Atheism and Sexuality

[maiforpeace]

What a bunch of perverts! I knew I was in the right place!

Some of you post that atheist are more freeminded in sex aspects, being deviants of the norm... Not in my experience, about sex. ...

...But there are absolutely no nudist or naturist or even topless beaches in the atheist South East Asia (Vietnam, China, Singapore, etc).

This modesty is more cultural than religious in these cases I think. I would call the real non-believers in China and Vietnam more secular than atheist. And while their governments claim they are secular, much of the population of both these countries are still, more secretively religious -Catholic, Buddhist, Cao Dai, Christian...

[Sisifo]

This modesty is more cultural than religious in these cases I think. I would call the real non-believers in China and Vietnam more secular than atheist.

Exactly. Whether religious or cultural, it has been indoctrinated. But whoever gets to be atheist out of a long period of reasoning and de-programmation, can maintain those views in any way?

[Thinking Aloud]

But it was in the RDF that I met a boy/man of 22, virgin, who was waiting and looking for the right one and I tried to see the reasons of that.

Interesting question. Some thoughts from my own perspective. Being brought up Catholic I was taught that sex was something very special that should be done only with someone I loved deeply (and from the R.C. point of view, after I married them). To that end I never treated sex lightly, and took it very seriously indeed (imagine grim expression and lengthy court sessions agreeing the finer points of the contract). So in the prime of my youth I just didn't do it, mostly thanks to that upbringing, and a vague notion that it was dirty - in real life. (Emphasis there because I had no problems fantasising!) When eventually I did lose my virginity, age 20 or so, it was with someone I considered would be a long-term partner. With hindsight, I wish I'd not been quite so serious about it, and had allowed the fun aspect to have some influence, and maybe in the process gained some experience.

But back to the inferred question. My upbringing taught me to treat sex as a very special bond between two people. Personally, while I lost the biblical morality side of my attitudes, and I'm a lot more relaxed now, I still hold on to that "specialness" feeling. I think that's because all my encounters have been with people with whom I've shared more than just a physical relationship (well, almost all - but that's another story ), so the very act to me means more in that sense than mutual masturbation or just seeking physical pleasure. I don't think there's anything wrong with holding sex up to be something more than the physical act, and I guess it depends on the individual - if the chap at RDF is holding out for the right person, it's probably just because he sees it as something he only wants to share with one person (more below).

Having said all that ... nothing is immutable, and attitudes change with time, as I've found for myself.

Without going to that extreme, we all know (or are) people who is ashamed of going around naked, or has very restricted or limited views towards sex. This is of main interest (and I can't believe that it isn't a main chapter in RDF), because sexuality would be the only moral topic that it isn't illegal, and if it's shared by non-religious and religious, it gives leverage to the "theres moral, ergo there's God" argument of theists.

It's hard, in a superstitious society, with its Victorian prudity still hanging in there, to escape from the "norm". While in our household we have no problems wandering around naked, there might be issues if I went out to the street that way. If there was no such restriction, I suspect I'd have no problem being naked in public. There's a certain duality here though, since on the one hand I'd be happy in that situation, but on the other, the enforced privacy of our societal rules place an arbitrary "value" on that privacy.

Again, I suffer from this - I've posted photos in the NSFW forum in the past showing pretty much everything except for certain bits - because to me they're private and only to be shared with particular special people in my life. Why? I'm not sure - perhaps it's because, in the circumstances, there are aspects of myself that I don't want to share with everyone; perhaps it's because I like some element of exclusivity in that area with my partners - something there that no-one else sees but them.

If the nudity taboo was removed tomorrow and everyone was wandering around naked, how would I handle my sense of exclusivity? Perhaps it would migrate to more potent situations... Perhaps it wouldn't matter at all. It's hard to tell - but I think circumstance creates attitudes. Until such time as exposure is not seen as odd, people will remain ashamed of their bodies, or will hide bits of them, and will find bits of others more attractive due to the novelty!

Some of you post that atheist are more freeminded in sex aspects, being deviants of the norm... Not in my experience, about sex.

Perhaps it's the atheists here that are generally more freeminded! You'll have seen the poll.

And besides, it doesn't matter what we do... We can enjoy a little spice of depravity in sex. But what we think matters.
Whatever your openness of thinking is, there is always someone more open who does things that shock you... Why are we shocked?

Your entry in the poll thread was surprising, but only because of it's forwardness. (You could then ask why did its forwardness surprise!) Perhaps part of it is being faced with language and concepts that are still alien to most of us, and push the boundaries of what we can imagine from our own experiences, to levels where discomfort might creep in. With activities such as swinging, there's a huge element of trust and comfort to deal with, not to mention jealousy that most (but not all) people feel when it comes to their partners having sex with other people. I am deeply envious of people who do not suffer from jealousy (I'm indebted to at least one such person) - it's a very hard emotion to overcome, and, I suspect, probably deeply rooted in our species from a procreation point of view. I think it can be overcome, but only when there's a kind of total understanding and trust between the individuals.

If our 13 yo daughter comes, not to talk about safe sex ,flowers and bees, but asking for permission to stay in someone's house in the night because she has a gangbang with her classmates, what do we say? why?

When that happens we have our instincts on hand in the first instance, and they will attempt to prevent our progeny from doing something that may harm their chances of future reproduction. We will automatically conclude that this is a dangerous environment for them to be going into (risk of STD, risk of unwanted pregnancy, risk of violence, risk of criminal charges through underage activities) and either take steps to prevent them, OR try to mitigate the level of risk involved. The former option is easiest to institute, and more certain to have the desired result. There's also the question of maturity - one's 13 year old daughter might be mature enough to know what she's doing, but is everyone else who will be involved? If the daughter was 16, some of the side risks vanish, and the maturity issue will hopefully be clearer - but...

Would we teach our 14 yo. daughter or son, asuming they are certain of their sexuality, how to perform a good blowjob?

Personally, I think that teaching all teenagers how to do stuff sensitively, safely, and skillfully (along with the consequences) would be a superb idea. It won't happen ... but ...

If it wasn't an inbuilt phobia in the child to hear their parents talking about sex, then why shouldn't one generation pass on tips to the other? Ask me again in 10 years.

How do we feel if our sister, or parents, happily married, show to us the pictures of this summer orgies in their greek holydays among the postcards of the Parthenon and Santorini?

Ooooh! I think I'd be jealous on several levels.

But once one gets rid of God, shouldn't the feeling of "sin" or "prohibited" be erased, too? An atheist country would make sense to be nudist, polyamory and bisexual by its social norm... Aw well. Here I am letting my fantasies go to the argument

Nothing wrong with that, and I agree that in principle, none of those things should be disallowed - BUT then we come down to people. I think even if the god-morality was abandoned, there would still be instinctive jealousy that would prevent a fully polyamorous society from forming; there would be practical considerations for the upbringing of children in family units (whatever their composition) that would affect how widespread relationships would get, at least during those 20 years of upbringing; there will be people who just don't find same sex relationships attractive or desirable.

To turn the tables - if nothing was taboo, would sexual activities hold the same fascination for us? If everyone shagged everyone else, would it be as much fun? Is part of the draw of things like swinging to do with it's unusualness? (Never done it, I don't know.)

So... To keep focus: Those who are not nudist, why? Those who are monogamous, why? those who dare not to go to an orgy, why? and what would be your answers to the family situations described above?

Nudist: I can't be one, because society won't let me be day to day, and because it gets bloody cold in winter. (And spring. (And autumn. (And summer, come to think of it.)))

Monogamous: I was, but now I'm not. Why was I? Because that's what I thought was right (and immutable) at the time. Why am I not any more? Because I realised I only had one life in which to discover things, and because of the trust shown to me by two very special people.

Going to an Orgy: Maybe later. What's stopping me now? Lack of orgies up this way; fear of the unknown; lack of trust in those with whom I or a partner might interact in those circumstances. Comfort zones - but they're always changing.

(If this thread is going to have personal stuff in it, would it be worth moving "inside"?)

[Sisifo]

Thanks for the thoughtfulness!
I don't quote the whole text, but consider it slowly read and appreciated. And for the moment, I'd rather keep the post "open", as I'm more interested to the attitude towards sexuality than about the sexuality itself. We can, of course, move some subjects to the inside.
As I understand your message, correct me if I am wrong, the main reasons are practicalities (Coldness, the law, and STD risks), and the only immaterial reason would be fear to the unknown (which would be arguable to call it "unreasonable"), but then in your case, you don't feel that you are feeling or following an unearthly compass.
Thank you!.
I can move part of the stuff to the inside if you want!

[Thinking Aloud]

Thanks for the thoughtfulness!
I don't quote the whole text, but consider it slowly read and appreciated. And for the moment, I'd rather keep the post "open", as I'm more interested to the attitude towards sexuality than about the sexuality itself. We can, of course, move some subjects to the inside.
As I understand your message, correct me if I am wrong, the main reasons are practicalities (Coldness, the law, and STD risks), and the only immaterial reason would be fear to the unknown (which would be arguable to call it "unreasonable"), but then in your case, you don't feel that you are feeling or following an unearthly compass.
Thank you!.
I can move part of the stuff to the inside if you want!

Certainly practicalities, as you say, and fear of the unknown, yes. Also those instinctive jealousy responses would come in to play in certain circumstances, and that's a hard thing to suppress or divest.

(By "inside", I was thinking merely into part of the forum where search Bots and the general public can't see it.)

[Sisifo]

Certainly practicalities, as you say, and fear of the unknown, yes. Also those instinctive jealousy responses would come in to play in certain circumstances, and that's a hard thing to suppress or divest.

Well, it's out of the topic. Some partners talk about "compersion" which is like the opposite of jealousy. I have never felt compersion. I am bloody damned jealous and enraged, but I redirect that energy into a physical non-violent expression... so to speak.

(By "inside", I was thinking merely into part of the forum where search Bots and the general public can't see it.)
I know, we can do it, but so far, said no evil...

[Geoff]

What a bunch of perverts! I knew I was in the right place!

I will write to one of the admin, shortly, to make that poll, I'm intrigued.
But going through some of the comments:
No, I had no problems in the RDF. But it was in the RDF that I met a boy/man of 22, virgin, who was waiting and looking for the right one and I tried to see the reasons of that. Without going to that extreme, we all know (or are) people who is ashamed of going around naked, or has very restricted or limited views towards sex. This is of main interest (and I can't believe that it isn't a main chapter in RDF), because sexuality would be the only moral topic that it isn't illegal, and if it's shared by non-religious and religious, it gives leverage to the "theres moral, ergo there's God" argument of theists.
Some of you post that atheist are more freeminded in sex aspects, being deviants of the norm... Not in my experience, about sex.
Caribbean and latinamerican countries are deeply catholic, but as one women said to me "You fuck half an hour, but you have sex all day". A world capital of the swinger scene is Dubai. More than half of the couples in those parties are muslim.
But there are absolutely no nudist or naturist or even topless beaches in the atheist South East Asia (Vietnam, China, Singapore, etc).

And besides, it doesn't matter what we do... We can enjoy a little spice of depravity in sex. But what we think matters.
Whatever your openness of thinking is, there is always someone more open who does things that shock you... Why are we shocked?

If our 13 yo daughter comes, not to talk about safe sex ,flowers and bees, but asking for permission to stay in someone's house in the night because she has a gangbang with her classmates, what do we say? why?
Would we teach our 14 yo. daughter or son, asuming they are certain of their sexuality, how to perform a good blowjob?
How do we feel if our sister, or parents, happily married, show to us the pictures of this summer orgies in their greek holydays among the postcards of the Parthenon and Santorini?

This is a funny thing: If I see a guy at night, dressed in leather strings with chains hanging from the scrotum piercings, I can't asume he is atheist. Statistically he wouldn't be.

The answer to our feelings is in Freud and Jung (and I guess that more modern authors, but I just read the previous out of culture), but let's remember: Freud was atheist, but Jung was very religious, and in both cases, they were talking about children development in a very religious culture.
But once one gets rid of God, shouldn't the feeling of "sin" or "prohibited" be erased, too? An atheist country would make sense to be nudist, polyamory and bisexual by its social norm... Aw well. Here I am letting my fantasies go to the argument

So... To keep focus: Those who are not nudist, why? Those who are monogamous, why? those who dare not to go to an orgy, why? and what would be your answers to the family situations described above?

Interesting...and a few points I'd like to discuss further. Other than the people on here, I can really only speak for the UK, but in my experience, in this country, the more adventurous people sexually are the non-religious. My wife and I are swingers, and on all the contact websites we use which are devoted to that subject, there is a "religion" question in the profile. By far the most profiles say "none" - though admittedly we are a fairly non-religious country anyway in terms of churchgoing and similar criteria.

Changing the subject slightly, I wonder why you appear to conflate naturism/nudism with sex? Our notorious weather tends to discourage nudism, as TA has already mentioned, but having used many nudist beaches here and in Europe, the two don't necessarily go together (for example, it's rare to see an erect penis in a nudist environment).

Finally, as regards children, I have a son aged 18 and a daughter aged 20; both have been, as far as we as parents could manage it, well educated in sexual freedom, and I certainly would have no hang-ups about what they got up to, aside from the factors that TA has already mentioned, such as pregnancy, STD's etc. My daughter's boyfriend would (and still does) stay at our house, in her bed, from about age 16.

[Sisifo]

Still packing, but can write.
Thanks for your input; in your specific case it would not be valid the correlation religion-sexuality freedom. You just happen to be so in a country that it's 40% or so non-believer.
I don't associate nudity and naturism with sex, except for the matter of my (inquire? research? wonder? curiosity? arggh. I hate English) post, which is the validity of atheist modesty. I think both sex and nudism stimulate similar prudish. I don't imply that naturism arouses.
But it's cool! So far it is true that in this forum there is a relation atheism-sexual open mindness.

Interesting...and a few points I'd like to discuss further. Other than the people on here, I can really only speak for the UK, but in my experience, in this country, the more adventurous people sexually are the non-religious. My wife and I are swingers, and on all the contact websites we use which are devoted to that subject, there is a "religion" question in the profile. By far the most profiles say "none" - though admittedly we are a fairly non-religious country anyway in terms of churchgoing and similar criteria.

Changing the subject slightly, I wonder why you appear to conflate naturism/nudism with sex? Our notorious weather tends to discourage nudism, as TA has already mentioned, but having used many nudist beaches here and in Europe, the two don't necessarily go together (for example, it's rare to see an erect penis in a nudist environment).

Finally, as regards children, I have a son aged 18 and a daughter aged 20; both have been, as far as we as parents could manage it, well educated in sexual freedom, and I certainly would have no hang-ups about what they got up to, aside from the factors that TA has already mentioned, such as pregnancy, STD's etc. My daughter's boyfriend would (and still does) stay at our house, in her bed, from about age 16.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I was raised as a naturist. And also as a xtian!

Naturism is not a sex thing at all - pervs get weeded out of most clubs very quickly and the clubs where they don't get a bad reputation.

And, while my parents are very religious, and make no bones about the fact that they prefer monogamous, married, heterosexual relationships, they have never been at all prudish about other kinds of relationships.

While I agree that overtly religious people tend to have a more restricted sexual outlook, it is by no means as clear-cut as a direct correlation between the two.

[lordpasternack]

As I already said - the only requisite of atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. That's the only definite thing that all atheists have in common. There is nothing about rejecting the idea of a god that automatically leads one to a limpidly rational outlook on everything in one's life. Atheists can be and in some cases are just as bound by some of the mores and taboos of the society they live in.

We remain the same apes with the brains formulated by aeons of evolution as opposed to a divine guiding hand who wished the best for our rational faculties: We retain the same non-rational drives, instincts and lusts. We absorb values and social rules from our environment simply because natural selection presumably dictates that this was most profitable to our direct ancestors for the passing on of genetic material. And we are the product of that.

I say "non-rational" as opposed to "irrational" to use a more neutral and less negative term - since there are many non-rational drives that are not necessary "bad" and in need of purging. My drive to do favours in some cases for people that I know for a fact will never, ever, be able to repay me is definitely non-rational - but I still think it's a good thing, and I'd hope that people would do likewise for me if I was in that position.

(Even though I know I likely never will be in that position. I have enough of the sort of caring friends who'd go out of their way to keep me buoyant in life even if a huge pile of shit were to hit a huge fan at some point - and enough average guys in town who have this primal compulsion to want to feed me and take me back to theirs. Standard courtship behaviour I think. But the fact remains that I would find it very difficult to go hungry so long as I had basic washing and grooming facilities available. I actually smiled a bit to myself when I read the intro to The Hitchhikers Guide (I have, or had, a habit in the past, of impatiently skipping intros and prefaces) and read that poor Adams was going hungry hitch-hiking in Europe. Being a straight female with the genetic fortune to have been bestowed with some level of sexual attractiveness can have its perks. I can acquire food and sex simply by existing. I don't even need a towel. But anyway, yes - the drive to be nice to those who can never reciprocate is non-rational...)

So - yes - we still have the same non-rational drives to be emotionally and/or psychologically hung-up on certain things, either instinctively, or because we have absorbed them from or had them drilled into us by our human environment. And in fact, both can be quite interwoven, since in some ways all that societal mores and established religions do is codify certain animal instincts and intuitions that we already had to some degree already.

What we also have is the most likely unique capacity amongst our earthly animal relatives to be rational and try to weed through our emotional drives picking out bits that we'd be best to stifle/ignore. So, onto your points...

On sex being something special: Well, sex can be transcendental - and especially so if there is a real intimate connection. Bucketloads of oxytocin, for a start, are released during intensely intimate human experiences - which, for the record, also happens when one takes MDMA/ecstasy tablets. It creates this wonderful feeling of intense boundless love, trust and connectedness - of being totally wrapped up in warmth and security and nice feelings. The sexual pleasure is more intense, the orgasms are more intense - and it's entirely real and entirely explicable at the biochemical level.

Of course, sex without any real emotional connection can still be an enjoyable, raw experience. As Woody Allen said: "Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."

Still, if someone feels that such raw sex isn't for them - even during initial explorations - and has swallowed the more "romantic" ideas of sexual intimacy, then that's their prerogative, really. I don't find that there's any harm done, either way.

On monogamy and sexual jealousy: We are a socially monogamous specie, generally speaking. We appear to have a strong drive to pair-bond that goes beyond "social conditioning".

Our monogamy is actually likely strongly influenced by the oxytocin released when we are being sexually intimate - since this hormone, aside from make us feel exultant, also promotes social bonding, and has been identified as one of the main players in inducing monogamous behaviour in other mammalian species.

Like most socially monogamous species, though, we are not completely monogamous: pair-bonds are not always for life, and quite a number of individuals - particularly the males - will, if they can, sneak in a couple of extra-pair copulations, as they are referred to in the field of zoology. I very much doubt that there will ever be found a "pure" monogamous species that doesn't have its philanderers and loose women. It just doesn't make as much sense, in terms of genetic survival, to be frank.

So we do have a natural sort of slightly botched monogamous tendency, and there is no harm done by that, in and of itself. The problem comes with the intense jealousies, unquestioned assumptions, established societal mores that are built on that foundation.

I mean, jealousy of sexual rivals is a general theme that spans the animal kingdom - but I think it can be particularly marked in the case of those animals who keep one or more specific individuals as mates. They begins to feel that they owns the sexuality of their mate, and that their mate has deeply antagonised them simply by deciding to mate with another individual. Put as plainly as that, it does begin to look ridiculous - and yet it can cut so deeply to the core. Crimes of passion, castrations, penectomies, spiteful letters to agony aunts and sympathetic responses from agony aunts all flowing from the conviction that our mate ought to be exclusively sexual with us.

I think the people who don't feel much in the way of sexual jealousy are lucky - and I suppose my feelings of it are thankfully more muted than some - but it is there, and is sometimes unavoidable. Like Sis - I usually simply divert it into something else, or let my rational side pick through it until it falls apart in my mind.

I think that it would be difficult, and perhaps unrealistic, to expect that everyone who has taken the step of giving up god will find it equally easy to try to bury sexual jealousy completely. I think that we are stuck, for the most, with our slightly unpretty mating system.

I mean, there are ways and means to facilitate the polyamorous or extra-pair-copulating lifestyles that our rational selves would like to indulge - and one such way that I've seen is for it to be agreed at the outset that the other can have partners on the side, but that they don't need to announce it, and probably should just be discreet about it - and so long as everything's above board with condoms and whatnot - everything is hunkydory.

Actually Richard Dawkins himself wrote an article on this a while back - titled Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster.

Still, indulging our proclivities for shagging on the side won't be for everyone, and they're perfectly entitled to work out their own individual regimes for their sexuality.

That's all I can ramble on about for the moment, though, since I have to get ready to go meet someone...

Hasta luego...

[Sisifo]

Thanks to all the time and research in your answer. I think you are nailing it in many aspects, little by little, we may find the way to go.

On sex being something special: Well, sex can be transcendental - and especially so if there is a real intimate connection. Bucketloads of oxytocin, for a start, are released during intensely intimate human experiences - which, for the record, also happens when one takes MDMA/ecstasy tablets. It creates this wonderful feeling of intense boundless love, trust and connectedness - of being totally wrapped up in warmth and security and nice feelings. The sexual pleasure is more intense, the orgasms are more intense - and it's entirely real and entirely explicable at the biochemical level.
[...]

On monogamy and sexual jealousy: We are a socially monogamous specie, generally speaking. We appear to have a strong drive to pair-bond that goes beyond "social conditioning".

Our monogamy is actually likely strongly influenced by the oxytocin released when we are being sexually intimate - since this hormone, aside from make us feel exultant, also promotes social bonding, and has been identified as one of the main players in inducing monogamous behaviour in other mammalian species.

There I disagree, but I think you get closer to the truth. If i'm wrong, please say; I'm not biologist, only educated opinionist. Oxytocin has big effects on females, but dubious in males. It is indeed related in females to the bonding both to the sexual partner and the offspring, and is very much related to the female orgasm. But the fact that there is such scientific bond between emotional and sexual response in at least half the human species, makes enough proof for me that transcendentalism in sex might be a natural and not a moral or a superstitious response.
That bonding from the female part linked to the hidden estrus, that makes the man "hang around" until the female is fertilized, seems to be a good reason for the evolutionary treat of a primary trend towards monogamy.
On the other hand, the changes in the females' response to testosterone according to the estrus cycle, seem to promote cuckolding...
On the male part, we seem to share the evolutionary successful gene of adultery, with the successful gene of monogamous parenting...

And maybe all that (and more) would explain the wanting/feeling-guilty-for-wanting of sex: Because we are a mess of two evolutionary successful and opposite genes. Biologists and evolutionists around: Is that possible?

The rest might be more likely to be explained by psychology within paraphilias...

Great. I'm finding answers!

[BrettA]

... I find that many atheist have views of sexuality that are pretty much the same as religious people: modesty, guilt about sex and most shocking: holding the idea of transcendentalism in sex so much as to wait "for the right person" or "the right moment".

I can't speak for many other atheists or religious people unless I've been sexually involved, but I'd guess that would describe well less than 20% (as low as 5%?) of those. I grant that I've 'met' large numbers of the religious online that claim that, but I'm not clear that prosthletizing chastity isn't a major factor there - a huge difference from my personal experience. Of course, I've actually met a few that could easily be classed that way, but I don't recall ever trying to segregate or analyze whether they're theist or atheist.