What is wrong with being "sex-negative"?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am writing in the United States of America. I am writing in a country with a political tradition that respects different ideologies, respects people for their viewpoints, and allows the invisible hand to work in a free market of ideas. In other words, most people do not believe that there is anything wrong with, say, being a conservative. Some people being conservatives is how the system works, and most people respect and appreciate that.

But it seems that a significant number of people have no tolerance for, let alone respect for, those who are sex-negative.

Sex-negativism is at worst an ideology of human sexuality.

Subscribe to conservatism and people will simply disagree with your ideas. Subscribe to sex-negativism and people treat it like it is a personal flaw/defect and will attack you personally. Why?

 

[Inkfingers]

But it seems that a significant number of people have no tolerance for, let alone respect for, those who are sex-negative.

Sex-negativism is at worst an ideology of human sexuality.

Subscribe to conservatism and people will simply disagree with your ideas. Subscribe to sex-negativism and people treat it like it is a personal flaw/defect and will attack you personally. Why?

I have literally never heard the term until you just used it here (at which point I googled it and apparently the wiki article on it has been around for 5 years ).

It sounds like a jargonised version of calling someone "puritanical", or a neutral alternative to "prude", but to be honest it sounds just plain old naff.

As for why such values are attacked? I'd say it is pretty simple; we live in a thoroughly carnal society, so people who object to that are unpopular.

Why is it singled out from Conservatism? Perhaps because "conservatism" has become an abused term that is used to cover all manner of things that are not remotely conservative in the actual meaning of the word.

 

[quatona]

I am writing in the United States of America. I am writing in a country with a political tradition that respects different ideologies, respects people for their viewpoints, and allows the invisible hand to work in a free market of ideas. In other words, most people do not believe that there is anything wrong with, say, being a conservative. Some people being conservatives is how the system works, and most people respect and appreciate that.

But it seems that a significant number of people have no tolerance for, let alone respect for, those who are sex-negative.

Sex-negativism is at worst an ideology of human sexuality.

Subscribe to conservatism and people will simply disagree with your ideas. Subscribe to sex-negativism and people treat it like it is a personal flaw/defect and will attack you personally. Why?

You should ask those people to whom you have introduced your "sex-negative" ideology and who attacked you personally for it.

Or you should present your "sex-negative" ideology here, and give us all a chance to see what happens - as a basis for an analysis of the way you and your respondents communicate.

 

[Dave-W]

I also was not familiar with the term, but recognized it immediatly. It is not new. In the church it goes back to the early church fathers who taught that God hated sex in any form, and that the holy sprit had to leave the house when a married couple did the deed. So we have about 1900 years of that teaching in the church.

Being so against that now is an over-reaction to that history.

As to the church - it should NEVER be sex negative, since the bible is sex-positive. The biblical message is to get married and have sex - lots of sex. It is COMMANDED in both testaments.

 

[Inkfingers]

I also was not familiar with the term, but recognized it immediatly. It is not new. In the church it goes back to the early church fathers who taught that God hated sex in any form, and that the holy sprit had to leave the house when a married couple did the deed. So we have about 1900 years of that teaching in the church.

Being so against that now is an over-reaction to that history.

As to the church - it should NEVER be sex negative, since the bible is sex-positive. The biblical message is to get married and have sex - lots of sex. It is COMMANDED in both testaments.

I wasn't aware that it is means being negative about ALL sex? Is that the case?

 

[Cute Tink]

Subscribe to conservatism and people will simply disagree with your ideas. Subscribe to sex-negativism and people treat it like it is a personal flaw/defect and will attack you personally. Why?

I had to google the term to find out exactly what it means.

I would hazard a guess that some people feel threatened by the concept and react accordingly. There are those who cannot seem to tolerate the existence of certain concepts, beliefs or behaviors and lash out when they see them presented.

This assumes that it is not being presented as an advocated mandate on others, in which case I could understand much more why someone would react harshly to the idea.

To be fair, lots of people treat conservatives/liberals as automatically having a personal flaw/defect and will attack personally.

 

[Gottservant]

Sex-negativity is opposition to one or more aspects of human sexual behaviour on social or religious ground. Its opposite is sex-positivity.

To those who are sex-negative, also known as antisexualists, or derogatorily as "prudes", "Puritanical", or "Victorian", sex is often seen as something too sacred to allow the casual or irreverent exercise of it.

Some proponents of sex-negativity claim that under the Western, Christian tradition, sex is seen as a destructive force except when it is redeemed by the saving grace of procreation, and sexual pleasure is seen as sinful. Sexual acts are ranked hierarchically, with procreative marital heterosexuality at the top of the hierarchy and masturbation, homosexuality and other sexualities that deviate from societal norms closer to the bottom. Medicine and psychiatry, as well as an argued degradation of culture, are said to have also contributed to sex-negativity, as they may, from time to time, designate some forms of sexuality that appear on the bottom of this hierarchy as being pathological (see Mental illness).[1]

The problem is sex-negativity is without doubt a self-reflexively prudish way of saying "I want you to think about sex, but my own intentions will remain ambiguous" since no one can actually not think of something sexually related at the very least if sex is mentioned.

The broader issue of where the boundary lays however, is more freely defined in relation to the individuals understanding of it as an extension of the will of God for them, not that it supplants God (which is probably the intended object of sex-negativism) but that God without some sort of sexual experience receives less glory overall (and so permits it)

In relation to why people hate something (whether it be puritanism or something else) the answer varies according to the kind of person you are dealing with, if you want the answer love would give, but more generally (at least more often than not) it is because in order to do things not in the will of God or apart from it, there is a necessity that the person not only have what they want to do worked out in their head (that they may do it), but also not have that working out interrupted or toyed with (that they may do it without conscience or obligation).

The reality is the correct balance of social liberty with radical ideas, is defined by the expression given to those ideas and that liberty (with a priority for maintaining as much diversity as circumstances genuinely allow)

 

[pittsflyer]

If its what I think it means (prude) its because prudes make thinly veiled attempts at bashing people with high sex drives. You see this thinly veiled condesention alot in chruch or even flat out flagrant condesention. Its mostly becuase alot of high sex drive people are doing so without a "marraige licence" because everyone knows its a liabiltiy but "sex-negitive" people want high barriers to entry for sex and even then they simply tolerate it.

I have no room in my life for such people. If someone simply dislikes sex but I can relate to them on a different level I can be great friends with them.

 

[keith99]

I wasn't aware that it is means being negative about ALL sex? Is that the case?

I would say YES. That is pretty much the point of the term. It is pointing out that at least SOME of those who want to limit sex to marriage really want to eliminate sex entirely or limit it as much as possible.

A FAR different thing from those who think sex is good, but powerful, and best enjoyed in a safe context.

 

[keith99]

I also was not familiar with the term, but recognized it immediatly. It is not new. In the church it goes back to the early church fathers who taught that God hated sex in any form, and that the holy sprit had to leave the house when a married couple did the deed. So we have about 1900 years of that teaching in the church.

Being so against that now is an over-reaction to that history.

As to the church - it should NEVER be sex negative, since the bible is sex-positive. The biblical message is to get married and have sex - lots of sex. It is COMMANDED in both testaments.

An interesting side note. One aspect of sex negative attitudes is the limiting of sex to one often very specific position. And of course we all think of 'the missionary position' when that is brought up. It seems that was not always the 'allowed' position. At one time it was thought of very poorly because it might actually engender affection between husband and wife. The 'stallion and mare', was the preferred because it entailed less risk in that area.

Another side note. Look up the Shakers. All that remains of them is nice furniture. Pretty good craftsmen, but very sex negative. But dancing was OK!

 

[Paradoxum]

Subscribe to conservatism and people will simply disagree with your ideas. Subscribe to sex-negativism and people treat it like it is a personal flaw/defect and will attack you personally. Why?

What does sex-negative mean?

I consider (political) conservatives to be oppressive, so I suppose that wouldn't come under mere disagreement?

If sex-negative means not wanting sex, then I don't care. If it's advocating it for others, then I'd say it seems repressive.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

If its what I think it means (prude)...

No.

It is the opposite of sex-positivism. It is not subscribing to "as long as it is between consenting adults it is good".

So if you oppose the legalization of prostitution, you are sex-negative.

If you oppose the pornography industry in any way, you are sex-negative.

If you think that sexual promiscuity is unhealthy, you are sex-negative.

 

[quatona]

No.

It is the opposite of sex-positivism. It is not subscribing to "as long as it is between consenting adults it is good".

So if you oppose the legalization of prostitution, you are sex-negative.

If you oppose the pornography industry in any way, you are sex-negative.

If you think that sexual promiscuity is unhealthy, you are sex-negative.

I don´t find it surprising that people get a little sensitive when you tell them how to lead their lives or want to prohibit their business.

 

[Dave-W]

It is the opposite of sex-positivism. It is not subscribing to "as long as it is between consenting adults it is good".
So if you oppose the legalization of prostitution, you are sex-negative.
If you oppose the pornography industry in any way, you are sex-negative.
If you think that sexual promiscuity is unhealthy, you are sex-negative.

OK - so how do they differentiate this from the rising promotion of "asexualiy" who are trying to preach a gospel of no sex at all for anyone?

To be fair, it is a vocal minority of those who consider themselves asexual who activly promote this life style.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I am writing in the United States of America. I am writing in a country with a political tradition that respects different ideologies, respects people for their viewpoints, and allows the invisible hand to work in a free market of ideas. In other words, most people do not believe that there is anything wrong with, say, being a conservative. Some people being conservatives is how the system works, and most people respect and appreciate that.

But it seems that a significant number of people have no tolerance for, let alone respect for, those who are sex-negative.

Sex-negativism is at worst an ideology of human sexuality.

Subscribe to conservatism and people will simply disagree with your ideas. Subscribe to sex-negativism and people treat it like it is a personal flaw/defect and will attack you personally. Why?

If it's a personally held conviction of yours that you do not proselytize or otherwise try to impose upon others, than it should be respected as such. People are at liberty to criticize the ideology of it as much as they are any other, but that's not the same as a personal ridicule of you. If you're trying to promote what you perceive to be the virtues of "sex negativity" and you have an attitude of condemnation towards those who feel that sex is a positive, then it's more understandable you'd get flak. I think there is a broad, healthy spectrum between rigid sexual repression and sexual hedonism. I don't know what that term sexual negativity actually means. It makes me think of the Junior Anti-Sex League in 1984, but maybe what you mean is closer to Puritanism? I'm assuming you're not meaning asexuality since that's not really a lifestyle choice or religious creed.

Sex is a primal part of our existence. The desire for it is innate. It has profound psychological as well as physical benefits, if it's within a healthy context. It can be one of the most beautiful and positives experiences of life. I feel like you'd be living in a world of black and white with no promise of the vibrancy of color if you never experienced it. The Puritans were sexual beings as much as all their ancestors and people today are. Their desire to repress their sexuality didn't actually repress the natural sexual desires they still felt. All it did was make them more secretive and to mentally self-flaggellate and flood themselves with shame for having "perverse" urges. Christians have used the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" in regards to disciplining children assuming it was directly from the Proverbs verse. It became a a popularized expression by a mock heroic narrative poem titled Hudibras by Samuel Butler that was directed against the militant Puritanism. "In the context of Hudibras the phrase is a bawdy metaphor suggesting the best way to curtail amorous passions or, through double entendre, to prevent conception:

If matrimony and hanging go
By dest'ny, why not whipping too?
What med'cine else can cure the fits
Of lovers when they lose their wits?
Love is a boy by poets stil'd
Then spare the rod and spoil the child (Part II, Canto I, ll. 839-44)."

Hudribas was extremely popular at the time it was published and bootlegged around. I think it was kinda like the Puritan's version of 50 Shades of Grey.

I also feel like the censorious Puritanical attitudes regarding sexual morality places excessive emphasis on chastity as supreme above other virtues. I'm not stating that it doesn't have legitimate value but history and literature are filled with innumerable incidences where it took undue precedence over love, kindness, compassion, forgiveness, honor, and basic decency and humanity. I think it's understandable that society is less tolerant of it considering the centuries worth of detriment extremist attitudes towards sexuality and sexual morality have inflicted. I'm not trying to imply that you, personally, on an individual level are having any harm. I do see the reason for why as a whole society would be in opposition. I think they don't want to feel apologetic, ashamed, embarrassed, defensive, or the like for having natural sexual desires, especially if they have not been acted upon in any way that has caused distress or harm to self or others. Are people who are sexually negative in their mindset asexual with their desires and feelings? I think asexuality is rare in humans so it's not something as relatable or easily understood.


Anyhoooo.
Sexual negativity, if I'm at all correct in relating it to Puritanism, seems to be tilting at windmills to me, but I wouldn't care if someone else wanted to do that so long as the proverbial windmill wasn't on my property......

Apologies if I didn't understand the OP or anything else properly. I'm in a half-awake, half-asleep, fuzzy-brained state right now cause it's a waaaaay too early predawn hour here.

 

[FireDragon76]

As to the church - it should NEVER be sex negative, since the bible is sex-positive. The biblical message is to get married and have sex - lots of sex. It is COMMANDED in both testaments.

I just don't see how that's so, it seems to me that the New Testament, on the whole, is fairly ambivalent about marriage, definitely not a commandment.

OK - so how do they differentiate this from the rising promotion of "asexualiy" who are trying to preach a gospel of no sex at all for anyone?

To be fair, it is a vocal minority of those who consider themselves asexual who activly promote this life style.

That's not what asexuality is about. It's about people recognizing a lack of a sex drive as a valid way to be. Asexuality is rare but for some people, perfectly normal. It's definitely not about telling other people how to live, or making a generalized judgement about sexuality.

 

[Dave-W]

I just don't see how that's so, it seems to me that the New Testament, on the whole, is fairly ambivalent about marriage, definitely not a commandment.

In marriage. And it is a western (false) intrepretation that makes one see ambivalence to marriage in the NT.

1 Cor 7 commands regular sex between marriage partners.

That's not what asexuality is about. It's about people recognizing a lack of a sex drive as a valid way to be. Asexuality is rare but for some people, perfectly normal. It's definitely not about telling other people how to live, or making a generalized judgement about sexuality.

I must run in a more extreme crowd than you do. I have certainly seen people pushing this life style. I even got into an argument with one over masturbation. I said if he did that he was really not asexual. He said he and many of his asexual friends did. (to relieve the biological urges) So it is not about lack of urges either. It (to him) was more about not assigning those urges to anyone or any thing. They just were.

 

[selfinflikted]

Then that is not asexuality.

 

[Cute Tink]

Asexuality can be either a lack of sexual interest at all or a lack of sexual attraction to others. Most asexuals I have talked to have experienced a lack of sexual interest.

 

[DaisyDay]

Subscribe to conservatism and people will simply disagree with your ideas. Subscribe to sex-negativism and people treat it like it is a personal flaw/defect and will attack you personally. Why?

Because people are jerks.

This is really no one else's business, what you don't do. I can see some people, especially those who are attracted to you and those in the first flush of raging hormones, being curious but as long as you don't try to prescribe for others, they should leave you alone.