The Elephant in the Room (The Problem That is Not Addressed Well)

[Brain O'Conner]

The core problem, which I see in all kinds of communities be it the MAP community, non/anti MAP community that talks about relationships, the feminist community, and many more, is that how sexual feelings and desires gets this condemned undertone where it is looked at as selfish or greedy in a way. I just don't know how to really word it. To elaborate further, someone having a crush on someone and wants to kiss the person that they are crushing on, is not looked at as selfish or all-consuming, it is looked at as something warm and bonding. Now, let's take that same scenario and instead of that person wanting a kiss, they want to have some sexual relations. Now, that same person's feelings will be looked at as something all-consuming, selfish/greedy. These may not be the right words, but it has this strange undertone that it creates in society, especially in western cultures. In other words, nobody says to the person that "Oh, you just want to be with that person so you can kiss to feel warm". But, instead, people would say "Oh, you just want to be with that person because you just want to get off." I am not saying that most people think sex in of itself is wrong, and in fact, a lot of people see it as a good way to form a bond, but still, there's still that societal undertone about it. So, I believe this societal condemned undertone that is very silent is part of the problem in what we are trying to fight for in terms of young people's sexual autonomy. I want to hear your guy's thoughts on this.

[PorcelainLark]

Sounds like objectification. To imply sexual fantasy is bad because it's self-gratifying. As opposed emerging after some kind of Platonic love. Basically it implies wanting physical intimacy mean you're using someone for physical intimacy rather than loving them, and that pure love is asexual. Poisoning the well regarding wanting physical intimacy.

Ironically, I think Sartre used sex as exemplary of intersubjectivity. In contrast to this more recent obsession with analyzing every minutiae of sexual desire as objectifying, gratifying, non-consensual, and sexualizing, at earlier points in the 20th century the progressive thinkers were more sex-positive.

I don't really feel that much guilt or shame about sex any more, so I just find the interminable discussion of sexual boundaries boring. The result is, people don't have sex because people who hate sex introduce all these reasons to overthink it. If you're sex-repulsed, that's fine, but don't try to set the rules for the rest of us. There are far too many people who hide their sex-repulsion behind nebulous concepts like "decency" and "appropriateness." Think about how many time you see people on Reddit complaining about nudity in films. We get it, you hate sex.

[Brain O'Conner]

If you're sex-repulsed, that's fine, but don't try to set the rules for the rest of us. There are far too many people who hide their sex-repulsion behind nebulous concepts like "decency" and "appropriateness." Think about how many time you see people on Reddit complaining about nudity in films. We get it, you hate sex.

I think you may have misunderstood my post my guy. First of all, I am not sex repulsed at all, so I really don't know how you came to that conclusion. And secondly, I am not setting rules for anyone. I don't know how you even came to that conclusion. What I was trying to say in my post is that how anti's can use this societal undertone about sex as a way to justify why younger people don't have sexual autonomy and why such interactions are bad between an adult and kid. Did you even understand anything I've said in that post because I don't know how in the hell you came to the conclusion that I might repulsed about sex and trying to set rules?

[PorcelainLark]

If you're sex-repulsed, that's fine, but don't try to set the rules for the rest of us. There are far too many people who hide their sex-repulsion behind nebulous concepts like "decency" and "appropriateness." Think about how many time you see people on Reddit complaining about nudity in films. We get it, you hate sex.

I think you may have misunderstood my post my guy. First of all, I am not sex repulsed at all, so I really don't know how you came to that conclusion. And secondly, I am not setting rules for anyone. I don't know how you even came to that conclusion. What I was trying to say in my post is that how anti's can use this societal undertone about sex as a way to justify why younger people don't have sexual autonomy and why such interactions are bad between an adult and kid. Did you even understand anything I've said in that post because I don't know how in the hell you came to the conclusion that I might repulsed about sex and trying to set rules?

I was referring to:

The result is, people don't have sex because people who hate sex introduce all these reasons to overthink it.

It was semantically ambiguous, I meant the indefinite rather than the personal "you." As in "you can never be too careful." "You" personally (Brian) wouldn't be included in "you" indefinitely ("people who hate sex").

If you're sex-repulsed, that's fine, but don't try to set the rules for the rest of us.

"You" in this context, refers to a particular type of person in a generic sense, rather than you personally.

Similarly with:

Think about how many time you see people on Reddit complaining about nudity in films. We get it, you hate sex.

The "we" includes sex-positive people, the "you" refers to people on Reddit who complain about nudity in films.

I was agreeing with what you were saying.

[RoosterDance]

This is simply the result of millennia of sexual repression.
People believe sex is evil just because that's what's always been believed. They've never known any other possibility. And most likely, have never experienced good sex themselves.

This all originates from ancient Jewish religion. Which then split off into Christianity, Islam, and modern Judaism. All regions influenced by these religions became very sexually repressive. Unfortunately, thanks to British and later American imperialism, there aren't many places left in the world untouched by these religions.

[girllover]

I am not saying that most people think sex in of itself is wrong, and in fact, a lot of people see it as a good way to form a bond, but still, there's still that societal undertone about it. So, I believe this societal condemned undertone that is very silent is part of the problem in what we are trying to fight for in terms of young people's sexual autonomy. I want to hear your guy's thoughts on this.

I totally agree with what you said.
And as I have noticed in my conversations in groups of young people... I see most young people knowingly or unknowingly are conditioned to think that way. That if someone wants to have sex with a person they are just selfish and greedy.
I think part of the problem is that such type of people actually exist. And most of them are quite vocal about their wants and 'conquests'. What makes them that way would be a topic for another discussion. But they do make it difficult for others to be accepted.
Also, there are young people who under peer pressure say things or act in ways they're not supposed to.
And it's not just love and sex. You can see it playing out in other aspects of life too.
So what's the solution?
I think being self-aware, compassionate towards others, taking people at face value can go a long way in changing such mindset. But it has to happen from all sides.

[John_Doe]

I think I understand what you mean exactly and even though I don't agree with the concept (of 'aromanticism,' at least not in the nebulous way that people tend to define 'romantic love.' If we choose to define 'romantic love' as inherently monogamous, which I think 'infatuation' is, that would mean something clear and specific to me, it would also make 'polyamory' conceptually meaningless. There's no point in debating about the nature of romantic love if we're not on the same page about what we're talking about or using a definition that has a clear specific meaning, but it does seem to me that, semantics aside, there is a kind of fundamentally monogamous emotional attachment and when you introduce other partners into the mix that changes the nature of the relationship), I think some self-identified aromantic allosexuals have also touched on this (the idea that sex is by default dirty or inappropriate unless it's justified by 'romantic love'). The irony is that probably most of those same people (one random blogger comes to mind) won't apply the same reasoning to child sexuality (e.g. compare how people feel about adults playing video games with children vs. having some kind of sexual intimacy with them. I don't want to play the fool in denying that the emotional consequences of having sex with someone and playing a video game with them can potentially be very different but if people are honest, they don't oppose child-adult sex based on absolutely nothing other than the possibility that children might feel emotional distress as a result of it, they oppose it on principle).

People (even many of those who think of themselves as 'sex positive') do generally believe that sex is dirty and inappropriate by default unless it can be justified, maybe not explicitly but that's what's implied by their attitudes about sex (it explains a lot of 'sex exceptionalism').

Personally, I find the prospect of sex without affection and emotional intimacy to be completely boring, for me to enjoy having sex with someone I have to be able to see myself relaxing with them (feeling 'safe' with them, comfortable with them, as though I could trust them, liking them, having some possibly shallow emotional connection with them, etc.) and cuddling or making out with them afterward (or at least to be open to either, which would be ideal even if one of us has to leave immediately, I would be thinking about cuddling or making out with her afterward while we were having sex). At the same time I wouldn't be interested in committed formal relationships. I also think that exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity is morally wrong (one should value the sexual pleasure of both their partner and the other people their partner might want to be intimate with, you should weigh the value of other people's happiness against your own so equal consideration can justify prioritizing your happiness in some scenarios but the only reason why someone would want their partner to be exclusive *for the sake of being exclusive* is because they are fundamentally de-valuing the happiness of their partner and other people they might be interested in). The idea of living in a world where sex is a completely casual recreational thing and everyone is open to sexual/'romantic' intimacy with everyone who at least meets a certain physical standard is appealing to me. The idea of having emotionally intimate casual sex that doesn't 'mean' anything with a female friend or female friends is also appealing to me, partly because it might be 'unexpected' to have that kind of intimacy with a 'friend' or 'one of the guys' (in a purely fantasy scenario I might even live with these people, although I'd probably want my own room) and there are other kinds of unexpectedly sexual relationships that might be a turn-on for the same reason (e.g. with your doctor, a police officer, etc., someone with whom your relationship is normally non-sexual, I'm not saying this would always be a good idea in practice). I'd also be fine with casual sex with a nice stranger I never saw again (which could include cuddling afterward or sharing a bed and showering together in an unrealistic fantasy scenario).

I've never had a core problem with 'objectification' as it's generally (or often) defined. I don't see anything especially wrong with sexualization + a lack of sympathy or respect. If a wo/man wants to have sex with someone they don't respect, don't sympathize with or don't care about beyond 'using' them for sexual intimacy (I've never really understood the idea of 'using' someone for intimacy the way that I can understand 'using' someone to clean your house or fix your garage or to get you elected into office or hired at a certain job etc.) the problem is that they don't sympathize with or care about that person (I think valuing someone's happiness implies 'respecting' them), whether or not they sexualize them after that is irrelevant, in my view. You should never have sex with someone whose happiness you don't value because you shouldn't not value anyone's happiness.