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?
Can we get a translation team in here, please?
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
sex-skeptical = that demands evidence for claims about sexuality; that is skeptical about both sex-positive and sex-negative claims
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 ...
Sex is how we keep the species from going extinct, personally I think that's a positive thing!
If assisted reproductive technologies (ART) were cheaper than conception via sex, would you still think sex is positive?
But conception doesn't cost anything, unless a couple has a hard time conceiving and ends up resorting to some procedure like in vitro.
I'm curious as to which ARTs are even close to being cheaper than conception via sex?
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?