More discussion on whether sex positivism is necessary for asexuals

[WoodwindWhistler]

http://radicalprude.blogspot.com/2012/03/no-true-sex-positive-feminist.html

See also my previous thread
 

 

[Skycaptain]

Being fair, some members are sex-repulsed, and nothing will change that. 

Our ToS covers elitism and bigotry etc. So so long as anyone voicing an opinion accepts that others may have a different view there's no problem. A fair view would be "I'm sex repulsed, but accept the fact that others enjoy sex" 

[lazypanda]

15 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

Being fair, some members are sex-repulsed, and nothing will change that. 

I second that.

[uhtred]

There is a difference between being "sex repulsed" and viewing sex negatively for *other* people. 

 

I am irrationally repulsed by homosexual activities - but I see that as *my* problem and I completely support the people who wish to engage in those activities. 

[Epitaph]

Not necessary, no. But perhaps helpful for outlook. Why be negative if you don't have to.

[AcornCarvings]

To me, sex positivity just means that people can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as everything is consensual. The idea that people have agency and can choose without pressure and judgement from the world. Whether that be doing nothing or doing really kinky stuff or anything in between, it all falls under that.

[Yatogami]

I think it is a good thing to teach, as it makes it easier for asexuals to lead a mostly normal life. Life is much easier when you're with someone, and making zero sex the bottom lines might result is most people ending up alone. 

 

Even for sex repulsed, it is possible to overcome repulsion in a safe and controlled enviroment.

[bejjinks]

There is a difference between "sex positive" and "sex obsessed".

 

Sex positive means that I think sex CAN be good. I am a sex positive asexual.

 

The problem is that most people who claim to be sex positive are in reality sex obsessed. They not only think that sex IS good ALWAYS and ALL THE TIME, they think that being WITHOUT sex is BAD. Instead of thinking that sex is a part of life, they think sex is life, sex is everything. They think we are sexual beings and ignore that we are also intellectual, spiritual, emotional, social, physical, comical, seasonal, personal, natural, individual, communal, sensual, egotistical, . . .

[Sally]

*refers to what CBC said*

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

On 5/14/2018 at 5:48 AM, AcornCarvings said:

To me, sex positivity just means that people can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as everything is consensual. The idea that people have agency and can choose without pressure and judgement from the world. Whether that be doing nothing or doing really kinky stuff or anything in between, it all falls under that.

Sounds good to me, I don't mind what others are getting up to, as long as they don't view me and other aces as people with just half a life because we're not interested in it ourselves...that would be bigotry.

[Homer]

On 5/17/2018 at 7:51 PM, Malum said:

Life is much easier when you're with someone

Late to the party, but I disagree. Having to take another human being into consideration doesn't make anything easier for me.

[Yatogami]

4 minutes ago, Homer said:

Late to the party, but I disagree. Having to take another human being into consideration doesn't make anything easier for me.

So them paying half the rent, and half the bills doesn't make it easier? I was thinking literally, but you catch my drift. I understand emotionally, people don't want or need others around. 

 

I prefer a great roommate, over living alone. 

[Homer]

Money isn't everything, y'know... I'm WAY happier when I'm on my own. A few bucks can't make up for that.

 

Next time I'll share some space will be on the graveyard.

[bejjinks]

Alright, time to speak again. It all depends on what people mean by sex positive. I've seen people use the term when what they mean is sex obsessed, "I have the right to have sex on your dinner table while you are eating." That form of sex positive I am not.

 

I am sex positive though in the meaning that we need to be allowed to talk about sex. Sex used to be such a taboo topic that girls weren't allowed to know what was happening to them when they had a period so they panicked and thought they were dying. Sex used to be such a taboo that people thought kissing caused pregnancy and masturbation caused blindness. Sex used to be such a taboo that even having sex with one's spouse was still a sin requiring punishment.

 

Sex positive should not be about encouraging people to have sex. It should also not be about giving people permission to do "whatever they want" such as disrupting my picnic with their sex. Sex positive should only be about eliminating the taboo that prevents people from talking about sex. Sex is not in and of itself evil. It can be abusive when it violates boundaries but as long as people's boundaries are respected, there is nothing wrong with sex.

 

So I'm allowed to set a boundary and say, "No sex near me" but I am not allowed to call sex evil or to condemn anyone who has sex. This is what sex positive means to me.

[Sally]

Everyone has the individual right to feel as they do about anything, including feeling positive or negative about sex.  The only important thing is to keep your negative feelings off other people.  

[WoodwindWhistler]

On 4/27/2018 at 4:24 PM, Skycaptain said:

Being fair, some members are sex-repulsed, and nothing will change that. 

Our ToS covers elitism and bigotry etc. So so long as anyone voicing an opinion accepts that others may have a different view there's no problem. A fair view would be "I'm sex repulsed, but accept the fact that others enjoy sex" 

How about, "I'm not sex-repulsed, but accept the fact that people spread misleading branding like 'safe sex' of which there is no such thing, attempt to live in a fantasy world where sex is not a big deal and does not have huge potential repercussions both emotional and physical that the rest of society (including me) must deal with"

 

On 4/30/2018 at 10:48 AM, uhtred said:

I am irrationally repulsed by homosexual activities - but I see that as *my* problem and I completely support the people who wish to engage in those activities. 

How can one be 'irrationally' repulsed by homosexual activities? If you're talking about anal sex, I'd only object to your branding it as 'homosexual' because (a) not all homosexual people do it and (b) straight people do it (in higher numbers, mostly because there are *more* of them, but still). But otherwise I'm also pretty sure (a) poop is simply disgusting and there's nothing 'irrational' about thinking that and (b) there are physical problems that too much of that type of sex leads to that don't happen with PIV . . . so I guess that would be a . . . *snerk* "rational" misgiving? 

[Sally]

42 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

How about, "I'm not sex-repulsed, but accept the fact that people spread misleading branding like 'safe sex' of which there is no such thing, attempt to live in a fantasy world where sex is not a big deal and does not have huge potential repercussions both emotional and physical that the rest of society (including me) must deal with"

 

How can one be 'irrationally' repulsed by homosexual activities? If you're talking about anal sex, I'd only object to your branding it as 'homosexual' because (a) not all homosexual people do it and (b) straight people do it (in higher numbers, mostly because there are *more* of them, but still). But otherwise I'm also pretty sure (a) poop is simply disgusting and there's nothing 'irrational' about thinking that and (b) there are physical problems that too much of that type of sex leads to that don't happen with PIV . . . so I guess that would be a . . . *snerk* "rational" misgiving? 

How about "What I just said is my opinion only"?  Because it is.  All of it.  

[Homer]

54 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

How can one be 'irrationally' repulsed by homosexual activities?

Repulsion is a feeling. Feelings aren't rational. There you have it. How can you be "rationally" repulsed by homosexual activities?

 

Telling people that a certain feeling is "necessary" won't magically make them feel it.

[WoodwindWhistler]

42 minutes ago, Homer said:

Repulsion is a feeling. Feelings aren't rational. There you have it. How can you be "rationally" repulsed by homosexual activities?

 

Telling people that a certain feeling is "necessary" won't magically make them feel it.

Well then you at least agree that the qualifier is somehow *redundant* and indicates some opposite that doesn't make much sense. I believe perhaps they were trying to convey some sort of increased "pitch" of the feeling by including it? 

I guess you strictly speaking can't be 'rationally' repulsed, but . . . like I said, if your misgivings are rooted in actual problems that arise . . . then, I would consider that rational in some sense, and a carte blanche acceptance and 'feeling ok with it' (conditioned by social mores) also an irrational position purely by it being a feeling too, if not the more irrational one. (i.e., non-logical, no thought applied)

 

51 minutes ago, Sally said:

How about "What I just said is my opinion only"?  Because it is.  All of it.  

Oh? So there is a form of sex that has no risks? (and therefore could be realistically called 'safe') Do tell!

(actually tantric sex with no genital contact is, if you count that as sex. But I doubt that's what you're getting at.)

I'll just be over here adopting foster children who were unwanted that are outnumbered 4 to 1 by homes where I live, loving my sister who was a birth control accident, reading studies of single parents' children having lower success outcomes, living in a city with some of the highest STD rates in the country, and listening to the tragic stories of people who were scarred by abortion and/or burned by the casual dating scene . . . *whistles contentedly* 

When you're ready to join me in Fact Observation Land and not opinion quibbling county, I'll be waiting. 

[Homer]

56 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

then, I would consider that rational in some sense, and a carte blanche acceptance and 'feeling ok with it' (conditioned by social mores) also an irrational position purely by it being a feeling too, if not the more irrational one. (i.e., non-logical, no thought applied)

I don't think that any of this is rooted in "conditioning by social mores". There is absolutely nothing on this planet that doesn't come with an inherent risk of some sort. That's why people do risk/reward calculations whatever they do. I'm thirsty. Do I take the risk of walking to the fridge, potentially injuring myself in the process? I'd say so. OTOH, would I just walk into traffic to save 15 seconds until the traffic light turns green? I think I might opt out here

 

Yep, I'm feeling okay with the risk of walking to the fridge, just as others are okay with the risk of sexual activity. It's totally okay if you aren't, but that doesn't make it universial. That's something I call "personal math".

[uhtred]

9 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

How about, "I'm not sex-repulsed, but accept the fact that people spread misleading branding like 'safe sex' of which there is no such thing, attempt to live in a fantasy world where sex is not a big deal and does not have huge potential repercussions both emotional and physical that the rest of society (including me) must deal with"

 

How can one be 'irrationally' repulsed by homosexual activities? If you're talking about anal sex, I'd only object to your branding it as 'homosexual' because (a) not all homosexual people do it and (b) straight people do it (in higher numbers, mostly because there are *more* of them, but still). But otherwise I'm also pretty sure (a) poop is simply disgusting and there's nothing 'irrational' about thinking that and (b) there are physical problems that too much of that type of sex leads to that don't happen with PIV . . . so I guess that would be a . . . *snerk* "rational" misgiving? 

Since its "irrational", there really isn't a reason.  In particular its the image of two men kissing that disturbs me.  Again, no *rational*reason and I fully support the right of anyone to kiss anyone  else (consenting) in public.  I'm sure my gay friends kiss their partners and I wish them the joy of doing so.  Strangely my reaction is specifically to kissing, other activities between two men don't bother me at all - though I have not desire to personally participate.  Anal sex is fairly common among heterosexuals as well, and I have no problem with it for anyone who wants it. 

 

I have other irrational "repulsions".  Blood / needles for example.  The site of blood or needles deeply bothers me.  No idea why. So on this topic, I support anyone's right to engage in BDSM play, but I hope not to hear about needles or blood. 

 

To me *irrational* repulsions are just part of life for many people (spiders, snakes, etc.  Just as I don't scream and run if I see a spider, I don't make a disgusted face if I see two men kissing. 

[uhtred]

8 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Well then you at least agree that the qualifier is somehow *redundant* and indicates some opposite that doesn't make much sense. I believe perhaps they were trying to convey some sort of increased "pitch" of the feeling by including it? 

I guess you strictly speaking can't be 'rationally' repulsed, but . . . like I said, if your misgivings are rooted in actual problems that arise . . . then, I would consider that rational in some sense, and a carte blanche acceptance and 'feeling ok with it' (conditioned by social mores) also an irrational position purely by it being a feeling too, if not the more irrational one. (i.e., non-logical, no thought applied)

 

Oh? So there is a form of sex that has no risks? (and therefore could be realistically called 'safe') Do tell!

(actually tantric sex with no genital contact is, if you count that as sex. But I doubt that's what you're getting at.)

I'll just be over here adopting foster children who were unwanted that are outnumbered 4 to 1 by homes where I live, loving my sister who was a birth control accident, reading studies of single parents' children having lower success outcomes, living in a city with some of the highest STD rates in the country, and listening to the tragic stories of people who were scarred by abortion and/or burned by the casual dating scene . . . *whistles contentedly* 

When you're ready to join me in Fact Observation Land and not opinion quibbling county, I'll be waiting. 

I used "irrationally repulsed" because it is not based on any rational objection.  There are some sexual activities that I believe are dangerous enough that I find them deeply disturbing - but they are uncommon and haven't been discussed here.  In that case I have mixed feelings.  I generally support "safe, sane, consensual", but some activities push the "sane" boundary IMHO.

 

Sex carries risks - but so do most activities. As long as the participants understand the risks, I think its fine.  Common sexual activities done by reasonable people are actually pretty low risk, all things considered.  I have no problem with people riding motorcycles, surfing, rock climbing etc.  So I have not problem with then engaging in a wide variety of sexual activities. Yes, it goes very badly for some, but so do these other activities - a coworker was crippled for life by a bad rock-climbing fall.   

 

 

[Larkaloke]

I see two different definitions of "sex-positive asexual" going around, and I feel very differently about the two of them.

 

The first is that although one doesn't want to have sex oneself, one is completely fine with other people doing it. This is in opposition to disliking the entire concept of people having sex, and I do agree that it's a good thing. People can do what they want. It's none of my business. I most certainly don't want them to do it with me,  but so long as they leave me out of it, I couldn't care less. This is only positive in contrast to being negative, mind; the idea of it just doesn't bother me when applied to other people, even if the idea of engaging in it personally repulses me.

 

The second is the whole "I'm asexual but I still want to have sex" thing, which... I really don't agree with. That's muddying the definition far too much. I can see there are some legitimate reasons to do so occasionally for some people, but just generally wanting to do it, nope, that's not being asexual. This is the definition that seems to keep popping up on Facebook and Tumblr (when I actually check those things, which isn't often), and it always bothers me, because to accept that as the general expectation is to render the term completely useless. 

 

So yeah. The first one, yes, I think AVEN in general should be, and if other people feel differently they shouldn't express it except in threads relevant to it, because there's no reason to be getting down on people for doing something that you personally just have no interest in or are even actively repulsed by. The second though, definitely not. That makes about as much sense, definition-wise, as those protein shakes that claim to be "Dairy Free" and have milk proteins in. 

[Karst]

Personally, I think that sex-positivity alone won't create a saner discourse about sex.

We need to accept and acknowledge that both sexual desire and sex-repulsion are valid feelings. 

[WoodwindWhistler]

On 7/2/2018 at 4:30 AM, Homer said:

I don't think that any of this is rooted in "conditioning by social mores". There is absolutely nothing on this planet that doesn't come with an inherent risk of some sort. That's why people do risk/reward calculations whatever they do. I'm thirsty. Do I take the risk of walking to the fridge, potentially injuring myself in the process? I'd say so. OTOH, would I just walk into traffic to save 15 seconds until the traffic light turns green? I think I might opt out here

 

Yep, I'm feeling okay with the risk of walking to the fridge, just as others are okay with the risk of sexual activity. It's totally okay if you aren't, but that doesn't make it universial. That's something I call "personal math".

Social mores are not relaxing around anal? (gosh darn it that was not supposed to be innuendo) Then it being decriminalized must've been a fluke (a good fluke, but a fluke) . . . and every step the public after that towards general acceptance and utter nonchalance . . . 

So, if you heard about a group of people who sought to popularize crossing the street against the light . . . that would not make you concerned at all? 

 

On 7/2/2018 at 11:45 AM, uhtred said:

I used "irrationally repulsed" because it is not based on any rational objection.  There are some sexual activities that I believe are dangerous enough that I find them deeply disturbing - but they are uncommon and haven't been discussed here.  In that case I have mixed feelings.  I generally support "safe, sane, consensual", but some activities push the "sane" boundary IMHO.

 

Sex carries risks - but so do most activities. As long as the participants understand the risks, I think its fine.  Common sexual activities done by reasonable people are actually pretty low risk, all things considered.  I have no problem with people riding motorcycles, surfing, rock climbing etc.  So I have not problem with then engaging in a wide variety of sexual activities. Yes, it goes very badly for some, but so do these other activities - a coworker was crippled for life by a bad rock-climbing fall.   

Yes, and I don't see anyone seeking to brand rock climbing as "safe." Do you? 

(Just read that sex accidents send someone to the ER twice every week . . . To steal a meme, 'Y'all need Tantra')

Also, rock climbing is not *meant* to cause injury in ordinary practice, no matter how many times you do it . . . and to be fair, anal is not *usually* included in "safe sex." But sometimes it is, even though the eventual outcome of anal if you continue to feed that desire and get too much is . . . ugh just don't make me say it. It's heartbreaking to read the stories of people who've gotten there, too. Plus just one-off mishaps. Rock climbing, to my knowledge, does not have perfect placement for virulent sepsis. 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 4:32 PM, Remmirath said:

So yeah. The first one, yes, I think AVEN in general should be, and if other people feel differently they shouldn't express it except in threads relevant to it, because there's no reason to be getting down on people for doing something that you personally just have no interest in or are even actively repulsed by. The second though, definitely not. That makes about as much sense, definition-wise, as those protein shakes that claim to be "Dairy Free" and have milk proteins in. 

"no interest in"

But it still affects me and other people at large. As I demonstrated in my previous post. I mean yeah, *technically* a rock climber who injures themselves still puts their family under strain . . . it's the same reason I don't think taking drugs is a 'victimless' crime. If there is even one person in society that cares about that person, they will be hurt by any self-destructive behaviors. And if there *isn't,* something is wrong with society and that should be addressed, too. (I do support legalization of softer drugs, tho)

As for the "dairy free" analogy. If this debate is anything like the "Those nonbinary people and teens questioning gender are transtrenders, not REAL trans people." I want zero to do with it. Let people identify how they want. People who don't care to parse out the difference wouldn't care regardless. Whereas people who are compassionate and understand the world and people are complex, and are actually invested in getting to know individual's experience, will do so. 

[Homer]

2 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Social mores are not relaxing around anal? (gosh darn it that was not supposed to be innuendo) Then it being decriminalized must've been a fluke (a good fluke, but a fluke) . . . and every step the public after that towards general acceptance and utter nonchalance . . . 

So, if you heard about a group of people who sought to popularize crossing the street against the light . . . that would not make you concerned at all?  

Sorry, no idea what's supposed to be your point here

[Sweet Potato]

On 7/29/2018 at 6:58 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

even though the eventual outcome of anal if you continue to feed that desire and get too much is

so the unsafe part is when done in excess.

 

there are many ways to reduce the risks associated with having sex to a sufficient degree to call it safe sex. an example: 2 people, neither have an STI, have sex. there is no risk of disease transfer, and pregnancy is only a risk if you don't want to get pregnant, in my example the couple would have no complaint if pregnancy occurs. how is this sex unsafe?

second example. 2 men engage in anal sex, a properly fitted condom and sufficient lube is used, again both men are disease free. care is taken to make sure the bottom is not injured. this is also safe sex.

 

neither situation is uncommon. Yes there are horror stories. Yes there are people who don't get tested and spread STIs they don't even know they have, or spread them when they do know but don't care enough to protect their partners. There are those whose birth control fails or is used improperly (many people don't know that lube should always be used with a condom, even in PiV sex when the woman is "wet") but there are also those who use enough protection to call sex safe.

[Karst]

Pretty much any activity can be done unsafely. In my opinion, people have the right to do potentially dangerous things as long as no one else is harmed.

[Sally]

On 8/4/2018 at 8:19 PM, Sweet Potato said:

so the unsafe part is when done in excess.

 

there are many ways to reduce the risks associated with having sex to a sufficient degree to call it safe sex. an example: 2 people, neither have an STI, have sex. there is no risk of disease transfer, and pregnancy is only a risk if you don't want to get pregnant, in my example the couple would have no complaint if pregnancy occurs. how is this sex unsafe?

second example. 2 men engage in anal sex, a properly fitted condom and sufficient lube is used, again both men are disease free. care is taken to make sure the bottom is not injured. this is also safe sex.

 

neither situation is uncommon. Yes there are horror stories. Yes there are people who don't get tested and spread STIs they don't even know they have, or spread them when they do know but don't care enough to protect their partners. There are those whose birth control fails or is used improperly (many people don't know that lube should always be used with a condom, even in PiV sex when the woman is "wet") but there are also those who use enough protection to call sex safe.

Since Partner A cannot know for certain that Partner B is NOT having sex with a third person, no sex is absolutely safe.   SafER, yes, but not safe.   And no type of  protection is 100% sure.  

[Blomdor]

I just fundamentally, absolutely, entirely do not care about screwing. I don't have any interest, at all, ever, in screwing anyone or anything, and I don't care if or how other people screw as long as it's safe, sane and consensual.

 

Does that count as sex-positive? I mean, I'm not gonna go shake my fist and say mean things at anyone for screwing, but neither am I inclined to clap my hands and exclaim, "Screwing is such a wonderful activity, oh joy!"

 

It's about on the same level as a number of other bodily functions to me. People do it. I'm not offended by it, but I doubt you could convince me to actually care very much about it and I'd honestly appreciate it if you didn't try, thank you.