I'll be using ".3%" as my excuse.

In all seriousness women click picture of women almost as frequently as men click, while neither men or women prefer to click on pictures of men in comparison.

Yo, I just donated $20, but I was wondering where this ad was going to be placed.

We'll inform you where the ad is and show it to you in a few weeks.  We would like to keep the name private for now, so as not to be competing with other groups who utilize our market research before we can even get our feet wet.

Screenshot! Screenshot! Screenshot! 

Sapient, we all know Kelly is intelligent, eloquent and strong, but I believe you said Kelly's sexiness is what made people take a closer look at the ads.  Wasn't that your purpose?  If not, both you and Kelly can slap me. (I still think the outfit she wore at the debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort was a weapon of mass distraction. ) 

Photoshopping Kelly into a non-sexy cop's outfit might defeat the purpose of having her in the ad.  I could look for a sexy woman cop pic, but don't you think it would be cooler to use Kelly's real body?  Can we add a mini fund-raiser for buying a sexy outfit for her to wear?

Maybe someone else has an alternative idea?

I personally wouldn't want to pose in a sexually provocative ad.  I personally couldn't pose for a sexually provocative ad...until I lost quite a bit of weight.   But if someone else wants to do it, whatever.

As for using sexiness to sell, I don't know where I stand on this issue right now.  When I was a fundy, being sexy was bad, so I was against it.  During my awakening to women's rights I saw it as objectifying women, but now I am not so sure.  We all like to look at attractive members of our preferred sex.  And like it or not, it seems to "sell."  Would you be against a sexy ad of a man?  Would that be objectifying men?

Obviously, women still have hurdles to overcome to reach equality, but I'm not sure repressing sexuality as the fundies do is the answer. 

My opinions on sexuality were completely skewed by my girl-in-a-bubble fundy experience as well as perverted Christian pedophiles.  I'm willing to listen to all sides because I just don't know how much those old attitudes--attitudes that pervade society, by the way--repress normal sexual appetites, and therefore, opinions.

Nero, why do you feel using sexuality to promote RRS is wrong?  I know you said that using sexuality doesn't seem rational.  Should we separate emotional and sexual urges from rationality entirely?  Do you have other reasons?  Is it because Kelly is a woman and you see it as objectifying women?  Do you think that inequality makes this bad and that a sexy man ad wouldn't be wrong?  Or would using any kind of sexuality to promote RRS be wrong because we're supposed to be "rational"?

Explain why you feel the way you do.  I'm willing to listen to all sides. 

Thanks for your input. You've given me some things to think about.

Very true. In fact, I would say that religion itself is based completely on appeals to emotion. This forum sometimes brings out the Mr. Spock in me, but is that healthy ?

A psychologist friend of mine sometimes gets on my case for trying to live entirely in my head. He's a huge Star Trek fan and often uses the principal characters from the original series to illustrate his idea of balance. Spock was logical; Bones was emotional; Kirk tried to balance the two. My friend argues that ignoring either logic or emotions leads to bad decision-making. We are, after all, emotional and reasoning creatures.

When I left Christianity, my mind no longer believed in hell, but my emotions lagged behind. I tried using my intellect to ease my fears, but it didn't work. My psychologist friend always argued that you have to use emotional solutions for emotional problems. I participated in a forum for ex-religionists and ridiculed the hell out of Christianity. I laughed at it. I grew angry with it. I sometimes yelled and screamed at it in my head. The fear of hell slowly eased. Now I don't fear hell at all. Of course, the ability to recognize Christianity as false was contributed by my logical side. But I couldn't address the emotional issues without emotional solutions. It was a balanced solution.

And I wonder if perhaps rationality and emotionality should be balanced. I would argue that religion does not balance the two, so perhaps we should, rather than being diametrically opposed. In fact, I sometimes wonder if RRS comes across as too rational with no heart.

Rationality and emotionality should inform one another.  Emotions should hold no sway over determining facts, but emotions can help us to deal with those facts.

Yep. I doubt you'd find anyone here that would disagree with that sentiment.

You might have something here. There are times when I feel uncomfortable with the way women are portrayed and wonder why men are not objectified in the same way. However, I wonder if the difference is, in part, completely biological.

I have no factual backing for this right now, but my memory has recorded it as established fact: Men tend to be "turned on" by sight more than women. Gay men, not women, make up a large proportion of PlayGirl subscribers. I admit I could be totally wrong on this, but I don't have enough time to look up studies right now. Maybe someone else would do me the honor? Maybe I can have a look later.

I totally agree with you on this one. It's an entirely personal preference. Sex is used to sell everything because it works. That doesn't mean I'm not sick of it. In fact, I'm sick to death of it. When I see sexy women in skimpy outfits trying to sell me Fanta or something, it pisses me off and probably makes me less likely to buy what they're selling. Of course, I don't buy a lot of frivolous crappola anyway, so I'm not the targeted audience. The targeted audience are those who don't feel as you and I do and apparently the ploy works or we wouldn't be swimming through a sea of sex-oriented advertisements.

What can we do about it? Not much. You have expressed your opinion that RRS should not join the fray. Maybe you're right. I just don't know. Is our target audience the same ones targeted by soft drink companies? Partially. I think our targeted audience is everybody.

Agreed. We've both expressed our personal feelings that such an ad would not appeal to us. I guess it's up to the rest of RRS to decide whether or not to go through with it. My objections are not strong enough for me to get my panties in a bunch over it.

Can I be the token theist?

Do you take issue with the picture above?

Personally I think it's extremely rational to appeal to the sexual nature of humans rather than act more like religion and shy away from it.  Anywho... I am curious if you envisioned something more provocative and view the above picture/ad as a positive use of the ad revenue created in this thread.

 If they can't handle a picture of an "atheist chick," they're not in RRS' target market.

What do I think of the picture?  I'd click that!

I do not personally take issue with the photograph.  The young woman is attractive and clothed, albeit minimally. 

I admit that I am ambivalent on this issue.  I appreciate that the ad will generate added interest.  You are trying to grab the attention of the casual browser, and men will respond to this visual stimulus.  So, it will work as an ad.  There is merit in that.

On the other hand, as I stated earlier, the animal passions rarely lead to the use of rational faculties.  I think we have all experienced the stupidity that goes along with allowing the animal passions to rule our decisions. 

Further, I question whether the objectification of women is socially beneficial.  After all, the site seeks to rid the world of religion as a benefit to mankind.  It would be a pity to replace the crucifix with the physical form, or anything else for that matter.  Once it is stricken, no point in having anything in its place.

As for the use of the female form to act as a foil to Christian sensibilities, Christianity does look to the purity of women through the Virgin, but it also has Magdalene, the whore.  There are undercurrents of sexuality throughout Christian dogma.  So, I am not sure that using sex as a foil against religion works.

In conclusion, I would say that the money should be used as it was originally intended.  Clearly, I was the only one to have any real qualms, and sex sells anything.  So, the photo should be used.  I hope you will pardon my ovine reaction.

By the bye, should the young lady be single, she and I really ought to correspond.  I am going to the Bahamas soon. 

There are people who simply would not come to this site of their own accord on purely rational reasons. Those people could be "lured" (to use an unfortunate word) here with an ad like that and some of those people will stay afterwards. Also.... Magdalene WAS a whore, wasn't she? My memory may be failing me, but I'm pretty sure she did not continue her profession after following Jesus, correct?

 On another note, after reading the arguments earlier, I was actually surprised by how much clothes the young woman actually has. Maybe I'm just from a more liberal area, but I don't even think she IS scantily clad. The fact that she is attractive and wearing a "sexy" outfit does not make it in itself objectifying, especially since it fits the motif of a squad or some other kind of unit.

I agree that using something like sex simply because it opposed by many religions is a bad idea. However, I think Brian and others here have explained pretty well the reasons for using a "sexy" woman, which are very rational. Emotions, sexuality, and the other "animal desires" are in no way bad or negative things. Attempting to suppress them falls directly in line with what many religions do. I do not think it is a good thing to embrace only emotions, but on the flip side nor do I think it is a good idea to embrace only the logical side of human nature. We are HUMAN, creatures of both emotion and reason. A person lives a fuller life by embracing both, not destroying one for the other. Rationally understanding emotions and embracing them is good. Humans are animals, we cannot have anything BUT animal passions.