Why be sex-positive?

Can you explain why people assume that it's good to be sex-positive? Why be sex-positive instead of sex-skeptical and/or sex-ambivalent? Isn't sex-positivity a form of primitivism and bio-Luddism? What experimental-psychological evidence do sex-positives have to back their claims, if any? And if sex-positivity is not OK, then why is it that a majority of atheists are sex-positive? Or are they not?

Views: 1271

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by TheMostAthy on June 2, 2012 at 6:12pm

Can we get a translation team in here, please?

Permalink Reply by prude on June 2, 2012 at 10:28pm

sex-positive = that has a positive attitude towards sexuality
sex-negative = that has a negative attitude towards sexuality
sex-ambivalent = that has a mixed (both positive and negative) attitude towards sexuality
antisexual = that is against sex or sexuality, in whole or in part
primitivistic = that glorifies the past and/or old things (e.g., thinks that natural things are always good)
bio-Luddite = someone who is against some or all biotechnologies; in this case that would be assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and potential future technologies that might convert people to asexual, and maybe Androcur

Permalink Reply by prude on June 2, 2012 at 10:45pm


sex-skeptical = that demands evidence for claims about sexuality; that is skeptical about both sex-positive and sex-negative claims

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on June 2, 2012 at 7:29pm

Does that mean I'm positive that sex exists, or that I view sex in a positive light, or that sex has a positive charge, or ...

Permalink Reply by prude on June 2, 2012 at 7:35pm
"sex-positive" = that you view sex in a positive light
Permalink Reply by prude on June 2, 2012 at 7:36pm
@AbuMaia: What part needs translation?
Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on June 2, 2012 at 8:05pm

Sex is how we keep the species from going extinct, personally I think that's a positive thing!

Permalink Reply by prude on June 2, 2012 at 10:19pm

If assisted reproductive technologies (ART) were cheaper than conception via sex, would you still think sex is positive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology

Permalink Reply by Unseen on June 2, 2012 at 11:42pm

But conception doesn't cost anything, unless a couple has a hard time conceiving and ends up resorting to some procedure like in vitro.

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on June 3, 2012 at 7:39pm

I'm curious as to which ARTs are even close to being cheaper than conception via sex?

Permalink Reply by Tom Holm on June 3, 2012 at 12:18am
Sometimes its not just the conception that makes sex positive...
Permalink Reply by Unseen on June 2, 2012 at 11:35pm

Are you talking about sex in the most broad sense, from baby-making to casual sex to complete and total promiscuity, or do you want to limit the scope to sex somewhere on that continuum?

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service