anchiton oladabas

neutered:

[snip]

the only time i’ve ever seen it used to shame people is when those people are explicitly or implicitly making moral judgments about people who DO have sex though. things like saying “i have self respect thank you” when talking about nude photos, which is problematic behavior. i have heard of people who use the concept of sex positivity to, say, shame people into having sex with them, but not only is that not actual sex positivity but they are quickly marked as abusers and shunned. just because a minority appropriates a label or language in order to shame or abuse people does not mean that label or language is the problem… otherwise, kink positivity would be inherently bad just because some people use it to defend creepy chaser behavior that trans* people get, feminism would be inherently bad because some people use it to shame people who choose to be stay-at-home moms, and anti-racism would be inherently bad just because some people try to use it to argue in favor of their own sexist attitudes.

the phrase does not mean “my personal view about sex is positive,” which is how you seem to be interpreting it, but rather “i am in favor of people doing what they want with themselves”

and there is a reason the movement has the name it does!

sex positivity as a movement was originally created as a subset of feminist ideology in order to combat the way women are shamed and ostracized for daring to express or talk about their own sexuality. the “positive” was meant as “hey women are allowed to be sexual if they want! stop telling them otherwise! i support their ability to do that!” since there are a variety of fucked-up ways in which people police others’ sexuality and sexual behavior, the movement has grown to encompass the idea that all sex policing is wrong, this expansion starting with fighting the idea that a woman is “frigid” for refusing to have sex with people who feel entitled to it.

does this mean the name might need tweaking? possibly, especially if enough people read it as an implication that there should be an obligation to be sexually available and willing. but that’s not what it is implying, and it’s not a reference to “you should be fine with having sex.” it’s a way of naming the idea that being negative towards other people for what they personally do is wrong. you can have a negative or neutral opinion on sex itself while still being sex positive, because it’s positivity in the sense of not judging other people.

…but “positivity” doesn’t mean not judging other people. That would be nonjudgmentalism or something similar. “Positivity” in this context pretty much only means “thinking something is good”. (As opposed to, say, negative vs. positive space, when you’re talking about something existing vs. not existing. But I don’t think there’s an argument over whether or not sex exists.) 

And anyway, this is a case where I think the problem is bigger than just what words are used. Sex positivism might not be “supposed to be” a flippant, “Everybody fucks, get used to it” attitude, it might not be “supposed to” dismiss and exclude people who don’t/can’t have sex, it might not be “supposed to” discourage those of us who don’t/can’t have sex from talking openly about our (yes, often non-positive) feelings about sex, but that is what it does. If what you describe is the right way to do it, that is not something I have ever seen in action. I have never seen sex positivity address asexuality in anything more than a tokenizing way and it’s certainly not something that makes me feel safe or good as an asexual. Maybe you do do it right, but I don’t know you. 

(Source: sidneyia)