Gotta admit he has a point.

By the way that is Tim Gunn of Project Runway fame, in case you were wondering.

You know people can wave their Bibles and rail against marriage equality all they want, but like it or not it is coming. There may be bumps and delays long the road, but the destination is really no longer in doubt.

Scientists invent female version of Viagra, then consider watering down its effects due to fear that increased female sexuality might result in societal harm.

Courtesy of Seattle Pi:  

Women looking to get their freak back may soon be able to pop a new breed of lust drug: Lybrido. 

But scientists developing the desire pill sometimes called “female Viagra” confided in one writer an unusual worry. They fear the libido-booster may work too well. 

(And the problem with that is …?) 

Journalist Daniel Bergner, whose story on the still-being-developed wonder drug was published last week in the New York Times Magazine, says researchers worry about creating an orgasm-hungry nympho. Yeah, the author expressed surprise at that, too. 

“More than one adviser to the industry told me that companies worried about the prospect that their study results would be too strong, that the F.D.A. would reject an application out of concern that a chemical would lead to female excesses, crazed binges of infidelity, societal splintering,” Bergner writes. 

So drug companies may actually temper the potency of these easy-to-swallow menthol-flavored passion-stimulants, lest these crazy sex-having females have, you know, crazy amounts of sex. Whenever they feel like it, which would, presumably, be way more often.

Okay could somebody remind me if there were any similar concerns expressed about the introduction of Viagra? All I remember is trumpets blowing and everything but a damn ticker tape parade for the drug company that put it on the market.

"Oh my God!" They said, "Now old men can get boners! This is the greatest invention since sliced bread. Which we don't even need anymore because now we can slice it with out boners!"

Look I have been married....a couple of times, and if this product had been available back then I would have gladly bought it in bulk.

It does not make any difference how good you are in the sack, after working all day, making dinner for the family, and then cleaning up the mess left by the kids, a lot of women are just not as ready to rock their spouse's world between the sheets most nights as they were when they started dating. (And before anybody jumps down my throat you should know that I also worked and made dinner, actually more nights than my wife did. Admittedly I was not so good at the cleaning.)

However the fact is that many men, ESPECIALLY conservative men, fear female sexuality and would not know what to do with a sexually aggressive woman if she bit them in the ass. (And after taking this drug she just might do that!)

Well as a progressive male, in relatively good shape, I say "What's good for the gander, is good for the goose. Bring it on!"

"Societal splintering" my ass! The only thing that might get splintered is a few male egos, and I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

Family Research Council senior fellow on allowing single people to have sex: “Functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever."

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

While guesting on Washington Watch Monday afternoon, FRC senior fellow Pat Fagan argued that the 1972 Supreme Court court case Eisenstadt v. Baird, which overturned a Massachusetts law banning the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, is quite possibly “the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court.” 

Fagan was accompanied by ever-so-thoughtful evangelist and FRC head Tony Perkins. 

In Fagan’s mind, that Court decision effectively told all single people that they have “the right to engage in sexual intercourse.” Never mind the fact that, well, they kind of do have the right — you know, consenting adults and whatnot — because Fagan remembers when society used to have laws forbidding such sin. 

“Society never gave young people that right,” he continued. “Functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.” 

By giving an implicit seal of approval on premarital sex, Fagan said, the Court was “brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.”

“Functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever." That may be perhaps the most honest description for the function of religion that I have ever read.

By the way, the "thousands and thousands of years" he is referring to, is thousands and thousands of years of the Christian oppression of human sexuality. Not "wisdom." The entire religion is essentially set up to police the sexual conduct of human beings.

Just ask the Hawaiian people, or native Americans. They were people whose sexuality was as open and natural to them as eating or breathing. That is until they were introduced to the idea of shame, and were told that every terrible thing that befell them in life was the direct result of their "sins against God." And those sins were more often than not of a sexual nature.

The idea that the most basic function of humankind, our sexuality, is something that these people feel they have the right to control, is to me repugnant and, dare I say it,  evil.

The thing that Christianity fears the most is sex. Especially the sexuality of females.

Do you think they persecuted women as witches because they thought they were agents of Satan?

Fuck no, they persecuted them because their feared the power of the feminine, and they wanted to crush ANY sexuality not given the stamp of approval by the church. That goes for unmarried sex, gay sex, and, for quite a long time, sex between the races or between Christians and other religious faiths. Regardless of whether they were legally married or not.

Our most primitive religions were based either predominantly on the female deity, or the worship was spread evenly between male and female gods. Simply put, Christianity could not abide that.

Just imagine how different, how much more free, our country could have been without these puritanical sexual standards having been used to oppress us for lo these many years.

Final thought of the day from the brilliant Sam Harris.

Sam Harris of course is a famous freethinker and the author of one of my favorite books, The End of Faith.

A couple of photos that should help put a certain rationalization to rest for good.

I grew up in the sixties and seventies, which was essentially right in the middle of the women's movement, and I well remember the kind of trash that my male peers spoke about girls in those days.

They were essentially separated into three categories:

Sluts.

Bitches.

And dykes.

If they dressed to attract attention they were sluts. If they were unimpressed with the juvenile antics of the boys they were bitches, And if they turned down their advances they were dykes.

And the sad thing is that many of those young men really bought into that mindset. The even sadder thing is that many of today's young men still do.

You might want to make sure you have your morning cup of coffee ready and are sitting down before reading of the horrendous incident that recently happened to a young girl in Steubenville, Ohio.

P.S. For those of you wondering if I joined in with my peers who referred to women as sluts, bitches, and dykes, no...no I didn't.  But to my eternal shame I did not stop them either.

Of course that is no longer the case. Since those high school years I have not only stopped conversations like that, I have also trained dozens of women in how to defend themselves against attack and taught dozens of young men how to properly respect a lady.

In my opinion the latter is more important than the former, and if EVERYBODY taught their boys how to treat women as all men should, then our society would be much the better for it.

What happened in Steubenville should NEVER happen in this country, and the distasteful fact is that of course it does. And it happens far more often than any of us would like to believe.

Not trying to convert anybody, just throwing this out there. Top Ten Reasons to be an Atheist Nation.

Yeah it does! Oh wait, were you being sarcastic?

Courtesy of Atheist Connect:

#10 – Lower Crime Rates 
 That’s right, secular countries have the lowest crime rates and are the safest places on the planet.

#9 – Lower Homicide Rate 

#8 – Lower Rates of Sexually Transmitted Diseases 
Almost all secular nations have sex education programs for children, confidential public health-care programs to treat sexually transmitted diseases for free, publicly advertised programs to educate the masses about sexually transmitted diseases, and free condoms for any and all. 

#7 – Lower Rates of Infant Mortality 
Why do religious countries have higher rates of infant mortality? It is probably because of the demonization of unwed mothers by religious societies. Combine this demonization with an inability to receive an abortion, and you will have a large group of mothers having children that they don’t want and/or can’t economically afford. 

#6 – Lower Rates of Teen Pregnancy 
As should be clear by now, secular nations tend to encourage sex education and have a far more honest understanding of human sexuality than religious nations. 

#5 – Lower Abortion Rates 
This is one of the hardest and most bitter pills that religious nations have to swallow, their policies of restricting the ability of women to receive an abortion, actually results in increased rates of abortion. 

#4 – Healthier Citizens 
The citizens of secular countries are healthier than the citizens of religious countries. The reasons for this difference are almost certainly due to a combination of factors involving public education, health-care policies, access to care, etc. 

#3 – Citizens have Better Personal Relationships 
The citizens of secular nations have better interpersonal relationships (and are more happy!) than the citizens of religious nations. Religious nations tend to demonize life-styles that don’t conform to their expectations, and tend to place women at a lower social status than men. 

#2 – Citizens Have Higher Education Rates 
 Secular nations such as Norway, Finland, etc., not only have citizens with an average education that is higher than religious countries, but the children of secular nations outperform religious children in math, science, and reading. 

#1 – Higher Per Capita Income 
Possibly the single most important reason why you should want to live in a secular nation instead of a religious nation, is that the citizens of secular nations make more money than the citizens of religious nations!

I am actually not at all positive that I agree with every one of these, but I will admit that some of them do seem quite obvious. However  I am certain I would not have chosen the making of more money as the number one reason to live in a Atheistic society.

Personally I LOVE conversations about religion since it is one of those taboo topics I was discouraged from discussing when I was a kid. Since I am now an adult, and have this handy blog at my disposal, it seems like the perfect place to open up a dialogue.

So what do you think? Do these statements, or perhaps a portion of these statements, seem reasonable to you?  And do you think religion overall makes for a better society, or does it interfere with the ability of humans to rise to their true potential?

P.S. If you want to read a longer explanation given for these assertions then click the link at the top.

P.P.S. By the way, in NO way do I agree with the definition of Atheism posted at the top, but I just think it is important that ALL of us be able to keep a good sense of humor so that feelings do not get hurt and we do not become so defensive that we cannot hear the honestly expressed opinions of others.