Sex positive/sex negative

I'm pasting this in here from a chat I've been having "behind the scenes" about this thread; it was suggested that I do so:

when people talk about how picky they are about the sex they have, i sort of feel like the things I did when I was younger were "slutty" (i prefer the word "promiscuous") but I didn't feel that way then, and even though I did do certain things because I had a low self-esteem that I wouldn't do now, I still don't think of those as "negative" experiences.
 
Wow, this is a great discussion that I'm really enjoying!

Though rather than identifying the essential elements of what makes a "good party" (whether that's referring to an event or a person or group of people), I think it's generally more useful to first recognize one's own needs and attitudes towards sex and then to set forth one's own ideals for how to sexually express themselves and relate to others in a healthy way.

Once those ideals are clarified in one's self, it then becomes pretty easy to recognize the people or events that will contribute to those ideals.
If I am being slow, then please, please forgive me - I need to paraphrase to make sure I get this.

So "sex-positivity" and "sex-negativity" are in the eye of the beholder, as it were? It's like most other issues around relationships - you work out what you need for yourself in terms of sexuality and things that help you express that sexuality for for you sex-positive, and anything that hinders it or represses it is sex-negative?

I would therefore tend to associate with people who help me and support me in expressing my sexuality (those that are sex-positive for me) and avoid those who try to put me down for my wishes and feelings, or who try to tell me that it's wrong to do it (those are sex-negative for me).

Am I on the right track or veering off? Please correct me if I am veering.
 
I still don't think of those as "negative" experiences.


I definitely have had some negative sexual experiences but would not want to forget them because of the knowledge gained through each. Without those experiences behind me, they might still be ahead of me. I'm glad they are where they are.
 
So "sex-positivity" and "sex-negativity" are in the eye of the beholder, as it were? .

I think there has to be a line drawn..clearly child abuse is sex negative regardless of the different perspectives of victim and perpetrator.
 
I'm pasting this in here from a chat I've been having "behind the scenes" about this thread; it was suggested that I do so:

when people talk about how picky they are about the sex they have, i sort of feel like the things I did when I was younger were "slutty" (i prefer the word "promiscuous") but I didn't feel that way then, and even though I did do certain things because I had a low self-esteem that I wouldn't do now, I still don't think of those as "negative" experiences.

Is it the term negative that they object with? I invite them could speak to that themselves? I wonder how much they know of what is behind the term sex negative. It doesn't really address such issues. As far as I know.

Its a shame that they see some peoples caution and intentions to do what is right for them as "picky" interesting thought. I wonder also what that judgment is about? Is it a judgement?
 
Sheesh, I teach one student and this thread's already filling up, y'all are so quick! LOL!

I snagged on the word "picky" too. I'm not sure what the person was trying to say, but what I understood was that when other people talk about what makes sex a safe experience for them, this person begins to feel promiscuous about what they did when they were younger.

And that even though those things were done when the person felt low about themselves, looking back, they don't feel that these were negative experiences.

What a great way to look at it!

I like that it's possible for sex to be outside the context of love, but still loving towards oneself.


I used to understand the terms sex positive and negative in the context they were explained - at a University event put on by the GLBT group. We talked a lot about the sex trade.

I understood sex positivity to mean the right to choose one's own sexual practices. (Like the right to choose to work in the sex trade) and have the right to be safe at the same time. So, access to condoms, safe places to go, etc.

And sex negativity was described as the limits and conditions placed on others around sex. So, treating prostitutes as criminals and not building safe shelters for them. For example.

So, out of that context, I'd say the same. Sex positivity is the right to choose one's own sexual practices for oneself. 'And it harm none, do as ye will". And sex negativity? Well, negating that right I suppose.
 
I responded to what redpepper and roly poly just said, but then i went back and read everything and i don't think you realize that i'm the one who considers my behaviour "promiscuous but not negative". It was myself who said those things in chat.

Also, it's frustrating that you folks see my choice of the word "picky" as an insult or a "judgement". All I can say is that I'm glad I don't see it that way. I consider myself "picky" now, in more ways than one.

Picky eater
Picky customer
"Neat Freak"
Picky about what kind of campsite I like

And if I call someone else "picky" about who they choose to have sex with, it's a "judgment". It was MEANT as though being "picky" is a good way to be.

Oh well.

There is definitely a culture of defensiveness on this forum.
 
Last edited:
General response to the thread...:

I suppose that I have a "sex positive" outlook, generally. What that means for me is that I think sexuality (broadly) is healthy, normal, natural, and good. That is, it is nothing to be ashamed about, guilty over, etc. In general.

Which opens a whole can of worms about lots of things -- since I don't think that all sexual activity is necessarily healthy, normal, natural and good. But the same can be said about pretty much any activity. Eating ten pounds of rotting food every suppertime isn't healthy, normal, natural and good. Some sexual activity isn't, either.

For me, healthy sex is self-and-other honoring, first of all. Generally, it will include genuine affection toward one's partner/s. As a general rule, healthy sex is an expression and experience of affection, kindness, tenderness, warmth, love.... But isn't this also the basis of all healthy relating?

I think a lot of "casual sex," which is considered by many to be a form of casual recreation, amounts to an self and other dishonoring activity -- because there is no genuine affection, kindness, warmth or tenderness involved in it.

These words may strike some people as "sex negative". But I do not believe it to be so. Sex is powerful, and therefore deserves a kind of proportional respect, in relation to this power.

I don't believe all sexual relating must take place within enduring, "committed" relationships, however. I just think there needs to be sensitivity to the needs, feelings, ... to the "soul" (as traditionally named) of the persons involved. Both to one's self and to one's partner/s.
 
I responded to what redpepper and roly poly just said, but then i went back and read everything and i don't think you realize that i'm the one who considers my behaviour "promiscuous but not negative". It was myself who said those things in chat.

Also, it's frustrating that you folks see my choice of the word "picky" as an insult or a "judgement". All I can say is that I'm glad I don't see it that way. I consider myself "picky" now, in more ways than one.

Picky eater
Picky customer
"Neat Freak"
Picky about what kind of campsite I like

And if I call someone else "picky" about who they choose to have sex with, it's a "judgment". It was MEANT as though being "picky" is a good way to be.

Oh well.

There is definitely a culture of defensiveness on this forum.

Oh, I get it... :) thanks for clarifying... makes sense now.
 
By the way Ygirl, I was just asking (with a defensive tone I must admit)... we used to be able to do that...remember? somewhere along the line it became seen as BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION defensiveness. Yes I reacted a bit as I thought you were judging Mono and rolypoly as being just way too "picky" about who and how they have sex and that they should suck it up, but I get where you are coming from now... Even if you did mean that (which it sounds like you don't), it doesn't mean you are wrong or that I am judging you back... I just wanted to clarify it one way or the other.

I did think that whom ever you were talking to had written that and found it frustrating that perhaps that person was not interested in actually writing on the thread but more felt like "judging" from the safety of a PM. As it was you who said that, it takes on a completely different tone for me... oops sorry if I reacted too quickly.

Oh no, is this going to turn into one of those threads? Fuuuuuuck, I fear that everytime I write anything. :(
 
Last edited:
For me, healthy sex is self-and-other honoring, first of all. Generally, it will include genuine affection toward one's partner/s. As a general rule, healthy sex is an expression and experience of affection, kindness, tenderness, warmth, love.... But isn't this also the basis of all healthy relating?

I think a lot of "casual sex," which is considered by many to be a form of casual recreation, amounts to an self and other dishonoring activity -- because there is no genuine affection, kindness, warmth or tenderness involved in it.

I like the word honouring (spelt the Canadian/British way of course ;))... that fits well for me actually. What I would be wary of is that the one I am fucking is honouring my pussy/sex or honouring me. There is a difference... I would want them to honour me... but sometimes I have found they say they honour and respect me when really they honour and respect how I have sex with them and my genetailia..
 
.... What I would be wary of is that the one I am fucking is honouring my pussy/sex or honouring me. There is a difference... I would want them to honour me... but sometimes I have found they say they honour and respect me when really they honour and respect how I have sex with them and my genetailia..

Naturally, I was referring to the honoring of the person. Honoring the body parts is part of that, but is in itself insufficient if the person is not being honored.

I've heard it said that the word "sacred" has some etymological connection with the word "sacrum" -- which is obviously a region of the body closely associated with sex. Perhaps we should treat sex as sacred?
 
I guess what interests me is this that is a relative term, rather than an absolute. Or at least, that's how I am interpreting the discussion so far.

Because up until now I had thought that it was some absolute and I just didn't understand what that absolute was.

So if someone says to me "When you do X you are being sex-negative." My thoughts were to examine my actions, because what I thought this person is saying that there is something inherently wrong in them.

Whereas it's sounding more like what I need to hear when they say that is "what you are doing is not supporting my own needs for sexual expression, in fact I feel that you are a negative influence on my sexuality."

Am I close with this? Someone please correct me if I am not.
 
Naturally, I was referring to the honoring of the person. Honoring the body parts is part of that, but is in itself insufficient if the person is not being honored.

I've heard it said that the word "sacred" has some etymological connection with the word "sacrum" -- which is obviously a region of the body closely associated with sex. Perhaps we should treat sex as sacred?

In part for sure! Although it is a communication, a ritual in part, a sport sometimes. It can be like yoga too ;)
 
Ceil are you saying that you think when someone considers you sex negative that they are referring to the acts of sex you participating in or the thought/intention/emotion behind them?

What an interesting thought. I tend to do that. We have some D/s friends that are intense in their practice and if I didn't know them I would consider them sex negative. Because I know what they each get out of their lives together I think differently about it.
 
I responded to what redpepper and roly poly just said, but then i went back and read everything and i don't think you realize that i'm the one who considers my behaviour "promiscuous but not negative". It was myself who said those things in chat.

No, I hadn't realized that, I thought it was the other person.


It was MEANT as though being "picky" is a good way to be.

Kinda like the way I call people "weird"? It's definitely a compliment when I say it.


There is definitely a culture of defensiveness on this forum.

I have found that making evaluations of other people, rather than observations tends to incite defensiveness.

In a communications class I took in college, we gave a % of the likelihood that something would happen based on different words. So, for example:

Probable: 90%
Likely: 70%
Possible: 30%

The ranges from person to person were significant. So, the lesson being that we all have different meanings that we attach to words. The word "picky" might have a connotation for someone that you didn't intend.

So, when we stick to observations - in other words, stating the actual things we observe without any evaluation, there is no room for misinterpretation and less chance, (possible? LOL! :)) that people will feel defensive.

(Example, what I wrote in my reply to your post: "when other people talk about what makes sex a safe experience for them"). Just my ideas, take 'em or leave 'em. Actually not true, Marshall's ideas. LOL!

I can also understand the tendency towards defensiveness on a forum where people are sharing some of their most vulnerable moments and exploring dark corners in themselves. It can be scary.
 
Perhaps we should treat sex as sacred?

This is diverting a bit from a sex-positive/sex-negative thread, but here goes.

I grew up learning that my body is my temple. Literally. My body houses my soul and allows me to move around in this 3rd dimensional space. So, what I put into my body is sacred, including food, thoughts, water.

Over the years, I've grown to understand what this means for me - with food, lifestyle, etc, and have made choices that reflect this belief.

It gets a little trickier with sex. See, I can have a sacred connection with someone I barely know. Because when your personality and ego are out of the way, (freakin' hard!), then what's left? Whatever unnameable force that's still present has the potential to connect and sex can potentially feel sacred, at least.

Thinking out loud again...
 
So "sex-positivity" and "sex-negativity" are in the eye of the beholder, as it were? It's like most other issues around relationships - you work out what you need for yourself in terms of sexuality and things that help you express that sexuality for for you sex-positive, and anything that hinders it or represses it is sex-negative?

I would disagree with that. I've often seen people use the phrase "it works for me" as a way to dismiss the more objective discussion about whether something is healthy or not. (I'm not saying this is happening here, I'm saying to illustrate my point) Many people can be involved in destructive behaviors that feel right to them. A person who has never known anything but abuse will adopt behaviors that feel right to them, but are not necessarily healthy.

In a broader sense, there are larger societal views that are generally agreed to be sex negative, though not everyone may see it that way. One example of a sex negative view has to do with stigma attached to sexually transmitted diseases. If someone catches a cold or strep from someone and sex isn't involved, it's no big deal. But as soon as someone catches a bacterial infection like chlamydia from a sexual partner, their character is often called into question, whether consciously or subconsciously.

These are ways that assessing a view to be sex positive or sex negative is certainly not just in the eye of the beholder but is part of a larger objective ethical standard.
 
Back
Top