Sex positive/sex negative

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?

For me it would seriously depend on what your definition of sacred is in this context. The idea of sex being of value only if it's sacred has been the cause of much sexual repression in many societies.

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'm going to disagree that kindness, tenderness, warmth, and love are necessary requirements for two people to have healthy sexual relations. They are probably good requirements for a healthy relationship, but that's not the same thing. Sex is certainly a wonderful component of a healthy loving romantic relationship, and in this context, those elements are probably good things to have in the foundation of it. However, I've known plenty of people who have healthy sexual relations without all of that. Particularly within a BDSM context.

While it may be necessary for you to have kindness, tenderness, warmth and love for your own sexual relations to be healthy for you, it doesn't mean that those are objective requirements for healthy sexual relations in general. I realize that you did qualify those statements with "for me", but I do find it important to clarify that it doesn't inherently make one way of relating more valuable than other way objectively.

However, one common element that I've certainly seen is respect, both for one's self and for one's partner. Using the word honor can certainly also mean the same thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Ah ok, good point. Yes I have seen that done too.

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.
Again, an excellent point.

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.
...
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.
OK, so it's a combination of a general ethical standard with personal preferences that comes up with a totality of whether someone believes that something is sex-positive or not. I think that makes eminent sense.

Since the personal preference part is probably going to be just people comparing their views, would it be possible to focus on more examples of the general objective ethical standard?
 
For me it would seriously depend on what your definition of sacred is in this context. The idea of sex being of value only if it's sacred has been the cause of much sexual repression in many societies.

I understand! I'm using the term "sacred" in a sense quite removed from religious authority or docrine. In this context, "sacred" means worthy of a reverential attitude.

reverence - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reverence

====

I'm not religious at all in any conventional sense -- though one of my friends says I'm the most "religious" person he knows. He said that after I insisted that I'm not religious. But he was refering to religion as "respect for what is sacred," rather than "reverence for the gods". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=religion&searchmode=none

I have no reverence for gods, because I'm a non-theist. As a non-theist (and a naturalistic mystic--if you can wrap your brain around that phrase!), I remain acutely sensitive to the sacred -- but without relying on external authority/ -ies to sanction, explain or define the sacred or that which is sacred.

That which is sacred is nakedly apparent to those who will open their hearts to others and to being / existence / the world.... No authority is required, or helpful!

I'm going to disagree that kindness, tenderness, warmth, and love are necessary requirements for two people to have healthy sexual relations. They are probably good requirements for a healthy relationship, but that's not the same thing. Sex is certainly a wonderful component of a healthy loving romantic relationship, and in this context, those elements are probably good things to have in the foundation of it. However, I've known plenty of people who have healthy sexual relations without all of that. Particularly within a BDSM context.

While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

While it may be necessary for you to have kindness, tenderness, warmth and love for your own sexual relations to be healthy for you, it doesn't mean that those are objective requirements for healthy sexual relations in general. I realize that you did qualify those statements with "for me", but I do find it important to clarify that it doesn't inherently make one way of relating more valuable than other way objectively.

However, one common element that I've certainly seen is respect, both for one's self and for one's partner. Using the word honor can certainly also mean the same thing.

Well, people can give and receive pleasure by means we call "sexual," but I'm now supposing that what I'm talking about isn't really merely "sex," since people could have sex strictly for the purpose of procreation -- and have no feeling for one another whatsoever; it could be quite cold and clinical -- a sort of medical procedure.

I suppose I'm talking about what some folks call "love-making" -- or the "arts of love". And I'm saying that in the "arts of love" there are hits and misses, and misses that are so far off that they don't even properly belong to the field.

My intent isn't one of moralizing. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks casual sex fucking is remotely similar to making love is fooling him- or herself. Profoundly. These are not even as close as apples and oranges -- which are both varieties of fruit, after all!

And I think that "sex" (as it is called) without heart engagement is perverse, pathological and pathogenic. Something is perverse if it is "1 a : turned away from what is right or good" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Perverse] But my concern isn't with whether or not it is "right" (a moral judgement) as with whether it is good. Something is good if it is productive of well-being. If it counters or obstructs or hinders well-being, it isn't good. This isn't a moral judgement; it is a matter of favoring that which produces health and well-being.

I could go on at length as to why I say what I do, but this is a post in a conversation, not a book-length essay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My intent isn't one of moralizing. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks casual sex fucking is remotely similar to making love is fooling him- or herself. Profoundly. These are not even as close as apples and oranges -- which are both varieties of fruit, after all!

No argument from me on this point. The sex I have with someone I open up to and trust is on a completely different plain than the sex I experienced with people I simply fucked out of impulsive desire or a "need" to get off.

Neither is more righteous in my mind but certainly there is no comparison between the two.
 
That which is sacred is nakedly apparent to those who will open their hearts to others and to being / existence / the world.... No authority is required, or helpful!

I find that which is sacred to be pretty subjective to the value system of the person experiencing it. Which is why I don't find the concept useful in assigning objective value to sexual relationships. When I say objective value, I mean holding a relationship that is "sacred" as more legitimate or more valuable than one that may have a bond that isn't considered "sacred".

That is not to say that such values can't be applied subjectively, but I find it important to put that distinction in there.
 
While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

It is very much about power dynamics. I don't think the sex part of that is about that. It is more of a result of that power dynamic...re-connecting afterward in a loving, gentle, bonded way. I suppose it could be involved but I am not so sure how healthy that would be. I would think it would be very close to the abuse of power and therefore not good BDSM practice.
 
While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

I'm going to have to disagree here. How is BDSM unhealthy and what evidence shows this? Like any form of sexual expression it can be applied unhealthily, but the evidence suggests that engaging in BDSM is not necessarily a way to move towards wholesome or healthy sex, but is a wholesome and healthy sexual expression in and of itself.


Well, people can give and receive pleasure by means we call "sexual," but I'm now supposing that what I'm talking about isn't really merely "sex," since people could have sex strictly for the purpose of procreation -- and have no feeling for one another whatsoever; it could be quite cold and clinical -- a sort of medical procedure.

I'm really not sure where this comes into play, since nobody was talking about sex without feeling or being cold and clinical. However, it is entirely possible to give and receive pleasure with another human being and experience a sexual connection with them without having to attach additional qualifiers such as being "sacred" or having to be "tender", etc. These are not cold and clinical, but fun, friendly and healthy sexual relations.

I suppose I'm talking about what some folks call "love-making" -- or the "arts of love". And I'm saying that in the "arts of love" there are hits and misses, and misses that are so far off that they don't even properly belong to the field.

My intent isn't one of moralizing. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks casual sex fucking is remotely similar to making love is fooling him- or herself. Profoundly. These are not even as close as apples and oranges -- which are both varieties of fruit, after all!

It's fair enough to make a distinction between sex and love making, however to consider one a superior and more legitimate way to sexually express one's self does have the effect of moralizing, even if the intent isn't there.



And I think that "sex" (as it is called) without heart engagement is perverse, pathological and pathogenic. Something is perverse if it is "1 a : turned away from what is right or good" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Perverse] But my concern isn't with whether or not it is "right" (a moral judgement) as with whether it is good. Something is good if it is productive of well-being. If it counters or obstructs or hinders well-being, it isn't good. This isn't a moral judgement; it is a matter of favoring that which produces health and well-being.

Again, I have to wonder if you're applying your own value system to what you consider to be "good" or "healthy" for people in general. I'm not sure what you mean by sex without heart engagement. But I have known people to have sex in a variety of ways that I suspect don't fall into your category of "good" and being "productive to well being". I can't say I've seen it produce the effect you're claiming it does.
 
Again, I have to wonder if you're applying your own value system to what you consider to be "good" or "healthy" for people in general. I'm not sure what you mean by sex without heart engagement. But I have known people to have sex in a variety of ways that I suspect don't fall into your category of "good" and being "productive to well being". I can't say I've seen it produce the effect you're claiming it does.

It seems to me that River is applying his own value system to this whole thing. What we are talking about is value systems no? I find it interesting that others have differing ones to me. I agree that sex that is fun and playful can also be "good." They are apples and oranges though and I get River's point. I didn't have the same reaction as you did Ceoli in terms of his thinking one is superior to the other just that for him it is. Fair enough, it is for a lot of people and that is just fine... the topic for me is what of that is sex positive or sex negative?
 
Ceoli,

I understand the usefulness of terms like "subjective" and "objective" in such discussions as the one we're engaging in, but I'd like to draw out for questioning, for inquiry -- and not necessarily an inquiry seeking verbal-conceptual 'answers' -- whether some violence may be done to that which is simply valuable regardless of the conceptual trellis we're attaching it to, when we insist that something we value must be either a merely personal choice ("subjective) or a universal fact ("objective").

Is it really right to say that that which is sacred is merely a matter of personal choice or conviction, is merely "subjective"? Must, alternatively, any sacred thing be found by some ostensibly "objective" procedure to be such?

If anything is sacred, which is to say if anything is worthy of reverence, the value of a person, of a life form, of a biotic community, of the biosphere itself -- Earth and its many life forms must be held so. <--- Now can we read that without projecting authority into it? Can we see this as "a finger pointing at the moon"? Is it possible to read or hear these words and not hear a proclamation of moral obligation or duty?

If life itself is not sacred, can anything at all be sacred? And if nothing at all is worthy of universal reverence--beyond the claims of authority or the games of logicians and epistemologists--does anything have any value at all? And if nothing has any value at all, aside from personal preferences and "subjective" views, -- how completely insane is that? Isn't that madness?! Who could dare to utter: "Life is NOT sacred, is not worthy of reverence?" and not be thought mad by sane people?

If life itself is sacred, then it would follow that that which nourishes it into flourishing is good, and that which inhibits such flourishing is bad. Pretending that we don't know that leaving the heart (not the pump) out of sex has a (metaphorically) toxic effect on people is a strange kind of ignor- ance.

Maybe one day we will evolve an "objective" science of the obvious?

Screw the madness of argument, here. Look deep. I'm not providing an argument because such philosphical arguments tend to traverse the periphery of the heart and never evoke any depth of insight. I wasted years discussing this with philosophers. Well, it was not a complete waste of my time. I learned the limits of the conceptual mind.

When a kiss is not a kiss, it is a poison. Every clear-eyed lover knows this.

But that sounds like poetry, not science or epistemology!

Poetry forced to play games of authority is sick religion.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."

Silence!
 
It seems to me that River is applying his own value system to this whole thing. What we are talking about is value systems no? I find it interesting that others have differing ones to me. I agree that sex that is fun and playful can also be "good." They are apples and oranges though and I get River's point. I didn't have the same reaction as you did Ceoli in terms of his thinking one is superior to the other just that for him it is. Fair enough, it is for a lot of people and that is just fine... the topic for me is what of that is sex positive or sex negative?

I agree that we're talking about different value systems. River said this in his post:

While I think that some people can engage in BDSM in such a way as to move from an unhealthy state to a healthy one, I don't see BDSM as an expression of wholesome or healthy sex, per se. I'm not opposed to BDSM. I'm sure it's good for some people, perhaps even necessary, as part of a path to health. BDSM is, at its best, an experiential exploration of power dynamics in a sexual context. Healthy sexuality is, in part, a transcendence of these power plays.

This quote suggests to me that River is saying that BDSM is not in and of itself a healthy thing. It didn't seem to me that this was something personal to him but a general statement that applies to anyone who participates in BDSM play, which is why I addressed it in my reply.
 
Last edited:
This quote suggests to me that River is saying that BDSM is not in an of itself a healthy thing. It didn't seem to me that this was something personal to him but a general statement that applies to anyone who participates in BDSM play, which is why I addressed it in my reply.

Fair enough, I can see how he could be judging in those statements. River? I don't know, having experimented with lots of dynamics I find that it all has a place in my over all experience of myself. I can see how River you would feel very passionate about your beliefs, especially considering how fucked up people can get within themselves when they don't have enough connection to themselves or respect for themselves when engaging in casual sex. It is a fine line I think. It was for me...
 
There is something terribly, terribly blinding about conceiving of value, of good, as something that can only be a subjectively held view, a mere opinion.

Equally blinding is the premise that if value isn't subjective, it must be objective.

Intersubjectivity sounds like something with as much weight as "I and all of my friends agree that...".

I'm accutely aware that endless wars and ecocidal mania are possible because we are blinded to the raw simplicity of the presence of the sacred. To say that "that which is sacred is your own opinion," or to regard all consideration of sacredness as belonging to the millennia of religious mania and superstition ... is blind.

....

A kiss that is not a kiss is poison because it is a lie. It is a falsehood in the face of the sacred opportunity of a kiss.

This sounds like mere opinion only to one who has never been kissed and given a kiss at the very same moment.

The one who pretends to kiss engages in a kind of black magic, stealing the truth of the kiss from himself / herself, the other.

Who has not been temporarily broken in the heart to find that one has been fed many anti-kisses in the guise of kisses?!

I've had it done to me, and I know what I'm talking about. What happened was not just my opinion. I was robbed!

If a woman's purse is stolen, that's an objective fact, no? Not just her opinion?
 
Is it really right to say that that which is sacred is merely a matter of personal choice or conviction, is merely "subjective"? Must, alternatively, any sacred thing be found by some ostensibly "objective" procedure to be such?

I'm making no claims to whether it's right or not. Just stating the fact that different people hold very different things a sacred. You may think it's obvious as to what should be held sacred, but there are other people who consider it just as obvious that their very different things are sacred.

If anything is sacred, which is to say if anything is worthy of reverence, the value of a person, of a life form, of a biotic community, of the biosphere itself -- Earth and its many life forms must be held so. <--- Now can we read that without projecting authority into it? Can we see this as "a finger pointing at the moon"? Is it possible to read or hear these words and not hear a proclamation of moral obligation or duty?

If life itself is not sacred, can anything at all be sacred? And if nothing at all is worthy of universal reverence--beyond the claims of authority or the games of logicians and epistemologists--does anything have any value at all? And if nothing has any value at all, aside from personal preferences and "subjective" views, -- how completely insane is that? Isn't that madness?! Who could dare to utter: "Life is NOT sacred, is not worthy of reverence?" and not be thought mad by sane people?

If life itself is sacred, then it would follow that that which nourishes it into flourishing is good, and that which inhibits such flourishing is bad. Pretending that we don't know that leaving the heart (not the pump) out of sex has a (metaphorically) toxic effect on people is a strange kind of ignor- ance.

None of this really has to do with the topic we're discussing.



Screw the madness of argument, here. Look deep. I'm not providing an argument because such philosphical arguments tend to traverse the periphery of the heart and never evoke any depth of insight. I wasted years discussing this with philosophers. Well, it was not a complete waste of my time. I learned the limits of the conceptual mind.

When people are saying things that spread ideals that can potentially hurt others (in this case the ideals that certain things are not good if they fall outside of your definition of "sacred" and "healthy") then I consider it core to my beliefs and values to discuss it.

There is something terribly, terribly blinding about conceiving of value, of good, as something that can only be a subjectively held view, a mere opinion.

Equally blinding is the premise that if value isn't subjective, it must be objective.

I've never said that it must always be one or the other. However in the case of declaring practices to be unhealthy, that is certainly applying an objective value and therefore it's completely reasonable to put that up to debate.


Intersubjectivity sounds like something with as much weight as "I and all of my friends agree that...".

I'm accutely aware that endless wars and ecocidal mania are possible because we are blinded to the raw simplicity of the presence of the sacred. To say that "that which is sacred is your own opinion," or to regard all consideration of sacredness as belonging to the millennia of religious mania and superstition ... is blind.

Oftentimes such conflicts spring from groups of people clinging to the idea that what they hold sacred must be true for everyone.

You seem to assume that I'm blind to what is sacred. Believe it or not, I'm very intentional about my spirituality and my views on sex positivity and even BDSM fall right in line with what I hold sacred.


A kiss that is not a kiss is poison because it is a lie. It is a falsehood in the face of the sacred opportunity of a kiss.

This sounds like mere opinion only to one who has never been kissed and given a kiss at the very same moment.

The one who pretends to kiss engages in a kind of black magic, stealing the truth of the kiss from himself / herself, the other.

Who has not been temporarily broken in the heart to find that one has been fed many anti-kisses in the guise of kisses?!

I've had it done to me, and I know what I'm talking about. What happened was not just my opinion. I was robbed!

If a woman's purse is stolen, that's an objective fact, no? Not just her opinion?

Can you please explain how this analogy applies?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When people are saying things that spread ideals that can potentially hurt others (in this case the ideals that certain things are not good if they fall outside of your definition of "sacred" and "healthy" then I consider it core to my beliefs and values to discuss it.

I respect that. Truly I do.

All I can say is that there are a lot of people doing great harm to one another, but they are ignorant of this harm. And there's no way, so far as I can see, to convey in words precisely what this harm is. It is'nt something that, so far as I can tell, can be explained. If arguments can be provided, they can be rendered null in counterarguments, along with the views put forth in those counter-arguments.

I could say that much recreational BDSM sex--or closed-hearted sex with strangers in one night stands--generally obscures the potential for loving sex which transcends power-play dynamics, and this obscuration is a kind of harm, rather than an enhancement of life.

Sombody could say, "Prove it".

A drawn out conversation swirls around it for months or years, but neither party proves anything. There is no body of statistical data, no science of love, of the heart. Biology isn't enough. Measurements cannot be taken.

So all I'm saying is, Beware! Be Aware! Pay attention. Look closely!

For the laboratory is in the center of your own chest, is in the core -- is the core -- of your own most sensitive awareness.

I never said we all have our lights on in that "laboratory". I never meant "laboratory" to be other than a metaphor.

Perhaps one day we will have a science of human love. In the meanwhile, we're going to be running around in these kinds of circles.
 
So all I'm saying is, Beware! Be Aware! Pay attention. Look closely!

For the laboratory is in the center of your own chest, is in the core -- is the core -- of your own most sensitive awareness.

I never said we all have our lights on in that "laboratory". I never meant "laboratory" to be other than a metaphor.

Perhaps one day we will have a science of human love. In the meanwhile, we're going to be running around in these kinds of circles.

This seems to assume that those who see things differently than you do just haven't been paying enough attention or are not in touch with their heart centers, etc.

I'm going to disagree on that.
 
So you think I think I'm superior to all of you mere humans, huh?
 
So you think I think I'm superior to all of you mere humans, huh?

Nope. I'm just going by what you're saying in your posts. When you tell others to "Be aware, pay attention, and look closely" it suggests that you think that perhaps their viewpoint is a product of not "being aware, paying attention or looking closely".

I would suggest that is not the case.
 
Well, I don't subscribe to the theory or doctrine that all ways of relating are equally good, valid, healthy, etc.

And since apparently I'm now a bad guy because of it, with Mono apparently calling me arrogant because of it, I think I'll just take an extended break from this polyamory.com . It isn't feeling good for me just now.
 
Back
Top