On the left I don't think there is sex-negativity per se, there are, however, beliefs about sex, power, and consent that as a consequence reduce sex because they make it, in practice, basically impossible to have sex in a way that upholds them.
I.e "enthusiastic consent" is so vaguely defined now nobody is sure what constitutes rape, whic…
On the left I don't think there is sex-negativity per se, there are, however, beliefs about sex, power, and consent that as a consequence reduce sex because they make it, in practice, basically impossible to have sex in a way that upholds them.
I.e "enthusiastic consent" is so vaguely defined now nobody is sure what constitutes rape, which means everybody is afraid of a rape accusation, which means they have to be really sure that their partner won't make a rape accusation/believe themselves to be raped. This makes casual sex harder. Or even friendship sex. Also, there is this new awareness of power dynamics, and now the left doesn't seem to want them, like any relationship that is not between peers or that can be construed as having a power imbalance now has this taint of immorality.
However, life is complicated, and every relationship has some sort of power imbalance, which means every relationship becomes illicit! Or even worse, we have a de facto caste system for relationships. Only rich people can marry rich people, only smart can marry smart, etc.
This means everybody becomes ashamed about their relationships and casual sex again, just for different reasons. This is bad because now we can't use reason to talk about them in an intelligent way imho.
If you think about it, "enthusiastic consent" is actually quite pornographic in nature, fundamentally speaking. The idea essentially being that your partner --generally being the woman in particular in these scenarios-- has to look and sound like she 'wants it', explicitly and repeatedly so.
It's really quite a perverse and degrading standard to uphold someone to.
"The idea essentially being that your partner --generally being the woman in particular in these scenarios-- has to look and sound like she 'wants it', explicitly and repeatedly so."
People usually DO look and sound like they want it - when they actually do.
You're merely pointing out the problem. 'Looking like you want it' is not a quantifiable, definable metric. It differs between people, because everyone responds differently. There is no objective plurality in response to sexual pleasure that can be used as a baseline. "When they actually do", on the other hand, is definable. It is simply one consenting to sex.
Those who believe in "enthusiastic consent" objectify women as pornographic objects, because how else are you supposed to show enthusiastic consent if not through a pornographic caricature? It's repulsive, and strips people of personal authentic expression.
You're only proving my point by crudely insulting me. It's quite sad how you're unable to conceive of pornography in an abstract, philosophical manner.
Either show an objective measure of what it means to 'want it', or don't bother replying to me. You obviously cannot, since no such standard exists that applies to all people.
Everyone enjoys sex in their own way, so-called "enthusiastic consent" forces women to behave in a particular, inauthentic manner that objectifies them. You consent to sex initially, and request to "stop" if it becomes uncomfortable or undesirable. Everything in between is up to the individual.
That's true, and normal, considerate behaviour towards your partner, and also not what I'm talking about.
Here's what I mean. When people have spoken to me about enthusiastic consent, they're not bringing up asking your partner in the heat of the moment if it's okay to touch here or there, to do this or that. What they're talking about is one's behaviour during the actual sex itself. "Wanting it", in an overly exaggerated manner to signal one's continued consent. That is obviously ridiculous, and relies on pornographic caricature which by nature objectifies people, women in particular. That's quite different from momentarily asking if they're okay with switching to a different position.
I don't want to argue about this at this moment. I just want to put a consideration in your head; it is one based on a 69-year lifetime that includes having spent the middle half of it as a leftist: sex-negativity is PREDOMINANTLY a leftist activity. Don't argue against this; just sit with it, and see if you don't start to notice it everywhere, because it's just under the surface of loud promotion of superficial hedonism intended to prevent proper pair-bonding that is less susceptible to extrinsic control from centralized entities.
there's also the Western reality created by sexuality functioning as an existential framework. it's a flimsy house of cards (at best) backed by billions of dollars and a lot of cultural peer pressure. imo, this will reach its limit relatively soon and either go down in a rainbow blaze of glory or vanish in a rainbow puff of smoke.
On the left I don't think there is sex-negativity per se, there are, however, beliefs about sex, power, and consent that as a consequence reduce sex because they make it, in practice, basically impossible to have sex in a way that upholds them.
I.e "enthusiastic consent" is so vaguely defined now nobody is sure what constitutes rape, which means everybody is afraid of a rape accusation, which means they have to be really sure that their partner won't make a rape accusation/believe themselves to be raped. This makes casual sex harder. Or even friendship sex. Also, there is this new awareness of power dynamics, and now the left doesn't seem to want them, like any relationship that is not between peers or that can be construed as having a power imbalance now has this taint of immorality.
However, life is complicated, and every relationship has some sort of power imbalance, which means every relationship becomes illicit! Or even worse, we have a de facto caste system for relationships. Only rich people can marry rich people, only smart can marry smart, etc.
This means everybody becomes ashamed about their relationships and casual sex again, just for different reasons. This is bad because now we can't use reason to talk about them in an intelligent way imho.
If you think about it, "enthusiastic consent" is actually quite pornographic in nature, fundamentally speaking. The idea essentially being that your partner --generally being the woman in particular in these scenarios-- has to look and sound like she 'wants it', explicitly and repeatedly so.
It's really quite a perverse and degrading standard to uphold someone to.
"The idea essentially being that your partner --generally being the woman in particular in these scenarios-- has to look and sound like she 'wants it', explicitly and repeatedly so."
People usually DO look and sound like they want it - when they actually do.
You're merely pointing out the problem. 'Looking like you want it' is not a quantifiable, definable metric. It differs between people, because everyone responds differently. There is no objective plurality in response to sexual pleasure that can be used as a baseline. "When they actually do", on the other hand, is definable. It is simply one consenting to sex.
Those who believe in "enthusiastic consent" objectify women as pornographic objects, because how else are you supposed to show enthusiastic consent if not through a pornographic caricature? It's repulsive, and strips people of personal authentic expression.
"how else are you supposed to show enthusiastic consent if not through a pornographic caricature?"
--- The porn-adled brain can't think of "how else".
" It is simply one consenting to sex."
--- Sex changes throughout so continuous communication is needed throughout.
"The porn-adled brain can't think of "how else"."
You're only proving my point by crudely insulting me. It's quite sad how you're unable to conceive of pornography in an abstract, philosophical manner.
Either show an objective measure of what it means to 'want it', or don't bother replying to me. You obviously cannot, since no such standard exists that applies to all people.
Everyone enjoys sex in their own way, so-called "enthusiastic consent" forces women to behave in a particular, inauthentic manner that objectifies them. You consent to sex initially, and request to "stop" if it becomes uncomfortable or undesirable. Everything in between is up to the individual.
Come on now. People have to ask their partners along the way, not just slip a finger or something else in his butt and then wait for the "no"..
That's true, and normal, considerate behaviour towards your partner, and also not what I'm talking about.
Here's what I mean. When people have spoken to me about enthusiastic consent, they're not bringing up asking your partner in the heat of the moment if it's okay to touch here or there, to do this or that. What they're talking about is one's behaviour during the actual sex itself. "Wanting it", in an overly exaggerated manner to signal one's continued consent. That is obviously ridiculous, and relies on pornographic caricature which by nature objectifies people, women in particular. That's quite different from momentarily asking if they're okay with switching to a different position.
I don't want to argue about this at this moment. I just want to put a consideration in your head; it is one based on a 69-year lifetime that includes having spent the middle half of it as a leftist: sex-negativity is PREDOMINANTLY a leftist activity. Don't argue against this; just sit with it, and see if you don't start to notice it everywhere, because it's just under the surface of loud promotion of superficial hedonism intended to prevent proper pair-bonding that is less susceptible to extrinsic control from centralized entities.
there's also the Western reality created by sexuality functioning as an existential framework. it's a flimsy house of cards (at best) backed by billions of dollars and a lot of cultural peer pressure. imo, this will reach its limit relatively soon and either go down in a rainbow blaze of glory or vanish in a rainbow puff of smoke.
what do you mean by sexuality functioning as an existential framework?
sexual identity, as a general principle