[Eta Carinae]

Warning: links contain sexual content and are not work safe. Especially the first one!

http://www.erosblog....es/00000629.htm
http://monmouth.blog...lepartying.html

Will people (I'm looking at you, AVENguy) please knock it off with the "oh, the sex positive people just want to let everyone do what they enjoy sexually"? Some of them do. Many of them do not -- see, for instance, the above links. Those words are not the words of people who just want everyone to do what they like sexually, free of social coercion. Those are the words of people who want to be the coercers.

[Brodertun]

This post seems to be rather personally directed.



As for the sites, they are both blogs. That should be enough said on the matter.

[Jesh]

With any movement, there will be radicals that move too far in one direction. That doesn't mean that the entire movement is bad. See: the civil rights and women's lib movements.

[Eta Carinae]

Triple A said:

This post seems to be rather personally directed.

AVENguy's not the only one in the asexual community who supports the sex positive movement because "they're accepting of all sexualities and good for us."

Quote

As for the sites, they are both blogs. That should be enough said on the matter.

So, what, blogs are written by imaginary people? Whether or not these opinions deserve to be taken seriously (and I hardly think that being on a blog makes them undeserving of that), the fact remains that there are plenty of people in the sex positive movement that actually think like that. If I'm organizing something nonsexual and some asshat comes in and injects plenty of sexuality anyway, the fact that his or her opinions might be stupid doesn't mean he or she hasn't caused damage.

[Nugan]

I admit to only skimming the links, but I don't really understand how they are particularly forceful about anything.

Or was I supposed to look at the homepages of those sites and not the specific articles? Or did I miss something essential in my skimming?

[Eta Carinae]

Nugan said:

I admit to only skimming the links, but I don't really understand how they are particularly forceful about anything.

Or was I supposed to look at the homepages of those sites and not the specific articles? Or did I miss something essential in my skimming?

Basically, the links talk approvingly about going into (or wanting to go into) places where sexuality is against the rules and doing sexual things anyway. Note that the "places" in question are entirely voluntary and transient things -- a nudist getaway and a cuddle party -- so it's not exactly like the rules are oppressing anyone, here.

My problem is that the authors apparently think that sexuality should be, if not everywhere, then at least everywhere that there's cuddling and nudity. And if other people think differently, well, then they need to be shown the light, don't they? The people attending the camp and the cuddle parties presumably want to be in a place that keeps sexuality constrained in various ways, and the people in the links seem utterly unwilling to respect that.

[ghosts]

Yeah, I can understand why those links would make someone uncomfortable. It makes me uneasy to think that those people could actually be serious.

You mentioned that many people in the sex-positive culture have this kind of attitude. Do you think most people in that culture do? I just can't really tell based on the two links you posted. I'm sure that there are extremes in every culture, as Jesh said. For example- I'd hate to have people come to AVEN and then read a couple of posts from someone who hates people who engage in sexual activity, and then come away saying that many asexuals hate sexuals.

[Cate Perfect]

Hmmmm. (I think corrupting cuddle space and nude camps is beyond wrong, but...)

So if no one talks about sex the people who don't want it aren't allowed to talk about it, either, and then they just put up with it when they get married (because you're supposed to).

I'd rather have too much talking than none. *shrug* But that's just me.

It IS rather tacky and obnoxious to think everyone should be sexual. That'd be like us saying everyone should be asexual and live their lives in such a way as to not offend us.

[(SP)]

Do you see them as, maybe, just currently ignorant of a wider spectrum, or that there is something inherently flawed to the core in their perspective?

[Shoes]

Sorry, I don't see where there's something explicitly saying that any hint of sexuality is verboten at nudist camps? The first link seems almost downright inoffensive to me.

I can see where you're coming from for the second one, but frankly there will always be people who are so diametrically opposite from the point of view of something that they simply won't be able to think in terms of its rules, and will derive entertainment from disrupting it to bring it closer to their perspective.

The sex-positive movement is bad because it has some people whose ideas rub you the wrong way, then?

Frankly, I don't see how this would be different from a [hyper]sexual denouncing asexuality because some asexuals happen to be anti-sexual.

[Eta Carinae]

ghosts said:

You mentioned that many people in the sex-positive culture have this kind of attitude. Do you think most people in that culture do?

In my experience, it's either most or something very close to a majority.

I guess I wasn't very clear in this thread; I'm not calling the sex positive movement bad because of two asshats in it. I'm calling it bad because these guys are just one more example (okay, two more examples) of this kind of thing. I've seen sex positive people call asexual women "terrible"; I've seen one of the movement's major members literally making fun of and disparaging a female writer for losing her virginity in her twenties.

Certainly, not all sex positive people are like this, and I do agree with the premise that there's nothing wrong with sex and people should be free to do what they like as long as they're not hurting anyone. However, in my experience, a very sizable members of the movement don't actually believe this latter idea. These aren't fringe whackos giving a live and let live majority a bad name.

[Eta Carinae]

Shoes said:

Sorry, I don't see where there's something explicitly saying that any hint of sexuality is verboten at nudist camps? The first link seems almost downright inoffensive to me.

If you follow the link (the link in my link), you'll see that the woman who's being quoted was -- by her own admission -- breaking various rules about overt sexuality.

[Shoes]

Inkburrow said:

Shoes said:

Sorry, I don't see where there's something explicitly saying that any hint of sexuality is verboten at nudist camps? The first link seems almost downright inoffensive to me.

If you follow the link (the link in my link), you'll see that the woman who's being quoted was -- by her own admission -- breaking various rules about overt sexuality.

Sorry, hadn't followed it that far. I see.

Quote

I guess I wasn't very clear in this thread; I'm not calling the sex positive movement bad because of two asshats in it. I'm calling it bad because these guys are just one more example

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. -shrug- most of the extremely sex-positive people I know seem receptive to the idea of asexuality, but I haven't tested this by outright coming out to most of them; I suppose that's the next step. As for the movement at large, I don't really go out of my way to read their blogs so I'm doubtless not very well placed to comment on it.

If I assume that you're entirely correct and a large portion of the sex positive movement is practically anti-asexual, I (obviously) agree it's a problem but have no solution.