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!!!

Thank you.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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

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 , surrender to the goddess    Let peace be , stop fighting ....

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.

Maybe we'll start a poll. Who knows?

Please do.

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

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.

I offer for your perusal, exhibit A:

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.

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

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.

This thread was simultaneously incredibly disappointing and incredibly awesome.

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!

 

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.