Harassment, Rape, and the Difference Between Skepticism and Denialism – UPDATED

UPDATE: There is now a timeline of the major events in these accusations, and the responses to them, on Jason Thibeault’s Lousy Canuck blog. It includes several additional reports of harassment and sexual assault, and several additional pieces of corroboration of these reports. It is being updated as new information comes in and as new events unfold.

So I got this comment on my blog from Hannah Barnhardt:

I have a question about how to handle allegations of rape and sexual harassment. In the local atheist group that I am only now tenuously connected to (because so many members display open disdain for women and feminists), Karen’s allegations have been discussed only briefly, and with criticism and disbelief. Basically, they’re saying: “Well we ARE skeptics after all, and skeptic means we need PROOF! DUURRRR”

But with something like rape, or the kind of sexual harassment Karen experienced (and I do understand Karen has lots of proof, but I’m talking about a case where perhaps, like many cases, there’s not much proof beyond the victim’s testimony), what is the best way to handle cases where there’s not much physical proof? Because I understand how little rape/harassment is actually prosecuted and how difficult it is to accuse someone, I favor giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt.

I guess I’m asking: what’s the best way to respond to these people, who say that there must be ample physical evidence in order to actually DO something about harassment or rape? In the real world, it would be awesome if every person who experienced this kind of abuse had ample physical evidence, but it just doesn’t happen that way. I don’t for one second believe that that means we shouldn’t believe the victim. What do you think?

A good question, and one that has been much on my mind in the last few days.

Here’s what I think, what I want to say to people who are saying this sort of thing: I think you should be really careful about not letting your skepticism turn into denialism.

Here’s what I think:

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But claims of sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and rape are not extraordinary. They are depressingly ordinary. So the level of evidence we should need to believe a claim about sexual harassment, abuse, assault, or rape is substantially lower than the level of evidence we should need to believe a claim about, say, Bigfoot.

2: Sexual harassers, abusers, assailants, and rapists are typically very good at covering their tracks. They don’t generally commit their acts in front of witnesses or video cameras, or leave a paper trail. Depending on the kind of harassment or assault we’re talking about, they often don’t even leave physical evidence (and when they do, it often doesn’t get collected, since collecting it typically requires the victim to report the assault almost immediately, and subject themselves to further emotional and physical trauma). And perpetrators often cover their tracks in other ways — such as getting the victim drunk, which our culture regrettably tends to see as evidence of consent.

So the kinds of evidence we’re likely to find supporting an accusation of sexual harassment or assault are not straightforward, obvious physical evidence. The kinds of evidence we are likely to find are:
* Multiple similar claims made against the same person from different people. Especially when these claims show a similar pattern of behavior.
* Other people saying that the victim told them about the harassment/ assault shortly after it happened — with stories that are consistent both with the accusation and with one another.
* Other people corroborating behavior that falls short of harassment/ assault, but is consistent with it. Example: If an accused assailant is accused of getting victims drunk first, and someone says they’ve seen this person deliberately getting people drunk while hitting on them, or have experienced this themselves — that would support the accusation.
* Paper trails, email trails, or other kinds of evidence that either directly support the claim — or that show behavior that, again, falls short of being direct evidence of harassment/ assault, but is consistent with it.

(Note that this doesn’t refer to the types of evidence we’d accept in a court of law. See #4 below. And note that “support” doesn’t mean “absolutely prove.” See… oh, the rest of this entire post.)

To make an analogy that skeptics should understand: Think about how creationists say, “Where’s your evidence for evolution? I’ve never seen life spontaneously generate from a peanut butter jar! I’ve never seen fish evolve into mammals in one generation!” Or think about how global warming denialists say, “Where’s your evidence for global warming? Why isn’t the Antarctic turning into Florida? Why was it so cold in Minnesota last winter?” No, of course not. That’s not the kind of evidence you’d expect to see to support evolution or global warming — because that’s not how evolution and global warming work. The kind of evidence you’d expect to see to support evolution is exactly the kind of evidence we do find: evidence from genetics, geology, anatomy, fossil records, etc., all consistent with one another. The kind of evidence you’d expect to see to support global warming is exactly the kind of evidence we do find: evidence from long-term studies of weather patterns over years, decades, centuries, and millennia.

So be a good skeptic. Think about how sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and rape usually work. Think about what kind of evidence you’d expect to see for them. And then think about whether that kind of evidence is present in this case.

3: False allegations of sexual harassment and rape are actually very low. The consequences of making allegations of sexual harassment or rape are very high indeed: public shaming, having one’s personal history — especially one’s sexual history — being subjected to extreme public scrutiny and censure, being traumatized by callous law enforcement officials if the crime is reported, harassment, threats, and more. And the consequences are especially high when the person you’re accusing is powerful: if they’re famous, if they’re rich, if they’re influential, if they have political power.

4: In the conversations we’re having about these incidents, we’re not talking about what kind of evidence would support publication in a peer-reviewed journal, or a judgment in a court of law. We’re talking about what kind of evidence would support judgment in the court of public opinion. We’re talking about what kind of evidence would support staying away from people if we’re at an event with them. Exercising caution if we have to deal with them. Warning other people to exercise caution around them. Not inviting them to speak at conferences. Not attending conferences, or speaking at conferences, where they’re speaking. Not buying their books. Not continuing to cite them as shining examples of skepticism at its best. In the most serious case, we’re talking about what kind of evidence would support firing someone. (And yes, for the record, I would want more evidence to support firing someone than I would to support not inviting them to conferences.)

This is a generally well-understood principle. The severity of the consequences affects how much evidence we need to believe an accusation. If several of my friends tell me, “Hey, your friend is a creep, they kept cornering me at your party,” and one person tells me, “Hey, your friend is a serious creep, they cornered me at your party and groped me”… that’s not going to be enough evidence for me to call the police, but it sure is enough evidence for me to stop inviting that person back to any more parties. Even our legal system has different standards of evidence for different situations: there’s a higher standard of evidence for criminal charges, for instance, than there is for a civil case. And the court of public opinion, and of of personal opinion, have different standards as well. Which they should. The standards shouldn’t be trivial, or non-existent — and for accusations of sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and rape, they should be pretty darned high. But there is a wide, wide world between “These accusations could lead to a conviction in a court of law,” and, “These accusations are entirely without merit.” It is a huge mistake to treat these as the only options.


So. Think about the accusations that are being made. Think about the fact that sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and rape are, unfortunately, very ordinary. Think about the rarity of false accusations. Think about what kinds of consequences are being considered here. And perhaps most importantly, think about what kind of evidence you’re actually likely to see with sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and rape… and whether you’re seeing it here.


As of this writing, August 12, 5:21 p.m. Pacific time.

In the Ben Radford situation: There is an email trail. There is independent corroboration from more than one person, who witnessed the behavior or who Stollznow told about it. There is the acknowledgement from CFI, after an investigation from an investigative firm that they hired, that Radford behaved inappropriately at conferences, and harassed Karen Stollznow with unwanted correspondence.

In the Michael Shermer situation: There are multiple reports from different people. There are other people saying that the victim told them about the harassment/ assault shortly after it happened. There are other people corroborating behavior that falls short of harassment/ assault, but is consistent with it (in this case, Shermer getting the person very drunk while flirting with them).

In the Lawrence Krauss situation: I can’t say anything about that right now, because the blog posts reporting on the accusations against him have been taken down, apparently under threat of lawsuits. If you’ve been following the story, you can probably remember what was reported before it was removed, and you can look at these questions — are there multiple claims from different people, are there other people saying that the victim told them about the harassment/ assault shortly after it happened, are there other people corroborating behavior that falls short of harassment/ assault but is consistent with it, is there any sort of paper trail or email trail — and decide how you would answer them.

UPDATE REMINDER: There is now a timeline of the major events in these accusations, and the responses to them, on Jason Thibeault’s Lousy Canuck blog. It includes several additional reports of harassment and sexual assault, and several additional pieces of corroboration of these reports. It is being updated as new information comes in and as new events unfold.

I’m not asking what verdict you’d come to if you were on a jury. I’m not asking what you’d decide to publish if you were the editor of a journal. I’m asking you to pay attention to the difference between skepticism and denialism. And I’m asking you to not be a denialist.

Being a good skeptic doesn’t only mean knowing when to reject claims. It means knowing when to provisionally accept them. It means not demanding more evidence for sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and rape than you would for Bigfoot. It means not continually moving the goalposts of what kind of evidence you’ll accept to believe these reports. It means not telling victims who don’t name names that their vague accusations can’t be taken seriously… and then telling victims who do name names that they’re just trying to ruin reputations, and shouldn’t make public accusations outside of a courtroom. It means not saying to religious believers, “No, I can’t prove with 100% certainty that there is no god, there’s almost nothing we can prove with 100% certainty — but based on the available evidence, I can conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that there is no god”… and then saying to victims of sexual harassment or rape, “Can you absolutely prove that it happened?”

Skepticism is not denialism. Don’t be a denialist. This shit is too important to be in denial about.

The Atheist Baseball Game — Pics!

I’ve been having a grand time at the Minnesota Atheists conference. This sort of community building is exactly the sort of thing everyone says we need to be doing, and it’s wonderful to see it happening, and to be a part of it. At a very discouraging time — to say the least — it’s a soothing and inspiring reminder of why the hell we’re in this movement in the first place.

So here are some pictures from the atheist baseball game! As a special promotional event tied in with the conference, the local minor league baseball team, The St. Paul Saints, changed their name for the day to the Mr. Paul Aints. (This is the second year that they’ve done this.) The players wore special jerseys with the red Atheist A incorporated into their logo (Minnesota Atheists has T-shirts and hats in their store). They did a couple of silly atheist-themed promotional events between innings (like an evolution-themed race). They even put the atheist “Aints” version of their logo on their scoreboard. (I didn’t get a good picture of it, but PZ did, so I’ve swiped his.)

Aints scoreboard

And all around the stadium, they covered the “S” in the “Saints” logo, so it would read “Aints.” Generally just with bits of torn paper. Like this.

Aints 2

Aints 1

Aints 3

Aints 4

Here’s the Minnesota Atheists banner posted in the walkway leading up to the entry gates.

Aints 5

And here’s me with the pig, which apparently gets re-painted for every special promotion. No, I don’t know why the mascot of the St. Paul Saints is a pig.

Aints 6

There was just something really sweet and awesome about this. Very classic Americana. Right down to the train tracks right behind the ball park, and people waving as the trains went by. Almost Norman Rockwell. (Except for the part where they played Journey during the fireworks… but even that was a modern, rock-and-roll version of Americana.) And the atheists were a totally welcomed part of it.

Also, I ate fried cheese curds with Amanda Knief. In case things weren’t awesome enough.

God Won’t Cure Mental Illness: What’s Wrong With Rick Warren’s Sermon

rick_warren“We’re all mentally ill.”

“You have fears, you have worries, you have doubts, you have compulsions, you have attractions…”

So said Rick Warren, founder and senior pastor of the megachurch Saddleback Church and author of “The Purpose-Driven Life,” in a sermon largely about his son’s mental illness and recent suicide.

Warren was clearly trying to help de-stigmatize mental illness, and I commend that. But this is not the way. We are not, in fact, all mentally ill. And saying that we are does not de-stigmatize mental illness. It trivializes it. It contributes to the stigma. And it makes it harder to recognize and treat.


Thus begins my new piece for Salon, God Won’t Cure Mental Illness. To read more about how Warren’s sermon trivializes mental illness, stigmatizes it, dismisses evidence-based treatment, and frames atheism and religious doubt as a mental disorder, read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!

Processing: The Sexual Harassment And Abuse Floodgates In General… And CFI In Particular (UPDATED AND CORRECTED)

FINAL UPDATE (I hope): There is now a timeline of the major events in these accusations, and the responses to them, on Jason Thibeault’s Lousy Canuck blog. It includes several additional reports of harassment and sexual assault, and several additional pieces of corroboration of these reports. It is being updated as new information comes in and as new events unfold. Rather than continuing to update this post as new reports come in or get taken down or whatever, please follow Jason’s post for an updated timeline.

Updated again, to include the anonymous report made to PZ Myers about Michael Shermer. (CORRECTION: PZ wasn’t told this account anonymously. He know the person’s name. He posted the account without revealing it.)

(Updated and corrected, as noted below.)

In case you’ve been on Mars, in a cave, with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears: The floodgates have started to burst. Reports about sexual harassment and abuse in the atheist and skeptical community are starting to come out… and prominent names are being named. This is kind of a big fucking deal.

A quick recap, pulling some of these together in one place for those who haven’t seen them:

Ashley Paramore released a video describing being sexual assaulted at The Amazing Meeting. She did not name her assailant.

Skeptical writer and speaker Dr. Karen Stollznow, research fellow for JREF and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, has written a piece for the Scientific American blog, “I’m Sick of Talking about Sexual Harassment!”, recounting her years-long experience with on-the-job sexual harassment and sexual assault. It has since been reported that the workplace in question was CFI, and the alleged harasser/ assailant in question is Ben Radford, deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer and host of Monster Talk — both projects of the Center for Inquiry. (CORRECTION: Monster Talk is not a CFI project.) (UPDATE: Forgot to mention that CFI has issued a response to this matter. On which I will almost certainly be commenting.) (UPDATE: Scientific American has taken down Karen Stollznow’s blog post. Here is a cached version.

Carrie Poppy, former communication director for the JREF, has written a post confirming that Stollznow told her about these incidents, and describing how this information was… handled by D.J. Grothe and Chip Denman at JREF. This piece also reports a pattern of misogyny and disrespect for women at JREF. It also — very importantly, in my view — includes copies of correspondence between Karen Stollznow and JREF, informing JREF that CFI “have admitted that Ben has behaved inappropriately at conferences and harassed me with unwanted correspondence.”

Sasha at More Than Men has reported on an incident in which D.J. Grothe “made an hilarious horrendous “joke” about how I should pay him a visit down in Los Angeles so that he could drug me and let some of his friends have some fun with me.” His post details other troubling incidents, including Grothe saying that “the reason everyone loved the Skepchicks was because they ‘want pussy.'”

Ed Cara at The Heresy Club has posted about a widely-discussed-behind-the-scenes incident on a CFI cruise, in which special guest speaker Lawrence Krauss sexually propositioned an attendee — an incident that Cara describes as inappropriate, but which he points out did not qualify as harassment or assault. (UPDATE: This post has now been taken down. The bulk of it has been preserved at Lousy Canuck.)

Jen McCreight at BlagHag has reported — among other things — that “When women come to me to warn me about what speakers to avoid at conferences or confide in me sexual harassment they’ve experienced, Lawrence Krauss is by far the most common name I hear.” She has also reported that Ron Lindsay, president and CEO of CFI, knew about this — because she’s the one who told him, at the first Women in Secularism conference in March May 2012. Before the cruise that was discussed by Ed Cara. (CORRECTION: Women in Secularism 1 was in May 2012, not March; the CFI cruise in question was in May 2011, after and not before before and not after Women in Secularism 1.) (UPDATE: This post has been edited, after McCreight was threatened with a lawsuit. She is currently getting legal advice.)

UPDATE: PZ Myers on Pharyngula posts this, told to him anonymously (CORRECTION: PZ wasn’t told this account anonymously, he know the person’s name, and posted the account without revealing it): “At a conference, Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me. I can’t give more details than that, as it would reveal my identity, and I am very scared that he will come after me in some way. But I wanted to share this story in case it helps anyone else ward off a similar situation from happening. I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously. Ever since, I’ve heard stories about him doing things (5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them) and wanted to just say something and warn people, and I didn’t know how. I hope this protects someone.” (UPDATE: PZ’s post now includes corroboration of this story from other sources.)

Is there anything I’m missing? I’m going to try to keep updating this if and when new reports are made.


I know that I need to say something about this. Other than just, “This is serious as a heart attack, CFI needs to do the right thing, stat,” which I’ve already said. And other than just a huge “Thank You” to everyone who has been speaking out and telling their stories. It’s hard to do — it typically gets you targeted with a huge load of denialism, trivialization, and outright hostility and hatred, and speaking out against powerful people can have serious consequences — and I want to voice my immense gratitude to the women and men who have had the courage to do it anyway.

I know I need to say something else. I know that many people are expecting me to say something about this: especially after the part I played in the recent CFI controversy. And yes, right now I am thinking very carefully indeed about my future with CFI. (I haven’t had any kind of relationship with JREF in a long time, so that’s a non-issue.)

But I think I need to hold off on any extensive comment for at least a day or two. New reports about all of this are coming in thick and fast; new information is coming out very quickly. I want to hold off on coming to any important conclusions, or making any big, irrevocable decisions, while things are changing so rapidly.

Also… it’s kind of ridiculous that this random thing should be in the mix, but I’m about to undergo this medical procedure, a capsule endoscopy to look at the inside of my stomach. Don’t worry, there’s nothing wrong (we don’t think), this is a precautionary test being done because of my Lynch Syndrome.) But the prep for the procedure is stressful and unpleasant, plus it’s required me to eat nothing but clear liquids all day, and nothing at all for another day. I’m stressed, I’m hungry, I’m going to be even more stressed and hungry tomorrow, and I know I’m not thinking clearly right now. So because I try to be a good skeptic, I try not to come to important conclusions, or make big, irrevocable decisions, when I know that my mind isn’t working at its best.

This is serious as a heart attack. Processing. Processing.

Karen Stollznow’s Complaint About Ben Radford – Do You Have Evidence Backing It?

If you have evidence or personal accounts that will back Karen Stollznow’s complaint about Ben Radford, please send them to CFI — and please make them public if you can.

The CFI Board of Directors can be emailed via the Corporate Secretary, Tom Flynn, at tflynn@centerforinquiry.net. They can also be reached by snail mail, at:

Center for Inquiry Board of Directors
PO Box 741
Amherst, NY 14226-0741

This Needs To Be Handled

In case you haven’t read it already:

Skeptical writer and speaker Karen Stollznow has written a piece for the Scientific American blog, “I’m Sick of Talking about Sexual Harassment!”, recounting her years-long experience with on-the-job sexual harassment and sexual assault.

It has now been reported that the workplace in question was CFI, and the alleged harasser/ assailant in question is Ben Radford.

Assuming that these reports are true, and that Radford is the person discussed in Stollznow’s article: This is serious as a heart attack. CFI needs to do the right thing, stat.

Women in Secularism, Affirmative Action, and “Lowering the Bar”

This piece was originally published a month ago in The Humanist.

women in secularismSo there’s this conference. Maybe you’ve heard of it. It’s the Women in Secularism conference: the second one happened in May of this year in Washington D.C.

There’s been some controversy having to do with the conference and with the opening talk given by CFI’s CEO Ron Lindsay. It’s an important elephant in the room, and I don’t want to ignore it — but it’s not what I want to get into here today. (If for no other reason, events are still unfolding, and I don’t know where they’ll be by the time this piece comes out.)

Instead, I want to talk about the value of a secularist conference dedicated to women. Or to African-Americans. Or to blue-collar and working-class people. (I haven’t seen one of those last ones, and I’d sure like to!) Or to other marginalized groups. I want to talk about the value of going out of your way, when you invite speakers to your conference or your group, to make sure that a good number of them are women, and people of color, and working-class/ blue collar, and LGBT, and so on. And this isn’t just about speakers at conferences and local events. I’m talking about going out of our way to get marginalized people in positions of leadership in groups and organizations. I’m talking about going out of our way to include marginalized people when we talk about our history and the great leaders and thinkers from our past. I’m talking about going out of our way to get marginalized people to just show up at our local groups, and to stick around in our local groups… so some of them can rise up to become our next speakers, leaders, organizers, and thinkers.

And I want to talk about one of the most common complaints that we hear when special efforts are made to promote diversity — namely, that doing this is “lowering the bar.” That it will “dilute the talent pool.” That, if we go out of our way to diversify the speakers we listen to and the leaders we follow and the heroes from our past that we lionize, the quality will just naturally go down.

Yeah. See, here’s the thing.

rebecca goldsteinThe Women in Secularism 2 conference was nothing short of amazing. Just about everyone who spoke at that conference was exceptional: thoughtful, intelligent, engaging, entertaining, heartbreakingly touching, hilariously funny. Just about everyone brought their A-game: speakers, moderators, organizers, even conference attendees. Even with the upsetting and distracting controversy, it was one of the best conferences I’ve been to. And I’ve been to a lot. (A huge shout-out goes to Melody Hensley for pulling this speaker lineup together.) Amanda Marcotte’s talk on the rationality of feminism was that rare combination of rigorously logical and hilariously engaging. Desiree Schell has more knowledge about organizing in her little finger than most of have in our entire brain. Sarah Moglia had scalpel-sharp insights on how sexist mistreatment of women by the medical establishment could possibly, just possibly, be a factor in why crappy woo medicine is so attractive to so many women. Ophelia Benson has a quiet authority underlying an encyclopedic knowledge and a bearlike passion for justice. Soraya Chemaly is personable and delightful to listen to… with a mind like a whip. Katha Pollitt is an engaging and down-to-earth speaker who makes complicated ideas clear without talking down to her audience… and she is hi-freaking-larious. (I dearly wish Christopher Hitchens were alive, and had attended this conference, so he could see how funny women are.) And Rebecca Goldstein’s ideas about mattering were life-changingly brilliant. Throughout the weekend, I kept asking people at the conference who their favorite speaker was… and almost everyone said, “Rebecca Goldstein.” Or rather, since so many people weren’t familiar with Goldstein and hadn’t heard her speak before, they said, “The last speaker on Friday before the reception. The one who spoke about mattering. She was amazing.” Etc. Etc. Etc.

Which brings me to my point.

Why haven’t more people in the secular movement heard Rebecca Goldstein before? Or even heard of her?

And it’s not just Goldstein. So many of the amazing women who spoke at Women in Secularism are people I haven’t seen before at humanist/ atheist/ skeptical/ secular conferences. Or people I haven’t seen very much.


Honestly, I’m happy to keep getting invited to speak at conferences. But it’s okay to stop inviting me back so often, and to stop inviting back so often the other core group of women who keep speaking at conferences again and again and again… and to start inviting some of these other women. They rock.

Which brings me back to the notion that opened this essay: the complaint that making an effort to get more women in our movement is “lowering the bar.”

What on earth makes people think that the smartest, funniest, most insightful, most engaging, most talented speakers around will always be white, middle-class, college educated men?

What makes people think that going out of our way to expand our reach beyond the same white, middle-class, college educated men we typically look to will automatically mean “lowering the bar” or “diluting the talent pool”?

Here’s the thing. Unconscious bias — unconscious sexism, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, etc. — is a well-documented phenomena. It’s not controversial. It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person: we all have it, it’s what we’ve been taught by the world and about the world, pretty much from birth. We all have an unconscious tendency to think that men, white people, middle-class people, etc. are more talented, more authoritative, smarter.

But that doesn’t make it true.

horse with blindersWe all have blinders on that make it harder to see talent among marginalized people. That’s one of the things that being “marginalized” means — you’re in the margins. You’re not in the immediate line of sight. But when we make an effort to take those blinders off, what do we see?

An untapped pool of talent.

When major league baseball began racial integration, the bar for talent didn’t get lowered. It was raised. And it was raised dramatically. Extraordinary players from the Negro Leagues were suddenly in the mix — and the quality of play went up. This works the same way.

There are plenty of of reasons to make a special effort to make our communities more diverse. Diversity, in itself, brings value. It makes our communities truly welcoming to all non-believers. It brings new ideas to the table. It multiplies our abilities to make alliances with other progressive political movements. It brings a broader range of ideas and viewpoints to the public debate. It decreases our unconscious biases. It helps keep bad habits and vicious circles of unintentional exclusion from getting ingrained. It challenges our ways of thinking — and as humanists, we’re supposed to want that. And if we want to increase our political power, we need to increase our numbers… and we’re only going to do that if our groups expand out from out narrow demographic… and we’re only going to expand out of that demographic if we put people from outside that demographic front and center, as organizers and leaders and icons.

But one of the best reasons to make a special effort to make our communities more diverse? It raises the bar. It brings in high-quality speakers, thinkers, organizers, historical icons, who we might never have heard of otherwise.

Going out of your way to look for talented women doesn’t dilute the talent pool. It intensifies it.

And dedicated events like the Women in Secularism conference are a first-rate way to bring this untapped talent pool to the forefront.

Godless Perverts Social Club August 6 — and Godless Perverts Story Hour August 31!

Godless Perverts BannerThe Godless Perverts have two events coming up in August! Mark your calendars!

The Godless Perverts Social Club is now meeting on the first Tuesday of every month — and our next gathering is Tuesday, August 6. Community is one of the reasons we started Godless Perverts. There are few enough places to land when you decide that you’re an atheist; far fewer if you’re also LGBT, queer, kinky, poly, trans, or are just interested in sexuality. And the sex-positive/ alt-sex/ whatever- you- want- to- call- it community isn’t always the most welcoming place for non-believers. So please join us at Wicked Grounds, San Francisco’s renowned BDSM-themed coffee house — 289 8th St in San Francisco, near Civic Center BART — for an evening of conversation and socializing. All orientations, genders, and kinks (or lack thereof) welcome. There’s no admission, but we ask that you buy food and drink at the counter, or make a donation to the venue.

And join us for another evening of blasphemy and depravity at our next performance event, the Godless Perverts Story Hour, on Saturday, August 31! The Godless Perverts Story Hour is an evening about how to have good sex without having any gods, goddesses, spirits, or their earthly representatives hanging over your shoulder and telling you that you’re doing it wrong. We’ll be bringing you depictions, explorations, and celebrations of godless sexualities, as well as critical, mocking, and blasphemous views of sex and religion. The evening’s entertainment will have a range of voices — sexy and serious, passionate and funny, and all of the above — talking about how our sexualities can not only exist, but even thrive, without the supernatural.

Jen-Cross-150x150 Virgie-Tovar-naughtyface-150x150 Kate-Sirls-150x150 VictorHarris-150x150

M-Christian-150x150 SImons_head_shot-150x150 PamRosenthal-e1370489619352-150x150 Chris Hall

Dave-Pic-sideways-150x150 Greta-big-150x150

Our lineup for August 31 features Molly Weatherfield (aka Pam Rosenthal), Victor Harris, Jen Cross, Virgie Tovar, Kate Sirls, M. Christian, and Simon Sheppard — plus your charming hosts Greta Christina, David Fitzgerald, and Chris Hall. The Godless Perverts Story Hour will be at the Center for Sex and Culture, 1349 Mission St. in San Francisco (near Civic Center BART). $10-20 sliding scale donation; no-one turned away for lack of funds; benefit for the Center for Sex and Culture. Hope to see you there!

How Not To Convince a Feminist That Sexism Hasn’t Been Proven

Pro tip:

If you’re trying to convince me that sexism in atheism isn’t a thing, that it hasn’t been proven, that of course sexism exists but we have no reason to think it exists in atheism, that it’s some extraordinary claim that needs more evidence to demonstrate than the mountain that’s already been collected… don’t send me a hateful, ragey email about my horrible feminism after I’ve blocked you on Twitter and my blog.

And when I reply, telling you to stop contacting me in any way, shape or form… really don’t send me three more hateful, ragey emails about my horrible feminism, calling me a “fascist” for telling you to stop contacting me, and saying, “Look, I contacted you. What the fuck are you going to do about it?”

It’s kind of an own goal. You’re making my point for me.

“I was meditating…”

I was meditating on existential despair and allowing myself to richly grieve the ultimate heat-death of the universe, when the doorbell rang. ‘I wonder if that’s my new shoes,’ I thought.

This opening paragraph for a story just popped into my head. I doubt that it’s going anywhere, so I’m just going to let it be microfiction, and present it as is.