Sex-N or Sex-P: Can I just go ahead and coin the term "Sex Cautionary"?

[WoodwindWhistler]

Okay, so, you're probably familiar with the problematic relationship between the ace community and "sex positive" spaces, where we might feel pressured or even guilted into feeling like we "should" have sex.

There have been other terms, sex indifferent, sex neutral, and I recall reading a good blog about parsing the meanings, but most importantly, the usage and connotations, of such terms. If I remember what the name of it is, I'll go back and add it in here.

But.

I want to see a position where you can say, you know what, sex is kind of DANGEROUS, even for ALLOSEXUALs. DUHHHH.

I mean, forget STDs, pregnancy is either, you carry a baby for 9 months, or you risk PTSD from getting an abortion.

Neither are good options. And women are the ones losing out here. While plenty of men get what they want: more available sex.

(coincidentally, women are also at higher risk for contracting STDs because of the presence of a lot of non-keratinized surface area)

So they should be the ones who are most concerned about it.

So you should have it if you want it, and we can point out the science of why it's good for you, but don't stifle discussion about being wary and smart about it, talking about whether it's really a "need" or not, (I'd wager most of those spaces treat that as a given) or criticizing those that seem to go at it like cliff diving without a parachute (whether physically, like picking up drunk strangers in a bar that could overpower you, or emotionally, just throwing your heart out there willy nilly.)

So.

Sex Cautionary it is.

What do you think?

As human societies grow and change, so does language. I don't know why so many AVENites tend to be so logophobic and word-Luddite. (Logo Luddites? Lexicon Luddites? Lingual Luddites? haha term-o-phobes . . . digging in your heels to proposed change and/or progress like toxic conservatives)

EDIT: Pressure women feel to perform sexually: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/136508-girls-are-expected-to-give-casual-oral-sex-what-the-actual-f/page-2#entry1061702406

EDIT: By the way, here's two takes on birth control:

http://ourhandofsorrow.deviantart.com/art/Birth-Control-Saves-Lives-311504151?q=favby%3AMenollySagittaria%2F40920742&qo=33

This one is particularly interesting with regards to women, and getting to know in depth their own bodies and cycles, which current sex education does not do: http://piewriter.deviantart.com/art/Birth-Control-No-Thanks-400654537?q=favby%3AMenollySagittaria%2F40920742&qo=32

EDIT: So, wait, people go into bars and actually don't ask for testing first? They do know that you can have an STD without knowing it right???????? It's called "asymptomatic." Well . . . no wonder we have an STD epidemic.

As one of my QPPs once said, "P.I.V.? Anal? Why bother? Why even take the risk? What's wrong with fingers, tongues, and dildos?"

Full body massages are hott, let me tell you. You know some women can orgasm just through breast stimulation alone?

If you work on Tantra, pop open the Kama Sutra, or look into other sources, you can make yourself orgasm with no stimulation whatsoever. You and your partner can literally talk each other into climax.

Edit: Also, apparently "sex hypnosis" is a thing, hands-off orgasm from those who have honed their craft. 

Also, men can orgasm without ejaculating, if they work on Kegel exercises. (and ones who do report better energy and stamina) But, that's not 100% effective, though it does lower risk of pregnancy. Coupled with a condom, it's very nearly foolproof. No accidental tears or spills to worry about . . .

And Sex Ed classes should teach ladies Fertility Awareness. It also helps with being conscious of hormonal changes, effects on mood, and potential health problems.

So, uh, the question is, should sex ed be treating taking artificial hormones into your body as an "easy and obvious" fix? My opinion: No.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Isn't that kinda the same as sex averse?

[.,.]

I do agree that sex-positivity is somewhat exaggerating just how positive sex really is, if that's what you were trying to say. Like, for example people are obviously allowed to be sluts, but I don't like being put on blast for not thinking that it's totally AWESOME what they do. If I'm going to be honest I even lose a little bit of respect for the individual, I just don't think it's very cool nor responsible. It would be a total deal breaker.

Sex cautionary? I guess that does it for you, great idea then, it's descriptive and barely needs explanation. I'm more of a sex I-accept-that-it-happens-but-it-doesn't-mean-I'm-ecstatic-about-it-y kind of person myself.

[Wineblood]

No, there are already too many terms floating around here. Even allosexuals is something I can't take seriously, who came up with that?

[nanogretchen4]

I was about to post that most sexuals will give common sense advice about birth control, disease prevention, or self defense, but that sometimes these conversations can tip over into victim blaming and slut shaming. Then someone jumped right into calling other people sluts before I could post. By the time you feel the need to judge and shame others that's sex negative. No new term needed.

[WoodwindWhistler]

Isn't that kinda the same as sex averse?

Nope. Not in the least.

You can enjoy sex a lot but be very careful about it.

For example: me. I don't do PIV.

[WoodwindWhistler]

I was about to post that most sexuals will give common sense advice about birth control, disease prevention, or self defense, but that sometimes these conversations can tip over into victim blaming and slut shaming. Then someone jumped right into calling other people sluts before I could post. By the time you feel the need to judge and shame others that's sex negative. No new term needed.

Again. No. "Slut" is rooted in the idea that SEX ITSELF is immoral, no matter how responsibly it is undertaken.

My term is rooted in the understanding that the opposite extreme- treating sex as if it is minor and "no big deal" is damaging to the one in question, who embraces that idea.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

So you're just careful when having sex? Does that really need a special label? A lot of people are careful when they have sex.

[Sisky]

Sounds a lot like sex-negative as in "sex is bad for everyone" to me.

[poindexter]

Giving people sensible advice doesn't need a label.

No, wait.. It's already got one - common sense.

[WoodwindWhistler]

Giving people sensible advice doesn't need a label.

No, wait.. It's already got one - common sense.

But . . . sex-positive people use their position to shut down those who criticize.

I guess y'all just aren't familiar enough with this conflict to see why it's necessary.

I mean, I thought at least you'd be worried about my fellow women . . . or should I say, female-bodied peeps . . .

[WoodwindWhistler]

So you're just careful when having sex? Does that really need a special label? A lot of people are careful when they have sex.

No, this is more of a political position, not a personal one.

Simply being careful is that: being careful.

This opens up discussion about how we approach education and attitude towards sex.

Sounds a lot like sex-negative as in "sex is bad for everyone" to me.

Why do you say that?

[WoodwindWhistler]

No, there are already too many terms floating around here. Even allosexuals is something I can't take seriously, who came up with that?

Define "too many terms"???? Who gets to say how many terms we can have and not? Huh?

We're dealing with complicated inter-sectional ideas, here. We need more tools in our toolbox to talk about them.

Allosexual was an attempt to (a) be less insulting than "sexual" and (b) distinguish between other-oriented and self-oriented sexuality. i.e. some asexuals are very horny and masturbatory. Doesn't mean they want others to get in on the fun. ;) "Asexual" simply means not attracted to OTHERS. "allo" means other. That clear it up for you?

[Member54880]

I've seen some people identify as sex-positive meaning what you mean, but I've also seen some identify as sex-negative meaning what you mean. That sounds contradictory, but one of the underlying reasons is the same: being against the militant branch of the sex-positive movement that shames people for saying anything negative or critical about sex.

I think sex-neutral would still easily work for what you're describing. Some people use it that way, and I think it helps make it very clear that you don't think sex itself inherently has positive or negative moral judgment attached to it, and that's not what you're focusing on anyways.

[Taiji]

Okay, so, you're probably familiar with the problematic relationship between the ace community and "sex positive" spaces, where we might feel pressured or even guilted into feeling like we "should" have sex.

There have been other terms, sex indifferent, sex neutral, and I recall reading a good blog about parsing the meanings, but most importantly, the usage and connotations, of such terms. If I remember what the name of it is, I'll go back and add it in here.

But.

I want to see a position where you can say, you know what, sex is kind of DANGEROUS, even for ALLOSEXUALs. DUHHHH.

I mean, forget STDs, pregnancy is either, you carry a baby for 9 months, or you risk PTSD from getting an abortion.

Neither are good options. And women are the ones losing out here. While men get what they want: more available sex.

So you should have it if you want it, and we can point out the science of why it's good for you, but don't stifle discussion about being wary and smart about it, or criticizing those that seem to go at it like cliff diving without a parachute (whether physically, like picking up drunk strangers in a bar that could overpower you, or emotionally, just throwing your heart out there willy nilly.)

So.

Sex Cautionary it is.

What do you think?

Yes, women face the physical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and abortion, but men aren't exactly scot-free. It's insensitive to portray men as if they only care about getting sex and don't care about the well-being of their female partner. Half of the pregnancies in the US are unintended, and that can be due to a woman not wanting to get pregnant, mistimed pregnancy, or just not planned. A certain number of these pregnancies are just poor timing where a woman didn't want a child yet but wants to in the future. I'm sure a couple who accidentally had a child too early would be equally affected if they had to terminate the pregnancy - the male partner isn't going to be happy that he "got some" anyway, he's sad about the abortion too.

Sex cautionary sounds like you're trying to achieve a goal of proper sex education where your moral judgment of sex is neutral. This sounds like sex neutral + proper education, rather than "sex cautionary." Portraying sex as "dangerous" because you could get pregnant and die (/joke) as about the same as abstinence education - not very effective and doesn't help alleviate anxiety or address concerns.

I get that sex positive spaces could be all "whooo sex is great! do it all you want! you do you!" but generally they also go over contraception methods very thoroughly. People understand that pregnancy is a real concern and so is the possibility of abortion, but you have to be careful not to sound condescending about their sexual lifestyle. You could go on about how they shouldn't just drunkenly pick up strangers at the bar or not to throw their hearts out there, but part of the sex positive movement is that women do have the right to make those choices - risking those chances of getting pregnant and such.

[WoodwindWhistler]

I've seen some people identify as sex-positive meaning what you mean, but I've also seen some identify as sex-negative meaning what you mean. That sounds contradictory, but one of the underlying reasons is the same: being against the militant branch of the sex-positive movement that shames people for saying anything negative or critical about sex.

I think sex-neutral would still easily work for what you're describing. Some people use it that way, and I think it helps make it very clear that you don't think sex itself inherently has positive or negative moral judgment attached to it, and that's not what you're focusing on anyways.

Exactly, so obviously those terms aren't good enough or specific enough, so we need to come up with new ones so we're not cross-talking each other.

Kind of like how there are "animal welfare" activists and "animal rights" activists. I believe it used to be that the latter was the original, but then we had to come up with a term for the moderates who were being tarred with the same associations as the wingnuts. We wanted people to understand we wouldn't be the ones throwning blood on them.

As human societies grow and change, so does language. I don't know why everyone is being so logophobic and word-Luddite, here. :P I mean, people can memorize long lists of sports stats, info for school, the names and favorite things of their celebrities, but learning some new terms to make the asexual community easier to navigate and communicate, that's too much to ask? PSH.

NO. This is not a neutral stance at all. It is a very specific set. Re-read it. Okay, so, maybe it's *morally* neutral with regards to sex itself- i.e., having sex with someone is neutral. (as I said above in another post, about the parsing of the meaning of "slut,") HOWEVER, it does make a value analysis on HOW sex is undertaken. That is the point. That's not exactly "morality" so much as, I think what you're doing has negative consequences, I'm going to say it, and I don't expect to be attacked for being logical.

[nanogretchen4]

I came out during the late 80's, and everyone was talking about the AIDS epidemic. Mainstream sex education presented basic information on risk factors and condom usage, but the underlying attitude was "Don't be gay." Meanwhile gay sex educators were presenting safer sex workshops to gay organizations. They gave much more specific advice about how to have gay sex more safely. Which do you think did more to slow the spread of AIDS?

[WoodwindWhistler]

Yes, women face the physical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and abortion, but men aren't exactly scot-free. It's insensitive to portray men as if they only care about getting sex and don't care about the well-being of their female partner.

It's also naive to ignore the reasonably high prevalence of "players" "pickup artists" and just plain men that have problematic social conditioning. The way some men talk about women on college campuses . . . as if they can just "get some" somewhere else. You hear phrases like "why buy the cow when milk is free" and things. And it only seems to be getting worse since women are so objectified by the media.

Did I say they get off scot-free? No. I said women are bearing the brunt of the negative, here. Just like they always have in society. It's actually rather depressing.

Even more so because it's being couched in terms of "women's liberation."

Half of the pregnancies in the US are unintended, and that can be due to a woman not wanting to get pregnant, mistimed pregnancy, or just not planned. A certain number of these pregnancies are just poor timing where a woman didn't want a child yet but wants to in the future.

Right, and one way we can reduce unintended pregnancies is to have better and more comprehensive sex education, including that that is sex cautionary. But, here's the other thing. The realm of sex education is somewhat a different thing that sex-positivist spaces, don't you think? Consider what that means, too . . .

Sex cautionary sounds like you're trying to achieve a goal of proper sex education where your moral judgment of sex is neutral. This sounds like sex neutral + proper education, rather than "sex cautionary."

If you say so. I don't see it that way. And I'd say that sex positive spaces do very little in the way of talking about emotional dimensions of sex, either . . .

Portraying sex as "dangerous" because you could get pregnant and die (/joke) as about the same as abstinence education - not very effective and doesn't help alleviate anxiety or address concerns.

Um, no. This is an inbetween stance. Please do not associate it with abstinence only. That's insulting.

Getting pregnant is serious business. That's not scaremongering, that's objecting to treating abortion as an easy solution that has little to no problems, which sex positivists are notorious for doing.

part of the sex positive movement is that women do have the right to make those choices - risking those chances of getting pregnant and such.

Again, if you say so. Personally I think it's important enough for the safety of new people coming into the fold that they don't get swept up in the "LaLaLaLa nothing's wrong here," current.

[Member54880]

I've seen some people identify as sex-positive meaning what you mean, but I've also seen some identify as sex-negative meaning what you mean. That sounds contradictory, but one of the underlying reasons is the same: being against the militant branch of the sex-positive movement that shames people for saying anything negative or critical about sex.

I think sex-neutral would still easily work for what you're describing. Some people use it that way, and I think it helps make it very clear that you don't think sex itself inherently has positive or negative moral judgment attached to it, and that's not what you're focusing on anyways.

Exactly, so obviously those terms aren't good enough or specific enough, so we need to come up with new ones so we're not cross-talking each other.

Kind of like how there are "animal welfare" activists and "animal rights" activists. I believe it used to be that the latter was the original, but then we had to come up with a term for the moderates who were being tarred with the same associations as the wingnuts. We wanted people to understand we wouldn't be the ones throwning blood on them.

As human societies grow and change, so does language. I don't know why everyone is being so logophobic and word-Luddite, here. :P (Logo Luddites? Lexicon Luddites? Lingual Luddites? haha term-o-phobes . . . digging in your heels to progress like toxic conservatives)

I mean, people can memorize long lists of sports stats, info for school, the names and favorite things of their celebrities, but learning some new terms to make the asexual community easier to navigate and communicate, that's too much to ask? PSH.

NO. This is not a neutral stance at all. It is a very specific set. Re-read it. Okay, so, maybe it's *morally* neutral with regards to sex itself- i.e., having sex with someone is neutral. (as I said above in another post, about the parsing of the meaning of "slut,") HOWEVER, it does make a value analysis on HOW sex is undertaken. That is the point. That's not exactly "morality" so much as, I think what you're doing has negative consequences, I'm going to say it, and I don't expect to be attacked for being logical.

I meant that you're not focusing on the concept of sexual morality, so it's neutral from that point of view. Ethical issues, and well as the risks, are separate from it, and it's very important to be able to talk about them (i.e: sexual exploitation, objectification, cheating, risks of pregnancy and STDs) without getting shouted down.

Another term I've seen is "sex-critical", which doesn't intend to place any moral judgment on the act of sex itself, but still focus on being critical about the ways sex affects oneself and others, and how to deal with ethical issues and risk factors.

[WoodwindWhistler]

I meant that you're not focusing on the concept of sexual morality, so it's neutral from that point of view. Ethical issues, and well as the risks, are separate from it, and it's very important to be able to talk about them (i.e: sexual exploitation, objectification, cheating, risks of pregnancy and STDs) without getting shouted down.

Another term I've seen is "sex-critical", which doesn't intend to place any moral judgment on the act of sex itself, but still focus on being critical about the ways sex affects oneself and others, and how to deal with ethical issues and risk factors.

Ah. So, don't you think these middle ground terms make it easier to talk about all of that without getting pushback from those who sound an alarm at any whiff of what they think is "restriction"?

Sex critical sounds like something I'd agree with, but, since "critical" is near "criticism" it seems to have some negative connotations that I think I've avoided with "cautionary." It makes me think of "cautionary tale" . . .

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I think I'm having trouble understanding the "novelty" of this idea because this is how I was raised anyway. It was never given a special name, it was just sex-ed (who'da thunk the hell-hole school I went to, where we had to have our own police officers, was so progressive?).

[Sisky]

Sounds a lot like sex-negative as in "sex is bad for everyone" to me.

Why do you say that?

Because the "sex is dangerous, even for allosexuals" part of your first post read like that to me at first. Reading it again, it's not quite that extreme, but still very much in the negative area for me because you seem to focus entirely on the bad aspects. (not judging, I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I absolutely do agree that there's too much pressure in the other direction.)

[poindexter]

Sex-positive/negative (in the way they're being used in this thread) have absolutely nothing to do with safe-sex, it's a completely seperate issue. They are views that make moral judgements about how much or how little sex one should have and that's it. Using "sex cautionary" implies that sex-positives don't care about safe sex, which is a bit of a straw man.

I completely agree with Aqua Ace - sex-neutral is a great term for describing the middle-ground here.

[WoodwindWhistler]

Sounds a lot like sex-negative as in "sex is bad for everyone" to me.

Why do you say that?

Because the "sex is dangerous, even for allosexuals" part of your first post read like that to me at first. Reading it again, it's not quite that extreme, but still very much in the negative area for me because you seem to focus entirely on the bad aspects. (not judging, I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I absolutely do agree that there's too much pressure in the other direction.)

But . . . I also mentioned discussing science about why it was good for you.

I think it's all around balanced, which is why I even came up with it in the first place.

The negativity is in reaction to the current mores.

[WoodwindWhistler]

Sex-positive/negative (in the way they're being used in this thread) have absolutely nothing to do with safe-sex, it's a completely seperate issue. They are views that make moral judgements about how much or how little sex one should have and that's it. Using "sex cautionary" implies that sex-positives don't care about safe sex, which is a bit of a straw man.

I completely agree with Aqua Ace - sex-neutral is a great term for describing the middle-ground here.

Again, I wish I could think of the blog where someone dismantled sex-neutral and showed why it was problematic. Especially for aces. Then I could show you where specifically I'm coming from. *concentrates* *OMMMMM* *searching through jumbled mind palace*

What I'm proposing here has more than the one personal dimension, so even if you like that term, mine is more useful as a tool, because I've elaborated on it more. It also could essentially be seen as sex neutral + a position = sex cautionary. So, I could technically still be using it. :P

Sex-positives do care about safe sex, but they also don't really condone pointing out those who don't practice it and using them as a negative example . . . as I said above, "cautionary tale." Yes, I want to be able to demonstrate and say aloud that that is in fact, not a good idea. Not "judging," but, evaluating.

[Guest]

Sex-positive here. Why should we shame people for what they do? Maybe they don't know any better. Maybe they wanted to get pregnant. Maybe they tried every method of birth control that they could and still got pregnant. Maybe that STI happened because of assault. WE DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE STORY.

So yea, I'm highly against shaming.

[WoodwindWhistler]

Sex-positive here. Why should we shame people for what they do? Maybe they don't know any better. Maybe they wanted to get pregnant. Maybe they tried every method of birth control that they could and still got pregnant. Maybe that STI happened because of assault. WE DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE STORY.

So yea, I'm highly against shaming.

Sex-positive is *hurting* aces.

"Maybe they don't know any better"

*FACEPALM* That is exactly the discussion I'm hoping to open up- being educated and innovative about approaches to sex and intimacy. I'm at this very moment composing in my head a stand up comedy act about sex smarts that I'm going to perform at a local weekly open mic.

I AM NOT SHAMING PEOPLE FOR BECOMING PREGNANT. OR HAVING STDS. That would be an EPICLY JERK move. And misogynistic besides, as you don't even mention shaming the dude who got the girl pregnant. I am instead, offering ways to avoid them, (if it is indeed the intention to avoid pregnancy) I am however, proposing that we discourage uninformed and culturally-manipulated actions that lead to those, and engage those who are embarking on a good attitude towards sex.

See additional edit to the OP.

[Philip027]

Why should we shame people for what they do?

What else is there to shame someone for? Can't exactly shame them for the things they have no control over >_>

(I mean this in a broad general sense, not a sex-specific sense)

[Guest]

Why should we shame people for what they do?

What else is there to shame someone for? Can't exactly shame them for the things they have no control over >_>

(I mean this in a broad general sense, not a sex-specific sense)

You'd be surprised, people get shamed for a lot of things that they have no control over (being bullied because their dad is in jail comes to mind).

That's not to say that people should be shamed for that either.

But anyway, I still don't see how being sex-positive hurts aces. It basically just means "let people be people"

[Philip027]

You'd be surprised, people get shamed for a lot of things that they have no control over (being bullied because their dad is in jail comes to mind).

Well yeah, but it says more about the shamer than the shamee, in such cases >_>

I'm just saying, there certainly can be valid instances of shaming people for what they do :D