Are atheists better lovers than christians? (souls, hell, Mormon, America)

[Visvaldis]

Hopefully, many will respond to this.
I am an atheist and prefer non-christian women (or believers who don't let god interfere in their lives).
I often get the impression that christians are lousy lovers. Too much guilt, shame, and inhibitions. Loads of psychological baggage. Too many don't this, don't do that, etc, etc. Or very inexperienced in adult age. Too many worries about being sent to hell for doing it. And hardly a spark of passion.
Atheist women are much more open without all the mentioned baggage.
Is making love to a christian woman the same as going to bed with a frozen fish fillet?
I wonder if the women find christian men to be non-emotional brutes without any tenderness or passion.
If you respond please don't just say he/she was a good lover. Try to explain a little more, but keep it clean for the forum.

[DaniMae1]

A christian woman probably wouldn't be making love to an athiest she wasn't married to. I think a better question would be "Is married sex better than unmarried sex." I'd say yes to that one. The other question is kinda weird.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Visvaldis

Hopefully, many will respond to this.
I am an atheist and prefer non-christian women (or believers who don't let god interfere in their lives).
I often get the impression that christians are lousy lovers. Too much guilt, shame, and inhibitions. Loads of psychological baggage. Too many don't this, don't do that, etc, etc. Or very inexperienced in adult age. Too many worries about being sent to hell for doing it. And hardly a spark of passion.
Atheist women are much more open without all the mentioned baggage.
Is making love to a christian woman the same as going to bed with a frozen fish fillet?
I wonder if the women find christian men to be non-emotional brutes without any tenderness or passion.
If you respond please don't just say he/she was a good lover. Try to explain a little more, but keep it clean for the forum.

[Antlered Chamataka]

Originally Posted by Visvaldis

Is making love to a christian woman the same as going to bed with a frozen fish fillet?

Oh, she's not gonna do everything you can see in a porno movie

And you can rightfully call her a frozen fish fillet.

[Visvaldis]

Originally Posted by Colossus_Antonis

Oh, she's not gonna do everything you can see in a porno movie

And you can rightfully call her a frozen fish fillet.

I'm nasty. But not interested in porn.

[Antlered Chamataka]

Originally Posted by Visvaldis

I'm nasty. But not interested in porn.

Christian women aren't nasty at all.

So you see why they can't be unfrozenfishfillety

[rickmahorn]

I would agree with the sentiment of the OP. Atheists don't have the guilt, shame, and repression that I find in a lot of ardent christians. Atheists can actually enjoy their sexuality with no feelings of remorse or punishment.

It should be noted that this generalization works best when compared to the hardcore christians. There are a lot of "christians" who are fairly apathetic towards religion, and some of those can be a bit "freaky deaky", if you will.

[FunkyMonk]

If you get most Christian/Mormon/Catholic women alone, and they know they can get it on without anyone ever finding out, most of them will do it. They have a sex drive and sexual urges just like everyone else and it's a rare person that actually stays true to the sexual rules of their religion. Most American-Christian women do not hold back sexually at all, quite the opposite, mos of them don't even care about their religions doctrines on it.

The ones who do follow thier religions sexually repressive rules will unleash that pent up frustration on you like a starving, wild animal. I've done it many times. When I was younger I lived right next to a huge Catholic college, and I could tell some stories that would get me banned from this site.

I've not only experienced this firsthand, but seen it happen thousands of times with other people. There is lots and lots of hypocacy there.

That's my job. Turning good Christian girls into freak nasties one at a time Who's next?

[GCSTroop]

My personal thoughts are that human sexuality and religious beliefs tend to develop separately from one another. While the religious beliefs of some may interfere with their sexuality as some sort of internal conflict, I honestly don't think that it really makes a difference. I've been with women who believe in God that were amazing, I've been with women who believe in God that were not. I've been with women who don't care about religion or belief at all that were amazing and I've been with women who don't care about religion or belief at all that flat out sucked. No pun intended.

[SeekerSA]

The following is an actual question given on a

Louisiana State University Chemistry mid-term.

The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state

that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are,
we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is

expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day
in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept
shouting

'Oh my God.'