Sex positive/sex negative

[Ceoli]

Originally Posted by constlady

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]

Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit

...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]

Originally Posted by CielDuMatin

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]

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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]

Originally Posted by constlady

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]

Originally Posted by constlady

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.

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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]

Originally Posted by constlady

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]

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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?

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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.

Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit

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.

Originally Posted by Ceoli

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....&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....8&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.