Sex positive in the 21st century.

Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2018 07:17 pm
My working definition of being "sex positive" is this.

To view sexuality as a normal, healthy part of being human including the desire for sex and the pursuit of sex. I would include acceptance of sex in culture, literature and entertainment. It means accepting sexuality in social interactions, flirting dating and humor.

Society gives very mixed messages. Some sexual identities are being accepted, others are being degraded. There is both a message of sexual freedom, as well as the idea that exercising this freedom is a form of oppression. And, there is uncertainty... no one really understands the social norms for flirting or dating.

There is a clear need for social change, particularly in addressing abuse of power in the workplace. But this has been generalized into a broad generalization of sexual behaviors into a narrative of "rape culture" even though most of these have nothing to do with an imbalance of power or workplace abuse.

So I want to ask the questions directly... these are all assume that sex should be consensual and enjoyable by all involved;

- Can we have a positive view of sexuality outside of a narrow range of socially acceptable relationships with rigid constraints?

- Can we accept a large range of sexual expression including traditional roles?

- If we were going to set cultural norms of sexuality that would allow for both freedom and a sense of security, what would they be?

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 812 • Replies: 3
No top replies

Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2018 03:01 am
In my opinion, the only social norm worth enforcing is that every participant be old enough and mentally competent enough to consent, and actually consenting. Othther than that, I would play no part in helping enforce, or accepting for myself, any restrictions as to who, with whom, with how many, and in what manner people can have sex. That's the participants' business, not mine.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2018 10:11 am
One classic problem with 'sex positive attitudes,' among others, is that there are 'prudes' who are withheld love and relationships because they are not viewed as 'sex positive' (enough) by their partners.

Imagine being a pro-life person, or having religious values, or just being uncomfortable with sex at some level and then being passed over, rejected, and dumped by all the young eligible dating partners who expect sex and sex-positivity as a condition for being happy in a partnership.

Do you think it is really good to put this kind of pressure on people to be sex-positive in order to get love? How is it different than the traditional (heterosexual) situation in which boys would pressure girls to go as far as possible on dates, with girls resisting as best they could?

0 Replies
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2019 01:07 pm
Easy answer:
Choose your own literature, entertainment and art. Then restore everything sexual-based starting from the 60's up until 2010 and keep it there. Sex was ******* bomb back then! Nothing should be restored after '10. Nothing!

Then bring back all the Bush Era internet sex sites along with motherless before they sold out. Bring back all the other sites too. I miss some of them. And legalize 15 as the age of consent. Teen girls were outta control back then so this adds protection on all sides.

That was super easy. Just restore all the good **** before the PC police ruined everything. This makes acceptance way easier because there would be something for everyone based on what they're into.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Coming Out - Question by gollum
Avoiding Heteronormativity - Discussion by sozobe
I'm 31 and bad at sex - Question by BadAtSex
Could I be Bisexual? - Question by vitiker
Questioning My Sexuality - Question by mixiekat74
My sexuality - Question by sammy1999
  1. Forums
  2. » Sex positive in the 21st century.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 12:28:03