Idea for raising money for RRS "Sexy women of Atheism calendar"
Offline I think this would be a great Idea for RRS to pursue to raise some money. I think it could feature Kelly along with Cluelessforchrist(http://youtube.com/watch?v=ky0XHyUzESU) And any other Atheist females that would be willing to do something like this. * I am sure we could find 9 more girls maybe some of the girls posted in the images section. They wouldn't have to be naked or anything it could be very tastefully done, perhaps holding an RRS sign or doing something Atheist in nature. I don't know. But I know we have the resources to organize something like this. I don't think it would be that hard to do. I mean I constantly see on an almost daily basis, people in the Stickam chats talking about Kelly and how hot she is, well lets use that to an advantage. We all know sex sells. It would not only be unique but it would also be the first of it's kind. (To my knowledge)
And before anyone jumps all over me for the exploitation of women, let me first start off by saying it would be 100 percent consentual. And if the ladies of RRS want equality I would be happy to donate my services for a Guys of Atheism Calendar. Although after my friend died in a freak Gasoline fight accident I promised I would never model again, but I can come out of retirement for something like this. So what do you guys think?
SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I posted this in the wrong forum section!
- Login to post comments
I like that idea... the models could be chosen based on their bio or views on atheism (which would be included on the page).
I would personally hope that if this calendar ever does happen, that it wouldn't try to look like Cosmo. I don't even find a lot of the women in the modeling industry to be particularly attractive.
I cannot believe that this horrible idea has raised its ugly head again. While I appreciate other people's desire for a cheap thrill, I argue against RRS using sex to sell atheism. While the core leadership may or may not care about the religious majority's opinion of the movement, there are instances in which RRS may need to appear in public and not be the Larry Flint of atheism.
I had argued previously against an advertisement using sex to sell the site. Objectification is a dangerous path, and I don't care about the subjective attractiveness of any of the participants. Women have been objectified by the religious majority for centuries. The tales of Magdalene kept many monks curious about her activities, and Maria Monk provided an outlet for protestants in the 19th century.
We should base our activities on reason, not on the animal spirits. If we have members who are still incapable of controlling those spirits, it is our duty to assist. They are using sentiment and passion against us. We should respond with reasoned action.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
If by reason you mean logic, then reason alone will prescribe no actions. Without an a priori motivation, it's just as reasonable to jump in front of a bullet train as it is to drink a glass of water.
But really, if it's that important to you that no one post in a thread that has the terms "RRS" and "sexy" in the title, then why don't you just lock all such threads? You are a HIGH LEVEL MOD, right?
No, I don't recall using the words "only logic." I used the word "reason." If you would like to know what I meant, then feel free to ask, but don't attempt inference on so little data. That just makes you look like an imbecile.
I am a high level moderator. That is true. I am not in the business of locking down threads that I find silly or banning people who I find irritating. We are interested in free exchange. So, people may express the view that women should be objectified, and I will argue the counterpoint.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Moderators don't lock down threads because they disagree with the OP's position. The seems a little silly, doesn't it?
Also, I don't see anywhere in Nero's post where he stated that he does not want anyone to post in a thread that has 'RRS' and 'sexy' in it. I have no idea where you got that idea from.
Is there some reason why you decided to focus on Nero's post and not the others who disagreed that RRS should use sex to sell atheism?
If god takes life he's an indian giver
What type of calender pics are we talking? Nudes?
Couldn't you take the approach of a sexy/themed pictures. Have them dress like angel's, and call it the "Angel's of Atheism". This way avoiding any "pink" shots, but keep it to a edgy project.
Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.
Yes, locking down threads is not something I would endorse (I hate censorship). However, this statement:
sounded to me like an objection that the thread got bumped (therefore "raising its ugly head" by moving up to the top of the thread pile). As long as new forum-goers browse through the list of threads and click on those that sound interesting, there will always be a chance that the threads will receive posts and be brought back up to the top. It doesn't sound that hard to believe to me.
If I were just assuming that by "reason" you meant "only logic", then I wouldn't have started that paragraph with the conditional "If by reason you mean logic," now would I?
Yes. Quite simply, Nero's post appears to be a reply to my post right before it. But, if that's the case, then he appears to be using a straw man and an ad hominem. I would like to make a more thorough reply, but I won't have time for that until later today. My recent post was a quick attempt to rule out certain possibilities which, if true, would have negated the need for me to spend the time to draft a more thorough response.
Was never ment to include nude pics, I guess the word "Sexy" got overblowin in this case.
Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com
www.pathofreason.com
Check it out
I agree with you that there are occasions in which we need to appear professional. When those times come, we generally comply. The Nightline dress was a tactical decision that I've had to defend far too often to reiterate, but take this example from the awards banquet at the AAI conference:
I find objectification to be based on the individual's personal feelings and motivations for engaging in x behavior. Do I get annoyed on occasion with the comments i get--sure. But i do not feel objectified by my job or my activities in RRS.
I feel that not using every asset available to your advantage would, in fact, be irrational. Intelligent people sell that aspect of themselves to benefit. Athletic people also tend to benefit for their advantage. Attractive people do likewise. Our goal is to get our message out to as many people as possible, and the name "Rational Response Squad" needs to be widely recognized for that to occur. Just look at our recent videos at video.rationalresponders.com to see that in action. The video with me in my underwear has about 600 times more views than any other. That's a large audience that we have the potential to influence by appealing to those "animalistic" drives. I could go on, but I gotta go to work.
Atheist Books
Kelly,
I fear that my argument may have been interpretted as an attack on you or your actions. If that is the case, I apologize because that was not my intent. In fact, my intent has more to do with men's actions than women's. Men in America are permitted to behave in a radically base manner. They are allowed to comment on a woman's physique even to her face.
I find that to be unacceptable. Every time I see a calendar with sexual photos, I am reminded of the male inability to control their physical instincts. Some would argue that we should just give them a pass because nature has selected for this sort of behavior. I am dead set against that nod and wink.
In fact, I have a visceral reaction when men talk about women. I feel sick to my stomach because the women are never discussed in terms of their intelligence or personality. In the vast majority of cases, women are discussed in the same way that a steak or a car is discussed. This is a problem, as I see it.
So, I will defend womanhood from the natural, masculine reaction. I understand that you are comfortable in your work, which is good. However, I would be a real drag on your business because I would berate the fellows there. I realize that this is a little Dudley DoRight-ish of me and a little provincial. I cannot help myself.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
I can appreciate that sentiment Nero, and to a certain extent I share it. But, have you identified exactly what it is that bothers you and why?
So, are you saying that you think it should be illegal for a man to compliment a woman on her appearance? Would such a compliment cause her enough harm to warrant limiting freedom of speech? Would it be better for such a compliment to be made to others without her knowledge?
I'm not a woman, but in the past when women have complimented me on my appearance I've always appreciated their appreciation, even when it was just whistling like stereotypical construction-workers.
Well, I can tell you with certainty that not all men have an inability to control their physical instincts. In fact, I know 3 men personally who have, for the majority of their lives, entirely avoided all romantic and sexual interaction with women because of feelings similar to those you describe. I don't really recommend trying to do that though, because from what I've observed it's caused all 3 of them, and the women who have had romantic interests in them, considerable unhappiness.
As for the men who exhibit the behaviors you disapprove of, are you sure it's because they can't control themselves? What if they don't think they should refrain from such behavior? Or, what if they think that they should, and they can, but they just don't want to?
I wouldn't say that men never talk about the intelligence or personalities of women. In fact, I suspect that the reaction you mention here doesn't happen in all situations where you hear men talk about women, but rather that it happens only in a specific subset of those situations. Whether or not the vast majority of men's discussions of women are only concerned with anatomy, I'm not qualified to guess... but I will mention that when people have strong feelings about something they tend to notice that something much more often.
As for whether or not such discussions are a problem, I would think it would depend on the situation. If some men are commenting on a woman they find physically attractive and that's all they know about her, then what else could they comment on? On the other hand, if some men are commenting on a woman they find physically attractive because they think that's all that matters about her, I would say that's rather shallow of them. But then, as an outside observer, would you be able to tell the difference between these two scenarios?
Are you sure that womanhood even wants to be defended? I'm not going to pretend to know exactly what you mean by this, but consider this question.... If women categorically didn't want men to find them attractive, then why would so many of them spend so much time grooming in order to appear more attractive... time which could be spent on any number of other activities?
No where in my posts have I argued for legislation of any sort on this matter. That would be stupid. I was raised in a household of women and know from experience that they generally don't want to be objectified.
There is a time and a place for everything, but staring at a photo of a stranger is strange behavior. Everyone laughs when a goose pushes a golf ball into its nest acting as if the golf ball is an egg. Then, men look at pixels on a piece of paper and become aroused over it. It is irrational behavior. If more men express this perspective, then it will become less common.
I can't believe the pushback I am getting on this. Perhaps women want to be looked at as objects of lust. What do the women say?
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
No where did I see Nero mention anything about legality.
I enjoy a compliment as much as the next person. What I don't enjoy is walking down the street and having people catcall me or say things like 'hey baby your lips would look great around my cock' (Yes, someone actually said that once to me). When you objectify women as sexual objects that is how people will treat them. I've gone into bars with my girlfriends and have hardly been able to have a decent conversation with them because of the cluster of guys trying to get down their pants. I had a guy attempt to ridicule and humiliate my friend because she turned down his advances. This man could care less about her personality; he was angry because he got cock-blocked.
I'm not saying that I think we should close the strip clubs down and ban Playboy. Sexuality is great, I have no issue with people enjoying it. I also think there is a time and place for sex. I think when people are inundated with sexual images of women, they tend to focus only on that and not much else.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Do you have a different proposal for how such communication should be prohibited then? Maybe you've thought of something I haven't, but generally when I think of something not being permitted, that means that it's being prohibited either by some rule/law or by some other threat of retaliation.
Is it? If looking at images can fool the body into accepting that a biological imperative has been satisfied, thereby quieting the biological drive to meet that imperative and allowing the individual to perform other actions and thoughts with one less distraction, isn't that a reasonable course of action to take? And if not, why not?
I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of arguing. I think there is some validity to your point, but I have to disagree with your position as it's presented here... it goes too far. I don't think it's healthy or productive for a society to encourage people to think of sex as the only thing of value in life, but I also think that demonizing sexual desires can lead to people rejecting a part of human nature that is an important component to living a balanced, healthy life.
This is actually an issue that is of personal interest to myself and certain people I care about. I would also like to hear a variety of opinions from both men and women. Thank you pariahjane for sharing your opinions and experiences.
I think there is a side of this that no one is talking about.
Many of you have mentioned that women should not be objectified. I agree. However some of us are not as bright or have not had the time/money/energy to educate ourselves as well as others. So while we might prefer to be appreciated for what we say we may simply not have anything impressive to add.
Now of course that doesn't mean we don't want to contribute to our causes. I certainly do, but having nothing to add intellectuallyand no money to donate or time to volunteer I'm left with few ways to support sites like this one.
One thing I do have to offer at this point is a face, an image to help represent the group I belong to. So if I choose to associate my image with this cause forgive me for not feeling objectified. For my part I see it as dong what I can at this time.
So for those of you who are brilliant/educated/eloquent: write. And to those who have money or time: donate. For those of us who have only a belief and a dream and our looks: let us do what we can so thatwe do not sit in despair at our inability to contribute.
Geez, you sure are conceited.
2.1. Antagonism.
Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person
2.2. Hypocrisy.
Clear intent for one to do what one just denounced.
Quick, someone quote me and tag this message as a 2.3. Red Herring. We can play terms tag all night instead of having generalized conversation revolved from opinion.
I might just go back to studying, however.
"I boot religious people religiously."
Meh. I calls it like i sees it. Furthermore, I haven't seen one post from you so far that I can respect enough to care for your opinion on this.
See this is exactly why I wish there was some other way to contribute. Because that clearly came acroos wrong. The point I was trying to make is that some of us have little to offer in settings like this but that doesn't stop us from wanting to be active in the communities we care about. Sorry if that came out all wrong but I'm the first to admit I'm not a talented writer and often have trouble getting my point across.
QuasarX, Martha is a Moderator, as such she is the adjudicator of what is right and wrong on the Forum. I have found you to be unduly aggressive in the expression of your ideas. You have no place to reprimand a Moderator in public. Consider this to be your first and very public reprimand and warning.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
My dear Phoenix, I am certain that you are lovely, but I am equally certain that you have more to offer the atheist cause than your physique. This is precisely the sort of reaction that frightens me. You are a young woman, who I am certain is a vibrant interesting person. Yet, you reduce yourself to your physical attributes.
Don't let society do that to you. I am certain that your value is multitudinous, and only one small portion of that value is the way that you look.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Thank you for the compliment. And yet again it seems I'm horribly unclear. I'm quite sure I have value for reasons other than my physique. I'm raising my children to be moral atheists and I hope generally good people, I like to think I am a good wife and friend. However those things don't in any way support this site. Because I am so busy working and raising children that I don't have anything else to offer this site. That doesn't stop me from wanting to. I only wish I had something of substance to offer.
Look. You need to realize that your looks aren't going to get you very far. Not because you aren't darn perty, but because looks are a dime a dozen. And on top of that, they run out. I just felt you were being conceited in the sense that you think that you won't ever have to open a book since all you possess are your physical attributes. Imagine how much more attractive you would be, if you gave yourself more credit. Like I said before, I don't think I'm unattractive as far as looks go, but who wants to ogle at a complete beautiful moron. (ahem...I know some guys do, but I digress).
But anyway, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything, I just want you to rise above that shallow way of thinking.
I suppose I should've been more clear in stating that I value intelligence above beauty and I'm not trying to get away with the pretty moron act. I'm just really busy raising 3 kids, running a household and working. I read as much as I can because I enjoy it but I simply don't have the education that some like yourself have. I wish I did. And I'm sure someday I will. I would still like to contribute sooner rather than waiting until I have other things to offer, though when I do have more I will surely contribute more substantially. I think that's as clear as this is going to get. Sorry for not being more clear in the first place.
You are quite alright. I would advise simply commenting when you feel comfortable. Eloquence comes with practice. I think that you will find half of the disagreement on the forum is one person misinterpretting another's statement. Well, if we were all perfectly eloquent, there would be no room for misinterpretation.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Might makes right, huh? In that case, please ban me from these forums.
There's a difference between addressing a person and insulting a person. Also, there's a difference between criticizing a person's statements and criticizing a person.
I would like to apologize for this outburst to everyone reading this thread. Obviously, this situation has become tense to an unhealthy level, and at no point was that ever my intention. When I made this post, I was under the influence of an anger response far beyond what I'm used to dealing with brought on by the misperception that the moderators of these forums are exempt from the forum rules. This is clearly not the case:
Furthermore, the aforementioned response I made was directly in violation of the rules of conduct.
As my aforementioned emotional reaction of anger has not subsided, and is very much still affecting my judgement, I will refrain from making any further posts until I've recollected myself.
Again, I apologize for the outburst.
Apology accepted. Just for your information, when people have requested being banned in the past, we did so permanently on the second request.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Well, the issues that have been raised regarding the way men treat women are important enough and complicated enough that I had hoped to have a good rational discussion of them, but I guess they're too controversial for people to refrain from needless personal attacks. I can't tell you how dissapointed I am at this. But, given that that seems to be the case, let me just make one proposal without addressing anyone or anyone's ideas.
I think the problem lies not in our biology but rather in our sociology. I suspect that the behaviors that certain people so abhor are not the root of the problem, but rather are the expected result of some rather unfortunate ideas that some men hold regarding women, their abilities, and their role in society. I could be wrong, of course, but at this point I'm not sure if I want to try to discuss the issues to find out whether or not I am... at least not in a public forum.
Clearly there is a difference between appreciating things of beauty and discriminating against a person because of their age, religion, gender, level of beauty, etc. If we as a society make it impossible for a person of a certain gender or ethnicity to succeed but via a specific (approved) means then I think we have done them a disservice. Is this what we believe a calendar of pretty girls does? Or at least contributes too?
Just so that I am clear, the only opinions about a person that "objectify" them are the ones regarding their physical appearance?
If I express an opinion about a womans hips I have done something wrong but if I express an opinion about a womans ability to perform math (good or bad) I've done something right? I just want to make sure I understand what the big issue here is.
I seem to recall there was another huge thread on this exact topic which I was going to link but I couldn't find it.
FYI, you were just being nasty. And actually, in your defense of being nasty you were being nasty.
This is an interesting topic but is obviously very emotionally heated. I'm sure we can all agree that we should make it constructive if possible. From what I have seen, Quasar has been very inquisitive in this discussion... just from the opposite view of some of the other more vocal members.
You just called me out for being nasty. Why do I care? I don't. If that's how you see it, then so be it.
ENOUGH! Marcus, this started with QuasarX stepping out of line. He then apologized for his actions. It was over. Now, you have revived what should have remained dead.
Take my advice, Sir. Leave the issue alone. If you want to PM someone about this, that is your prerogative, but I'll not have the discussion further derailed by members attacking Moderators. Clear? Good.
For the remainder of time in this thread, any posts that have nothing to do with the original thread will be erased, by me. I am not interested in public conversation on this. If you don't like it, PM me.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Didnt get enough in the last round huh Marcus?
www.garageband.com/artist/abandonmypeace
So it seems. However, I've learned my lesson this time.
www.garageband.com/artist/abandonmypeace
Having examined this thread with the Curia of Moderators, I have decided to post a statement, unilaterally. There are two issues at hand: the rules of the Forum and a Moderators' duty.
I will speak of the latter first. A Moderator is here to assist with the running of the forum and assisting the flow of communication. Part of that is ensuring that debate does not degenerate into flame wars. I have failed in this respect in this thread. Had I used dimplomatic language, I am certain that this matter would not have been an issue at all; however, by electing to use aggressive language myself, I intensified the disagreement. That, I regret.
With regard to the former issue at hand, I will speak to the rules of the Forum. There are to be no ad hominem attacks on the Forum. Moderators are the adjudicators of that fact. Should a member feel that a Moderator is breaking that rule, the member should use the PM system to express that view. We are human, and we make errors. Attacking a Moderator in public for breeching Forum rules is rather like trying to arrest a Highway Patrolman for speeding. It will end poorly. So, please express your disagreement in private.
I think that if I remember to esplain myself more clearly and everyone uses PM's more judiciously, the Forum will run as it should.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Thank you to those who PM'd me asking to review this thread. The Mod Team has had a thorough discussion of all of the involved posts, and I feel that we have reached a consensus. I will highlight several rules, and try to explain more specifically how the mod team agrees to interpret and enforce them.
1. Moderators are subject to the rules of the forum.
In other words, if a moderator breaks any of the rules against ad hom, threadjacking, or antagonism, etc, they are subject to the same warnings and potential censure as any member. Any warning or censure will be handled privately by the Mod Team. The Mod Team has no obligation to disclose details of disciplinary actions taken against individual moderators, although in extreme cases, we may post certain details that are relevant to the public forums.
2. Complaints against a moderator are to be handled privately.
In other words, if you feel a moderator is out of line, you are NOT to post your complaint in a public forum. Please direct your complaint to an uninvolved, preferably high level, moderator, and include as much relevant information as possible, including a link to the thread, and quotes that you think are in violation of forum rules.
This policy, while it may appear to be favorable to moderators, is actually better for the members. Let's face it. Moderators have the "Ban" button, as well as many other devices they could use for nasty purposes. If a member posts something publicly that angers an already angry mod, there are very few outcomes that will be good for the member. On the other hand, if the member keeps his or her cool, and alerts another member of the mod team, the situation can be resolved without escalation.
Although moderators are here primarily to help facilitate civil debate, we also engage in debate ourselves. We have enough moderators to assure that there is someone available who can be a removed judge should the need arise.
**********
It appears that this disagreement has run its course, and it would behoove all involved parties to leave it be. As for the status of the participants, I'm declaring offsetting penalties, resulting in no action at all. Any warnings issued may be construed as part of a heated argument, and all participants are considered members in good standing.
Let's be nice, folks.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Whoops. Left out number three.
Number Three: Complaints against a moderator are different than arguments/debates with a moderator. There are no rules against criticising a moderator's argument or tone, or of arguing a point with a moderator. In short, if you are allowed to say it about or to a fellow member, you are allowed to say it about or to a moderator.
The dividing line between argument and criticism vs. adjudication occurs when questions of breaking forum rules come into play. If you have a disagreement with a mod, but you feel that the rules are being followed, it is fine to continue to voice your feelings in the public forums. If you feel the mod is breaking a forum rule, please PM another moderator.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Wow this thread got out of control fast.