Wanna See Me Naked?

kellym78's picture

Well, kind of. In animated form.

The SheVibe poster is finished. I guess now I'm an atheist super-hero or something. Like Wonder Woman. Except less clothing. Hmmmm....*having thoughts about what kind of weapon I would have. Like a Reason Ray or something that would suddenly make people logical*

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people. May I say in advance that not only do I not care what you think, I find both the "You're hurting women everywhere" and the "Truly rational people would never submit to a base desire such as...sex" complaints equally ludicrous, and I'll only laugh at you, so save your time and the bandwidth needed to tell me what a horrible person I am. After all, I am the Official Spokesperson of Atheists Everywhere At All TimesTM and something like this will only harm "The Cause." As you can see, I'm already aware of this. Don't make me shoot you with my Logic Laser.

For the rest of you (ie the human beings who accept that sex is a biological function and physical attraction is coupled with that), enjoy. I've got to get back to plotting my nefarious plan to destroy the public image of atheists and women.

 

 

 

 

 

SheVibe Kelly poster

Atheist Books

ksskidude's picture

Looks great!

You won't catch me complaining about the artist work.  I think Kelly looks hot, but it should, because she is hot!!! 

 

Hope you all are well!!!

FindTruth's picture

Thank you.

Thank you.

weeeezzll's picture

Interesting...

As provocative as Kelly looks in this, how did the men get away with the prudish "right leg forward to hide their penis" pose?

Wow! You are a very

Wow! tongued

You are a very beautiful woman both inside and most definitely on the outside as well! That's a very sexy picture and very tasteful!

 

All of you RRS people are great! Thanks for all you do!

Kelly's awesome bod!

Jerud1711 wrote:

 

How could someone look at Kelly and not believe in a goddess, I mean a God. I mean she's so perfectly fine-tuned. I cannot force myself to believe she [and the female body in general] is the product of random chance.

Don't tell my fellow theists I said this or I might get in trouble.

I think the great abs and voluptous yet toned cleavage is more testimony to the amazing power of exercise and a healthy diet than it is to a supreme being.

 

ragdish's picture

Kelly's picture is awesome.

Kelly's picture is awesome. It shatters so many stereotypes and I hope more like minded men and women would pose ie. an atheist equivalent of Maxim. And in a secular, liberal democracy that champions civil liberties there should be no restrictions on the freedom to publish such images. And if you don't like these images, then click X on your internet browser.

There are essentially 2 groups who find these images offensive and their reasons boil down to unrealistic rigid (and often fanatical) moral and ideological standards. The first group is obvious and they are the religious conservatives who find all forms of lust a sin. The second group are the mainstream feminists whose objections are based on the following:

1. Women like Kelly are objectifying themselves as they have been negatively conditioned by a patriachical society ie. Kelly is a victim. The same goes for women who pole dance, go to strip clubs, wear scanty clothing on Halloween (or Slutoween) and who love watching porn (even the kind traditionally geared for men).

2. Images of slim women with flat abs and big tits create negative unrealistic standards of beauty which contribute to low self-esteem among women resulting in bulemia and anorexia nervosa.

3. Sexuality is a part of an individual's personhood and should not be commodified.

4. We live in a pornified culture that celebrates the exploitation, objectification and degradation of women.

5. Viewing pornographic images will lead to violence against women.

6. Sexual expression has to be confined to a loving, committed relationship.

Like a broken record, this has been the standard mantra among a lot of feminists including icons such as Gloria Steinem. I have yet to meet a single feminist who absolutely upholds these "virtues" and has never had pornographic thoughts leading to masturbation. Yes, they are allowed to break the "rules" but not the masses. Why, because their moral and ideological standards are altogether unrealistic.

It is universal trait that individuals want to appear sexually attractive and other individuals will indeed get horny. Barring certain cultural variations, women with big tits enjoy flaunting it and men want to fuck them. What is wrong with that? These traits are not socially constructed but innate products of natural selection. And no amount of "socialization" will eliminate these behaviors. In sexually repressive societies (eg. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc..) the result is extreme violence towards women. Think of all the stories of gang rape in the tribal regions of Pakistan. I do wish that all those moralistic feminists (many of whom are atheist mind you) would get off their high horses and acknowledge the biologic truths of human nature.

kellym78's picture

alexjohnc3 wrote:Anyway, I

alexjohnc3 wrote:

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people. May I say in advance that not only do I not care what you think, I find both the "You're hurting women everywhere" and the "Truly rational people would never submit to a base desire such as...sex" complaints equally ludicrous, and I'll only laugh at you, so save your time and the bandwidth needed to tell me what a horrible person I am. After all, I am the Official Spokesperson of Atheists Everywhere At All TimesTM and something like this will only harm "The Cause." As you can see, I'm already aware of this. Don't make me shoot you with my Logic Laser.

I love how your answer possible objections to this post by saying you find the objections rediculous, saying you'll laugh at those who raise objections, saying that you don't care what those who raise objections think, calling anyone who objects a prude or sexually respressed, and, finally, complaining about how anyone who raises objections thinks your a horrible person. Your rationality is astounding.

Excuse me for stating my opinion on my own blog. And also the sarcasm, since you obviously have never heard of a sense of humor.

WrathJW's picture

kellym78 wrote:Well, kind

kellym78 wrote:

Well, kind of. In animated form.

The SheVibe poster is finished. I guess now I'm an atheist super-hero or something. Like Wonder Woman. Except less clothing. Hmmmm....*having thoughts about what kind of weapon I would have. Like a Reason Ray or something that would suddenly make people logical*

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people. May I say in advance that not only do I not care what you think, I find both the "You're hurting women everywhere" and the "Truly rational people would never submit to a base desire such as...sex" complaints equally ludicrous, and I'll only laugh at you, so save your time and the bandwidth needed to tell me what a horrible person I am. After all, I am the Official Spokesperson of Atheists Everywhere At All TimesTM and something like this will only harm "The Cause." As you can see, I'm already aware of this. Don't make me shoot you with my Logic Laser.

For the rest of you (ie the human beings who accept that sex is a biological function and physical attraction is coupled with that), enjoy. I've got to get back to plotting my nefarious plan to destroy the public image of atheists and women.

 

 

 

 

 

SheVibe Kelly poster

 

I think you look awesome. I swear, I would lick the sweat off your back. Does that make me less rational?

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

Sapient's picture

WrathJW wrote:I think you

WrathJW wrote:

I think you look awesome. I swear, I would lick the sweat off your back. Does that make me less rational?

No, it makes you normal.  Welcome to the club.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

WrathJW is a great

WrathJW is a great communicator, writer, blogger. Keep us updated dude.

  Plugging the warrior , fuck ya , Wrath is bad, I meant GOOD , Read his shit , 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14856


 

 

   

netjaeger's picture

Good morn and soft

Good morn and soft chuckles.

Personal I really liked the 'real' pic.

I also like this presentation.

 

I must note, my daughter turned 16 this past april.  I figure she is a sexy as you, and I do rejoice in that .

And this is the first time that this father has said that.

 

Personal... I like that I finally said I rejoice in my daughter's sexuality.

Personal again... I am a bit  peeved that it took this long to rejoice.

 

 Neat pics, both ways.

Wonderful gifts of who you are and who

might daughter might be.

 

 TQ

Girls rule , stop denial ,

Girls rule , stop denial , surrender to the goddess    Let peace be , stop fighting ....

kellym78 wrote:...We have

kellym78 wrote:

...We have been considering for a LONG time the possibility of calendars, subscriptions for exclusive content, or even a potential live cam situation. Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots out there, like the aforementioned, who refuse to allow sex into their ivory tower. We have never been able to reconcile the possibility of losing a large portion of our visitors/supporters with the possibility of financial gain--even if we do find their position ludicrous. However, if you can drum up enough support for such a campaign, I'll happily oblige. Sticking out tongue

 

Anyone want to get working on that campaign? While certainly worthwhile, I haven't the slightest "drum up a campaign" ability but know that I'll certainly be there to support it.

kellym78's picture

Maybe we'll start a poll.

Maybe we'll start a poll. Who knows?

Please do.

Please do.

arielwollinger's picture

Sapient, what a lucky guy!

She's your girlfriend right? Lucky you!

changing subjects , I wish you guys could come to brazil sometime to do a congress or some event about atheism. Would you be interested? and BTW , twf are those ads for this site


 

jmartinez83's picture

Response to a Tautological Error by the RSS

kellym78 wrote:

FindTruth wrote:

Wow that's hot Kelly *melts into a puddle of wax at her feet* Smiling I'm still a semi-believer, can you fix that? Can you blow me out of the water in a debate? I bet you could. You seem to have that fire. Frankly I wouldn't mind being dominated by you anyhow Smiling

Really, melting isn't necessary. My feet are already in a pool of melted men over here. Sheesh.

If you would like me to blow you out of the water, that can be arranged. I promise to decimate the remainder of your belief.

 

Quote:
How about your next picture being you (prefably dressed in boots) shooting someone with your logic gun, except the person is too much of a fanatic so instead he dicintegrates. Lol, yeah I know, that's corny, but would look hot Smiling

I don't imagine they'll be doing other posters of me. I have no idea if they've sold any at all, but at 30 bills, I would say that the sales are likely slow. Most people don't like me THAT much.

Shows how weak FindTruth's belief system is. That isn't to say that I agree with his weakness. Frankly, it is weak-minded thinking that would cause him to say something like "I wouldn't mind being dominated by you." Now I want to make it clear that his system isn't necessarily the Christian system. I also find it funny that anything that passes as rational here in these forums is tantamount to atheist belief. This is sheer post hoc argumentum. One isn't rational BECAUSE he is atheist. Christians can also be rational, and I can make the same case with Bhuddist, Muslims, etc. Kelly is catapulted as a rational person, a superhero and perhaps even an antiquated humanist, but continually makes these tautological errors. The reason some Christians believe in dialogue is because both Christians and atheists can have a rational conversation.

 

 

kellym78's picture

jmartinez83 wrote:Shows how

jmartinez83 wrote:

Shows how weak FindTruth's belief system is. That isn't to say that I agree with his weakness. Frankly, it is weak-minded thinking that would cause him to say something like "I wouldn't mind being dominated by you." Now I want to make it clear that his system isn't necessarily the Christian system. I also find it funny that anything that passes as rational here in these forums is tantamount to atheist belief. This is sheer post hoc argumentum. One isn't rational BECAUSE he is atheist. Christians can also be rational, and I can make the same case with Bhuddist, Muslims, etc. Kelly is catapulted as a rational person, a superhero and perhaps even an antiquated humanist, but continually makes these tautological errors. The reason some Christians believe in dialogue is because both Christians and atheists can have a rational conversation. 

First of all, I would be the first person to agree that being atheist does not make one rational AND that those with religious belief are also capable of rationality. I have made no such tautological error, so before you accuse me of doing so, please find for me any quote out of the thousands I've made on this site that claims that if one is an atheist, one is necessarily rational OR that if one is religious, one is necessarily irrational. I may state that with regards to belief in imaginary beings, a religious person is irrational, but have explicitly stated innumerable times that they are perfectly capable of rationality in every other area of their lives. An atheist may exist in the inverse of that--ie being rational with regards to non-belief in gods, but irrational in every other area. 

The most conspicuous error I can see here is the following statement: "[Kelly] continually makes these tautological errors." Please prove yourself to be the logical, rational person that you imply you are by supporting this claim.

Hambydammit's picture

I offer for your perusal,

I offer for your perusal, exhibit A:

Luminon   Luminon's picture Posts: 437

Luminon is an atheist, and he believes in anything and everything but god.  I think he's one of the most irrational posters on this site, and he's an atheist.

Kelly and I have both said this numerous times.  The belief in magic or gods or tin foil hat conspiracies or ghosts or indigo children is irrational.  Eating soup with a spoon is rational.  People can be rational in one instance and irrational in another.  To call a person rational or irrational is just to make a generalization about the tendencies in their decision making skills.  It's not the same as applying an epistemological label to the conclusion of an argument, or to a held belief.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism

jz1120's picture

Kelly..Love the poster! Look

Kelly..Love the poster! Look out Laura Croft!

How accurate

of a representation would you say it is of you Kelly?

 

Btw I'm brand new to this forum, found it through some youtube debates. I would also donate/support the calendar/live cam fundrasier. I think there really needs to be a lot more money put into promoting rational thought.

Archeopteryx's picture

 This thread was

 

This thread was simultaneously incredibly disappointing and incredibly awesome.

VoteLibertarian's picture

Do Kelly's Tits Belong on the Internet?

Kelly wants to show us the goodies; we want to see the goodies.  (see http://www.rationalresponders.com/poster#comment-184370)

Kelly would want to charge for the privilege; we would be thrilled to pay for the privilege.

She makes (made?) good money charging a few dozen strip club patrons to see her boobs every week; she would make GREAT money charging a few THOUSAND internet patrons to see her boobs every week.

How have her jugs not hit the internet yet?  It seems to defy all reason and logic. 

I would commit unspeakable, unforgivable acts to see some Kelly tittie HOWEVER I happen to support the argument that this is the wrong website on which to do it.  For the same reason that Sportscenter would alienate viewers by broadcasting analysis of opera, curtains, hockey or finance, rationalresponders.com is the wrong place to post the kind of sexually provocative material I pray (metaphorically) to see.  Not because there may or may not be moral objections to opera, curtains or finance (I left out hockey because hockey sucks); that's just not what people are looking for when they tune in to Sportscenter:  sports.  It's Disney's network and they can show whatever they want, but it's just bad marketing.

The same goes for Kelly's boobs on rationalresponders.com.  Whether or not there are prudes out there is beside the point.  People come here to be united in a common goal:  to be witness to the eradication of irrational thought and behavior - and be united by it.  While I haven't seen a specific mission statement from RRS, I can reason that unification would be one of their primary concerns.  Alienating people with sexual imagery on a website about intellectual freedom and debate would run counter to this ideal of unification.  It's bad marketing and it's setting back the movement.

On the other hand, posting sexually provocative (and hopefully explicit) material on a website like kellym78.briansapient.com would be fine, because that website is about a person:  her mind AND her body.  People who go to kellym78.briansapient.com to see titties and are intrigued by her atheist backstory can be directed to RRS through forums, chats or advertising like links or banners.  People on RRS aroused by Kelly's stunning face and figure can be directed to RRS using the same strategy.  One hand washing the other in an atheistic orgy of synergy and cross-promotion.

Anybody who supports the Movement for the Internet Liberation of Kelly O'Connor's Nipples, hereafter referred to as MILKON, please voice your support.  Let's get our MILKON!

 

Is Kelly stunning (hair, face, tits, ass, legs, etc, etc, etc)? Check
Is Kelly intelligent? Check
Is Kelly sexually liberated? Check
Is Kelly single? Check - um, wait a second... no. NO?! What further proof do you need that there is no God?

A Christian Perspective

As a Christian, I am truly offended by this. God created both men and women to be naked, with no clothing at all! Read Genesis and realize that only having the guy naked is a sin, the female must be nude too. It is only scriptual.