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?
Tags: antisex, antisexual, antisexualism, sex, sex-negative, sex-negativity, sex-positive, sex-positivity, sexual, sexual attitudes, More…sexuality
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
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 Started by G in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 12 minutes ago. 362 Replies 0 Likes
Posted by Rob Klaers on June 17, 2013 at 2:00am 4 Comments 2 Likes
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
