Is sex really repressed? Why would there be 7 billion (give or take) humans if it were repressed?

Reading some posts on here made me realize that, while I always viewed sex as a poorly shunted 'taboo'. (As in, 'don't talk about it in public but... totally talk about it in public'), maybe... it's NOT actually repressed.

I mean, now thinking about it, sexual advertising, sexualized video game characters, all of these topics, and ideas, are COMMON and MAINSTREAM.

Sexual assault happens a lot more than reported by people, giving the appearance of repressed sexuality, but... I'm starting to see that sex is NOT a repressed topic.

(To clarify, I mean that people think of lack of 'visible' sexual assault crimes as 'evidence' against its prevalence. They use this to justify their beliefs about sexuality.)

That's what I find annoying about many sexuals, the fact that they contradict themselves. How can you advertise something while claiming it's a private matter? You can't have it both ways.

I just 'coined' a new term - instead of sex-negative or sex-positive, how about sex-critical? A sexual 'revolution' with the purpose of being CRITICAL of sex.

Oh, that is pretty clever.

Of course, it could be considered pandering to the mainstream, and... that could go very wrong.

But there's also a need to ease people into these movements. We need an attract mode, like an old arcade cabinet. That way, this movement can really take off.

This is something I run into all the time when trying to explain the hyper-sexualization of society. People always bring up the "well I think it's the opposite, there's too much sexual repression going on." I have literally said to people "since when?" They always point back to ye olde times of their youth and such, or point to puritanical ideologies of the 17th century. They think that just because people aren't out having sex in the park that we're living in a totally sexually repressed society. I'm like, give me a break.

Dace wrote:They think that just because people aren't out having sex in the park that we're living in a totally sexually repressed society. I'm like, give me a break.

Exactly!

Pravotoop wrote:I just 'coined' a new term - instead of sex-negative or sex-positive, how about sex-critical? A sexual 'revolution' with the purpose of being CRITICAL of sex.

I'll consider using that term, though I don't think it's much different than "sex-negative". It's not as if sex-negative people suddenly gain the ability to make it all stop. I'd be on board for that revolution, though.

As for the main topic, nothing to add. It's not repressed. Walk into a church or conservative household and it will be for a bit, but not anymore the second you walk out.