Sex positive/sex negative

This is exactly the kind of response that is making me want to leave. Someone says they feel that X is happening and instead of saying "hey lets figure this out" the immediate response (and Ceioli, I see this often from you) is: That's YOUR interpretation. Provide me with proof of what you think is happening.

I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for actual examples so that they can be addressed and figured out. It's very difficult to get to the bottom of things if all we're doing is working with people's interpretation of the words rather than the actual words themselves. But you seem to have decided to view everything I say through a confrontational lens and you certainly aren't the only person who feels that. There ain't much I can do about that.

That's not conducive to understanding. It's a challenge. It's "prove to me that you deserve to feel the way you feel".

Again, no. It's asking a person to be clear about what they are having a problem with so that it can be addressed.

But I'll be honest here, on more than one occasion, you have been known to seriously overreact to things said in various threads in which the statements were not referring to you yet you still took great personal offense as if they were referring directly to you. I think it's more reasonable to ask for clarity about what exactly is offending than to walk on eggshells around unknown triggers.


As for the examples:

From discussions where it is insisted that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous (sexless is fine and dandy)
No one ever said that relationships where sex is prevalent cannot be considered polyamorous. That's a complete distortion of anything anyone has said.

People in that particular thread had been looking to disassociate with the label of polyamory because of the sexual practices of others who share that label. The discussion came from addressing that issue. And in this particular post, she specifically mentioned that her comments came from what she had seen in that particular thread and others on the forum. Even if people felt accused by that statement, perhaps asking her to come up with the specific examples in which she saw that sex negativity would have helped to further the discussion and cleared up any issues of whether or not she was accusing people and whether or not what she said was fair and appropriate. I'm pretty sure Raven wouldn't have been offended to be asked that. Redpepper does a great job of that when issues like that arise, and she did a great job of it in that thread.

And this:
A prejudicial view of polyamory which houses a prejudiced view of sex. Sex = negative unless it be purified by the cleansing waters of love. Because love (what is love again? Someone bring me a definition ) is the reason having sex would not be some dirty rank thing. Sex-negative.

No one has said sex without love is "dirty" or "rank" .. just that it's not poly.

Hmm...well, first of all, she challenged a statement that I made. Second it was directed at an idea, not a person. She was speaking to the idea of the need to completely separate sex from poly as mutually exclusive in order to lend it legitimacy in society. It seemed to be more of a comment on society than specific posters on this thread. But again, if you felt an accusation in this, why not ask for her to be more specific about what she was saying rather than assume that she was lambasting particular members of this forum directly or indirectly?


The accusation of being "sex negative" simply because one sees a difference between casual sex and committed sex is offensive and hurtful. And quite honestly I don't need the heartache of dealing with people who throw out accusations of bias or prejudice or bigotry just because someone disagrees with them.

I'm sorry that you feel offended or hurt by that. However, discussing and challenging views on how sex-positivity and sex-negativity manifest within a poly culture is not the same as specifically accusing people who are poly in a certain way as being sex negative. Just the same as disagreeing with a post and writing another post to spell out why one may disagree isn't telling the other poster what to think or ask. You might benefit from just blocking me because it seems any time I'm going to disagree with you, you're going to be offended by it.
 
Sex positive and sex negative labeling of people should be limited to people labeling themselves..

Actually ANY labeling of a person should be limited to them labeling themself.
 
It's very difficult to get to the bottom of things if all we're doing is working with people's interpretation of the words rather than the actual words themselves.

I'm having trouble with this concept. All communication is about interpretation and all of us bring our own filters to every communication we engage in. Words in and of themselves have no meaning, other than what those who use them give to them. A basic agreement as to what words mean allows us to communicate on at least the most rudimentary level but the less concrete the word itself is, the greater the chances for multiple interpretations of it.

That is basically the root of the issue that has produced the various discussions of late: individual interpretations of a word that we all share as one of our self-defined labels.

When I'm told by someone with whom I communicate that my interpretation of the words being used isn't the same as theirs, I try to reframe my communication to meet them as best I can or we no longer have a conversation, we have a monologue.
Expecting another to automatically adapt to my frame of reference is disrespectful at worst and unproductive at best.

To engage in satisfying discussions, that needs to be a two way street.

When the communication is occuring with someone for whom there are deeply connected feelings, it's much easier to acknowledge our different frames of reference and to take great care that we both express ourselves as clearly as possible and attempt to explain what our words mean to us since there is much on the line. We don't expect the other to change their interpretations, but to try to understand and accept the differences so we can reach a mutually beneficial discourse.

Extending a similar process to all communications would benefit many a discussion.
 
Last edited:
Sex positive and sex negative labeling of people should be limited to people labeling themselves..

Actually ANY labeling of a person should be limited to them labeling themself.

Nobody was labeling anybody as sex positive or sex negative. However there are certainly ideas which can be considered sex positive and sex negative and all of us would benefit from discussions on such things.
 
When I'm told by someone with whom I communicate that my interpretation of the words being used isn't the same as theirs, I try to reframe my communication to meet them as best I can or we no longer have a conversation, we have a monologue.
Expecting another to automatically adapt to my frame of reference is disrespectful at worst and unproductive at best.

Asking for a person to be more specific in what they are referring to in a discussion is not expecting them to automatically adapt their frame of reference.

I find it interesting that these issues of communication most often come up when one person says something that another person doesn't want to hear.
 
So to get back to sex... :D

I don't know which way I would fall if I were to identify. So I choose not to at this point. I understand sex positive to mean that expressing ones sexuality is good for everyone and healthy. I understand sex negative to mean that not all porn stars are lovin' the life, that people are exploited because of the pervasive view that our modern sex culture is geared towards male fantasy.

I think that there has been a lot of sex positive stuff out there that has contributed greatly to sex being acceptable to talk about, teach and to practice more freely. Authors such as Carol Queen come to mind.

Sex positive feminists come to mind also such as Susie Bright. She rocks! There is also the fact that sex positive beliefs have made natural child birth and breastfeeding to transgenderism more tolerable in the mainstream and continue to be more so. There is a debate about what sex positive really is amongst feminists that both authors and others examine.

There is some stuff that worries me also such as the development of "raunch culture" or "slut culture." This is where I tend to identify with sex negative. Some sex negative definitions seem very Victorian and old school in terms of sexual expression but some of the beliefs really jive with me. Sex can empower women for sure, but also disempower them. In "raunch culture," women are more objectified and oppressed because the sexuality of women is geared more toward male fantasy than around what female sexual energy and power is... in this way women are not more liberated, rather they are more free to shake their booty for men to see and take advantage of. That to me isn't liberation and we preach this attitude to young girls in advertising, magazines EVERYWHERE in the media and sometimes in their own home and friend environments. Hugh Hefner would not agree with me or sex negative feminists on this one!

It was the definition or "raunch culture" and sex negative attitudes in this way that made me decide not to swing anymore. It went against my kind of feminism. I felt used and ashamed of myself for allowing myself to believe that I had been empowered. I realize that I was in a situation whereby I was not empowered as a woman and that is not every swinging situation... just to clarify, but it had been my experience. It has also been my reading of "raunch culture" that has made me feel a need to be more dominant in my BDSM life. I think I have a need to bring back to myself what I have lost... also to choose a more polyfi relationship with my men and to accept the bounds of that in terms of allowing good men to remind me to remember that my body is sacred and a gift. Not that they own it, but that I should choose carefully who I show it to and share it with. It is precious and should not be shared with everyone, but of whom I choose and for ME as much as them...

I try to remember all this when deciding which events to go to, what situations to be in, who I spend my intimate time with and how I behave in sexually charged social situations and with my loves. I have a very high standard of relationship now, not because I am sex negative or sex positive identified, but because a culmination of the two means they cancel each other out somehow for me. The definitions of them mix together for me. I have taken what I need from each understanding of both.
 
Asking for a person to be more specific in what they are referring to in a discussion is not expecting them to automatically adapt their frame of reference.

But after the specifics have been given, to be told their interpretation of the words is the problem is expecting them to adapt and that was the point that I was trying to make.

The post I quoted was one where a couple of other posts had been presented as specific examples of the topic after the request was made for them; the response wasn't to engage in a discussion about the examples but to state that the words had been mis-interpreted.

It feels a bit like running in a circle to have these kinds of discussions.

"I feel X when someone says Y"
"Show me examples when someone said Y"
"Here are some examples when I felt X when someone said Y"
"Y was not said, that was just your interpretation of the words"

A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.

And I personally find the prevalence of communication problems to occur less when hearing what I don't want to hear and more when I'm not feeling heard in return.


Now back to the sex again ;)

redpepper, you've stated very eloquently your journey to discovering and claiming your sexuality for yourself - thank you!

Much of what you said resonates with me, though I've had a much more simplified way of expressing it.

I've often said my sexuality feels like a double-edged sword at times.
Balancing healthy and empowering sexual encounters against the ones that don't feel so good and figuring out how to ensure that they are all healthy ones has been a process for me as well.

That sort of journey is a very individual thing and not one that easily lends itself to generalizations or even common paths.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons that the concepts of sex positive and sex negative can be so tricky to define.
 
But after the specifics have been given, to be told their interpretation of the words is the problem is expecting them to adapt and that was the point that I was trying to make.

The post I quoted was one where a couple of other posts had been presented as specific examples of the topic after the request was made for them; the response wasn't to engage in a discussion about the examples but to state that the words had been mis-interpreted.

It feels a bit like running in a circle to have these kinds of discussions.

"I feel X when someone says Y"
"Show me examples when someone said Y"
"Here are some examples when I felt X when someone said Y"
"Y was not said, that was just your interpretation of the words"

By that reasoning, anyone not only has the right to be offended by something that was said, but has the right to expect everything to be worded only the way they want it to be worded.

The fact is, everyone has the right to be offended, but that does not give a person the right to expect everyone else to edit themselves around them.


A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.

Funny but I felt that that's what I did. But funnily enough, I wasn't really being heard, but interpreted as being hostile. Anyway, I now get the sense that there wasn't much good faith to start that kind of a discussion with this thread, but rather to be validated in your feelings of offense. Either way, I certainly see that we'll get nowhere with it with such expectations in place. And I'm sure you'll put that as being all my fault.
 
We (both of us) feel that sexuality should be as much of a non-issue as choice in food ! Period.

Wow, GS, I'm surprised you forgot about the tensions between, say, ethically motivated vegetarians and the more omnivorous among us! And then there are the environmentalists who insist that, e.g., we should not be eating shrimp -- because most of it comes from "fish farming" practices which are extremely destructive to endangered mangrove forests.

"http://www.mangroveactionproject.org/get-involved/pledge-to-avoid-imported-shrimp/pledge-to-avoid-imported-shrimp"
 
A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.
Funny but I felt that that's what I did. But funnily enough, I wasn't really being heard, but interpreted as being hostile.
Isn't this interesting. Because when I used almost that EXACT terminology with dakid over the definition of a lover vs. a fuckbuddy, you jumped all over me for expecting people to adhere to my definitions.

I specifically said to her "I would call what you described a lover. How do you define a lover then?" and I got raked over the coals for making someone define things on my terms.

So .. I see a huge level of hypocrisy in what you say in threads like this Ceoli.

You say I should block you because I am going to get offended just because you disagree with me. I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points and I don't care that you disagree with me. If we all thought alike, the world would be boring. However, I find your attitude on the board to be boarderline bullying of those who disagree with you, which is what I find offensive. I find that you use your psychological training and ability with words to back people into corners, then you follow that up with saying you are a victim of tactics you yourself use on others.

Finally:
I'm sorry that you feel offended or hurt by that.
"I'm sorry that you feel ... " is a lame cop-out apology. It's a passive-aggressive way of denying responsibility for your own words. If you're sorry you offended me, then say so. If you're not sorry, then don't "apologize" to me for my own feelings. We are all entitled to our feelings and opinions and don't need someone else to apologize on our behalves.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this interesting. Because when I used almost that EXACT terminology with dakid over the definition of a lover vs. a fuckbuddy, you jumped all over me for expecting people to adhere to my definitions.

Nope, I didn't "jump all over you". I asked you why you felt the need to have her definition fit yours. It seemed you did because you consistently brought that up.

I specifically said to her "I would call what you described a lover. How do you define a lover then?" and I got raked over the coals for making someone define things on my terms.

So .. I see a huge level of hypocrisy in what you say in threads like this Ceoli.

Again, no. I asked you why you felt the need to do that.

You've clearly illustrated with this example how things can be viewed through a confrontational lens. And it's getting very tiresome at this point.

You say I should block you because I am conditioned to disagree with you. Honestly many times I agree with your concepts, but I find that you use your psychological training and ability with words to back people into corners as well as saying you are the victim of tactics you yourself use on others.

I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points. I find your attitude on the board to be boarderline bullying of those who disagree with you, however.

Look. This is an online forum where people exchange ideas. If you think I'm bullying, I suggest that you take it up with the moderators and have them discuss it with me. I only say what I feel is right to say in the given circumstances. I do not choose my words for the purpose of backing people into corners and I certainly don't take my "psychological knowledge" to use for some diabolical purpose of putting other people down. . I choose them to say and stand for what I believe should be said.

I don't claim to be a victim of anything. I pointed out in my previous post that it's funny that my point seems to be missed in all this. I have no problem with it and I won't go starting a new thread about how nobody listens to me. I just continue to make my points. Feel free to respond to them or not. If you want me to do or be anything else, feel free to take it up with me on PM.

"I'm sorry that you feel ... " is a lame cop-out apology. It's a passive-aggressive way of denying responsibility for your own words. If you're sorry you offended me, then say so. If you're not sorry, then don't "apologize" to me for my own feelings. We are all entitled to our feelings and opinions and don't need someone else to apologize on our behalves.

Believe it or not, I am sorry you feel bullied. And you certainly are entitled to your feelings and I've never claimed otherwise. However, since we are all adults here, I will not take responsibility for your feelings as we all have our feelings and opinions. I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours. However, according to what you're saying here, it seems that sticking to my opinions means I'm borderline bullying on this forum. I don't accept that.
 
Last edited:
But after the specifics have been given, to be told their interpretation of the words is the problem is expecting them to adapt and that was the point that I was trying to make.

That's odd. I just managed to have a discussion with River on his interpretation of the word bi-amorous. I didn't feel expected to adapt in any horrible way. It doesn't fit with my perspective. It fits with his perspective and addresses his experience. The only adaptation I felt was in opening up my mind a bit and understanding his view as well accepting the existence of his view in addition to my own. I didn't feel the need to impress what I thought the word meant or how I would use the word.

Is adapting to accept the differences in the world really a "problem"? Is it that hurtful an experience for you?
A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.

And I personally find the prevalence of communication problems to occur less when hearing what I don't want to hear and more when I'm not feeling heard in return.

A more productive discussion involves not trying to impress your interpretation above another. Next is acceptance of the different interpretations. If a difference is discovered, you ask what the words mean to the other person if the interest truly is in understanding that person's perspective. Then if that person asks for your interpretation, you give it.

Again it is possible to discuss without pushing and pushing what your opinion is of how the words should be used. There is room enough in reality for words to have more than one meaning and to be used in more than one way.

That is being heard and that is listening. It is crucial to understand that you don't have to always do both.

I listened to River and then I moseyed right along. I didn't tell him what I thought biamorous meant or how I thought it should be used. I didn't tell him what word I would use in it's place. It didn't mean I didn't have an opinion on it either. But it wasn't important for him to "hear" me in that way.

Being heard is not the same as making everyone agree that your point of view is the right one.

Which takes me to the next bit:


Isn't this interesting. Because when I used almost that EXACT terminology with dakid over the definition of a lover vs. a fuckbuddy, you jumped all over me for expecting people to adhere to my definitions.

I specifically said to her "I would call what you described a lover. How do you define a lover then?" and I got raked over the coals for making someone define things on my terms.

So .. I see a huge level of hypocrisy in what you say in threads like this Ceoli.

Crisare, you repeatedly stated what your definition of the words fuckbuddy and lover were. Dakid explained what they meant for her. She was very forthcoming. You couldn't accept that. You continued stating how you interpreted it and continued asking how she could possibly feel or interpret things the way that she did which was different from you.

It was important for you to impress from all angles what it meant for you and come back to ask why dakid didn't use the terms in the same way.

The key you were missing was accepting the difference. Dakid saw it differently from you based on her experience. She uses the words differently, end of story. You are different people.


You say I should block you because I am going to get offended just because you disagree with me. I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points and I don't care that you disagree with me. If we all thought alike, the world would be boring. However, I find your attitude on the board to be boarderline bullying of those who disagree with you, which is what I find offensive. I find that you use your psychological training and ability with words to back people into corners, then you follow that up with saying you are a victim of tactics you yourself use on others.
Finally: "I'm sorry that you feel ... " is a lame cop-out apology. It's a passive-aggressive way of denying responsibility for your own words. If you're sorry you offended me, then say so. If you're not sorry, then don't "apologize" to me for my own feelings. We are all entitled to our feelings and opinions and don't need someone else to apologize on our behalves.

Hmm. Do you feel envious of or threatened by Ceoli's ability to communicate, uncomfortable when you are unable to find a response when engaging in discussion with her and therefore feel the need to attack her and characterize her involvement on these boards as "bullying" and "backing people into a corner" due to the frustration and resentment you feel? This reaction rather than addressing the topic because you are unable to and your opinion has not been validated by others as right?

Because it certainly sounds like it. The speed with which you pulled out the "Difference between poly and slutdom" thread, whew, made my head spin.

I've seen this tactic used on other boards and in politics. An attempt to turn an otherwise positive skill of another into a negative in order to lift the lack of that skill as a virtue.

This seems to be the purpose of this entire thread.

I would definitely call that hypocrisy from those who speak of bullying or not conversing "productively." Advocating manners of discussion where your views are always right is not productive or accepting of reality.
Look. This is an online forum where people exchange ideas. If you think I'm bullying, I suggest that you take it up with the moderators and have them discuss it with me. I only say what I feel is right to say in the given circumstances. I do not choose my words for the purpose of backing people into corners and I certainly don't take my "psychological knowledge" to use for some diabolical purpose of putting other people down. . I choose them to say and stand for what I believe should be said.

I don't claim to be a victim of anything. I pointed out in my previous post that it's funny that my point seems to be missed in all this. I have no problem with it and I won't go starting a new thread about how nobody listens to me. I just continue to make my points. Feel free to respond to them or not. If you want me to do or be anything else, feel free to take it up with me on PM.

Believe it or not, I am sorry you feel bullied. And you certainly are entitled to your feelings and I've never claimed otherwise. However, since we are all adults here, I will not take responsibility for your feelings as we all have our feelings and opinions. I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours. However, according to what you're saying here, it seems that sticking to my opinions means I'm borderline bullying on this forum. I don't accept that.

Yes. Yes. And yes. I could see that all strung into one paragraph:

"This is an online forum where people exchange ideas. I have no problem with it and I won't go starting a new thread about how nobody listens to me. Y
ou certainly are entitled to your feelings and I've never claimed otherwise. However, since we are all adults here, I will not take responsibility for your feelings as we all have our feelings and opinions. I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours."

Beautiful either way.


Your views and opinions are not bullying. And people should take responsibility for their own emotions. I do see a small crowd attacking you for having differing views and expressing them quite well rather than discussing the views themselves.

Bullying.... nah that couldn't be what is being done here now could it. :rolleyes:

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
Do you feel envious of Ceoli's ability to communicate, uncomfortable when you are unable to find a response when engaging in discussion with her and therefore feel the need to attack her and characterize her involvement on these boards as "bullying" and "backing people into a corner" due to the frustration and resentment you feel?
No, but thanks for the psycho-babble pseudo analysis. I see this a lot from people on various boards who get annoyed when they can't bully people into seeing their point of view .. they go on the attack, but in a very faux-analytical way as an attempt to impugn the mental health/stability of the person they don't agree with, and thereby give themselves legitimacy.

The speed with which you pulled out the "Difference between poly and slutdom" thread, whew, made my head spin.
LOL. That's a good one. Yeah. Let's please get real here. In a 15 page thread, I posted on nearly every single page. I finally chose to step out when Ceoli would not let me continue what was turning into (I felt) a productive conversation with dakid without further jumping down my throat for asking questions.

So you know .. the psychobabble BS doesn't really cut it for me. If you want to justify my response to your writing with armchair amateur psychoanalysis, and implying that I have issues, you go right ahead. It's kind of funny actually.

I'm done with this conversation with you and Ceoli both. I'm sure you'll say that I'm pulling out of this one and making your head spin. Quite frankly, I find your posts as insulting, holier-than-thou, and rude as many of Ceoli's. I choose to move away from this and contribute productively to this board as I've discussed in PM with several people over the last few days.

I found this board and learned there are some wonderful, openminded people here who I really enjoy. I am not going to allow a few others to spoil it.
 
Last edited:
what's NVC?
and when are we going to get back on topic, or should I start a new thread on this... cause this is a really interesting one for me and I was looking forward to talking about it... I hate to interrupt as I see there are several of you in a process, but I just thought I would ask if I should start again on sex positive/negative?

let me know and I would be glad to start it again :)
 
I've got to say that I think both Crisare and Ceoli/Davik are right here.

What I mean by that is that from my reading, none of the people here are trying to force their terms or definitions onto others, instead are trying to explain their viewpoints and opinions in the way they see best.

On one hand, I need to appreciate the maturity on both sides for continuing to explain, and on the other hand, I need to question why this seems to feel so confrontational.

I guess that makes me a moderate. Can I be a moderator now? :p
 
Non Violent Communication I think.

Oh right, it is. I think I mentioned that once before but perhaps people don't know what that is or have any knowledge of it.... so I posted a link in the communication sticky... there is tons of things to read on line, courses and a great book called just that, "non-violent communication." All totally worth a read as it teaches the language used to show our compassion for others and still get our point/opinions across without others thinking we are trying to change their minds, bully them or manipulate the conversation.

I dunno, might be helpful?;)
 
Rolypoly posted another link about NVC earlier in that thread too.

I do think we run into a bit of a snag when we start trying to treat communication on an online forum as the same as communication in person and within the context of a relationship. There can be very different dynamics between the two.

Perhaps, I'm just saying it might be something to concider as its more of an empathetic way of talking to another or others rather than talking as if one is writing an article for a journal if that makes sense.
 
Back
Top