Anonymous wrote:It means you can have open conversations about your body and sex life. They are not shaming and want your intimacy to be healthy. They want to put in the work.

Yes!! It’s not a guaranty for compatibility, but sexual knowledge and ability to talk about it are real skill sets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Nobody gets to demand sex from another person … it sounds incredibly entitled coming from a man.

Wow… all the guy said was that he wouldn’t entertain a non sexual relationship, and to you this equates to demanding sex? That’s a you issue, not a him issue.

Nobody is on OLD because they are looking for a nonsexual relationship. If a man demands a woman be “sex positive” it means he is demanding that sex be according to HIS agenda. Which could not be a bigger turn-off to me (and I like sex). I guess I’ve been around long enough to realize that there are two types of men: those authentically interested in women enjoying sex with them; and those who just want to f.

I have honestly never met or heard of a man who isn’t genuinely interested in mutually enjoyable sex with his partner.
You must root them out, pp.

Um, the heterosexual orgasm gap is well known. I have a “body count” many would disapprove of, so I can vouch that there is big variability in how good men are in bed and how much they authentically like women and “mutually enjoyable” sex.

Yup. 1000%. Sex positivity to me signals an ability to talk about sex / intimacy etc. even before things become sexual. A self-awareness and hopefully continuing education about themselves and - if a heterosexual man - about women. Reading / podcasts etc. willingness to explore.

Emotional maturity too.

Also - there are people who definitely are looking for romance without an emphasis on sex - and this shouldn’t be shamed either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Nobody gets to demand sex from another person … it sounds incredibly entitled coming from a man.

Wow… all the guy said was that he wouldn’t entertain a non sexual relationship, and to you this equates to demanding sex? That’s a you issue, not a him issue.

Nobody is on OLD because they are looking for a nonsexual relationship. If a man demands a woman be “sex positive” it means he is demanding that sex be according to HIS agenda. Which could not be a bigger turn-off to me (and I like sex). I guess I’ve been around long enough to realize that there are two types of men: those authentically interested in women enjoying sex with them; and those who just want to f.

PP. several of the responses in the thread indicate that the term isn’t always a “demand”. You’re the one introducing “demand”. It’s in your head. And that’s why you end up with such an un-nuanced view of men. Everyone’s somewhere on a spectrum. It’s not just two types. But that’s ok, you’re giving us information to help avoid you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Nobody gets to demand sex from another person … it sounds incredibly entitled coming from a man.

He’s not “demanding” sex from anybody! He’s weeding out the woman who do not have much of a sex drive themselves and won’t want sex very often. Exactly like how an eNtItLeD woman might weed out men under 6 feet on her profile.

Fine with me. I'd prefer to meet people who didn't want to have sex in the first month. Whatever note that describes, I'm all for it. There seem to be a ton of people who are highly sexual and they should find each other. Same for the low sexual people. Lets give them both a category that is respectable.

how about mature people who truly respect and love their partners and work to make sex mutually enjoyable rather than demanding conformance to any standards? like are you really going to reject a relationship with a great woman because she likes sex 2x/week and you prefer 3x/week?

I’m a woman, and perfectly fine with the amount of sex I am having. So not an incel or whatever.
Your posts come across as you feeling that your sexual needs and desires should be unilaterally met, and anything your partner desires that is other than your specific preference is somehow him taking something from you or not caring about you.

If you prefer 2x a week, and the man you are with prefers 3x a week, then ideally, you meet in the middle. You don’t just do what the lower libido partner wants all of the time.

"Looking me up on LinkedIn is not sex-positive." Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Nobody gets to demand sex from another person … it sounds incredibly entitled coming from a man.

He’s not “demanding” sex from anybody! He’s weeding out the woman who do not have much of a sex drive themselves and won’t want sex very often. Exactly like how an eNtItLeD woman might weed out men under 6 feet on her profile.

Fine with me. I'd prefer to meet people who didn't want to have sex in the first month. Whatever note that describes, I'm all for it. There seem to be a ton of people who are highly sexual and they should find each other. Same for the low sexual people. Lets give them both a category that is respectable.

how about mature people who truly respect and love their partners and work to make sex mutually enjoyable rather than demanding conformance to any standards? like are you really going to reject a relationship with a great woman because she likes sex 2x/week and you prefer 3x/week?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Men don’t use this phrase.

+1. It’s a woman who is lets her freak flag fully fly with no shame and expects a man dealing with her to accept that without reservation. Or, if on the odd chance it is a man, he’s using the term solely to get laid easily by the aforementioned gal.

I sometimes wish I had married one of those women, but I found 90% of them to be terribly physically unattractive.

How’s that working out for you?

Decent sex life, relatively stable, happy, though not perfect family life. House in the burbs, kid headed to a good state school. No permanent STD's.

I don’t think any of those things are predicated on having a terribly attractive wife.
You could have had this and a great sex life with a freaky girl .

Until she gained a lot of weight, she was very attractive. At least now she's still pretty in the face. Unlike all those horse face GGG women who didn't want to have kids.

wow dude. you have issues about women and sex, indeed. exactly the kind of man who fancies himself “sex positive” but actually is deeply hostile towards female sexuality, maybe even disgusted by it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Nobody gets to demand sex from another person … it sounds incredibly entitled coming from a man.

Wow… all the guy said was that he wouldn’t entertain a non sexual relationship, and to you this equates to demanding sex? That’s a you issue, not a him issue.

Nobody is on OLD because they are looking for a nonsexual relationship. If a man demands a woman be “sex positive” it means he is demanding that sex be according to HIS agenda. Which could not be a bigger turn-off to me (and I like sex). I guess I’ve been around long enough to realize that there are two types of men: those authentically interested in women enjoying sex with them; and those who just want to f.

I have honestly never met or heard of a man who isn’t genuinely interested in mutually enjoyable sex with his partner.
You must root them out, pp.

Um, the heterosexual orgasm gap is well known. I have a “body count” many would disapprove of, so I can vouch that there is big variability in how good men are in bed and how much they authentically like women and “mutually enjoyable” sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Nobody gets to demand sex from another person … it sounds incredibly entitled coming from a man.

He’s not “demanding” sex from anybody! He’s weeding out the woman who do not have much of a sex drive themselves and won’t want sex very often. Exactly like how an eNtItLeD woman might weed out men under 6 feet on her profile.

Fine with me. I'd prefer to meet people who didn't want to have sex in the first month. Whatever note that describes, I'm all for it. There seem to be a ton of people who are highly sexual and they should find each other. Same for the low sexual people. Lets give them both a category that is respectable.

This just tells me they had a bad experience and aren’t over it.

-High drive woman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Nobody gets to demand sex from another person … it sounds incredibly entitled coming from a man.

He’s not “demanding” sex from anybody! He’s weeding out the woman who do not have much of a sex drive themselves and won’t want sex very often. Exactly like how an eNtItLeD woman might weed out men under 6 feet on her profile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect this is a man trying to weed out women who view sex as an optional thing that is nice when the stars aligned. As a man who views sex as an ESSENTIAL regular part of a relationship, I fully understand wanting to weed those women out.

Men don’t use this phrase.

+1. It’s a woman who is lets her freak flag fully fly with no shame and expects a man dealing with her to accept that without reservation. Or, if on the odd chance it is a man, he’s using the term solely to get laid easily by the aforementioned gal.

I sometimes wish I had married one of those women, but I found 90% of them to be terribly physically unattractive.

How’s that working out for you?

Decent sex life, relatively stable, happy, though not perfect family life. House in the burbs, kid headed to a good state school. No permanent STD's.

I don’t think any of those things are predicated on having a terribly attractive wife.
You could have had this and a great sex life with a freaky girl .

Until she gained a lot of weight, she was very attractive. At least now she's still pretty in the face. Unlike all those horse face GGG women who didn't want to have kids.

It means you can have open conversations about your body and sex life. They are not shaming and want your intimacy to be healthy. They want to put in the work.

Anonymous wrote:Red flag to me, for sure. A healthy sex life & compatibility are important, but listing “sex positivity” as a trait is a very consumer-like objectification of sex that goes over very poorly with me. I can be very sex positive with a man who gets me, but not at all with a selfish, demanding and judgmental person.

Not mentioning “sex positive” suggests to me the person views sex as optional/ not into it.

Don’t need to waste time on being friend-zoned again, or wasting time on someone asexual. Next.

Anonymous wrote:This is what it means if a guy says he’s sex positive: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/what-it-means-when-a-woman-says-she-is-sex-positive-according-to-brian-from-hinge

I immediately block any man with that in his profile.

OP here, YES this is excellent

Thanks everyone weighing in. I'm going to continue seeing it as a red flag. Same category as people who proclaim themselves as "highly sexual". Usually people who announce this have terrible values & morals and really messed up histories. IME. They don't just respond like this when asked, they announce it frequently and unusually, not as a conversation but a proclamation.

The article hit the nail on the head mentioning the chili emoji -- to me, that also takes away from the idea it could be anything but red flagging.