straight edge and sex

[xfifthcolumnx]

the discussion about leather and being vegan kind of touched on this subject. i didn't want to get into it there (to avoid confusing issues), but i feel like its worth thinking about. probably because i think my take on it is different than your average sxe kid. well, i guess my take is that sex shouldn't be a part of straight edge at all. why

Comments

[ryansmithxvx]

i have a similar but different understanding. there was an interview done with ian and lyle where they said that the point of 'don't fuck' was to include things that control your thinking to the point of making you unproductive, irrational, out of control, etc. they said that following one's sexual urges around and allowing that to control one's mind was the point, and for that reason should be avoided. i don't think we should say that sxe means no sex or only committed sex with just your ultra-serious partner, but i do think that it means not using social relationships--whether sexual or not--as your form of liberation, enjoyment, empowerment, etc. in the same way that you must be your own master mentally--thus avoiding all intoxicants through drugs/alcohol--so you should be your own master sexually and physically--not having a dependency. so, i guess i'm saying 'yes' and 'no' to parts of your argument. i guess i see it through the same lens in which i see how sxe should naturally lead people to vegetarianism/veganism--not polluting

[xfifthcolumnx]

while that may be true (the interview) from my understanding Ian (and much of the early straight edge scene) also looked at drinking and smoking that way.

i mean in the re-recorded version ian clearly says "this is no set of rules".

my issue is that the principles of abstinence should be applied coherently and consistently or they shouldn't apply to sex at all.

and given that sex doesn't really fit with the other aspects of straight edge i think it should just be left out.

[ryansmithxvx]

yeah, i realize the 'i'm not telling you what to do' aspect

[xfifthcolumnx]

i agree with what you are saying, except with te idea that it should be included in the definition of what is and is not "straight edge".

no one in the straight edge community is making value judgments about other things with a similar effect on people's lives. like no one is going to say someone sold out or isn't straight edge if they are obsessed with watching porn, or obsessed with playing WoW twelve hours a day.

obviously those would be destructive and affect your mental state and well-being, but so do lots of things that aren't covered in what is straight edge.

being anti-obsession is just common sense to me. unless we want to include all possibilities like that into our definition, then i think the emphasis should be taken off of sexuality. i mean conceivably someone who stayed home all day and jerked off for twelve ours would be considered more straight edge than someone who just met someone he/she really liked and had "casual" sex, even though one fits the description and the other doesn't.

[runrevolt]

porn, WoW, WORK. exactly.

I think SXE is most valuable to a rewarding and joyfull existence in so much as it helps an individual become aware of dominant forces of all sorts. It is essentially a springboard of consciousness (in my opinion anyways).

Conversely, i think it becomes problematic when people rely so much on the limited issues that SXE proposes instead of widening their awareness of all sorts of domination. when an individual relies solely on the issues of SXE, they look past all their own hypocracies and miss out on a number of other forces that take away from their quality of life.

[ryansmithxvx]

to both this comment and kurt's above, i agree. i think sxe can't just be a 'do these, don't do these' metaphorical line in the sand. instead, it should be a springboard/direction/path. it should be a lens through which life is viewed, parasites cut off, and empowerment sought. obviously, you can't just limit it to 2 or 3 base issues and think that covers everything.

[xfifthcolumnx]

see, i actually think it CAN be those specific things.
i also think it it at its best when it is a springboard, but i don't think it HAS to be.

i just think there is no rational reason to include sex or sexuality in that concrete definition.

[runrevolt]

i can't agree that sleeping with random different people all the time becomes a social ill, partly because that description of sexual activity is vague, but also because you'd have to clarify what constitutes a "social ill". if you mean all the things you listed after, i still disagree. Casual sex can be responsible (no std's, no pregnancy) and using the term addiction with sex is misdirected. obviously, you can't become addicted to sex. sex "addiction" is more a mental misdirection than anything else. It's roots are in unresolved personal issues, that play out as sex "addiction", and "addictions" of all kinds (food, internet, abusive relationships, record collecting, etc.).

[ryansmithxvx]

obviously, using any terminology in these issues has limits
i agree with a lot of what you said