I agree with this:

Marriage, monogamy, and declarations of love and eternal fidelity are all optional; none of them definitely make sex better in any moral or satisfaction-rating sense.

But not with this:

Sex-positive, to me, means that (provided everyone is a consenting adult) sex is good. Period, end of sentence.

Because not all sex *is* good, even among consenting adults. I don't just mean physical satisfaction, either. For example, I'd be hard-pressed to call sexual infidelity good. Or sex that transmits a disease. Or sex that changes a relationship for the worse, instead of for the better.

hmmm...but sex doesn't just *lead* to pain. It can be bad in and of itself (i.e. rape, incest, STDs, etc.) if used wrongly, but I think love is only good.

But sex isn't ever only good. You can't isolate the goodness in sex from the potential for the badness that sometimes comes riding along with it, but I see it treated like it can be good period.

The same is true of monogamy/marriage.

Any universally "n-positive" statement is going to require clarification, whether we're talking about sex, love, marriage, or chocolate.

You can't isolate the goodness in sex from the potential for the badness that sometimes comes riding along with it, but I see it treated like it can be good period. You can't put sex in a box.

Here's the issue with that for me: who gets to say? If we are giving people responsible education about sex and saying go forth and have sex: be mindful of the consequences, I'm okay with that. But too many institutions want control over the sex individuals have.

Many religions and the current US administration don't want to give people the education they need to act responsibly. To the point of denying people the basic education they need to make informed choices and harming those people in the process. "Abstinence-only" sex ed is like requiring earplugs during music class. You have to talk about contraception.

Any universally "n-positive" statement is going to require clarification, whether we're talking about sex, love, marriage, or chocolate.

There's bad in chocolate??!?

Here's the issue with that for me: who gets to say? If we are giving people responsible education about sex and saying go forth and have sex: be mindful of the consequences, I'm okay with that. But too many institutions want control over the sex individuals have.

Many religions and the current US administration don't want to give people the education they need to act responsibly. To the point of denying people the basic education they need to make informed choices and harming those people in the process. "Abstinence-only" sex ed is like requiring earplugs during music class. You have to talk about contraception.

Well stated.

Oh, I have so had bad chocolate.

There's bad in chocolate??!?

Sadly, yes.

The nature of sex itself, the act of copulating with another person to the pleasure of both, is good. Beautiful.

I agree with this, but -- we don't have sex in a vacuum. (Though it might be fun if we did.) It isn't just about the moment when the bodies connect. It's about the souls that inhabit those bodies, too, and something can be good for the body but bad for the soul.

The guys on Homicide say "Sex is like pizza. Even when it's bad, it's good."

I think that was said long before Homicide.

If you eat too much...