Sex-Positive: Is it just another label?

[WünderBâhr]

Session 3 - "Sex-Positive: Is it just another label?"

It's interesting enough to try and figure out how to define asexuality within everyone's individual circumstances and experiences. It is equally as interesting to see the consensus of what it is not. Sex is a primary factor in defining asexuality, but not in such simple terms of being against sex. Some may ask, "Well, if asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, wouldn't it make sense for the majority to be against sex? And if not, then what's the big deal about asexuality?" Even within the asexual community there are disagreements of what the general stance is about sex, and this is where our discussion begins.

The sex-positive movement is an ideology which promotes and embraces open sexuality with few limits. Psychiatrist and psychoanalyst William Reich is behind the term sex-positive as well as sex-negative. He argued that some societies see sexuality as a negative thing and seek to repress and control it.

The American author, editor, sociologist and sexologist Carol Queen has created a few definitions for sex-positive:

It’s the cultural philosophy that understands sexuality as a potentially positive force in one’s life, and it can, of course, be contrasted with sex-negativity, which sees sex as problematic, disruptive, dangerous. Sex-positivity allows for and in fact celebrates sexual diversity, differing desires and relationships structures, and individual choices based on consent.

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.

The purpose of AVEN is to gain visibility and educate others about asexuality and how it pertains to the other 99% of society. In her definition, Carol Queen says "we each grow our own passions on a different medium".

Keeping that in mind, is there a place for asexuals to promote their cause as a legitimate sexual orientation?

Sex-positive in Wikipedia

Anyone else here actually don't mind sex?

Sex-positive Movement thread from 2003

AVENues Issue #13 (PDF)

AVENues article (non-PDF)

Would you identify using the term "sex-positive"? Why or why not?

We suggest you read through the above linked threads to get a better grasp of discussions members have had in the past. There is no right or wrong answer, here--just a question of your own experiences and thoughts.

_*********

We encourage discussion on whatever your personal experience and/or opinions may be on the matter. Please try to stay on topic as much as possible and refer to our Discussion thread to add suggestions or comments about the overall project/sessions there. If you disagree with a poster, keep in mind this is for our project and spamming the thread is not acceptable. Please remember that this thread is under the AVEN Guidelines and the ToS. You agree that the site administrators and moderators have the right to remove, edit or move posts in the Q&A Sessions threads as needed. By participating, you also agree that your post can be used as part of the Q&A FAQ Update.

Thanks for your input,

Bipolar Bear, Nalle and Tanwen

[Sciatrix]

I do use "sex-positive," and I really can't see how it conflicts with asexuality at all. As an asexual person, I don't experience sexual attraction and don't have any interest in having sex above mild curiosity--but I don't see why that should make me want to shame other people for having the type of sex that makes them happiest. I definitely think that more education about sex and better understanding of things like orientation actually will make life better for asexual people. And I think that those things don't come from treating sex like something which is a shameful activity which should only be practiced for the purposes of procreating. I think that acceptance of sexual differences--which include asexuality--can only come if you're already incorporating a philosophy of acceptance for individual people's different desires anyway.

Actually, I think sex-negative philosophies tend to place asexual people on pedestals, as though we're somehow "better" than nonasexual people because we don't want that nasty nasty "sex" thing. Fuck that. I have seen what happens to people on pedestals. It's boring and constraining and if you fall off then you really catch some shit. And I wouldn't want to be thought of as "better than" nonasexual people for something neither of us can control anyway.

I share some of the worries about the sex positive movement as it is often practiced being exclusionary to asexuals, but frankly I think that the people equating having lots and lots of sex with happiness for everyone are Doing It Wrong. I also think this is much more of a function of asexual invisibility than an inherent incompatibility between sex-positive ideology and asexual people.

ETA: Also, if I am understanding the terms correctly, sex-negativity is fundamentally identical to what we here at AVEN more usually call antisexuality. Just wanted to bring that up.

[NamTar]

"Well, if asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, wouldn't it make sense for the majority to be against sex? And if not, then what's the big deal about asexuality?"

I would disagree, in that having little/no desire for something doesn't make you against it. I don't like playing golf, but I'm not against golf. I'm not going to try to stop other people from playing golf. Same with sex. People like different things.

I like the idea of being sex-positive in the sense of people should not be afraid/ashamed of their own sexuality/lack thereof, and that I think people should be more accepting of any sexuality. Sex positive shouldn't mean having all the sex you can have; it should mean having as much as makes you happy, even if that is none, and accepting whatever other people want to do with their sex lives.

Keeping that in mind, is there a place for asexuals to promote their cause as a legitimate sexual orientation?

Yes, because sexual orientation is who you are attracted to. If that's no one, I think that's a legitimate choice, too. Otherwise, asexuals would have no orientation, and I think it's probably useful to just consider it a valid orientation. Otherwise, people will keep on thinking asexuals don't exist, or that it's a problem that should be corrected. I think that for asexuality to be accepted, people need to become more aware of it. However, I have witnessed hostility from the gay community regarding asexuality, and I don't know if there's enough asexuals to make up a strong movement on their own. I think if people try to educate people in their own lives, that'll help, but it's a slow process.

[Pandoren]

I think it is important to promote that some asexuals are sex positive- especially with all those media articles that seem to focus on "asexuality = not liking sex" or "asexuality = repulsed against sex". Some of us are repulsed and we get heard about a lot. In order to keep the balance and try to prevent asexuality always being linked with negativity about sex, "sex positive" definitely needs to be kept in the frame and promoted and discussed, especially when dealing with the media.

[Lord Happy Toast]

I've long been wary of the term "sex positive." First, it seems to divide the word into the sex-positive and the sex-negative, the light (us) and the dark (them). The term is inherently polarizing--which I suspect to be the point. Activists have long known that massive oversimplification of the issues, eradicating nuance, and presenting your position as good and your opponents' as bad produces results. But it does so at the very high cost of polarizing people, prevent understanding of other viewpoints, and making discussion dominated by the extremes and leaving silent the people in the middle who just don't want to get involved.

Something that I have noticed in our culture is that across the political specturm, people seem to want to portray themselves as being pro-sex. You get this on the left with the self-designated "sex-positive" people. You get it on the right--my experience with Evangelicals as been that they (at least the ones whose event I participated in while I was still an Evangelical) present themselves as extremely pro-sex. While they have a rather limited view of what are acceptable sexual behaviors, they emphasize how great sex (in the right context) is, how good it feels, what a great source of intimacy it is, etc.

I see this widespread cultural felt-need to be pro-sex.

At it's very best, it can be a great thing. But in real life, there's also a lot of just plain mediocre sex. In real life, a whole lot of the sex that happens is exploitative and manipulative. Where sex is concerned, there is a whole lot of really negative shit that happens. And all the people going around being like "sex is such a great things" thus have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to present sex as being such a good thing. One way is to explain it away by saying that the negative stuff isn't what sex really is--it's a perversion of sex. Another way to explain it away is to say that sex is good it's just sex is in a [fill in the blanks with your favorite terms to condemn society with] society that's the reason we have all of this negative sex. (Could you point out to me the Utopian societies that aren't like this, where sex is always fantastic, nothing is ever exploitative, etc.? If not, this approach amounts to saying that sex is good because it is sometimes good in the real world, and always good in some imaginary world.)

The author of Sexual Reality and How We Dismiss It makes a very interesting point regarding the idea that "sex is dirty" (and what he sees as a capricious response to this on the part of many sex-therapists):

Sex guilt and sexual inhibitions are world-wide. The sexual restrictions found in China, India, and Russia can hardly be traced to the Puritans and the Victorians. Even the Church Fathers did not originate sex guilt. Indeed, Augustine, in his City of God (Book XIV, Chapter 18), argued that he saw evidence of sexual shame all around him (he at least did not dismiss sexual reality, even if he took it too much at face value), and that it was this rather than some purely supernal vision that led him to conclude that sex is inherently shameful.

No one has yet offered a way to reasonably comprehend the idea that sex is dirty. It seems to me that the best way to comprehend it is to think of it as a reaction to the exploitive side of sex, a not inconsiderable side of sexual reality. In this light the counter-dogma that sex is OK (not dirty) represents a laundering of sexual reality.

In my own view, sex is sex. The good, the bad, and the ugly are all part of "real sex" and are all part of what "sex really is."

I am not a sex-positive asexual.

[JJButterworth]

I will put it this way: why am I going to care about people do with each other if they are not hurting anyone? Now, with that being said I believe that sex is something that should not be taken lightly, but not feel any guilt stemming from it, due to it's potential to drastically change lives with pregnancy, STDs and, the emotional weight that is placed on sex. Sex can used to cause harm but to put a twist on an old cliche "sex dosn't hurt people, people hurt people". I am not going to get worked up, for either side, about something that people enjoy and think is important to there lives but do not want to partake in personally.

[Olivier]

The world would be such a better place if the reaction to exploitative sex was "exploitation is shameful" rather than "sex is shameful". Just saying.

The problem with the "sex is dirty" sentiment is precisely that it is usually also applied to "good" sex, for no reason.

[ily]

Keeping that in mind, is there a place for asexuals to promote their cause as a legitimate sexual orientation?

I don't exactly understand this question...do you mean, should asexuals promote their cause within the sex-positive movement?

That said, a while ago, Hallu did a post I still remember about "real" and "fake" sex-positivity. While "real" sex positive-people are open to greater sexual diversity and freedom, which includes the freedom not to have sex, "fake" sex-positive people, of which there are many, respect this diversity only to a point, and think asexuals are just repressed. I think this is an important distinction.

I guess Carol Queen's definition of sex-positivity would apply to me. But I agree with mandrewliter that to say that "sex-positivity" is inherently contrasting with "sex-negativity" takes away some of the sexual gray areas that sex-positivity is supposed to be affirming. The most accurate description of me might be "sex-neutral". I don't feel comfortable declaring that sex is an inherently positive force when it's something I've never had any interest in personally. I just don't know enough about it, on a personal level, to really say.

[Sally]

Yes, I think it's just another label.

I identify with the self-label "asexual". I don't see why any other label is needed. Whether others have or don't have sex, like or don't like sex, approve or don't approve of sex, think sex is good or bad -- all that is up to them.

If someone said to me, "Are you sex-positive or sex-negative?" I'd say "Neither. I don't care what other people do, as long as I don't have to watch it."

I doubt if IRL anyone gets asked that question, unless the questioner has been reading on-line forums.

Reich was born in 1897 and died in 1957, so...

[CreepyCrawler]

I'm on the same page with jays fan 1977 on the second question. Why should I have a position on other people's sexuality, so long as it's voluntary?

I do judge my own sexuality, and I suppose I'm rather sex-negative in regards to myself. I could care less about other people's sex lives though.

I think sex-neutral is a more pleasing term.

[mad_scientist]

I'm sex-positive. While sex is unimportant to me, it's obviously important to the vast majority of people, and as far as I'm concerned anything freely consenting adults of sound minds and adequate information want to do is up to them. Unfortunately, coercion and deception do introduce problems in 'freely consenting' and 'adequate information', but the answer to this is to encourage open dialogue and proper education.

Of course, when I say sex-positive, I don't mean those strange people who insist that more sex all the time is better for everyone, but that everybody should have the opportunity to safely and without shame or prejudice grow into their own sexual identity (unless such a thing contradicts the consenting adults thing mentioned above). Inherent in the concept of sexual freedom is the choice not to have sex, and the ability to feel okay about one's lack of sexual attraction, or sexual repulsion, without shame or prejudice, much in the same way that atheism is an inherent choice in the concept of religious freedom.

There will always be sexual expoitation, abuse, and victims of simple miscommunication, but sexual shaming and inhibiting free discussion is not the way to fight these problems.

[DarkEmeralds]

I would disagree, in that having little/no desire for something doesn't make you against it. I don't like playing golf, but I'm not against golf. I'm not going to try to stop other people from playing golf. Same with sex. People like different things.

Golf isn't the universal standard by which all young people are judged, either. How much golf you played when you were young isn't the standard by which middle-aged and older people are categorized. Golf isn't used to sell everything in the marketplace. If I don't golf, I'm not in a 1% minority. If I'm bored to death by golf, chances are the majority of people around me will feel the same way, or at least have no problem with my point of view. There are no headline articles about a young, normal-looking man who *gasp!* doesn't play golf, followed by multiple comments about how he's just repressing his totally natural desire to play golf all the time.

I'm so bored and so alienated from my culture (and most of my subcultures) because of the constant, endless emphasis on sex, on being sexual, on going to therapy to be cured of any "sex-negativity," that I'd be less than honest if I declared myself to be totally sex-positive every day. I'm not.

Yes, I'm all for everyone doing whatever they want within the bounds of consent--even stuff that's personally repugnant to me, like marriage and public displays of affection--but on my best day, I'd say I'm sex-neutral.

[NamTar]

Golf isn't the universal standard by which all young people are judged, either. How much golf you played when you were young isn't the standard by which middle-aged and older people are categorized. Golf isn't used to sell everything in the marketplace. If I don't golf, I'm not in a 1% minority. If I'm bored to death by golf, chances are the majority of people around me will feel the same way, or at least have no problem with my point of view. There are no headline articles about a young, normal-looking man who *gasp!* doesn't play golf, followed by multiple comments about how he's just repressing his totally natural desire to play golf all the time.

I'm so bored and so alienated from my culture (and most of my subcultures) because of the constant, endless emphasis on sex, on being sexual, on going to therapy to be cured of any "sex-negativity," that I'd be less than honest if I declared myself to be totally sex-positive every day. I'm not.

Yes, I'm all for everyone doing whatever they want within the bounds of consent--even stuff that's personally repugnant to me, like marriage and public displays of affection--but on my best day, I'd say I'm sex-neutral.

I was attempting to be light-hearted. I avoid almost all mainstream movies, tv, music, because they revolve around stuff that doesn't interest me in the least (sex and relationships). Avoidance, humor, and not caring about it is the only reason I still have my sanity.

What I'd like is for people in general to be less neurotic about sex. That includes people being taught to think all sex is dirty, that masturbation will make you end up in hell, and also those who think the more sex you have, the healthier you are. And that's why I can't say "sex positive" is, in theory, a bad term. In the end, it's probably just another buzzword. I'd rather people just accepted any sexuality, but perhaps making sex seem like just another thing to do, it'll get us partway there. But then, I'm asocial and misanthropic, what the hell would I know about how society works...

[Zygote]

I do use "sex-positive," and I really can't see how it conflicts with asexuality at all. As an asexual person, I don't experience sexual attraction and don't have any interest in having sex above mild curiosity--but I don't see why that should make me want to shame other people for having the type of sex that makes them happiest.

ETA: Also, if I am understanding the terms correctly, sex-negativity is fundamentally identical to what we here at AVEN more usually call antisexuality. Just wanted to bring that up.

Thank you, Sciatrix!

As a side note: I do believe a sex-negative education has partly influenced my own asexuality. I know that I am physically not that different from my sexual peers. I seriously believe that part of my own thoughts and feelings on sex are me trying to overcome a bias that sex is wrong. I choose to believe that sex is just dandy, a stance in direct odds with how I was raised and have thought about sex for most of my life. I often wonder if I'd been raised in a sex-positive environment if I would be any different from how I am now.

[Nameless123]

Would you identify using the term "sex-positive"? Why or why not?

If I take the term "sex-positivity" to mean a state of mind that accepts and doesn't judge anybody's sexual orientation or behaviour as long as it doesn't hurt someone (no children, no animals, always consensual) I'd definitely identify as sex-positive. When it comes to the abstract role sex plays in society I'm a little less positive. However I think if it were really possible for everyone to not judge someone else by their own standards concerning sex societal pressure on sexual behaviour would if not disappear considerably lessen at least. After all people are what creates a society.

So it's definitely a good thing to be sex-positive within the cause of promoting the acceptance of asexuality because if I accept other people I can hope to be accepted myself.

[WünderBâhr]

for the replies! :) I also like the term sex-neutral. This would apply to me, though I have stated that I am sex-positive in the past. It makes no difference to me what other people do in their sex life (existent or not). I don't think sex should just be passed off in standard as a mind-blowing, natural experience, because it isn't always that way. However, far be it from me to say anything bad to the people who enjoy it and have active/enjoyable sex lives. It really depends on the situation for me to really have any thoughts about it. Most of the time, it's just not something that comes to mind.

[ShahidAfridiBOOMBOOM]

I always thought when people here (asexuals I mean) say sex-positive, they're just saying they're not anti-sexual so it's being used in the same way as sex-neutral as far as I can tell. Like aslong as you're not judgemental about others having sex then you're sex-positive but I agree that I wouldn't use the term in the real world, mostly cos no-one would ever assume I was anti-sexual plus if they did I'd just explain it in plain language that I wasn't.

I think that mature, right-minded asexuals are in a way forced to use the term just to disinguish from all the immature anti-sexual nonsense that sometimes gets posted on here.

[FmrMbr]

I really hate the positive/negative labels. Sex is way too complex to take a polarized view on. In my opinion it would be like being asked if I was eating-negative or eating-positive:

1. There is the obesity epidemic in America to consider.

2. Much of the food that people eat is unhealthy.

3. Even many slim people who are eating healthy foods have very little self control and let cravings for food distract them from more important things, thus making food a mentally and socially damaging influence in their lives.

4. Workers rights are rarely respected in food industry jobs.

5. Most food consumed in the US is produced and transported by unsustainable methods.

6. I consider fasting to be very important for spiritual well-being.

None of these things, however, can make me anti-eating. My problem, instead, is with lack of self control, inconsiderate treatment of others, et cetera. The same goes for sex.

[Amcan]

I'm of the opinion everyone should be free to celebrate their sexuality as they wish to. If that includes the desire for sex then that should be supported (or respected or understood that that's what they want to do) but at the same time those who don't have a desire for sex should get the same treatment.

[Amedot]

I really hate the positive/negative labels. Sex is way too complex to take a polarized view on. In my opinion it would be like being asked if I was eating-negative or eating-positive:

1. There is the obesity epidemic in America to consider.

2. Much of the food that people eat is unhealthy.

3. Even many slim people who are eating healthy foods have very little self control and let cravings for food distract them from more important things, thus making food a mentally and socially damaging influence in their lives.

4. Workers rights are rarely respected in food industry jobs.

5. Most food consumed in the US is produced and transported by unsustainable methods.

6. I consider fasting to be very important for spiritual well-being.

None of these things, however, can make me anti-eating. My problem, instead, is with lack of self control, inconsiderate treatment of others, et cetera. The same goes for sex.

This is exactly how I feel, only I couldn't quite explain it this elegantly.

[Siggy]

I am sex-positive.

But sex-positivity is not just some vague feel-good message, saying "good sex is good". Sex-positivity is actually a substantive position, one that has real opponents. I believe that sex is good when all parties give informed consent and no parties are harmed. Given the same qualifications, porn is good, same-sex sex is good, premarital sex is good, birth control is good, BDSM is good, masturbation is good, and prostitution is good.

Of course, even within sex-positivity there's room for disagreement. For example, you could argue that some people get harmed by prostitution. I'm receptive to that, because as a sex-positive person, I care about harm reduction. What I'm not receptive to, and what I oppose, are arguments and positions which are explicitly or implicitly based on purity, tradition, religion, or personal distaste. There really are people out there who believe that stuff. I would call those people "sex-negative", regardless of whether they personally enjoy sex or not.

Understanding sex-positivity as a substantive position, there is no reason why asexuals must be sex-positive or must be sex-negative. Nonetheless, I think it's important for asexuals to be sex-positive because we could be great allies. Sex-positive asexuals show the world that asexuality is not the same as having a vendetta against sex. They also show the world that sex-positive values are worth supporting even if you don't personally like some of the acts.

At the same time I am keenly aware that many anti-asexual attitudes come from sex-positive people. But I think the best way to counter these attitudes is by displacing them. When asexuals become a respected part of the sex-positive community, it will no longer be viable to be both sex-positive and asex-negative.

I also think that even if the sex-negative community sometimes seems more accepting, this is superficial. How will they react to gray-As, non-celibate asexuals, gay asexuals, asexuals in open relationships, asexual trans people? What will they do when they realize that we break tradition, not preserve it?

[Beenthere]

Well said, Siggy.

It is often said that we are a sex-obsessed society. I disagree. We are obsessed by the meanings we artificially attach to sex. It's the same act whether you are married or not, but is viewed as a different thing, for example.

This is bad for the sexual and asexual alike. To me, "sex-positive" means stripping the word sex of all the loaded but unrealistic meanings that have been heaped onto it. Which is to say, there is no context that makes it a "bad" thing or a "good" thing outside of the opinion of the people having it or NOT having it. "Sex-positive" amounts to rejecting inherited values (Victorian era ones at that - not a good era for asexuals or for sexuals, as exploitation was rampant and within marriage sex was seen as a duty) and claiming our own, as individuals rather than as a herd.

[under_the_radar]

Sex-positive = Oppression

Sex-negative = Repression

Sex-neutral = Everyone Minds Their Own Business :D

I'm all for being neutral, but sex-positive thinking has been more of a hindrance on my sensory intake than sex-negative ever was and both are equally thoughtless and demeaning IMO. Labels are labels, but in a world where they are so important we need another choice especially to step away from extremes that tear people apart.

[Beenthere]

Unfortunately there is no sex neutral. Either every single variation has to be accepted - sex positive, which rejects stigma of anyone - or else only the "normal" people (heterosexuals who do it in the missionary position every other Saturday night) have any right to be who they are. As sex positive, I am a sexual who stands shoulder to shoulder with asexuals, homosexauls, demi-sexuals, bisexuals, and any kinker who kinks with consenting adults. (I draw the line at any non-consensual sex, which is what "sex-neutrality" opens the door for) In a sex neutral world, (the 50's), it's every man for himself and don't get caught doing or not doing what your assigned role requires. (And if anyone gets hurt in the course of the need to maintain appearances, too bad for them.)

[under_the_radar]

Philologist and gay historian Warren Johansson criticized the concept as utopian and simplistic. Johansson argues that all societies regulate sexuality in one way or another, and traces back the idea of "sex-positive" societies to the inaccurate and idealized notions held by some ethnographers of the South Pacific as a kind of sexual paradise. In his view, even a society that took a wholly positive view of sexuality would still be challenged with regulating sexual behavior in such a way as to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy, and other potentially negative outcomes of sexual interaction.[1]

That's the criticism from the wikipedia link and I have to fully agree with this stance. If there is no neutral there has to be a moderate, because positive and negative are both equally flawed.

[Beenthere]

Sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy are not yet eradicated but the way towards those goals is not regulating sexuality. If sexuality is regulated even unofficially, then what you get is asexuals, gays and bisexuals being marginalized. Period. Science and de-stigmatization of everyone are the only hope. Sex positivity is part of the solution, otherwise asexuality will never be acknowledged as a natural thing and a right.

Sex positive doesn't mean you have to have sex. It means YOU are the one who decides what your sexuality is, and no one else gets to weigh in.

[hexaquark]

Oh good, this discussion is still going on.

If there is no neutral there has to be a moderate, because positive and negative are both equally flawed.

I kind of struggle with these labels, specifically the difference between sex positive and neutral. As is quoted at the beginning of this thread:

[sex positivity] is the cultural philosophy that understands sexuality as a potentially positive force in one’s life, and it can, of course, be contrasted with sex-negativity, which sees sex as problematic, disruptive, dangerous. Sex-positivity allows for and in fact celebrates sexual diversity, differing desires and relationships structures, and individual choices based on consent.

(emphasis mine)

Now when considering sex neutral, I don’t understand how it differs from this viewpoint: sex can be good, and it can be bad. It seems like sex positive is sex neutral; it is already the moderate view… or have I missed the point? Are people using sex neutral because sometimes sex positive is misinterpreted as "pro-sex"?

Regardless of all this, it is really the recognition of sexual diversity that is the more important part of sex positivity to me.

[Beenthere]

.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Amcan
Removal of post subject to TOS

[under_the_radar]

Sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy are not yet eradicated but the way towards those goals is not regulating sexuality. If sexuality is regulated even unofficially, then what you get is asexuals, gays and bisexuals being marginalized. Period. Science and de-stigmatization of everyone are the only hope. Sex positivity is part of the solution, otherwise asexuality will never be acknowledged as a natural thing and a right.

Sex positive doesn't mean you have to have sex. It means YOU are the one who decides what your sexuality is, and no one else gets to weigh in.

I'm confused at how making something a non-issue is a step backwards. If sex-positive is promoting and encouraging people to take charge of their desires the social implications are just as bad as sex-negative. Encouraging that something is "good" or "bad" I see as marginalizing someone. I think most movements based on sexuality and orientation are a backlash against moral legislation, where in turn if the "politics" were made null and void there is no need for a counter culture.

In terms of anyone coming out and encouraging or discouraging sexuality or it's associated actions and products (i.e. porn and such) is seriously going to step on most people's toes regardless of if it swings positive or negative like the examples I read. When 51% is the majority who gets their way, the 49% is the minority and will feel oppressed so they will want to revolt.

If the government (all governments) kept their hands off social matters and kept their hands out of marriage (which is nothing more than a business agreement when looking at the paperwork aspect according to the IRS) everyone as far as sexuality would have equal rights. Unless there is something more to fight for to get everyone at an equal status, I don't think what anyone does behind closed doors should involve legislation and what they do there shouldn't be shoved in others people's faces and homes. Do have this confused or overly simplified?

[Beenthere]

Sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy are not yet eradicated but the way towards those goals is not regulating sexuality. If sexuality is regulated even unofficially, then what you get is asexuals, gays and bisexuals being marginalized. Period. Science and de-stigmatization of everyone are the only hope. Sex positivity is part of the solution, otherwise asexuality will never be acknowledged as a natural thing and a right.

Sex positive doesn't mean you have to have sex. It means YOU are the one who decides what your sexuality is, and no one else gets to weigh in.

I'm confused at how making something a non-issue is a step backwards. If sex-positive is promoting and encouraging people to take charge of their desires the social implications are just as bad as sex-negative. Encouraging that something is "good" or "bad" I see as marginalizing someone. I think most movements based on sexuality and orientation are a backlash against moral legislation, where in turn if the "politics" were made null and void there is no need for a counter culture.

In terms of anyone coming out and encouraging or discouraging sexuality or it's associated actions and products (i.e. porn and such) is seriously going to step on most people's toes regardless of if it swings positive or negative like the examples I read. When 51% is the majority who gets their way, the 49% is the minority and will feel oppressed so they will want to revolt.

If the government (all governments) kept their hands off social matters and kept their hands out of marriage (which is nothing more than a business agreement when looking at the paperwork aspect according to the IRS) everyone as far as sexuality would have equal rights. Unless there is something more to fight for to get everyone at an equal status, I don't think what anyone does behind closed doors should involve legislation and what they do there shouldn't be shoved in others people's faces and homes. Do have this confused or overly simplified?

Sex positive is de-stigmatization of everyone where their sex life (or lack thereof) is concerned. It's not legislation. It's the idea that tolerance of all sexual orientations is a goal that would benefit all (including asexuals.)