Secular Sexuality

(NSFW) A no-taboo approach to sexual education and health.

Members: 667
Latest Activity: Jun 23

Sex for fun and non-procreation!

In this world, we can't get away from religion. We've been exposed to false information regarding contraception failure rates and experienced the STD scare tactics. Some of us may even have gone through abstinence-only sex education!

Here in Secular Sexuality we will discuss:

-sexual health in light of peer-reviewed science
-safe for work guides on safe(r) sex (or links)
-questions that would shock the religious

This discussion forum is moderated. Unsophisticared trolls and judging other people will not be tolerated. If you would like to see a topic addressed, or have a question, add it to the comment wall, or message an admin.

Message The Nerd if you want an invite to the X-rated group, for topics not allowed on Atheist Nexus.

Discussion Forum

Nudity USA vs europe

Started by Gwen. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 18. 25 Replies

(book) Sex at Dawn

Started by Christian Overbey. Last reply by tom sarbeck Mar 16. 6 Replies

Circumcision doesn't reduce penis sensation

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joseph P May 13, 2016. 4 Replies


Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 31, 2016. 14 Replies

What do you yell in bed?

Started by Angie Jackson. Last reply by Ram Bansal Dec 4, 2015. 138 Replies

Why is this funny?

Started by Michael Pianko. Last reply by Joseph P Oct 4, 2015. 10 Replies

Pot Lube

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joseph P Jan 18, 2015. 1 Reply

Genital Video Game Controllers

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jan 3, 2015. 0 Replies

The other side-women and sexual freedom.

Started by Cheryl Kerkin. Last reply by SBMontero Dec 20, 2014. 39 Replies


Started by BJ Saylor. Last reply by Joseph P Jul 7, 2014. 17 Replies

Sex Tips

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 10, 2014. 6 Replies

Ezekiel 23:20 – Bible Porn?

Started by Garaidh Mac an tSaoir. Last reply by Gwaithmir May 14, 2014. 5 Replies


Started by Pockets. Last reply by Mink Laubenthal Jan 16, 2014. 30 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Secular Sexuality to add comments!

Comment by tom sarbeck on October 23, 2011 at 10:36pm

A friend some years ago did a Master's program thesis on the sex laws of the states. Reading it was an education. How close a relative you can marry also varies.


Comment by TNT666 on October 23, 2011 at 10:32pm
@Malefic... exactly why I completely disagree with any concept of universal moralities. We as citizens and societies give ourselves laws, to achieve certain objectives, these objectives vary from group to group. I would theorise that the "objective" of declaring youth sexuality with adults as amoral is because of the religious dogma that requires youth to remain pure/virginal until their marriage...and why this...well... we've discussed this somewhere in these threads... a monogamous family value system functions much better when people have no knowledge of what a crappy mate they have been married to. People with diversified sexual experience tend to marry less, because we are not so blinded by "blind love". Blindness... the opposite of knowledge. Allowing youth to be once again (compared to history) sexually active, with same age or not, with appropriate education by parents, can only make better more knowledgeable human beings. But Christianity must GROW, and so they push reproduction and monogamy, to ensure people have no choice. Once you have children, people become slaves to the corporate/economic system. Stretching that thought a bit further... infantilising youth further ensures youth will turn into subservient adults. Sexualised youth I think are always a bit more rebellious. So the choice then becomes: sexual exploration with an equally inexperienced youth... or sexual exploration with someone they can learn from?
Comment by MaleficVTwin on October 23, 2011 at 10:19pm

Speaking of 'underage', has anyone looked at age-of-consent laws and how they vary state to state? Some states have AOC set as young as 14. This raises an interesting point: does morality change when you cross state lines?


I ask this because when I was in my early 20's, I briefly dated a girl that was 17. I live in NV, where AOC is 16. Cali is a 20 minute drive away, where the AOC is 18. We did things that were totally legal in my state, yet illegal if we did them a short drive down the highway. 


CA would consider it child sex, NV would not. Thoughts?



Comment by TNT666 on October 23, 2011 at 9:56pm

@ Cet:

I had both articles open my browser as well as the original post, all the while; neither is of great scientific interest/value, as the language, as often happens in humanities/psychology/EB papers, is too vague to be considered truly conclusive, grrr.

But overall, I found nothing disturbing in there either. Certainly nothing that validated the crazy name calling and hysteria that ensued. The people who get hysterical over this (female and male, though lacking a uterus :P) I think are simply over influenced by religious morals, stemming from their youth, which are against sex initially for all... then being a 'cool' atheist... sex becomes ok for all those above the 'legal age' but remains 'immoral' for those under the 'legal age', and this gets transferred to only being against sex for underage people. I find that to be an extremely prude behaviour.


The distinction on the topic of consent is knowledge and maturity, not age. Of course a child that is raised in an infantilised bubble probably does not have much going on sexually, but for any youth out there in the real world with non hysterical parents (and I've know a few in the real world too) exploring sexuality is normal at almost any age. Being attracted to older men is the norm for younger females, yet for males it's taboo... I lean with the articles overall, slightly before full fledged puberty is when humans get moving, parents need to be ready.

Comment by TNT666 on October 23, 2011 at 9:40pm
holy shit egan, if only you could stick to the topic instead of personal attacks, that would be so refreshing...
Comment by Susan Stanko on October 23, 2011 at 9:08pm
Anne, the original poster's profile does not exist anymore.  His comment to the group doesn't exist anymore.  I doubt he chose to leave willingly.
Comment by tom sarbeck on October 23, 2011 at 9:01pm

Who will now say the human mind governs human emotions?

Thanks, Cet, for reposting the article. I've skimmed parts of it and saw only material that SCOTUS has said has First Amendment protection.


Comment by Anne Gunther on October 23, 2011 at 8:59pm
I don't know why people are assuming they know why, or even if, someone is banned. We atheists get enough crap as it is. Do we really want this chaos?
Comment by Martin Cox on October 23, 2011 at 7:49pm
Oh look. More poorly constructed straw-man arguments. The fact that you omparex consensual intimate contact between adults to the raping of children is quite telling. The additional repetitive behaviors of invoking claims of fear and religious influence indicate that you crave the attention and are just a troll.

If you are a troll, learn some subtlety. If not, get help. Either way you're definitely in the non-thinking category and thus beneath my notice.
Comment by Cet on October 23, 2011 at 7:36pm
If I get banned for posting it, it was nice knowing ya! Hopefully this evens the discussion out, though and posters can actually debunk what they find abhorrent instead of filling our inbox with threats.

Members (667)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service