Sex positive/sex negative

[constlady]

I've been contemplating a bit on this idea due to some of the recent discussions on this board.

Anyone who has ever been a part of my life has always considered me to be a very sex positive person.

That's how I see myself, to be honest.

I'm a big fan of sex in any form that makes me feel good (note that this is about me!) and adore experimentation, very frequent sex, open discussions about sexuality and pushing my boundaries.
I believe that the society I live in has an extremely dichotomous and warped view about sexuality.

One which never fit with who I am as a person.

I remember being quite young when a discussion about "saving one's self" for marriage was taking place and the concept made no sense to me at all.
How could anyone possibly know even the tip of the iceberg of sexuality if its sole expression had been with a single other person?
Sex is fun dammit and a life without frequent, varied and amazing sex is not one that I would be interested in living.

But somehow, because I choose to identify my relationship style as a thing that isn't necessarily the same as my sexuality, it is believed that I must be "sex negative."

Because I happen to believe that who I fuck isn't as important as who I love (though for me, as I suspect it is for many others, they often go hand in hand), because I don't want my lovestyle to be perceived as being solely based on the number of sexual partners I may have at any one time - since that is not how I define my relationship style - because I feel the need to differentiate the form of polyamory that I practice from the ones who prefer the combination of emotional monogamy and physical non-monogamy, I am oppressing an entire group of people who don't choose to live their lives in the same way as I choose to live mine.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[crisare]

But somehow, because I choose to identify my relationship style as a thing that isn't necessarily the same as my sexuality, it is believed that I must be "sex negative."

Because I happen to believe that who I fuck isn't as important as who I love (though for me, as I suspect it is for many others, they often go hand in hand), because I don't want my lovestyle to be perceived as being solely based on the number of sexual partners I may have at any one time - since that is not how I define my relationship style - because I feel the need to differentiate the form of polyamory that I practice from the ones who prefer the combination of emotional monogamy and physical non-monogamy, I am oppressing an entire group of people who don't choose to live their lives in the same way as I choose to live mine.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Thank you. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

It made me sick to be catogorized as "sex negative" just because I see a difference between casual sex and committed sex. Neither is wrong, neither is bad, neither is negative ... but they are different animals.

Yet because I differentiate them, I'm "sex negative".

That's why I will no longer participate here.

[MonoVCPHG]

I don't see judgment or oppression in simply not wanting to be associated with an activity or approach to any lifestyle. I don't judge or oppress people who don't like to ride motorbikes. If I chose to go for a ride with other friends of mine who ride I am not discriminating or excluding the friends who don't. I'm not oppressing their ability to ride with me. The fact they don't have a license or bike is excluding them.

If I am uncomfortable with a particularly sex positive social scene, I don't associate with it. I don't stamp my feet and demand inclusion, or that they change their behavior to suite my individual needs. I don't go.

Participating or defending sex positive things is not a requirement to being sex positive..simply accepting the healthy ideas of others is.

All inclusive anything is a bullshit idea because every person is unique. There is no one thing in the universe that everyone will see the same. Some one will disagree with everything. They just need to sit back, shut the fuck up and live their life without hindering the lives of others...unless their doing something that is unhealthy...then others have a responsibility to correct that behavior...than we have a responsibility to judge.

I kind of went off on that....not related to the topic? Sorry

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Yet because I differentiate them, I'm "sex negative".

That's why I will no longer participate here.
Now that would be unfortunate, if you felt that you needed to limit or remove your participation due to the opinions of a couple of others. They may be opinions, but they don't need to be taken to heart. I don't see a reason to give up that power to another.

[CielDuMatin]

I, must say that I, too, am very interested as to the answer of this question, since it is a label that certain people have attached to me, and it surprised me. My conclusion was that their definition was quite possibly different to mine.

I would like to know what behaviors are considered "sex-negative" so that I can look in the mirror and see whether they fit me or not. On the flip-side, I would like to know what actions are considered to be "sex-positive".

I wouldn't like anybody (and I do mean anybody) to stop contributing to this forum just because opinions differ.

[Ceoli]

Constlady, I'm confused. Where have you been accused of being sex negative?

I don't see judgment or oppression in simply not wanting to be associated with an activity or approach to any lifestyle. I don't judge or oppress people who don't like to ride motorbikes. If I chose to go for a ride with other friends of mine who ride I am not discriminating or excluding the friends who don't. I'm not oppressing their ability to ride with me. The fact they don't have a license or bike is excluding them.

I'm not really sure how this relates to the discussion. Not liking a particular activity such as riding a motor bike doesn't get into how people fit or not fit into identity groups.

Participating or defending sex positive things is not a requirement to being sex positive..simply accepting the healthy ideas of others is.

Nobody ever said that it was a requirement.

All inclusive anything is a bullshit idea because every person is unique. There is no one thing in the universe that everyone will see the same. Some one will disagree with everything. They just need to sit back, shut the fuck up and live their life without hindering the lives of others...unless their doing something that is unhealthy...then others have a responsibility to correct that behavior...than we have a responsibility to judge.

I don't get this. Are you saying people should shut up if they disagree with something that's said on this forum? And only speak up if a person exhibits things that are unhealthy? By what standard?


I don't think there's such a thing as all inclusive. However there are philosophies that are inclusive in their underlying ideals. This isn't always a bad thing. For example this forum attempts to be inclusive of all sorts of different ways people practice polyamory. People disagree here all the time. I don't see how those disagreements hinder lives in this case (since it's a discussion forum).

However when people start putting out ideas that identities include certain people and exclude others, then you can bet the people who are being excluded are going to have something to say about it. Especially if the reason for such exclusion includes assumptions that may not be accurate or elements that are only peripherally related to the basic identity.

[MonoVCPHG]

I'm not really sure how this relates to the discussion. Not liking a particular activity such as riding a motor bike doesn't get into how people fit or not fit into identity groups.



That's ok, I was more venting than anything. Sometimes I just like to put things out there without ever revisiting them. It even frustrates me lol! I rarely direct energy at ideas I have little interest in. I must have been tired.

Take care
Mono

[CielDuMatin]

So what are your criteria for the terms "Sex-positive" and "sex-negative", Ceoli - or anybody? I would like to understand better.

[GroundedSpirit]

So what are your criteria for the terms "Sex-positive" and "sex-negative", Ceoli - or anybody? I would like to understand better.

We (both of us) feel that sexuality should be as much of a non-issue as choice in food ! Period.
With the one restriction that it be consensual and harm none.
That to us is "sex positive". Our inborn sexual nature is something that should be embraced fully without reservation and we should be encouraged to explore it to it's full potential the same as we'd encourage exploration of any of our other human potentials that adhere to the "one rule".
Anything less than that starts sliding towards the other end - negativity.

Seems simple ??

[constlady]

Constlady, I'm confused. Where have you been accused of being sex negative?


I didn't say I was "accused" of anything, simply that it seems some others hold a belief about me (the general "me as a member of a group of people who expressed similar views") that doesn't fit with my belief about myself (the specific "me as an individual human being".)

Actually, I found that an interesting choice of words, since to me an accusation tends to be inherently negative in connotation.
Therefore to accuse someone of being sex negative indicates the person using the word feels that being sex negative is not a positive thing.
To accuse someone of being sex positive would indicate that the person using the word feels that being sex positive is not a positive thing. (Wow, that is an awkward phrasing, sorry I couldn't figure out how to state it differently!)
Either way, the conversation begins with an undertone of negativity that can cloud further discussion.

If we are to attempt conversation from a non-judgmental framework, that might be a word to avoid.

I did a quick search in this forum for "sex negative" in an attempt to find examples of the posts that led me to feeling the way I do, but there were 58 multiple page threads returned and I simply don't have the time or energy to cull through them all at the moment.

The basic synopsis for me is: When some people expressed their opinions on their definition of polyamory being skewed more towards love than towards sexual involvement, some responses indicated that meant those people must believe that "sex is dirty" and that they should stop perpetuating prejudices against those who define polyamory in a more sexual way.
That felt like an enormous leap to me and one which does not accurately define who I am as a person, even though I do share the same skew in my definition. Being love positive doesn't automatically mean I'm not sex positive as well.

Given that other posters on this thread responded that they too felt the same way, I'm fairly comfortable that my reaction isn't based on a personal bias.

My intent here is not to devolve this conversation into an argument over specific words or intents but rather I hoped to share with others that the labeling of some as sex negative was just as disconcerting to them as others may have felt being labeled as "not really poly" was.

[Ceoli]

Actually, I found that an interesting choice of words, since to me an accusation tends to be inherently negative in connotation.
Therefore to accuse someone of being sex negative indicates the person using the word feels that being sex negative is not a positive thing.
To accuse someone of being sex positive would indicate that the person using the word feels that being sex positive is not a positive thing. (Wow, that is an awkward phrasing, sorry I couldn't figure out how to state it differently!)
Either way, the conversation begins with an undertone of negativity that can cloud further discussion.

If we are to attempt conversation from a non-judgmental framework, that might be a word to avoid.




You've just illustrated how people can interpret things differently than they are intended. If we are going to attempt a conversation from a non-judgmental framework, that might be something to consider rather than getting defensive about something that may not have actually been said.


I did a quick search in this forum for "sex negative" in an attempt to find examples of the posts that led me to feeling the way I do, but there were 58 multiple page threads returned and I simply don't have the time or energy to cull through them all at the moment.

The basic synopsis for me is: When some people expressed their opinions on their definition of polyamory being skewed more towards love than towards sexual involvement, some responses indicated that meant those people must believe that "sex is dirty" and that they should stop perpetuating prejudices against those who define polyamory in a more sexual way.
That felt like an enormous leap to me and one which does not accurately define who I am as a person, even though I do share the same skew in my definition. Being love positive doesn't automatically mean I'm not sex positive as well.


Well, at this point, all I have is your interpretation. I've not been able to find anything that suggests that people who value love when approaching sex are being viewed as sex negative. I would love to see some specific quotes from which you derived this.

Given that other posters on this thread responded that they too felt the same way, I'm fairly comfortable that my reaction isn't based on a personal bias.


I never said it was. I'm just trying to figure out where it's coming from.

My intent here is not to devolve this conversation into an argument over specific words or intents but rather I hoped to share with others that the labeling of some as sex negative was just as disconcerting to them as others may have felt being labeled as "not really poly" was.

Well, if you're suggesting that people are labeling others as sex negative for what you perceive as wrong reasons, that indeed is an argument over specific words or intents. If you think there are people who are specifically viewing you as being sex negative and that those views are unfair, it seems the first way to address it is to find out exactly who has viewed you this way and with what words they put that view out there.

[CielDuMatin]

...sexuality should be as much of a non-issue as choice in food ! Period.
With the one restriction that it be consensual and harm none.Excellent! Totally agree.

Our inborn sexual nature is something that should be embraced fully without reservation and we should be encouraged to explore it to it's full potential the same as we'd encourage exploration of any of our other human potentials that adhere to the "one rule".
Anything less than that starts sliding towards the other end - negativity.In other words, your understanding is that each individual should be free to investigate the different aspects of their own sexuality in whatever way they choose, rather than having society put any valuations on it, or try to make out that what they are doing is wrong. Is that a fair restatement of what you are saying?

Seems simple ??Yes it does.

Ceoli, I'm not sure whether you are seeing my posts or not, but I would really like to get a better understanding of how you understand the terms "Sex-positive" and "sex-negative" that have been used.

[Ceoli]

Ceoli, I'm not sure whether you are seeing my posts or not, but I would really like to get a better understanding of how you understand the terms "Sex-positive" and "sex-negative" that have been used.

Without getting into huge depth, the basic answer for me is that sex-positive is a view of all of the diverse ways sexuality can manifest in ourselves without shame and without qualifiers of legitimacy.

However, I don't think that's what was brought to issue in this thread.

[CielDuMatin]

Without getting into huge depth, the basic answer for me is that sex-positive is a view of all of the diverse ways sexuality can manifest in ourselves without shame and without qualifiers of legitimacy.Excellent! Perfect summary. Thank you! That helps. :)

However, I don't think that's what was brought to issue in this thread.Quite possibly not, but given the thread title, I hope you can forgive me for asking.

[rosevett]

My intent here is not to devolve this conversation into an argument over specific words or intents but rather I hoped to share with others that the labeling of some as sex negative was just as disconcerting to them as others may have felt being labeled as "not really poly" was.

I have also felt that I was 'labeled' sex-negative and the reason I FELT this way is because of a discussion that I'm not even sure I was completely a part of but that I associated(though liked) with some of those that were discussing the definition.

I felt that because I did not care to discussion my sexuality specifically with everyone within a community, only those close to me, and that I was not out scream to the world I like to fuck people; rather I loved them or not being irrelovent, I was not sex-positive.

And no Ceoli, before you ask, I do not have example. These are my feelings from past events that I do not archive as I try to move forward with information gathered.

I will say that those types of conversations; heated with no conclusion and usually without even a 'agree to disagree' ending have steered me clear of such debates(as I see them).

BTW - I have also experienced the same feelings with spirituality.

Maybe I'm an closeted out poly person...need more Zen, tantra or whatever gives others those wonderful epiphanies for betterness.

[vampiresscammy]

this whole thread is confusing to me, at different points in my life I would've been on both sides of this, so no idea where others would put me, tho I admit I don't much give a fig what others think of me, aside from those I love and I'd like to think those I love wouldn't think negatively of me in any manner

but as an abuse survivor the MOST important part of sex to me is simply knowing there is nothing wrong with enjoying it and wanting whatever you want is fine as long as it is consenual on all participants part, but that is just my opinion, again, to each there own, but its taken me a long time to get here and I'm quite happy where I am

[Ravenesque]

But somehow, because I choose to identify my relationship style as a thing that isn't necessarily the same as my sexuality, it is believed that I must be "sex negative."

Because I happen to believe that who I fuck isn't as important as who I love (though for me, as I suspect it is for many others, they often go hand in hand), because I don't want my lovestyle to be perceived as being solely based on the number of sexual partners I may have at any one time - since that is not how I define my relationship style - because I feel the need to differentiate the form of polyamory that I practice from the ones who prefer the combination of emotional monogamy and physical non-monogamy, I am oppressing an entire group of people who don't choose to live their lives in the same way as I choose to live mine.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Constlady, I'm confused. Where have you been accused of being sex negative?

I would have to ask this question as well with a few others. Where was it said that you were sex-negative for not identifying your relationship as identical to your sexuality? No one stated that differentiating the form of polyamory which you practice from "the combination of emotional monogamy and physical non-monogamy" was oppressing others. Where is this impression derived from?

What was discussed was the ability to have different forms of polyamory. The acknowledgment that those different forms exist and can indeed be called polyamorous by those who wish to identify as such. Seeking to strip relationships and polyamorous people of the term because the manner which they practice polyamory is not the manner you practice polyamory or even the manner you sanction as "true" polyamory is seeking to confine others to your perspective of polyamory. Polyamory encompasses many different relationship forms and dynamics. How others love varies. What others identify as love varies.

The barest form of polyamory is "many loves." Not "many loves Jack's way" or "many loves Sheila's way."

If someone doesn't want to identify as polyamorous that is fine even if their relationships resemble polyamory to others. The same goes for if they do wish to identify as polyamorous and it doesn't resemble polyamory. Others do not validate that person, not unless that person wishes to be validated in that way. That's a whole other list of issues.

Seeking to remove polyamorous relationships from being identified as polyamorous in the context of attaining polyamory rights is oppressive. It then becomes an effort to remove some polyamorous individuals from obtaining those rights should they be granted. The fear that others may mistake one version of polyamory for another is remedied by stating people have different poly styles. It is another matter to narrow the concept of polyamory because of that fear or in response to those with a negative view of sex as this will of course have an effect on those who have a positive view of sex and acknowledge such openly.

The distinction is being drawn between relationships which have one type of sexual element (or none) and relationships which have another type of sexual element (perhaps more). It seems to fall along the lines of individuals who feel polyamory can encompass a broad variety of relationship dynamics and people, and individuals who feel polyamory can encompass a broad variety of relationship dynamics and people except those dynamics and those people.

~Raven~

[GroundedSpirit]

But somehow, because I choose to identify my relationship style as a thing that isn't necessarily the same as my sexuality, it is believed that I must be "sex negative."


Yea - maybe I really missed the true intent of this thread too - and just went from the title and later posts as the direction.
Backtracking to this original it does indeed warrant a different comment.

"It is believed..............

Ok - here we have hints of a defensive posture and I've posted before - maybe on multiple occasions - that whenever we find ourself in a defensive posture it's probably going to lead to unproductive discussion & debate. The obvious exception to that is if we're unsure whether others understand clearly what our real viewpoint is. If we are confident we are clear then that's fine. We can just let it go if others happen to have a different viewpoint.
Your post seems to be trying to clarify what your beliefs are - and you seem to do that perfectly well. If it wasn't clear somehow prior to this, you seem to have taken care of that nicely. "What others believe" at this point really doesn't matter. Agree or disagree - it's a personal view. Nothing more.

I guess I drifted towards the sex positive/negative topic because I saw it as a topic that could open & expose a lot of insight for many people.

GS

[Ravenesque]

Given that other posters on this thread responded that they too felt the same way, I'm fairly comfortable that my reaction isn't based on a personal bias.

I never said it was. I'm just trying to figure out where it's coming from.

Does the fact that others agree bring you a sense of validation? How does this address where your perception is coming from?

My intent here is not to devolve this conversation into an argument over specific words or intents but rather I hoped to share with others that the labeling of some as sex negative was just as disconcerting to them as others may have felt being labeled as "not really poly" was.

Well, if you're suggesting that people are labeling others as sex negative for what you perceive as wrong reasons, that indeed is an argument over specific words or intents. If you think there are people who are specifically viewing you as being sex negative and that those views are unfair, it seems the first way to address it is to find out exactly who has viewed you this way and with what words they put that view out there.

I agree Ceoli.

Ok - here we have hints of a defensive posture and I've posted before - maybe on multiple occasions - that whenever we find ourself in a defensive posture it's probably going to lead to unproductive discussion & debate. The obvious exception to that is if we're unsure whether others understand clearly what our real viewpoint is. If we are confident we are clear then that's fine. We can just let it go if others happen to have a different viewpoint.

It does quite seem to be a post focused on feeling attacked and judged by others and not clarifying where that is coming from or speaking specifically to the topic which was raised elsewhere.

It never really can be a productive discussion when it is cried "you're attacking me, you're hurting me," everytime someone has a difference of opinion that you just don't like.

It can't really be productive if no exact source is spoken of.

~Raven~

[crisare]

I have been asked by a few to come explain my statement so here it is.

Well, at this point, all I have is your interpretation. I've not been able to find anything that suggests that people who value love when approaching sex are being viewed as sex negative. I would love to see some specific quotes from which you derived this.
This is exactly the kind of response that is making me want to leave. Someone says they feel that X is happening and instead of saying "hey lets figure this out" the immediate response (and Ceioli, I see this often from you) is: That's YOUR interpretation. Provide me with proof of what you think is happening.

That's not conducive to understanding. It's a challenge. It's "prove to me that you deserve to feel the way you feel".

But you want some examples? Here:

From this post: http://polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18813&postcount=121
From discussions where it is insisted that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous (sexless is fine and dandy)
No one ever said that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous. That's a complete distortion of anything anyone has said.

And this:
http://polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18538&postcount=70
A prejudicial view of polyamory which houses a prejudiced view of sex. Sex = negative unless it be purified by the cleansing waters of love. Because love (what is love again? Someone bring me a definition ) is the reason having sex would not be some dirty rank thing. Sex-negative.
No one has said sex without love is "dirty" or "rank" .. just that it's not poly.

Those are the two quotes I can find most quickly. But there is plenty of more in all of those threads where those of us who think that poly should involve more than *just* sex are accused of finding *just* sex to be "dirty" "rank" "disgusting" etc... and therefore being sex negative. And no matter how many times we say that we don't have a problem with casual sex or that we don't have a problem with swinging or that we don't have a problem with fuckbuddies ... we're being accused of being "sex negative" because we don't see those things as poly.

The accusation of being "sex negative" simply because one sees a difference between casual sex and committed sex is offensive and hurtful. And quite honestly I don't need the heartache of dealing with people who throw out accusations of bias or prejudice or bigotry just because someone disagrees with them.

[Ceoli]

This is exactly the kind of response that is making me want to leave. Someone says they feel that X is happening and instead of saying "hey lets figure this out" the immediate response (and Ceioli, I see this often from you) is: That's YOUR interpretation. Provide me with proof of what you think is happening.

I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for actual examples so that they can be addressed and figured out. It's very difficult to get to the bottom of things if all we're doing is working with people's interpretation of the words rather than the actual words themselves. But you seem to have decided to view everything I say through a confrontational lens and you certainly aren't the only person who feels that. There ain't much I can do about that.

That's not conducive to understanding. It's a challenge. It's "prove to me that you deserve to feel the way you feel".


Again, no. It's asking a person to be clear about what they are having a problem with so that it can be addressed.

But I'll be honest here, on more than one occasion, you have been known to seriously overreact to things said in various threads in which the statements were not referring to you yet you still took great personal offense as if they were referring directly to you. I think it's more reasonable to ask for clarity about what exactly is offending than to walk on eggshells around unknown triggers.


As for the examples:

From discussions where it is insisted that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous (sexless is fine and dandy)
No one ever said that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous. That's a complete distortion of anything anyone has said.

People in that particular thread had been looking to disassociate with the label of polyamory because of the sexual practices of others who share that label. The discussion came from addressing that issue. And in this particular post, she specifically mentioned that her comments came from what she had seen in that particular thread and others on the forum. Even if people felt accused by that statement, perhaps asking her to come up with the specific examples in which she saw that sex negativity would have helped to further the discussion and cleared up any issues of whether or not she was accusing people and whether or not what she said was fair and appropriate. I'm pretty sure Raven wouldn't have been offended to be asked that. Redpepper does a great job of that when issues like that arise, and she did a great job of it in that thread.

And this:
A prejudicial view of polyamory which houses a prejudiced view of sex. Sex = negative unless it be purified by the cleansing waters of love. Because love (what is love again? Someone bring me a definition ) is the reason having sex would not be some dirty rank thing. Sex-negative.

No one has said sex without love is "dirty" or "rank" .. just that it's not poly.


Hmm...well, first of all, she challenged a statement that I made. Second it was directed at an idea, not a person. She was speaking to the idea of the need to completely separate sex from poly as mutually exclusive in order to lend it legitimacy in society. It seemed to be more of a comment on society than specific posters on this thread. But again, if you felt an accusation in this, why not ask for her to be more specific about what she was saying rather than assume that she was lambasting particular members of this forum directly or indirectly?


The accusation of being "sex negative" simply because one sees a difference between casual sex and committed sex is offensive and hurtful. And quite honestly I don't need the heartache of dealing with people who throw out accusations of bias or prejudice or bigotry just because someone disagrees with them.

I'm sorry that you feel offended or hurt by that. However, discussing and challenging views on how sex-positivity and sex-negativity manifest within a poly culture is not the same as specifically accusing people who are poly in a certain way as being sex negative. Just the same as disagreeing with a post and writing another post to spell out why one may disagree isn't telling the other poster what to think or ask. You might benefit from just blocking me because it seems any time I'm going to disagree with you, you're going to be offended by it.

[LovingRadiance]

Sex positive and sex negative labeling of people should be limited to people labeling themselves..

Actually ANY labeling of a person should be limited to them labeling themself.

[constlady]

It's very difficult to get to the bottom of things if all we're doing is working with people's interpretation of the words rather than the actual words themselves.

I'm having trouble with this concept. All communication is about interpretation and all of us bring our own filters to every communication we engage in. Words in and of themselves have no meaning, other than what those who use them give to them. A basic agreement as to what words mean allows us to communicate on at least the most rudimentary level but the less concrete the word itself is, the greater the chances for multiple interpretations of it.

That is basically the root of the issue that has produced the various discussions of late: individual interpretations of a word that we all share as one of our self-defined labels.

When I'm told by someone with whom I communicate that my interpretation of the words being used isn't the same as theirs, I try to reframe my communication to meet them as best I can or we no longer have a conversation, we have a monologue.
Expecting another to automatically adapt to my frame of reference is disrespectful at worst and unproductive at best.

To engage in satisfying discussions, that needs to be a two way street.

When the communication is occuring with someone for whom there are deeply connected feelings, it's much easier to acknowledge our different frames of reference and to take great care that we both express ourselves as clearly as possible and attempt to explain what our words mean to us since there is much on the line. We don't expect the other to change their interpretations, but to try to understand and accept the differences so we can reach a mutually beneficial discourse.

Extending a similar process to all communications would benefit many a discussion.

[Ceoli]

Sex positive and sex negative labeling of people should be limited to people labeling themselves..

Actually ANY labeling of a person should be limited to them labeling themself.

Nobody was labeling anybody as sex positive or sex negative. However there are certainly ideas which can be considered sex positive and sex negative and all of us would benefit from discussions on such things.

[Ceoli]

When I'm told by someone with whom I communicate that my interpretation of the words being used isn't the same as theirs, I try to reframe my communication to meet them as best I can or we no longer have a conversation, we have a monologue.
Expecting another to automatically adapt to my frame of reference is disrespectful at worst and unproductive at best.

Asking for a person to be more specific in what they are referring to in a discussion is not expecting them to automatically adapt their frame of reference.

I find it interesting that these issues of communication most often come up when one person says something that another person doesn't want to hear.

[redpepper]

So to get back to sex... :D

I don't know which way I would fall if I were to identify. So I choose not to at this point. I understand sex positive to mean that expressing ones sexuality is good for everyone and healthy. I understand sex negative to mean that not all porn stars are lovin' the life, that people are exploited because of the pervasive view that our modern sex culture is geared towards male fantasy.

I think that there has been a lot of sex positive stuff out there that has contributed greatly to sex being acceptable to talk about, teach and to practice more freely. Authors such as Carol Queen come to mind.

Sex positive feminists come to mind also such as Susie Bright. She rocks! There is also the fact that sex positive beliefs have made natural child birth and breastfeeding to transgenderism more tolerable in the mainstream and continue to be more so. There is a debate about what sex positive really is amongst feminists that both authors and others examine.

There is some stuff that worries me also such as the development of "raunch culture" or "slut culture." This is where I tend to identify with sex negative. Some sex negative definitions seem very Victorian and old school in terms of sexual expression but some of the beliefs really jive with me. Sex can empower women for sure, but also disempower them. In "raunch culture," women are more objectified and oppressed because the sexuality of women is geared more toward male fantasy than around what female sexual energy and power is... in this way women are not more liberated, rather they are more free to shake their booty for men to see and take advantage of. That to me isn't liberation and we preach this attitude to young girls in advertising, magazines EVERYWHERE in the media and sometimes in their own home and friend environments. Hugh Hefner would not agree with me or sex negative feminists on this one!

It was the definition or "raunch culture" and sex negative attitudes in this way that made me decide not to swing anymore. It went against my kind of feminism. I felt used and ashamed of myself for allowing myself to believe that I had been empowered. I realize that I was in a situation whereby I was not empowered as a woman and that is not every swinging situation... just to clarify, but it had been my experience. It has also been my reading of "raunch culture" that has made me feel a need to be more dominant in my BDSM life. I think I have a need to bring back to myself what I have lost... also to choose a more polyfi relationship with my men and to accept the bounds of that in terms of allowing good men to remind me to remember that my body is sacred and a gift. Not that they own it, but that I should choose carefully who I show it to and share it with. It is precious and should not be shared with everyone, but of whom I choose and for ME as much as them...

I try to remember all this when deciding which events to go to, what situations to be in, who I spend my intimate time with and how I behave in sexually charged social situations and with my loves. I have a very high standard of relationship now, not because I am sex negative or sex positive identified, but because a culmination of the two means they cancel each other out somehow for me. The definitions of them mix together for me. I have taken what I need from each understanding of both.

[constlady]

Asking for a person to be more specific in what they are referring to in a discussion is not expecting them to automatically adapt their frame of reference.


But after the specifics have been given, to be told their interpretation of the words is the problem is expecting them to adapt and that was the point that I was trying to make.

The post I quoted was one where a couple of other posts had been presented as specific examples of the topic after the request was made for them; the response wasn't to engage in a discussion about the examples but to state that the words had been mis-interpreted.

It feels a bit like running in a circle to have these kinds of discussions.

"I feel X when someone says Y"
"Show me examples when someone said Y"
"Here are some examples when I felt X when someone said Y"
"Y was not said, that was just your interpretation of the words"

A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.

And I personally find the prevalence of communication problems to occur less when hearing what I don't want to hear and more when I'm not feeling heard in return.


Now back to the sex again ;)

redpepper, you've stated very eloquently your journey to discovering and claiming your sexuality for yourself - thank you!

Much of what you said resonates with me, though I've had a much more simplified way of expressing it.

I've often said my sexuality feels like a double-edged sword at times.
Balancing healthy and empowering sexual encounters against the ones that don't feel so good and figuring out how to ensure that they are all healthy ones has been a process for me as well.

That sort of journey is a very individual thing and not one that easily lends itself to generalizations or even common paths.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons that the concepts of sex positive and sex negative can be so tricky to define.

[Ceoli]

But after the specifics have been given, to be told their interpretation of the words is the problem is expecting them to adapt and that was the point that I was trying to make.

The post I quoted was one where a couple of other posts had been presented as specific examples of the topic after the request was made for them; the response wasn't to engage in a discussion about the examples but to state that the words had been mis-interpreted.

It feels a bit like running in a circle to have these kinds of discussions.

"I feel X when someone says Y"
"Show me examples when someone said Y"
"Here are some examples when I felt X when someone said Y"
"Y was not said, that was just your interpretation of the words"

By that reasoning, anyone not only has the right to be offended by something that was said, but has the right to expect everything to be worded only the way they want it to be worded.

The fact is, everyone has the right to be offended, but that does not give a person the right to expect everyone else to edit themselves around them.


A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.

Funny but I felt that that's what I did. But funnily enough, I wasn't really being heard, but interpreted as being hostile. Anyway, I now get the sense that there wasn't much good faith to start that kind of a discussion with this thread, but rather to be validated in your feelings of offense. Either way, I certainly see that we'll get nowhere with it with such expectations in place. And I'm sure you'll put that as being all my fault.

[River]

We (both of us) feel that sexuality should be as much of a non-issue as choice in food ! Period.

Wow, GS, I'm surprised you forgot about the tensions between, say, ethically motivated vegetarians and the more omnivorous among us! And then there are the environmentalists who insist that, e.g., we should not be eating shrimp -- because most of it comes from "fish farming" practices which are extremely destructive to endangered mangrove forests.

"http://www.mangroveactionproject.org/get-involved/pledge-to-avoid-imported-shrimp/pledge-to-avoid-imported-shrimp"

[crisare]

A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.Funny but I felt that that's what I did. But funnily enough, I wasn't really being heard, but interpreted as being hostile.
Isn't this interesting. Because when I used almost that EXACT terminology with dakid over the definition of a lover vs. a fuckbuddy, you jumped all over me for expecting people to adhere to my definitions.

I specifically said to her "I would call what you described a lover. How do you define a lover then?" and I got raked over the coals for making someone define things on my terms.

So .. I see a huge level of hypocrisy in what you say in threads like this Ceoli.

You say I should block you because I am going to get offended just because you disagree with me. I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points and I don't care that you disagree with me. If we all thought alike, the world would be boring. However, I find your attitude on the board to be boarderline bullying of those who disagree with you, which is what I find offensive. I find that you use your psychological training and ability with words to back people into corners, then you follow that up with saying you are a victim of tactics you yourself use on others.

Finally: I'm sorry that you feel offended or hurt by that."I'm sorry that you feel ... " is a lame cop-out apology. It's a passive-aggressive way of denying responsibility for your own words. If you're sorry you offended me, then say so. If you're not sorry, then don't "apologize" to me for my own feelings. We are all entitled to our feelings and opinions and don't need someone else to apologize on our behalves.

[Ceoli]

Isn't this interesting. Because when I used almost that EXACT terminology with dakid over the definition of a lover vs. a fuckbuddy, you jumped all over me for expecting people to adhere to my definitions.

Nope, I didn't "jump all over you". I asked you why you felt the need to have her definition fit yours. It seemed you did because you consistently brought that up.

I specifically said to her "I would call what you described a lover. How do you define a lover then?" and I got raked over the coals for making someone define things on my terms.

So .. I see a huge level of hypocrisy in what you say in threads like this Ceoli.

Again, no. I asked you why you felt the need to do that.

You've clearly illustrated with this example how things can be viewed through a confrontational lens. And it's getting very tiresome at this point.

You say I should block you because I am conditioned to disagree with you. Honestly many times I agree with your concepts, but I find that you use your psychological training and ability with words to back people into corners as well as saying you are the victim of tactics you yourself use on others.

I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points. I find your attitude on the board to be boarderline bullying of those who disagree with you, however.

Look. This is an online forum where people exchange ideas. If you think I'm bullying, I suggest that you take it up with the moderators and have them discuss it with me. I only say what I feel is right to say in the given circumstances. I do not choose my words for the purpose of backing people into corners and I certainly don't take my "psychological knowledge" to use for some diabolical purpose of putting other people down. . I choose them to say and stand for what I believe should be said.

I don't claim to be a victim of anything. I pointed out in my previous post that it's funny that my point seems to be missed in all this. I have no problem with it and I won't go starting a new thread about how nobody listens to me. I just continue to make my points. Feel free to respond to them or not. If you want me to do or be anything else, feel free to take it up with me on PM.

"I'm sorry that you feel ... " is a lame cop-out apology. It's a passive-aggressive way of denying responsibility for your own words. If you're sorry you offended me, then say so. If you're not sorry, then don't "apologize" to me for my own feelings. We are all entitled to our feelings and opinions and don't need someone else to apologize on our behalves.

Believe it or not, I am sorry you feel bullied. And you certainly are entitled to your feelings and I've never claimed otherwise. However, since we are all adults here, I will not take responsibility for your feelings as we all have our feelings and opinions. I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours. However, according to what you're saying here, it seems that sticking to my opinions means I'm borderline bullying on this forum. I don't accept that.

[Ravenesque]

But after the specifics have been given, to be told their interpretation of the words is the problem is expecting them to adapt and that was the point that I was trying to make.

That's odd. I just managed to have a discussion with River on his interpretation of the word bi-amorous. I didn't feel expected to adapt in any horrible way. It doesn't fit with my perspective. It fits with his perspective and addresses his experience. The only adaptation I felt was in opening up my mind a bit and understanding his view as well accepting the existence of his view in addition to my own. I didn't feel the need to impress what I thought the word meant or how I would use the word.

Is adapting to accept the differences in the world really a "problem"? Is it that hurtful an experience for you?

A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.

And I personally find the prevalence of communication problems to occur less when hearing what I don't want to hear and more when I'm not feeling heard in return.

A more productive discussion involves not trying to impress your interpretation above another. Next is acceptance of the different interpretations. If a difference is discovered, you ask what the words mean to the other person if the interest truly is in understanding that person's perspective. Then if that person asks for your interpretation, you give it.

Again it is possible to discuss without pushing and pushing what your opinion is of how the words should be used. There is room enough in reality for words to have more than one meaning and to be used in more than one way.

That is being heard and that is listening. It is crucial to understand that you don't have to always do both.

I listened to River and then I moseyed right along. I didn't tell him what I thought biamorous meant or how I thought it should be used. I didn't tell him what word I would use in it's place. It didn't mean I didn't have an opinion on it either. But it wasn't important for him to "hear" me in that way.

Being heard is not the same as making everyone agree that your point of view is the right one.

Which takes me to the next bit:

Isn't this interesting. Because when I used almost that EXACT terminology with dakid over the definition of a lover vs. a fuckbuddy, you jumped all over me for expecting people to adhere to my definitions.

I specifically said to her "I would call what you described a lover. How do you define a lover then?" and I got raked over the coals for making someone define things on my terms.

So .. I see a huge level of hypocrisy in what you say in threads like this Ceoli.

Crisare, you repeatedly stated what your definition of the words fuckbuddy and lover were. Dakid explained what they meant for her. She was very forthcoming. You couldn't accept that. You continued stating how you interpreted it and continued asking how she could possibly feel or interpret things the way that she did which was different from you.

It was important for you to impress from all angles what it meant for you and come back to ask why dakid didn't use the terms in the same way.

The key you were missing was accepting the difference. Dakid saw it differently from you based on her experience. She uses the words differently, end of story. You are different people.


You say I should block you because I am going to get offended just because you disagree with me. I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points and I don't care that you disagree with me. If we all thought alike, the world would be boring. However, I find your attitude on the board to be boarderline bullying of those who disagree with you, which is what I find offensive. I find that you use your psychological training and ability with words to back people into corners, then you follow that up with saying you are a victim of tactics you yourself use on others.

Finally: "I'm sorry that you feel ... " is a lame cop-out apology. It's a passive-aggressive way of denying responsibility for your own words. If you're sorry you offended me, then say so. If you're not sorry, then don't "apologize" to me for my own feelings. We are all entitled to our feelings and opinions and don't need someone else to apologize on our behalves.

Hmm. Do you feel envious of or threatened by Ceoli's ability to communicate, uncomfortable when you are unable to find a response when engaging in discussion with her and therefore feel the need to attack her and characterize her involvement on these boards as "bullying" and "backing people into a corner" due to the frustration and resentment you feel? This reaction rather than addressing the topic because you are unable to and your opinion has not been validated by others as right?

Because it certainly sounds like it. The speed with which you pulled out the "Difference between poly and slutdom" thread, whew, made my head spin.

I've seen this tactic used on other boards and in politics. An attempt to turn an otherwise positive skill of another into a negative in order to lift the lack of that skill as a virtue.

This seems to be the purpose of this entire thread.

I would definitely call that hypocrisy from those who speak of bullying or not conversing "productively." Advocating manners of discussion where your views are always right is not productive or accepting of reality.

Look. This is an online forum where people exchange ideas. If you think I'm bullying, I suggest that you take it up with the moderators and have them discuss it with me. I only say what I feel is right to say in the given circumstances. I do not choose my words for the purpose of backing people into corners and I certainly don't take my "psychological knowledge" to use for some diabolical purpose of putting other people down. . I choose them to say and stand for what I believe should be said.

I don't claim to be a victim of anything. I pointed out in my previous post that it's funny that my point seems to be missed in all this. I have no problem with it and I won't go starting a new thread about how nobody listens to me. I just continue to make my points. Feel free to respond to them or not. If you want me to do or be anything else, feel free to take it up with me on PM.

Believe it or not, I am sorry you feel bullied. And you certainly are entitled to your feelings and I've never claimed otherwise. However, since we are all adults here, I will not take responsibility for your feelings as we all have our feelings and opinions. I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours. However, according to what you're saying here, it seems that sticking to my opinions means I'm borderline bullying on this forum. I don't accept that.

Yes. Yes. And yes. I could see that all strung into one paragraph:

"This is an online forum where people exchange ideas. I have no problem with it and I won't go starting a new thread about how nobody listens to me. You certainly are entitled to your feelings and I've never claimed otherwise. However, since we are all adults here, I will not take responsibility for your feelings as we all have our feelings and opinions. I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours."

Beautiful either way.

Your views and opinions are not bullying. And people should take responsibility for their own emotions. I do see a small crowd attacking you for having differing views and expressing them quite well rather than discussing the views themselves.

Bullying.... nah that couldn't be what is being done here now could it. :rolleyes:

~Raven~

[crisare]

Do you feel envious of Ceoli's ability to communicate, uncomfortable when you are unable to find a response when engaging in discussion with her and therefore feel the need to attack her and characterize her involvement on these boards as "bullying" and "backing people into a corner" due to the frustration and resentment you feel? No, but thanks for the psycho-babble pseudo analysis. I see this a lot from people on various boards who get annoyed when they can't bully people into seeing their point of view .. they go on the attack, but in a very faux-analytical way as an attempt to impugn the mental health/stability of the person they don't agree with, and thereby give themselves legitimacy.

The speed with which you pulled out the "Difference between poly and slutdom" thread, whew, made my head spin.LOL. That's a good one. Yeah. Let's please get real here. In a 15 page thread, I posted on nearly every single page. I finally chose to step out when Ceoli would not let me continue what was turning into (I felt) a productive conversation with dakid without further jumping down my throat for asking questions.

So you know .. the psychobabble BS doesn't really cut it for me. If you want to justify my response to your writing with armchair amateur psychoanalysis, and implying that I have issues, you go right ahead. It's kind of funny actually.

I'm done with this conversation with you and Ceoli both. I'm sure you'll say that I'm pulling out of this one and making your head spin. Quite frankly, I find your posts as insulting, holier-than-thou, and rude as many of Ceoli's. I choose to move away from this and contribute productively to this board as I've discussed in PM with several people over the last few days.

I found this board and learned there are some wonderful, openminded people here who I really enjoy. I am not going to allow a few others to spoil it.

[rolypoly]

Woah, this thread really needs some NVC. LOL!

[redpepper]

what's NVC?
and when are we going to get back on topic, or should I start a new thread on this... cause this is a really interesting one for me and I was looking forward to talking about it... I hate to interrupt as I see there are several of you in a process, but I just thought I would ask if I should start again on sex positive/negative?

let me know and I would be glad to start it again :)

[MonoVCPHG]

Non Violent Communication I think.

[DrunkenPorcupine]

I've got to say that I think both Crisare and Ceoli/Davik are right here.

What I mean by that is that from my reading, none of the people here are trying to force their terms or definitions onto others, instead are trying to explain their viewpoints and opinions in the way they see best.

On one hand, I need to appreciate the maturity on both sides for continuing to explain, and on the other hand, I need to question why this seems to feel so confrontational.

I guess that makes me a moderate. Can I be a moderator now? :P

[MonoVCPHG]

I get it....that's all I'm saying :rolleyes:

[redpepper]

Non Violent Communication I think.

Oh right, it is. I think I mentioned that once before but perhaps people don't know what that is or have any knowledge of it.... so I posted a link in the communication sticky... there is tons of things to read on line, courses and a great book called just that, "non-violent communication." All totally worth a read as it teaches the language used to show our compassion for others and still get our point/opinions across without others thinking we are trying to change their minds, bully them or manipulate the conversation.

I dunno, might be helpful?;)

[redpepper]

Rolypoly posted another link about NVC earlier in that thread too.

I do think we run into a bit of a snag when we start trying to treat communication on an online forum as the same as communication in person and within the context of a relationship. There can be very different dynamics between the two.

Perhaps, I'm just saying it might be something to concider as its more of an empathetic way of talking to another or others rather than talking as if one is writing an article for a journal if that makes sense.

[Ceoli]

It seems there's a bit of interest around this, so some people thought it might be a good idea to start a new thread with a more focused discussion.

Later this week, I'll be getting certified to teach a sexuality education curriculum for 12-18 year olds. One of the reasons I want to do this is to really promote sex positive ideals in our youth. I've also found as a teacher of autistic kids, being sex positive can be very important and can manifest in some unexpected ways.

One odd way I work to keep a sex positive philosophy has to do with the teenaged boys I work with. Most of these boys are severely autistic and do not understand the difference between public and private. So when they get aroused, they will often just take it out and play with it whenever the fancy strikes. And believe me, the fancy strikes them pretty often, being teenaged boys and all!

It's important that the adults who work with them don't say "no" to them when they do this, because we don't want to teach them that these feelings are wrong. They just need to learn that it's not appropriate in public. So we will always deliberately say "not now" rather than "no" (along with some really focused work on "public" and "private". It's amazing how detailed it can get.)

So there's a little odd way I put sex positive philosophies into practice.

There's a lot more out there. So who wants to talk about sex positive practices, recognizing sex positive attitudes and how to promote more sex positive ideals in society?

[CielDuMatin]

*puts his hand in the air*
Me! Me!

Seriously, though - I would like to know more about sex-positive practices and behaviours - I think that society, especially US society, is incredibly prudish when it comes to aspects of sexuality, including such things as mixing nudity with sex, depiction of loving relationships on TV, etc.

Someone on a forum I used to be on had a sig line that said something like "We live in a country where it's ok for tv to show someone being kicked in the balls in prime-time, but it's not ok to show someone being kissed on the balls."

I am a firm believer in allowing the individual to explore their own sexuality, within the realms of consensual and safe, believing that neither gender nor sexuality are discrete phenomena. I would love to hear a discussion of the issues at hand and learn.

I find sexuality beautiful and violence abhorrant and feel that we have reversed those values when it comes to "what is acceptable".

Thank you Ceoli and redpepper for bring up this subject and I look forward to the discussion.

[LovingRadiance]

Ceoli-we use that concept at home.
Little ones (2-4 year olds) often play with themselves. We always tell them, if you want to play with yourself that way it's ok, but it's a bathtub thing, not a livingroom thing to do.
Likewise-playing with a soccer ball is,
it's ok to play with the soccer ball but that's a yard thing to do-not an in the house thing to do.

So the response is the same as if they were playing in ANY way-but addressing appropriate setting.

(in case anyone wonders, the kids sometimes shared bedrooms, that's why we specified the bathtime, we kept that not shared).

[redpepper]

Yay! A new thread... I find it interesting what you say about your autistic folks Ceoli as we work in similar fields. Well they cross over I guess. We tell our peeps to keep bedroom stuff for the bedroom or keep it for later and for private.

I really find it all very fascinating the sexuality of my clients.. they really are into it in ways that others aren't. I would say more, but perhaps it's too much???? i don't know. I love talking about it... my co-workers say I should of made it my specialty with the population I work with. I love helping them out with it. Quite often they get neglected in terms of sex education. At least here. No one to show them how to use a condom, a vibrator, to masturbate etc. Or how to keep safe with other people sexually, how to say no and to strategize around situations they may be in. I do it all on the fly and have had several people come to me with questions. It is actually the most favorite part of my job. I think that our clients needs in this area are lacking for sure with those more constrained by physical disabilities as they are not able to relieve themselves... this is a huge debate for us in my field and not necessarily for here, but in my world I would be hiring sex trade workers to help out.... and the sex trade would be legal.

As for violence I actually find some circles of sex positive to be rather violent. I am not sure that is the term I would use, but I find the objectification of women to be violent and often there is a blurr between what is empowering to women and what we have been fed by men to believe is empowering but really it is all for them.

I will cut and paste what I wrote on the other thread in case anyone has a comment as I was surprised and disappointed that I got no response. Not that anyone has to, but just in case someone wants to add..

[redpepper]

So to get back to sex...

I don't know which way I would fall if I were to identify. So I choose not to at this point. I understand sex positive to mean that expressing ones sexuality is good for everyone and healthy. I understand sex negative to mean that not all porn stars are lovin' the life, that people are exploited because of the pervasive view that our modern sex culture is geared towards male fantasy.

I think that there has been a lot of sex positive stuff out there that has contributed greatly to sex being acceptable to talk about, teach and to practice more freely. Authors such as Carol Queen come to mind.

Sex positive feminists come to mind also such as Susie Bright. She rocks! There is also the fact that sex positive beliefs have made natural child birth and breastfeeding to transgenderism more tolerable in the mainstream and continue to be more so. There is a debate about what sex positive really is amongst feminists that both authors and others examine.

There is some stuff that worries me also such as the development of "raunch culture" or "slut culture." This is where I tend to identify with sex negative. Some sex negative definitions seem very Victorian and old school in terms of sexual expression but some of the beliefs really jive with me. Sex can empower women for sure, but also disempower them. In "raunch culture," women are more objectified and oppressed because the sexuality of women is geared more toward male fantasy than around what female sexual energy and power is... in this way women are not more liberated, rather they are more free to shake their booty for men to see and take advantage of. That to me isn't liberation and we preach this attitude to young girls in advertising, magazines EVERYWHERE in the media and sometimes in their own home and friend environments. Hugh Hefner would not agree with me or sex negative feminists on this one!

It was the definition or "raunch culture" and sex negative attitudes in this way that made me decide not to swing anymore. It went against my kind of feminism. I felt used and ashamed of myself for allowing myself to believe that I had been empowered. I realize that I was in a situation whereby I was not empowered as a woman and that is not every swinging situation... just to clarify, but it had been my experience. It has also been my reading of "raunch culture" that has made me feel a need to be more dominant in my BDSM life. I think I have a need to bring back to myself what I have lost... also to choose a more polyfi relationship with my men and to accept the bounds of that in terms of allowing good men to remind me to remember that my body is sacred and a gift. Not that they own it, but that I should choose carefully who I show it to and share it with. It is precious and should not be shared with everyone, but of whom I choose and for ME as much as them...

I try to remember all this when deciding which events to go to, what situations to be in, who I spend my intimate time with and how I behave in sexually charged social situations and with my loves. I have a very high standard of relationship now, not because I am sex negative or sex positive identified, but because a culmination of the two means they cancel each other out somehow for me. The definitions of them mix together for me. I have taken what I need from each understanding of both.

[rolypoly]

So clearly, my thoughts need to go in this thread. I asked about how your partners' relationships affect you and the more I type over there, the more I realize that a lot of what's bugging me is related to sex and a residual fear of it.

A part of me - the University academic, social justice part of me - wants to wave a flag and celebrate sex positivity.

The other part of me digs my heels into the ground and thinks fearfully that sex should always be done safely and lovingly.

I know that this has gotten me into trouble. Especially because I feel so awful after having casual sex, I end up either avoiding sleeping with people or I end up "falling in love" with people I don't actually want to be in relationship with.

Casual sex feels like an assault to my body. I know this sounds extreme. I look in wonder at people who enjoy sex and don't get all hung up about it and I would love to be like them.

So, I will explore all the juicy pieces of education about sex positivity and hope that maybe I can embody some of them.

[MonoVCPHG]

Casual sex feels like an assault to my body. I know this sounds extreme. I look in wonder at people who enjoy sex and don't get all hung up about it and I would love to be like them.



I tried casual sex and found it lifeless and without meaning or purpose. I also used to look at others who could engage in friendly or random sex and actually got mad at myself for not being able to enjoy it the way they did. I thought I had a problem in not being able to consider it a simple physical activity to be shared and enjoyed with who ever.

Then I realized there was nothing wrong with how it felt for me just like there was nothing wrong for how it felt for them. I don't have "hang ups" or insecurities. I am not abnormal or prudish...I am just me and my approach to sex is just as valid and healthy as everyone else's. It's just different and so I let that go.

How does that affect me in certain situations? A little discomfort in seeing others engage in open sexual activities...it's not my thing for the most part although I have no problem with public nudity at BDSM events and am challenging myself to increase that as it seems to be the environment I have found myself.

It does affect who I would have a relationship with for sure. What my partner does, does have an affect on me. Nothing wrong with that.

Do I judge a little?....sure, I admit that. But I keep it to myself and recognize that judging healthy behaviour is more a product of social conditioning than anything fundamental to my beliefs.

I used to have a much more casual approach to the idea of sex when I was in my marriage and would have heated debates with my ex about how I saw no problem with our daughter experiencing sexuality with who ever and how many others she chose as long as she was in control and healthy.
My opinion changed after my separation and a long journey of self discovery and counselling. My relationship with Redpepper has also changed my relationship with sex and what it means to me personally.
I have become more guarded of my own sexuality for sure. I don't share myself easily.

Am I sex positive?

I accept any healthy practice of sexuality regardless of how different it is from my own. I don't feel the need to understand it or even look at it if I don't want to. I reserve the right to ignore things and people as well as long as my ignorance doesn't impede the rights of others. I accept that others will probably judge me, ignore my own behaviors and in fact ignore me if they chose.

Am I sex positive?

You be the judge...I seriously don't care.

[Ceoli]

A part of me - the University academic, social justice part of me - wants to wave a flag and celebrate sex positivity.

The other part of me digs my heels into the ground and thinks fearfully that sex should always be done safely and lovingly.

I think it's important to note that most sex positive practices and philosophies don't see these things as opposed to each other. I think the key is in what constitutes safe and loving in this context. Many people have different ideas about what that means. So I guess this has me wondering: In the context of sex, what does safe and loving mean to you?

[Ceoli]

There is some stuff that worries me also such as the development of "raunch culture" or "slut culture." This is where I tend to identify with sex negative. Some sex negative definitions seem very Victorian and old school in terms of sexual expression but some of the beliefs really jive with me. Sex can empower women for sure, but also disempower them. In "raunch culture," women are more objectified and oppressed because the sexuality of women is geared more toward male fantasy than around what female sexual energy and power is... in this way women are not more liberated, rather they are more free to shake their booty for men to see and take advantage of. That to me isn't liberation and we preach this attitude to young girls in advertising, magazines EVERYWHERE in the media and sometimes in their own home and friend environments. Hugh Hefner would not agree with me or sex negative feminists on this one!


I don't think many people would say that having issues with raunch culture or slut culture is necessarily sex negative. Sex positivity isn't about saying it's great the everyone can have sex willy-nilly. It's about understanding that sexuality and expressing that sexuality is healthy and that there are a variety of ways to express that sexuality. I've noticed that more and more young women feel that in order to have value, they need to accept being sexually objectified in this culture. Attaching their self-worth to their sexual attractiveness isn't terribly sex positive.

I think swinging runs the gambit on that spectrum. I've seen swing communities and parties that are about embracing sexuality within an open, friendly and accepting atmosphere. These people gather on a set of shared values that bond them together. I've really enjoyed my time in such settings.

I've also been to parties where the atmosphere was misogynistic and pretty unhealthy. One of them was a gathering of the self-professed "sexual elite". As if sexuality was something only reserved for people of a certain size and level of attractiveness according to the magazines. I also found the sex there to be pretty boring and unexciting. And I found a lot of it was about putting on a show...particularly for the women. There are lots of arguments that could be made for saying such a party contains lots of sex-negative elements.

Either way, the practice of swinging isn't sex positive or sex negative in and of itself, it's more about how it's applied in each situation.

The same can be said for any sexual practice, whether it be casual sex, sex within a long term committed relationship, BDSM, pornography, erotica, and the numerous other ways we sexually express ourselves.

[CielDuMatin]

Either way, the practice of swinging isn't sex positive or sex negative in and of itself, it's more about how it's applied in each situation.

The same can be said for any sexual practice, whether it be casual sex, sex within a long term committed relationship, BDSM, pornography, erotica, and the numerous other ways we sexually express ourselves.I love this. Very powerful statement that I can totally get behind. It's not the activity itself, per se, that is the problem, but how it is practiced.

Would you agree, Ceoli and others, that although the above holds, certain types of sexual relating are more prone to sex-negativity than others, or do you feel that it is equally prevalent across the board of all types of sexual activity?

[Ceoli]

Would you agree, Ceoli and others, that although the above holds, certain types of sexual relating are more prone to sex-negativity than others, or do you feel that it is equally prevalent across the board of all types of sexual activity?

Hard to say really. I don't have enough info to make that kind of assessment. From what I've seen myself, I've seen that every practice is just as likely to be applied in a sex negative manner as it is likely to be applied in a sex positive manner. I have not noticed certain types of relating to be more prone to sex negativity than others, but my perspective is pretty limited to my own experience.

[MonoVCPHG]

I think the energy and intent of an environment can dictate whether a sexual interaction of almost any nature can be sex positive or sex negative.

It would be hard to point a finger at one activity as opposed to another when considering if certain environments can be more prone to negativity. The sweetest relationship could in fact be the most abusive where as a garish display of BDSM may appear to be more easily manipulated in a negative way simply because of optics.

[Ceoli]

I think the energy and intent of an environment can dictate whether a sexual interaction of almost any nature can be sex positive or sex negative.

Or more importantly, the energy and intent of the people involved.

[MonoVCPHG]

Or more importantly, the energy and intent of the people involved.

Exactly! Eight people could be in the same room and it could actually be a sex positive thing for some and a sex negative thing for others because of the intent of who is interacting....like getting feedback on the same party from two different people. One may have had a great time because it suited their needs whereas the other may have experienced it very differently.
So the qustion in that case becomes one of identifying the essential elements to what constitutes a "good party". Does this seem right or am I babbling?

[Ceoli]

So the qustion in that case becomes one of identifying the essential elements to what constitutes a "good party". Does this seem right or am I babbling?

I don't think that's babbling at all.

Though rather than identifying the essential elements of what makes a "good party" (whether that's referring to an event or a person or group of people), I think it's generally more useful to first recognize one's own needs and attitudes towards sex and then to set forth one's own ideals for how to sexually express themselves and relate to others in a healthy way.

Once those ideals are clarified in one's self, it then becomes pretty easy to recognize the people or events that will contribute to those ideals.

[rolypoly]

I think it's important to note that most sex positive practices and philosophies don't see these things as opposed to each other.

This is very refreshing!!


In the context of sex, what does safe and loving mean to you?

Oh goodie. Well, safe as I define it means using a condom, (unless all people are clean, tested and have agreements with each other, etc), being recently tested, having a discussion about previous sexual encounters.

Safe also means emotionally safe. This is where it gets a little complicated.

One of the things I've learned in NVC is to describe things that are "doable". Saying something like, "feeling safe means having a sense of trust that the person respects me" is not doable and therefore hazy.

The man I slept with who introduced me to poly provided that sense of trust, but I lost it when certain events unfolded. So now, looking back, I no longer feel safe and the sexual experiences he and I had leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Feeling safe and loving does not necessarily exclude spontaneous, one-time encounters either. So, it's not like there are steps one can take to reach a level of trust and care before engaging in sex.

I spent the night with a guy years ago who I didn't know at all and it was a very positive experience. Yet, I feel bad about the sex I had with people I knew for much longer and had a relationship with.


I tried casual sex and found it lifeless and without meaning or purpose.

Thanks for expressing this Mono. I'm glad to see you're in a comfortable place in yourself around sex and that you don't care about the labels...

I have very strong ties between sex and spirituality. Sex is often sacred for me. When I'm actually really enjoying sex, I'm completely open. To me, sex is a means of communication. It's a way for me to reach into someone and experience them on a very deep, spiritual, physical, emotional, sensual level....

So, when there isn't that, I feel empty. I don't necessarily need to know the person well. If there's a connection, I go with it.

BUT! But, if and when I later discover something in them that I feel resistance to, I suddenly feel like I've hurt myself by sleeping with them.

Hmm, I'm answering my own question here. LOL!

What I discover in them is probably what needs exploring in me. Which is why I feel grossed out afterwards... hmm...

[redpepper]

Hard to say really. I don't have enough info to make that kind of assessment. From what I've seen myself, I've seen that every practice is just as likely to be applied in a sex negative manner as it is likely to be applied in a sex positive manner. I have not noticed certain types of relating to be more prone to sex negativity than others, but my perspective is pretty limited to my own experience.

Yes, I would say it's hard to say too. That is why I struggle to define myself in terms of one or the other. It's also a word thing for me too. Sex negative sounds well,.... negative. I am not liking the word. It sounds too extreme. Very Victorian as I mentioned in my last post.

I guess I would say that a lot of what I have experienced about being open and swinging to me was sex negative. Mostly in what was going on for those in their lives that were involved... feelings of not getting their needs met in their own relationships, feelings of lack of self worth, feelings of instant gratification regardless of who they were with and what was going on for them. Some people come out okay with that... they say it works for them... I don't and it doesn't for me.

I find that a lot of sex based activities are based on a quick and dirty release for some people. Lets fuck and get off no matter what the cost to anyone else around us or ourselves... to prove something somehow. It stands to reason as our culture has become so fast at dealing with everything these days and I see this as no different. I think our culture misses a lot of subtlties because it moves too fast.

I just wonder what kind of toll it has on youth. Maybe I am just a slow old lady that hasn't caught up with the times, or maybe there are reprocussions for some and not others... or maybe none at all. I just have noticed in my own life the rise of younger people with sedintary lives who stay at home rather than go out and hang with friends, of people with social anxiety, much more on-line life rather than real life. All this to me is taking a toll on people in some way. It kind of seems to glamorize some and separates them from others while not taking care of useful skills such as getting to know someone or a group(social skills), learning how to communicate in real life (when I say real life I am referring to face time... I realize to some on-line life is real life), taking care of oneself (going inward to get our needs met), appreciating our bodies and others as sacred rather than objectivying them or others and being down on them when they are not perfection. It's like the divide between healthy and not is widening somehow.

Really it is all individual. What happens for one person in any situation is different from another persons perspective. It's the same as any situation in life. The difference for me is that sexual activity is quite often very powerful in ways we don't realize until after or during. Having someone enter my body is very powerful, having them see intimate details about my body and how I present myself in an aroused situation is very powerful. I am concerned about this because I think that often this power is scoffed at, covered up with alcohol and drugs at different events and the meaning behind sexual encounters is lost until later when our bodies remind us or we repeat back in our head some of the emotional content on being entered both literally and figuratively... (I'm speaking from a female perspective as it's the only one I know. I wonder if men feel differently?) I would suggest that for some there is some trauma sometimes in the form of feelings of self worth... then on top of it we are preached to by media etc.. that we should suck it up and that what we did was nothing.

I think I'm off on a tangent. Please bear with me,,, this is a big topic for me and I get very excited about it... :) in a good way that is... so much juice to it.

Also bear with the fact that i have no spell check on this computer and my spelling skills suck... will edit later.

[redpepper]

Once those ideals are clarified in one's self, it then becomes pretty easy to recognize the people or events that will contribute to those ideals.

Very important! I can't stress that enough either! Still, one has to start somewhere and then sork back sometimes.

[NeonKaos]

Exactly! Eight people could be in the same room and it could actually be a sex positive thing for some and a sex negative thing for others because of the intent of who is interacting....like getting feedback on the same party from two different people. One may have had a great time because it suited their needs whereas the other may have experienced it very differently.
So the qustion in that case becomes one of identifying the essential elements to what constitutes a "good party". Does this seem right or am I babbling?

With any and all due respect, you are "babbling". If you hadn't explicitly mentioned that, I'd have simply thought you were "digressing".

Identifying what constitutes a "good party" is well beyond the scope of whether something is "sex-positive" or not.

[MonoVCPHG]

With any and all due respect, you are "babbling". If you hadn't explicitly mentioned that, I'd have simply thought you were "digressing".

Identifying what constitutes a "good party" is well beyond the scope of whether something is "sex-positive" or not.

Interesting take..I'll file that away :)

[NeonKaos]

I'm pasting this in here from a chat I've been having "behind the scenes" about this thread; it was suggested that I do so:

when people talk about how picky they are about the sex they have, i sort of feel like the things I did when I was younger were "slutty" (i prefer the word "promiscuous") but I didn't feel that way then, and even though I did do certain things because I had a low self-esteem that I wouldn't do now, I still don't think of those as "negative" experiences.

[CielDuMatin]

Wow, this is a great discussion that I'm really enjoying!

Though rather than identifying the essential elements of what makes a "good party" (whether that's referring to an event or a person or group of people), I think it's generally more useful to first recognize one's own needs and attitudes towards sex and then to set forth one's own ideals for how to sexually express themselves and relate to others in a healthy way.

Once those ideals are clarified in one's self, it then becomes pretty easy to recognize the people or events that will contribute to those ideals.If I am being slow, then please, please forgive me - I need to paraphrase to make sure I get this.

So "sex-positivity" and "sex-negativity" are in the eye of the beholder, as it were? It's like most other issues around relationships - you work out what you need for yourself in terms of sexuality and things that help you express that sexuality for for you sex-positive, and anything that hinders it or represses it is sex-negative?

I would therefore tend to associate with people who help me and support me in expressing my sexuality (those that are sex-positive for me) and avoid those who try to put me down for my wishes and feelings, or who try to tell me that it's wrong to do it (those are sex-negative for me).

Am I on the right track or veering off? Please correct me if I am veering.

[MonoVCPHG]

I still don't think of those as "negative" experiences.


I definitely have had some negative sexual experiences but would not want to forget them because of the knowledge gained through each. Without those experiences behind me, they might still be ahead of me. I'm glad they are where they are.

[MonoVCPHG]

So "sex-positivity" and "sex-negativity" are in the eye of the beholder, as it were? .

I think there has to be a line drawn..clearly child abuse is sex negative regardless of the different perspectives of victim and perpetrator.

[redpepper]

I'm pasting this in here from a chat I've been having "behind the scenes" about this thread; it was suggested that I do so:

when people talk about how picky they are about the sex they have, i sort of feel like the things I did when I was younger were "slutty" (i prefer the word "promiscuous") but I didn't feel that way then, and even though I did do certain things because I had a low self-esteem that I wouldn't do now, I still don't think of those as "negative" experiences.

Is it the term negative that they object with? I invite them could speak to that themselves? I wonder how much they know of what is behind the term sex negative. It doesn't really address such issues. As far as I know.

Its a shame that they see some peoples caution and intentions to do what is right for them as "picky" interesting thought. I wonder also what that judgment is about? Is it a judgement?

[rolypoly]

Sheesh, I teach one student and this thread's already filling up, y'all are so quick! LOL!

I snagged on the word "picky" too. I'm not sure what the person was trying to say, but what I understood was that when other people talk about what makes sex a safe experience for them, this person begins to feel promiscuous about what they did when they were younger.

And that even though those things were done when the person felt low about themselves, looking back, they don't feel that these were negative experiences.

What a great way to look at it!

I like that it's possible for sex to be outside the context of love, but still loving towards oneself.


I used to understand the terms sex positive and negative in the context they were explained - at a University event put on by the GLBT group. We talked a lot about the sex trade.

I understood sex positivity to mean the right to choose one's own sexual practices. (Like the right to choose to work in the sex trade) and have the right to be safe at the same time. So, access to condoms, safe places to go, etc.

And sex negativity was described as the limits and conditions placed on others around sex. So, treating prostitutes as criminals and not building safe shelters for them. For example.

So, out of that context, I'd say the same. Sex positivity is the right to choose one's own sexual practices for oneself. 'And it harm none, do as ye will". And sex negativity? Well, negating that right I suppose.

[NeonKaos]

I responded to what redpepper and roly poly just said, but then i went back and read everything and i don't think you realize that i'm the one who considers my behaviour "promiscuous but not negative". It was myself who said those things in chat.

Also, it's frustrating that you folks see my choice of the word "picky" as an insult or a "judgement". All I can say is that I'm glad I don't see it that way. I consider myself "picky" now, in more ways than one.

Picky eater
Picky customer
"Neat Freak"
Picky about what kind of campsite I like

And if I call someone else "picky" about who they choose to have sex with, it's a "judgment". It was MEANT as though being "picky" is a good way to be.

Oh well.

There is definitely a culture of defensiveness on this forum.

[River]

General response to the thread...:

I suppose that I have a "sex positive" outlook, generally. What that means for me is that I think sexuality (broadly) is healthy, normal, natural, and good. That is, it is nothing to be ashamed about, guilty over, etc. In general.

Which opens a whole can of worms about lots of things -- since I don't think that all sexual activity is necessarily healthy, normal, natural and good. But the same can be said about pretty much any activity. Eating ten pounds of rotting food every suppertime isn't healthy, normal, natural and good. Some sexual activity isn't, either.

For me, healthy sex is self-and-other honoring, first of all. Generally, it will include genuine affection toward one's partner/s. As a general rule, healthy sex is an expression and experience of affection, kindness, tenderness, warmth, love.... But isn't this also the basis of all healthy relating?

I think a lot of "casual sex," which is considered by many to be a form of casual recreation, amounts to an self and other dishonoring activity -- because there is no genuine affection, kindness, warmth or tenderness involved in it.

These words may strike some people as "sex negative". But I do not believe it to be so. Sex is powerful, and therefore deserves a kind of proportional respect, in relation to this power.

I don't believe all sexual relating must take place within enduring, "committed" relationships, however. I just think there needs to be sensitivity to the needs, feelings, ... to the "soul" (as traditionally named) of the persons involved. Both to one's self and to one's partner/s.

[redpepper]

I responded to what redpepper and roly poly just said, but then i went back and read everything and i don't think you realize that i'm the one who considers my behaviour "promiscuous but not negative". It was myself who said those things in chat.

Also, it's frustrating that you folks see my choice of the word "picky" as an insult or a "judgement". All I can say is that I'm glad I don't see it that way. I consider myself "picky" now, in more ways than one.

Picky eater
Picky customer
"Neat Freak"
Picky about what kind of campsite I like

And if I call someone else "picky" about who they choose to have sex with, it's a "judgment". It was MEANT as though being "picky" is a good way to be.

Oh well.

There is definitely a culture of defensiveness on this forum.

Oh, I get it... :) thanks for clarifying... makes sense now.

[redpepper]

By the way Ygirl, I was just asking (with a defensive tone I must admit)... we used to be able to do that...remember? somewhere along the line it became seen as BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION defensiveness. Yes I reacted a bit as I thought you were judging Mono and rolypoly as being just way too "picky" about who and how they have sex and that they should suck it up, but I get where you are coming from now... Even if you did mean that (which it sounds like you don't), it doesn't mean you are wrong or that I am judging you back... I just wanted to clarify it one way or the other.

I did think that whom ever you were talking to had written that and found it frustrating that perhaps that person was not interested in actually writing on the thread but more felt like "judging" from the safety of a PM. As it was you who said that, it takes on a completely different tone for me... oops sorry if I reacted too quickly.

Oh no, is this going to turn into one of those threads? Fuuuuuuck, I fear that everytime I write anything. :(

[redpepper]

For me, healthy sex is self-and-other honoring, first of all. Generally, it will include genuine affection toward one's partner/s. As a general rule, healthy sex is an expression and experience of affection, kindness, tenderness, warmth, love.... But isn't this also the basis of all healthy relating?

I think a lot of "casual sex," which is considered by many to be a form of casual recreation, amounts to an self and other dishonoring activity -- because there is no genuine affection, kindness, warmth or tenderness involved in it.

I like the word honouring (spelt the Canadian/British way of course ;))... that fits well for me actually. What I would be wary of is that the one I am fucking is honouring my pussy/sex or honouring me. There is a difference... I would want them to honour me... but sometimes I have found they say they honour and respect me when really they honour and respect how I have sex with them and my genetailia..

[River]

.... What I would be wary of is that the one I am fucking is honouring my pussy/sex or honouring me. There is a difference... I would want them to honour me... but sometimes I have found they say they honour and respect me when really they honour and respect how I have sex with them and my genetailia..

Naturally, I was referring to the honoring of the person. Honoring the body parts is part of that, but is in itself insufficient if the person is not being honored.

I've heard it said that the word "sacred" has some etymological connection with the word "sacrum" -- which is obviously a region of the body closely associated with sex. Perhaps we should treat sex as sacred?

[River]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sacrum

" ... offered in sacrifices ... "

Hmm. Not what I had hoped for!

[CielDuMatin]

I guess what interests me is this that is a relative term, rather than an absolute. Or at least, that's how I am interpreting the discussion so far.

Because up until now I had thought that it was some absolute and I just didn't understand what that absolute was.

So if someone says to me "When you do X you are being sex-negative." My thoughts were to examine my actions, because what I thought this person is saying that there is something inherently wrong in them.

Whereas it's sounding more like what I need to hear when they say that is "what you are doing is not supporting my own needs for sexual expression, in fact I feel that you are a negative influence on my sexuality."

Am I close with this? Someone please correct me if I am not.

[redpepper]

Naturally, I was referring to the honoring of the person. Honoring the body parts is part of that, but is in itself insufficient if the person is not being honored.

I've heard it said that the word "sacred" has some etymological connection with the word "sacrum" -- which is obviously a region of the body closely associated with sex. Perhaps we should treat sex as sacred?

In part for sure! Although it is a communication, a ritual in part, a sport sometimes. It can be like yoga too ;)

[redpepper]

Ceil are you saying that you think when someone considers you sex negative that they are referring to the acts of sex you participating in or the thought/intention/emotion behind them?

What an interesting thought. I tend to do that. We have some D/s friends that are intense in their practice and if I didn't know them I would consider them sex negative. Because I know what they each get out of their lives together I think differently about it.

[rolypoly]

I responded to what redpepper and roly poly just said, but then i went back and read everything and i don't think you realize that i'm the one who considers my behaviour "promiscuous but not negative". It was myself who said those things in chat.

No, I hadn't realized that, I thought it was the other person.


It was MEANT as though being "picky" is a good way to be.

Kinda like the way I call people "weird"? It's definitely a compliment when I say it.


There is definitely a culture of defensiveness on this forum.

I have found that making evaluations of other people, rather than observations tends to incite defensiveness.

In a communications class I took in college, we gave a % of the likelihood that something would happen based on different words. So, for example:

Probable: 90%
Likely: 70%
Possible: 30%

The ranges from person to person were significant. So, the lesson being that we all have different meanings that we attach to words. The word "picky" might have a connotation for someone that you didn't intend.

So, when we stick to observations - in other words, stating the actual things we observe without any evaluation, there is no room for misinterpretation and less chance, (possible? LOL! :)) that people will feel defensive.

(Example, what I wrote in my reply to your post: "when other people talk about what makes sex a safe experience for them"). Just my ideas, take 'em or leave 'em. Actually not true, Marshall's ideas. LOL!

I can also understand the tendency towards defensiveness on a forum where people are sharing some of their most vulnerable moments and exploring dark corners in themselves. It can be scary.

[rolypoly]

I like the word honouring (spelt the Canadian/British way of course ;))...

So picky! LOLOL!!!

[rolypoly]

Perhaps we should treat sex as sacred?

This is diverting a bit from a sex-positive/sex-negative thread, but here goes.

I grew up learning that my body is my temple. Literally. My body houses my soul and allows me to move around in this 3rd dimensional space. So, what I put into my body is sacred, including food, thoughts, water.

Over the years, I've grown to understand what this means for me - with food, lifestyle, etc, and have made choices that reflect this belief.

It gets a little trickier with sex. See, I can have a sacred connection with someone I barely know. Because when your personality and ego are out of the way, (freakin' hard!), then what's left? Whatever unnameable force that's still present has the potential to connect and sex can potentially feel sacred, at least.

Thinking out loud again...

[Ceoli]

So "sex-positivity" and "sex-negativity" are in the eye of the beholder, as it were? It's like most other issues around relationships - you work out what you need for yourself in terms of sexuality and things that help you express that sexuality for for you sex-positive, and anything that hinders it or represses it is sex-negative?

I would disagree with that. I've often seen people use the phrase "it works for me" as a way to dismiss the more objective discussion about whether something is healthy or not. (I'm not saying this is happening here, I'm saying to illustrate my point) Many people can be involved in destructive behaviors that feel right to them. A person who has never known anything but abuse will adopt behaviors that feel right to them, but are not necessarily healthy.

In a broader sense, there are larger societal views that are generally agreed to be sex negative, though not everyone may see it that way. One example of a sex negative view has to do with stigma attached to sexually transmitted diseases. If someone catches a cold or strep from someone and sex isn't involved, it's no big deal. But as soon as someone catches a bacterial infection like chlamydia from a sexual partner, their character is often called into question, whether consciously or subconsciously.

These are ways that assessing a view to be sex positive or sex negative is certainly not just in the eye of the beholder but is part of a larger objective ethical standard.

[Ceoli]

I've heard it said that the word "sacred" has some etymological connection with the word "sacrum" -- which is obviously a region of the body closely associated with sex. Perhaps we should treat sex as sacred?

For me it would seriously depend on what your definition of sacred is in this context. The idea of sex being of value only if it's sacred has been the cause of much sexual repression in many societies.


For me, healthy sex is self-and-other honoring, first of all. Generally, it will include genuine affection toward one's partner/s. As a general rule, healthy sex is an expression and experience of affection, kindness, tenderness, warmth, love.... But isn't this also the basis of all healthy relating?

I think a lot of "casual sex," which is considered by many to be a form of casual recreation, amounts to an self and other dishonoring activity -- because there is no genuine affection, kindness, warmth or tenderness involved in it.

These words may strike some people as "sex negative". But I do not believe it to be so. Sex is powerful, and therefore deserves a kind of proportional respect, in relation to this power.

I'm going to disagree that kindness, tenderness, warmth, and love are necessary requirements for two people to have healthy sexual relations. They are probably good requirements for a healthy relationship, but that's not the same thing. Sex is certainly a wonderful component of a healthy loving romantic relationship, and in this context, those elements are probably good things to have in the foundation of it. However, I've known plenty of people who have healthy sexual relations without all of that. Particularly within a BDSM context.

While it may be necessary for you to have kindness, tenderness, warmth and love for your own sexual relations to be healthy for you, it doesn't mean that those are objective requirements for healthy sexual relations in general. I realize that you did qualify those statements with "for me", but I do find it important to clarify that it doesn't inherently make one way of relating more valuable than other way objectively.

However, one common element that I've certainly seen is respect, both for one's self and for one's partner. Using the word honor can certainly also mean the same thing.

[CielDuMatin]

I would disagree with that. I've often seen people use the phrase "it works for me" as a way to dismiss the more objective discussion about whether something is healthy or not.Ah ok, good point. Yes I have seen that done too.

Many people can be involved in destructive behaviors that feel right to them. A person who has never known anything but abuse will adopt behaviors that feel right to them, but are not necessarily healthy.Again, an excellent point.

In a broader sense, there are larger societal views that are generally agreed to be sex negative, though not everyone may see it that way.
...
These are ways that assessing a view to be sex positive or sex negative is certainly not just in the eye of the beholder but is part of a larger objective ethical standard.OK, so it's a combination of a general ethical standard with personal preferences that comes up with a totality of whether someone believes that something is sex-positive or not. I think that makes eminent sense.

Since the personal preference part is probably going to be just people comparing their views, would it be possible to focus on more examples of the general objective ethical standard?

[River]

For me it would seriously depend on what your definition of sacred is in this context. The idea of sex being of value only if it's sacred has been the cause of much sexual repression in many societies.

I understand! I'm using the term "sacred" in a sense quite removed from religious authority or docrine. In this context, "sacred" means worthy of a reverential attitude.

reverence - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reverence

====

I'm not religious at all in any conventional sense -- though one of my friends says I'm the most "religious" person he knows. He said that after I insisted that I'm not religious. But he was refering to religion as "respect for what is sacred," rather than "reverence for the gods". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=religion&searchmode=none

I have no reverence for gods, because I'm a non-theist. As a non-theist (and a naturalistic mystic--if you can wrap your brain around that phrase!), I remain acutely sensitive to the sacred -- but without relying on external authority/ -ies to sanction, explain or define the sacred or that which is sacred.

That which is sacred is nakedly apparent to those who will open their hearts to others and to being / existence / the world.... No authority is required, or helpful!

I'm going to disagree that kindness, tenderness, warmth, and love are necessary requirements for two people to have healthy sexual relations. They are probably good requirements for a healthy relationship, but that's not the same thing. Sex is certainly a wonderful component of a healthy loving romantic relationship, and in this context, those elements are probably good things to have in the foundation of it. However, I've known plenty of people who have healthy sexual relations without all of that. Particularly within a BDSM context.

While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

While it may be necessary for you to have kindness, tenderness, warmth and love for your own sexual relations to be healthy for you, it doesn't mean that those are objective requirements for healthy sexual relations in general. I realize that you did qualify those statements with "for me", but I do find it important to clarify that it doesn't inherently make one way of relating more valuable than other way objectively.

However, one common element that I've certainly seen is respect, both for one's self and for one's partner. Using the word honor can certainly also mean the same thing.

Well, people can give and receive pleasure by means we call "sexual," but I'm now supposing that what I'm talking about isn't really merely "sex," since people could have sex strictly for the purpose of procreation -- and have no feeling for one another whatsoever; it could be quite cold and clinical -- a sort of medical procedure.

I suppose I'm talking about what some folks call "love-making" -- or the "arts of love". And I'm saying that in the "arts of love" there are hits and misses, and misses that are so far off that they don't even properly belong to the field.

My intent isn't one of moralizing. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks casual sex fucking is remotely similar to making love is fooling him- or herself. Profoundly. These are not even as close as apples and oranges -- which are both varieties of fruit, after all!

And I think that "sex" (as it is called) without heart engagement is perverse, pathological and pathogenic. Something is perverse if it is "1 a : turned away from what is right or good" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Perverse] But my concern isn't with whether or not it is "right" (a moral judgement) as with whether it is good. Something is good if it is productive of well-being. If it counters or obstructs or hinders well-being, it isn't good. This isn't a moral judgement; it is a matter of favoring that which produces health and well-being.

I could go on at length as to why I say what I do, but this is a post in a conversation, not a book-length essay.

[MonoVCPHG]

My intent isn't one of moralizing. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks casual sex fucking is remotely similar to making love is fooling him- or herself. Profoundly. These are not even as close as apples and oranges -- which are both varieties of fruit, after all!


No argument from me on this point. The sex I have with someone I open up to and trust is on a completely different plain than the sex I experienced with people I simply fucked out of impulsive desire or a "need" to get off.

Neither is more righteous in my mind but certainly there is no comparison between the two.

[Ceoli]

That which is sacred is nakedly apparent to those who will open their hearts to others and to being / existence / the world.... No authority is required, or helpful!

I find that which is sacred to be pretty subjective to the value system of the person experiencing it. Which is why I don't find the concept useful in assigning objective value to sexual relationships. When I say objective value, I mean holding a relationship that is "sacred" as more legitimate or more valuable than one that may have a bond that isn't considered "sacred".

That is not to say that such values can't be applied subjectively, but I find it important to put that distinction in there.

[redpepper]

While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

It is very much about power dynamics. I don't think the sex part of that is about that. It is more of a result of that power dynamic...re-connecting afterward in a loving, gentle, bonded way. I suppose it could be involved but I am not so sure how healthy that would be. I would think it would be very close to the abuse of power and therefore not good BDSM practice.

[Ceoli]

While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

I'm going to have to disagree here. How is BDSM unhealthy and what evidence shows this? Like any form of sexual expression it can be applied unhealthily, but the evidence suggests that engaging in BDSM is not necessarily a way to move towards wholesome or healthy sex, but is a wholesome and healthy sexual expression in and of itself.


Well, people can give and receive pleasure by means we call "sexual," but I'm now supposing that what I'm talking about isn't really merely "sex," since people could have sex strictly for the purpose of procreation -- and have no feeling for one another whatsoever; it could be quite cold and clinical -- a sort of medical procedure.

I'm really not sure where this comes into play, since nobody was talking about sex without feeling or being cold and clinical. However, it is entirely possible to give and receive pleasure with another human being and experience a sexual connection with them without having to attach additional qualifiers such as being "sacred" or having to be "tender", etc. These are not cold and clinical, but fun, friendly and healthy sexual relations.

I suppose I'm talking about what some folks call "love-making" -- or the "arts of love". And I'm saying that in the "arts of love" there are hits and misses, and misses that are so far off that they don't even properly belong to the field.

My intent isn't one of moralizing. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks casual sex fucking is remotely similar to making love is fooling him- or herself. Profoundly. These are not even as close as apples and oranges -- which are both varieties of fruit, after all!


It's fair enough to make a distinction between sex and love making, however to consider one a superior and more legitimate way to sexually express one's self does have the effect of moralizing, even if the intent isn't there.



And I think that "sex" (as it is called) without heart engagement is perverse, pathological and pathogenic. Something is perverse if it is "1 a : turned away from what is right or good" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Perverse] But my concern isn't with whether or not it is "right" (a moral judgement) as with whether it is good. Something is good if it is productive of well-being. If it counters or obstructs or hinders well-being, it isn't good. This isn't a moral judgement; it is a matter of favoring that which produces health and well-being.

Again, I have to wonder if you're applying your own value system to what you consider to be "good" or "healthy" for people in general. I'm not sure what you mean by sex without heart engagement. But I have known people to have sex in a variety of ways that I suspect don't fall into your category of "good" and being "productive to well being". I can't say I've seen it produce the effect you're claiming it does.

[redpepper]

Again, I have to wonder if you're applying your own value system to what you consider to be "good" or "healthy" for people in general. I'm not sure what you mean by sex without heart engagement. But I have known people to have sex in a variety of ways that I suspect don't fall into your category of "good" and being "productive to well being". I can't say I've seen it produce the effect you're claiming it does.

It seems to me that River is applying his own value system to this whole thing. What we are talking about is value systems no? I find it interesting that others have differing ones to me. I agree that sex that is fun and playful can also be "good." They are apples and oranges though and I get River's point. I didn't have the same reaction as you did Ceoli in terms of his thinking one is superior to the other just that for him it is. Fair enough, it is for a lot of people and that is just fine... the topic for me is what of that is sex positive or sex negative?

[River]

Ceoli,

I understand the usefulness of terms like "subjective" and "objective" in such discussions as the one we're engaging in, but I'd like to draw out for questioning, for inquiry -- and not necessarily an inquiry seeking verbal-conceptual 'answers' -- whether some violence may be done to that which is simply valuable regardless of the conceptual trellis we're attaching it to, when we insist that something we value must be either a merely personal choice ("subjective) or a universal fact ("objective").

Is it really right to say that that which is sacred is merely a matter of personal choice or conviction, is merely "subjective"? Must, alternatively, any sacred thing be found by some ostensibly "objective" procedure to be such?

If anything is sacred, which is to say if anything is worthy of reverence, the value of a person, of a life form, of a biotic community, of the biosphere itself -- Earth and its many life forms must be held so. <--- Now can we read that without projecting authority into it? Can we see this as "a finger pointing at the moon"? Is it possible to read or hear these words and not hear a proclamation of moral obligation or duty?

If life itself is not sacred, can anything at all be sacred? And if nothing at all is worthy of universal reverence--beyond the claims of authority or the games of logicians and epistemologists--does anything have any value at all? And if nothing has any value at all, aside from personal preferences and "subjective" views, -- how completely insane is that? Isn't that madness?! Who could dare to utter: "Life is NOT sacred, is not worthy of reverence?" and not be thought mad by sane people?

If life itself is sacred, then it would follow that that which nourishes it into flourishing is good, and that which inhibits such flourishing is bad. Pretending that we don't know that leaving the heart (not the pump) out of sex has a (metaphorically) toxic effect on people is a strange kind of ignor- ance.

Maybe one day we will evolve an "objective" science of the obvious?

Screw the madness of argument, here. Look deep. I'm not providing an argument because such philosphical arguments tend to traverse the periphery of the heart and never evoke any depth of insight. I wasted years discussing this with philosophers. Well, it was not a complete waste of my time. I learned the limits of the conceptual mind.

When a kiss is not a kiss, it is a poison. Every clear-eyed lover knows this.

But that sounds like poetry, not science or epistemology!

Poetry forced to play games of authority is sick religion.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."

Silence!

[Ceoli]

It seems to me that River is applying his own value system to this whole thing. What we are talking about is value systems no? I find it interesting that others have differing ones to me. I agree that sex that is fun and playful can also be "good." They are apples and oranges though and I get River's point. I didn't have the same reaction as you did Ceoli in terms of his thinking one is superior to the other just that for him it is. Fair enough, it is for a lot of people and that is just fine... the topic for me is what of that is sex positive or sex negative?

I agree that we're talking about different value systems. River said this in his post:

While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

This quote suggests to me that River is saying that BDSM is not in and of itself a healthy thing. It didn't seem to me that this was something personal to him but a general statement that applies to anyone who participates in BDSM play, which is why I addressed it in my reply.

[redpepper]

This quote suggests to me that River is saying that BDSM is not in an of itself a healthy thing. It didn't seem to me that this was something personal to him but a general statement that applies to anyone who participates in BDSM play, which is why I addressed it in my reply.

Fair enough, I can see how he could be judging in those statements. River? I don't know, having experimented with lots of dynamics I find that it all has a place in my over all experience of myself. I can see how River you would feel very passionate about your beliefs, especially considering how fucked up people can get within themselves when they don't have enough connection to themselves or respect for themselves when engaging in casual sex. It is a fine line I think. It was for me...

[River]

There is something terribly, terribly blinding about conceiving of value, of good, as something that can only be a subjectively held view, a mere opinion.

Equally blinding is the premise that if value isn't subjective, it must be objective.

Intersubjectivity sounds like something with as much weight as "I and all of my friends agree that...".

I'm accutely aware that endless wars and ecocidal mania are possible because we are blinded to the raw simplicity of the presence of the sacred. To say that "that which is sacred is your own opinion," or to regard all consideration of sacredness as belonging to the millennia of religious mania and superstition ... is blind.

....

A kiss that is not a kiss is poison because it is a lie. It is a falsehood in the face of the sacred opportunity of a kiss.

This sounds like mere opinion only to one who has never been kissed and given a kiss at the very same moment.

The one who pretends to kiss engages in a kind of black magic, stealing the truth of the kiss from himself / herself, the other.

Who has not been temporarily broken in the heart to find that one has been fed many anti-kisses in the guise of kisses?!

I've had it done to me, and I know what I'm talking about. What happened was not just my opinion. I was robbed!

If a woman's purse is stolen, that's an objective fact, no? Not just her opinion?

[Ceoli]

Is it really right to say that that which is sacred is merely a matter of personal choice or conviction, is merely "subjective"? Must, alternatively, any sacred thing be found by some ostensibly "objective" procedure to be such?

I'm making no claims to whether it's right or not. Just stating the fact that different people hold very different things a sacred. You may think it's obvious as to what should be held sacred, but there are other people who consider it just as obvious that their very different things are sacred.

If anything is sacred, which is to say if anything is worthy of reverence, the value of a person, of a life form, of a biotic community, of the biosphere itself -- Earth and its many life forms must be held so. <--- Now can we read that without projecting authority into it? Can we see this as "a finger pointing at the moon"? Is it possible to read or hear these words and not hear a proclamation of moral obligation or duty?

If life itself is not sacred, can anything at all be sacred? And if nothing at all is worthy of universal reverence--beyond the claims of authority or the games of logicians and epistemologists--does anything have any value at all? And if nothing has any value at all, aside from personal preferences and "subjective" views, -- how completely insane is that? Isn't that madness?! Who could dare to utter: "Life is NOT sacred, is not worthy of reverence?" and not be thought mad by sane people?

If life itself is sacred, then it would follow that that which nourishes it into flourishing is good, and that which inhibits such flourishing is bad. Pretending that we don't know that leaving the heart (not the pump) out of sex has a (metaphorically) toxic effect on people is a strange kind of ignor- ance.


None of this really has to do with the topic we're discussing.



Screw the madness of argument, here. Look deep. I'm not providing an argument because such philosphical arguments tend to traverse the periphery of the heart and never evoke any depth of insight. I wasted years discussing this with philosophers. Well, it was not a complete waste of my time. I learned the limits of the conceptual mind.

When people are saying things that spread ideals that can potentially hurt others (in this case the ideals that certain things are not good if they fall outside of your definition of "sacred" and "healthy") then I consider it core to my beliefs and values to discuss it.

There is something terribly, terribly blinding about conceiving of value, of good, as something that can only be a subjectively held view, a mere opinion.

Equally blinding is the premise that if value isn't subjective, it must be objective.

I've never said that it must always be one or the other. However in the case of declaring practices to be unhealthy, that is certainly applying an objective value and therefore it's completely reasonable to put that up to debate.


Intersubjectivity sounds like something with as much weight as "I and all of my friends agree that...".

I'm accutely aware that endless wars and ecocidal mania are possible because we are blinded to the raw simplicity of the presence of the sacred. To say that "that which is sacred is your own opinion," or to regard all consideration of sacredness as belonging to the millennia of religious mania and superstition ... is blind.

Oftentimes such conflicts spring from groups of people clinging to the idea that what they hold sacred must be true for everyone.

You seem to assume that I'm blind to what is sacred. Believe it or not, I'm very intentional about my spirituality and my views on sex positivity and even BDSM fall right in line with what I hold sacred.


A kiss that is not a kiss is poison because it is a lie. It is a falsehood in the face of the sacred opportunity of a kiss.

This sounds like mere opinion only to one who has never been kissed and given a kiss at the very same moment.

The one who pretends to kiss engages in a kind of black magic, stealing the truth of the kiss from himself / herself, the other.

Who has not been temporarily broken in the heart to find that one has been fed many anti-kisses in the guise of kisses?!

I've had it done to me, and I know what I'm talking about. What happened was not just my opinion. I was robbed!

If a woman's purse is stolen, that's an objective fact, no? Not just her opinion?

Can you please explain how this analogy applies?

[River]

When people are saying things that spread ideals that can potentially hurt others (in this case the ideals that certain things are not good if they fall outside of your definition of "sacred" and "healthy" then I consider it core to my beliefs and values to discuss it.

I respect that. Truly I do.

All I can say is that there are a lot of people doing great harm to one another, but they are ignorant of this harm. And there's no way, so far as I can see, to convey in words precisely what this harm is. It is'nt something that, so far as I can tell, can be explained. If arguments can be provided, they can be rendered null in counterarguments, along with the views put forth in those counter-arguments.

I could say that much recreational BDSM sex--or closed-hearted sex with strangers in one night stands--generally obscures the potential for loving sex which transcends power-play dynamics, and this obscuration is a kind of harm, rather than an enhancement of life.

Sombody could say, "Prove it".

A drawn out conversation swirls around it for months or years, but neither party proves anything. There is no body of statistical data, no science of love, of the heart. Biology isn't enough. Measurements cannot be taken.

So all I'm saying is, Beware! Be Aware! Pay attention. Look closely!

For the laboratory is in the center of your own chest, is in the core -- is the core -- of your own most sensitive awareness.

I never said we all have our lights on in that "laboratory". I never meant "laboratory" to be other than a metaphor.

Perhaps one day we will have a science of human love. In the meanwhile, we're going to be running around in these kinds of circles.

[MonoVCPHG]

Perhaps one day we will have a science of human love. .

Maybe they'll find a cure LOL!...a little bit of truth in that;)

[Ceoli]

So all I'm saying is, Beware! Be Aware! Pay attention. Look closely!

For the laboratory is in the center of your own chest, is in the core -- is the core -- of your own most sensitive awareness.

I never said we all have our lights on in that "laboratory". I never meant "laboratory" to be other than a metaphor.

Perhaps one day we will have a science of human love. In the meanwhile, we're going to be running around in these kinds of circles.

This seems to assume that those who see things differently than you do just haven't been paying enough attention or are not in touch with their heart centers, etc.

I'm going to disagree on that.

[River]

So you think I think I'm superior to all of you mere humans, huh?

[Ceoli]

So you think I think I'm superior to all of you mere humans, huh?

Nope. I'm just going by what you're saying in your posts. When you tell others to "Be aware, pay attention, and look closely" it suggests that you think that perhaps their viewpoint is a product of not "being aware, paying attention or looking closely".

I would suggest that is not the case.

[MonoVCPHG]

So you think I think I'm superior to all of you mere humans, huh?

Well I for one do!

[River]

Well, I don't subscribe to the theory or doctrine that all ways of relating are equally good, valid, healthy, etc.

And since apparently I'm now a bad guy because of it, with Mono apparently calling me arrogant because of it, I think I'll just take an extended break from this polyamory.com . It isn't feeling good for me just now.

[MonoVCPHG]

Well, I don't subscribe to the theory or doctrine that all ways of relating are equally good, valid, healthy, etc.

And since apparently I'm now a bad guy because of it, with Mono apparently calling me arrogant because of it, I think I'll just take an extended break from this polyamory.com . It isn't feeling good for me just now.

Sorry you took my comment in a negative way, River. I actually mirror your values around sex in a lot of ways. There was sincerity in my respect for you.
I apologize for the manner I expressed that.

Take care
Mono

[River]

Okay. All is good.

[Ceoli]

Well, I don't subscribe to the theory or doctrine that all ways of relating are equally good, valid, healthy, etc.

And since apparently I'm now a bad guy because of it, with Mono apparently calling me arrogant because of it, I think I'll just take an extended break from this polyamory.com . It isn't feeling good for me just now.

I don't subscribe to that doctrine either. I'm not sure where you think I said that. However, it definitely warrants discussion what differences people see as healthy or unhealthy and where our values intersect with that.

I also don't think you're adequately recognizing that I was addressing some pretty negative stuff you were putting out there that could be construed as hurtful to others. That doesn't make you the bad guy, it just makes it something worth addressing and discussing.

[Ceoli]

Right now, I'm studying a sexuality education curriculum that touches on a lot of things that feel relevant to me in this topic. I'm just loving some of the ways things are put. The very beginning of the course talks about what assumptions the program is specifically built on. In this case, the word assumption addresses core things that people may feel differently about being right or wrong, but for the purposes of this program, they are assumed to be right. They are:


All persons are sexual.
Sexuality is a good part of the human experience.
Sexuality includes much more than sexual behavior.
Human beings are sexual from the time they are born until they die.
It is natural to express sexual feelings in a variety of ways
People engage in healthy sexual behavior for a vriety of reasons including to express caring and love, to experience intimacy and connection with another, to share pleasure, to bring new life into the world and to experience fun and relaxation.
Sexuality in our society is damaged by violence, exploitation, alienation, dishonesty, abuse of power, ,and the treatment of persons as objects.
It is healthier for young adolescents to postpone sexual intercourse.


It also talks about healthy sexual relationships within the core value of sexual health (health including emotional, spiritual, and physical)

Healthy sexual relationships are:

consensual- both people consent
nonexploitative- equal in terms of power, neither person is pressuring or forcing the other into activities or behaviors
mutually pleasurable- both receive pleasure
safe- no or low risk of unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and emotional pain
developmentally appropriate-appropriate to the age and maturity of the persons involved
based on mutual expectations and caring
respectful- including the values of honesty and keeping commitments made to others


Just some more food for thought.

[CielDuMatin]

Ceoli, some great stuff there, for sure. I would take issue with the "all humans are sexual", because I have known a few people who have said that they are asexual and wish to be respected for that and not be thought of as some sort of aberration. Other than that it seems like a really great start.

Again, let me make sure I am understanding what you are saying - "sex-positive" means anything that encourages healthy sexual relationships, yes? Or is there more to it? Just want to make the link.

[Ceoli]

Ceoli, some great stuff there, for sure. I would take issue with the "all humans are sexual", because I have known a few people who have said that they are asexual and wish to be respected for that and not be thought of as some sort of aberration. Other than that it seems like a really great start.

Actually, we do cover asexuality in this curriculum. One of the foundations of the program has to do with the definition of sexuality. This program uses a model called "The Circles of Sexuality". It describes interlinked circles and in each circle is an aspect of human sexuality as defined like this:

Sensuality- Awareness, acceptance of, and comfort with one's own body; physiological and psychological enjoyment of ones own body and the bodies of others. This includes but is not limited to:

Body image
Human sexual response cycle
Skin hunger
Fantasy

Intimacy- The ability and need to experience emotional closeness to another human being and have it returned. This includes but is not limited to:

Caring
Sharing
Loving/Liking
Risk taking
Vulnerability
Self-disclosure
Trust

Sexual Identity-The devlopment of a sense of who one is sexually, including a sense of maleness or femaleness. Including but not limited to:

Gender identity
Gender role
Sexual orientation
Biological sex

Sexual Health and Reproduction- Attitudes and behaviors related to producing children, care and maintenance of the sex and reproductive organs and health consequences of sexual behavior. Including but not limited to:

Factual information
Feelings and attitudes
Sexual/reproductive systems
Physiology an anatomy of reproductive organs
Intercourse

Sexualization- The use of sexuality to influence, control or manipulate others. Including but not limited to:

Rape
Incest
Sexual Harassment
Withholding sex
Seduction/flirting


While most asexuals acknowledge that they do not experience a need or desire to sexually relate to others (some do masturbate, others don't have any sexual drive) they do say that the circles of sexuality still apply to them as they are laid out in this program. Since other aspects of sexuality apply to asexuals, it still holds that all human beings are sexual. It just may manifest in different ways for some than for others.

Again, let me make sure I am understanding what you are saying - "sex-positive" means anything that encourages healthy sexual relationships, yes? Or is there more to it? Just want to make the link.

That sounds about right, though I would add to it an intentional awareness of the dynamic of how values can sometimes impose on a definition of healthy and how to separate that out. (in other words, many times what is defined as healthy is defined by ones values rather than what might be still construed healthy in a more objective context)

[redpepper]

Wow what a great course Ceoli. I would love to take that myself! Thanks for sharing it with us.

Wouldn't you know it I'm going to two courses as well. One is a communication course that my company is paying for and the other a course on sexual concent. Strange isn't it how much talk has been going around on similar topics and I get the word I will be going to such courses. Life is strange. The communication one is in March and the sex one today. We shall see what comes out of it. I love courses on this kind of thing. So excited!

[CielDuMatin]

Ceoli, I want to thank you for sharing this. I love this way this is broken down into its components. Very useful to think more about!

[rolypoly]

That curriculum is intriguing! And RP, I'm curious about your two courses. Especially the communication one.

[redpepper]

That curriculum is intriguing! And RP, I'm curious about your two courses. Especially the communication one.

I will be sure to talk about both. Todays I am still digesting. It was intense in some ways and kind of the same old in others... If there is something I feel comfortable sharing, I most certainly will.

[Seasnail]

I've heard terms such as sex-positive (and even sex-negative) used on the boards lately. I gather there is a sex-positive movement?

Would those with greater understanding than myself please comment on what the terms mean, and what the underlying purpose of the message is?

[NeonKaos]

I gather there is a sex-positive movement?



It's sort of like the "polyamorous lifestyle". Except it's when people nod their heads "yes" (up-and-down, not side-to-side) while copulating.

Hope that answers your question(s). Good night :)

[River]

Sex-positive movement article at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement

Somehow I doubt that there is a love-positive movement, but perhaps there aughta be. More people, I'm guessing, suffer from insuficient loving than from insufficient sexing.

[nycindie]

I found a clear and simply written article about it on About.com, which seems to have improved in recent years (in terms of quality of its content and being updated more regularly).

The URL for it is here: http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualhealthqanda/f/sex_positive.htm (http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualhealthqanda/f/sex_positive.htm) and the Glickman article mentioned below, "The Language of Sex Positivity," can be found here: http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/sexpositive.htm (http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/sexpositive.htm):

What Does Sex Positive Mean?
By Cory Silverberg, About.com Guide
Updated June 21, 2010

About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board

Question:
What Does Sex Positive Mean?

Answer:
The term sex positive has been in use in academic and research writing since at least the mid-1950s (probably much earlier, I've read that Wilhelm Reich was credited with first using the term). In these early references, sex positive was most often used as a synonym for erotophilia. In contemporary usage, the definition of sex positive continues to develop, and no one has made much of an effort to argue for a unified vision of sex positivity.

The term sex positive began to be used with greater frequency during the feminist “sex wars” of the 80s and 90s. At that time it was often used to define oneself in opposition to the anti-pornography feminists. Sex positive was used interchangeably with the term “pro-sex” and it began to include the idea that that sexual expression could be transgressive, that people can attain sexual freedom through the performance of sexual acts and sexual ways of being.

Dr Carol Queen, an author and activist who has long been associated with the term sex positive, and whose 1997 collection Real Live Nude Girl, was the first mainstream book to use the term sex positive in its title, defines sex positivity this way:

“Sex-positive, a term that's coming into cultural awareness, isn't a dippy love-child celebration of orgone – it's a simple yet radical affirmation that we each grow our own passions on a different medium, that instead of having two or three or even half a dozen sexual orientations, we should be thinking in terms of millions. "Sex-positive" respects each of our unique sexual profiles, even as we acknowledge that some of us have been damaged by a culture that tries to eradicate sexual difference and possibility. Even so, we grow like weeds.”

In an essay entitled “The Language of Sex Positivity” Charlie Glickman, who worked at a popular sex positive sex toy store, proposed that sex positivity involves “working towards a more positive relationship with sex.” He pointed out that most of us are raised in a way that makes us fearful and ignorant of sex, and as such, being sex positive means working through these prejudices, much as one would work toward an awareness of racism, disability-phobia, or other forms of systemic prejudice that influences our judgments and our actions.

In an article for Planned Parenthood on providing sex positive sex education, Lisa Tobin writes that being sex positive includes:


Having a comprehensive definition of sexuality
Viewing sexual health as a basic human right
Focusing on the life-enhancing aspects of sexuality as well as attention to the negative aspects
Being non-judgmental and challenging narrow social constructs
Using inclusive language rather than value-laden language which makes assumptions based on sexual orientation or gender stereotypes
Assisting individuals to be aware of the choices involved in sexual decisions

The sex educator’s definition of sex positive usually invokes less of the transgressive politics, and focuses more on the positive psychological and physical impact of sexual expression.

While the term sex positive is still used in activist and academic writing, as well as in sexual health and sexology, these days it can most often be found in marketing materials for a wide range of for profit businesses that make money off selling sex in one form or another to the public. In this usage, it has become a short hand for sexual normalization. Thus a “sex positive author” is someone who will make you feel okay about whatever it is they tell you how to do in their book, and a “sex positive sex toy store” will make you feel good about whatever they sell you).

Whether sex positivity will lose its meaning in the face of so much marketing remains to be seen. But as long as there are other organizations (or, say, governments) whose agenda includes restricting sexual rights and expression, the idea of sex positivity remains an important one for all of us to hold on to.

References:

Glick, E. “Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression.” Feminist Review Volume 64, Number 1 (April 1, 2000): 19-45.

Glickman, C. “The Language of Sex Positivity.” Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality Volume 3 (July 6, 2000).

Lundy, R.M. “Self Perceptions and Descriptions of Opposite Sex Sociometric Choices.” Sociometry Volume 19. (1956): 272-277.

Queen, C. “Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles of Sex-Positive Culture.” Pittsburgh: Cleis Press, 1997.

Tobin, L. “From Being Sex Positive: Promoting Young People's Sexual Health.” Health Promotion Atlantic Volume 3, Number 3 (September 1997).