strongly biases us towards what we already believe, or what we want to believe. And that’s just as true about religion as anything else. That’s why atheists think intuition, by itself, isn’t a very good argument for God. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
It’s called On The Ubiquity Of Shaving, and here’s the teaser:
My initial reaction is to be against it. I don’t like the idea of any specific form of sexual expression being de rigueur. I think that sex is too personal, and too important, for it to be controlled by the whims of fashion. I don’t like the idea of people shaving their pubic hair just because all the cool kids are doing it… any more than I like the idea of people doing bondage, or having three-ways, or saving their virginity for marriage, just because all the cool kids are doing it. Sex is too special for that — and people’s sexualities are too unique, and too idiosyncratic, for that.
And I have issues with what I strongly suspect is the source of this trend: namely, mainstream commercial porn. I hate the idea of porn being the trendsetter, the sexual yardstick by which our sexual activity is measured. The sex in mainstream commercial porn is highly exaggerated; it’s choreographed primarily to look good on camera, not to feel good for the participants; it focuses largely on male pleasure at the expense of female pleasure; and it’s standardized to an almost ritualistic degree that would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Porn is not sex education. It scares and saddens me to think of an entire generation of sexually active adults getting their ideas about what is and isn’t normal/ acceptable/ desirable in sex from porn.
So. All that bugs me.
But. Yet. On the other hand.
I will also say this:
To find out what else I have to say about this — and why I think the increasing ubiquity of pubic hair shaving is a complicated question with both positive and negative aspects — read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
“Lots of smart people believe in God” is not a good argument for why God exists. Plenty of smart people, throughout history and today, have believed things that were mistaken. Smart people are not immune to error… especially when it comes to beliefs they’re deeply attached to. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
I’m dealing with an unexpected dental situation (what I thought was a mild sore spot on my gum turns out to be an infected tooth — stupid high pain tolerance). Not an enormous deal, but an unpleasant and seriously annoying one. I am therefore giving myself a couple days off from the blog. I’m going to keep doing the Atheist Memes of the Day of Facebook and here, and will check for spam and flame wars, but am otherwise going to be getting tortured and then sulking in front of the TV feeling sorry for myself. Will be back in a day or two.
It’s not reasonable to say that only trained theologians are competent to discuss religion’s validity. Most atheists aren’t interested in the religion of a few theologians: we care about religion as it’s believed and practiced by the vast majority of believers. Besides, many atheists have studied modern theology… and found it wanting. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
And today’s is:
It is hypothetically possible that there is a three- inch- tall pink pony behind my sofa, which instantly teleports to Guam the moment I look. You can’t prove with 100% certainty that it doesn’t exist. Is that a good argument for the pink pony hypothesis? And if not, why is it a good argument for God or the supernatural? Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
The election in Maine over same-sex marriage is coming up soon — November 3 — and early voting has already started. So I’m re-running this piece, for anyone who didn’t see it the first time around. Please spread the word about this election: post about it on your blog/ Facebook page/ Twitter/ whatever, talk to your friends and relatives in Maine, and donate money and/or time if you can.
You fervently, powerfully, passionately care about Maine.
Trust me on this one. You may not know it yet. You may be going, “Maine? Huh? I mean, sure, Maine’s cool, I’ve got nothing against Maine — but care about it passionately?” You do. Maine is very, very important to you.
Let me explain why.
So why is this so important? I mean, there are battles over same-sex marriage in lots of states: battles happening right now, and ones looming on the horizon. And they’re happening in states that are a lot bigger than Maine, and a whole lot more visible. Why do you care about this one so much? Why is this fight different from all other fights?
There are two big reasons why you care about Maine. Momentum, and precedent.
Let’s talk momentum first. The far right and the religious right see Maine’s Proposition 1 as ground zero in the fight to stop same-sex marriage. They are already pouring huge gobs of money and resources into this one; they even got the same guy who ran the Yes on Prop 8 campaign to run it. They’re not idiots: they see that the momentum for same-sex marriage has been building like a freight train. We lost a lot of steam over Prop 8; but we picked it up again with Iowa and Vermont and New Hampshire, and indeed with Maine. And public opinion is slowly but steadily shifting in favor of same-sex marriage.
The far right desperately wants to stop this one in its tracks.
We can’t let them.
And momentum is huge in politics. A win makes the next campaign on the issue seem less radical and less scary; not just for voters, but for politicians and public figures, who are way more likely to fight for a cause if it looks like it already has some traction. A win energizes and inspires the winners; a loss tends to demoralize the losers, and forces them to retrench. Plus, for better or worse, a lot of people don’t like to feel like they’re on the losing side. They’re more likely to support a candidate or a cause when it looks like it can win, and is winning. With every state that legalizes same-sex marriage, the next one is way more likely to do it too. Same-sex marriage is going to look more normal, more like no big deal… and it’s going to look inevitable.
The right isn’t wrong about this one. This is ground zero. We need to get every bit as involved in No on 1 as we did in No on 8. If we lose this one, we will, in fact, have lost a tremendous amount of momentum. But if we win, we will have loaded a huge heap of coal into that freight train’s engine. It will make the fight for same-sex marriage in every other state — in New York, in New Jersey, in California in 2010 or 2012, and eventually in Oregon and Minnesota and Alabama — much, much easier, and much more winnable.
If we win this one, it will be a huge precedent. The far right won’t be able to say that the courts and legislatures are shoving same-sex marriage down the throats of the people. The people will have spoken. And they will have spoken for fairness and equality.
There’s one more thing I want to point out before I finish up: This is a very winnable fight. The polls are very close on Prop 1… and as of this writing, we’re slightly ahead. And the No on 1 organization is very, very good: they’ve been working on this issue for years, and they’re already well-prepared to launch their opposition to the ugly attacks they know they’ll be getting. They’ve already started doing education and what they call “inoculation” against the fear-mongering they know they’re going to be facing. And Maine is, as the No on 1 organizers are fond of saying, a cheap date. It’s a small state, and media buys and whatnot are a lot less expensive than they were in, say, California. We can win this one.
Okay. So now you passionately care about Maine. You get why supporting No on 1 is the biggest, most important thing you can do right now to support same-sex marriage — not just for Maine, but for the rest of the country.
What can you do to help?
And do it now. Don’t wait until right before the election. We don’t want to make the mistake we made with Prop 8 (well, one of the mistakes): we don’t want to spend the entire campaign playing defense. We need to help lay the groundwork now for a pro-active campaign. And in Maine, early voting starts in early October. If we wait until November to pitch in on this fight, we’ll have waited too long. We have to get this on the national radar, now.
And do it now. Don’t wait until right before the election. Early money is one of the most powerful tools that a political campaign can have. Political campaigns need to know early what their budget will be so they can plan accordingly; more to the point, media buys and other costly campaigning efforts have to be done early in order to be really effective. (See above, re: not screwing up and playing defense like we did with Prop 8.) And again, early voting in Maine starts in early October: if we wait until November, we’ll have waited too long.
And if you already live in Maine, there’s plenty you can do to help: you can canvass, phone bank, do data entry or other office help, host house parties, and more.
Maine isn’t just where the battle is now. Maine will help immeasurably in winning every other battle we have ahead of us. This fight is different from all other fights. Please help win it.
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
Atheists are not solely governed by logic, evidence, and science. We’re also shaped by passion, emotion, intuition, and personal experience. What with us being human. We simply think that logic and evidence are best suited to questions of what is and isn’t true in the real, non-subjective world. Including the question of whether God exists. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
This piece was originally published on the Blowfish Blog.
Is public sex ethical?
Be forewarned: This isn’t one of those pieces where I gas on about some sexual topic that I already hold a strong opinion about. This is one of those pieces where I gas on about a sexual topic that I haven’t figured out yet; where I try to figure out what I think and where I stand by writing about it. So if I get this wrong, please accept my apologies in advance.
But I realize that this is a complex question. And like many complex questions, it’s complicated by one simple question: Where do you draw the line?
Not everyone has the same standards of sexual privacy. The standards for what constitutes appropriate public sexual expression, and what constitutes a violation of other people’s right to not participate in your sex life, vary tremendously from person to person, and from situation to situation, and from culture to culture. (And, of course, they change over time.)
But I’m not just going to punt this question to “be appropriate for the context.” I’m not just going to say that you have to be culturally sensitive and do as the Romans do. I think that’s a cop-out. I think cultures that forbid women to wear pants are misogynist and oppressive and fucked up beyond belief, and I will stand by that position firmly and passionately. As a matter of practicality, I’m not going to wear pants in those countries… but as a matter of moral principle, I’m not going to accept that they have the right to make or enforce those laws.
But I still don’t like SM couples giving spankings at dinner parties. I still don’t like it when people I don’t know very well tell me graphic details about their sex lives. (Unless they’re at porn readings, of course, or are writing to me for advice.) I still don’t like opening my front door at midnight to take out the garbage, and finding a couple fucking on my front steps. It feels like a violation: like I’m being made to participate in their sex lives, without having been asked.
So what’s the difference?
I’m tempted to say that the difference is motivation. Are you being publicly sexual to make a political or artistic point, to point out society’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies about sex and to try to shift sexual mores? Or are you just doing it for a forbidden erotic thrill, or because you don’t have the patience to get a room? I’m tempted to say that if it’s the former, then mazeltov; if it’s the latter, then get a room already.
So I’m not sure where I’m going here. It seems like there should be a line, or at least some principle that would help us figure out where that line is under which circumstances. I don’t expect that we’d all always agree about how this principle should be applied — even the clearest ethical principles are complex and have shades of gray in practice — but at least we could agree on what the principle is.
But uncharacteristically, I’m drawing a blank. I’m starting to wonder if this desire for sexual privacy is one of those deeply-rooted, “hard-wired by millennia of evolution” moral principles that got shoved into our social-animal brains hundreds of thousands of years ago when were living in extended-family tribes. I’m starting to wonder if the desire for sexual privacy is irrational at its core… and that therefore any attempt to find a rational guiding principle behind it is just going to be a back-formation: not a genuine understanding of the core of the principle, but simply an attempt to rationalize a belief that’s already in place.
I dunno. I’m coming up blank on this one.
Thoughts?
