Anyone having that conversation has either seen "Chasing Amy" too many times...or needs to see it.
FWIW the easiest definition is if person A is directly touching the genitalia of person B, it's sex. Should cover most variations.
Wow. I better confess to my wife about all that sex I had when I was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis a few months back. First there was the nurse who incorrectly inserted the catheter, then two who corrected it when they noticed I was peeing blood (wooo... threesome with bloodplay!), then the urologist consult they called and finally the nurse who removed the damn thing.
:)
Maybe the above poster's statement should be qualified with "in a way that they enjoy".
How about with the addedndum "With the specific aim of inducing an orgasm."
I forgot medical procedures...and here's me working at a hospital...
sex is in the mind of the beholder?, not wait that exculdes vouyerism
argh!!!!!!
Actually, since voyeurism is beholding someone, and feeling excited about it, without them knowing, it fits.
My girlfriend's definition, while seeming a bit pessimistic, is actually very useful - 'sex' is any sexual activity that could cause the transmission of an STI. (so of course needles or whatever isn't 'sex', but oral etc is).
I know what you mean wrt 'linguistic hypocrisies' - a while back I realised that I'd done things with men that I didn't count as sex, but there were women I thought of myself as having had sex with with whom I'd done far less! I have since readjusted my definitions, and my Magic Number suddenly leapt up without my actually getting any...
Bah, I was going to proffer that definition!
I was referring to sharing needles for drug use etc, as that can transmit an STI. But thinking about it, there's always needle play, which I *would* count as sex! [grin] Oh, it's so complicated...
It was you saying that needles wouldn't count, because they couldn't transmit an STI, when there's no surer way to transmit AIDS than with needle-sharing...
I meant that sharing needles wouldn't count because it's not intended to be sexual.
Unless that was a kink of yours :->
not that defining sex/notsex is even useful if you're not religious/desperate to lose virginity, but i'd tend to think of it (out of habit/convention than any particular reason) as requiring penetration by a real or fake penis, or a serious amount of mutual masturbation/oral where penises are absent, with everything else as "sexual activity".
speaking of continua, i was thinking recently that the gay-straight axis should be a triangle, with asexual on the other point. but then "sexuality"'s even less quantifiable than orientation.
You think about sex a lot.
You're welcome. For more about how weird people are about sex (whatever that is), check out Virgin: The Untouched History by Hanne Blank. It's about the science and history of an area where everyone thinks they know what they're talking about. Edited at 2008-08-15 07:41 pm (UTC)
For me the answer is easy - more than one person are involved in an intentional activity where at least one person has an orgasm. Similar activities which result in no orgasms may be attempted sex, but they aren't (to me) sex.
For me, good sex is defined as a similar activity where everyone thoroughly enjoys themselves and has one or more orgasms.
I'd say it was definitely sex if someone had an orgasm, but it can definitely be sex even if nobody does. It can even be good sex.
What Andrew said.
I'm anorgasmic - I don't/can't orgasm, even alone. I've certainly had sex, and I've certainly had very good sex!
What is important to me isn't "what is sex?" but what is acceptable to mu husband and wife, if I am doing it with someone not them.
Funnily enough I was thinking of that as an alternative definition too - "anything I might do that my SO would consider cheating on them".
It's a completely un-rigid rule in that it'll change for every relationship (and in some open-relationship cases you may never "have sex") but it's an interesting way of approaching the definition.
"A couple of days ago [info]cangetmad asked me to define "sex". If you've ever spent any time around lesbians, this is a topic that comes up, usually when someone makes a 'joke' about them not having proper sex (note to self: stop doing that)."
You're the one with the hot lesbian sex = having tea icon, so is that a 'joke' icon that you'll be removing?
It doesn't say that lesbian sex=tea. And I stole it from a lesbian, which I think makes it automatically ok.
Maybe I didn't use the exact wording, which I couldn't remember, but that's what I took as the gist of it, rightly or wrongly. And like most humour, to met it has that element of who is saying it to whom / in what context is is framed, with all the implicit social power dynamics that can entail.
...here's my response, laid out here, so that people can tell me how much of a wronghead I am...
How can you be wrong? You're saying "this is what all sorts of people think the word 'sex' describes".
Ah, you mean I'm wrong? ;}P>
You might be. On the other hand, you might be wrong to make that assumption...
I can be wrong because I've missed a category, or conflated two categories. And would like people to point out things I've missed.
To sum up, sex is in the eye of the beholder, and it no more matters whether what you're having is "real sex" or "lesbian sex"...
This once again flat-out states that lesbian sex is not "real" sex. Please stop that. It's offensive.
Aaah, actually, it's not stating that. I should have realised that that sentence wasn't going to work for foreigners. In the UK marriage and civil partnerships are _exactly the same thing_ - only gay people can't get married and straight people can't have civil partnerships. What I was saying was that lesbian sex _is_ real sex, unless you want to quibble over a name. There's a reason both terms are in quotes in that sentence, it's to denote that I'm talking about the terms, rather than just using them.
Mmm, maybe it is a US vs. UK thing -- what I'm saying here is that by separating out the two terms -- "real sex" and "lesbian sex" -- you're creating a separation between them, and in the words of the great man, "separate is inherently unequal". And the emotional value-judgement contained by the word "real", along with the dichotomy created by separating both parts of it, means that whatever is not Real is Fake.
Cultural differences, probably, but it really made me grit my teeth. (Mostly because, yeah, I've had a lot of jokes made in front of me, and it gets bloody old.)
It's tricky - because I could change it to "penetrative sex", but that would then stop it being my point - that lesbian sex _is_ real sex, if you choose to look at it that way.
And I understand why it made you grit your teeth - enough things have exactly that effect on me.
Ran into your post through TheFerret's link.
I think when someone is raped, the word you use (sex vs. rape) is really important. Rape is not just sex without consent, because the latter brings to mind someone sticking a part of their body in you without permission (like a tongue or a penis). But when someone violates you in that matter, they are hurting you mentally, emotionally, and physically in an incredibly abusive way. It's like the way some people abuse their children and call it discipline or love. It's not. Just because a parent disciplining a child may use a similar belt or paddle as a person who beats a child bloody, doesn't mean that it is at all the same thing. So sex can be a pleasurable and/or emotional experience (the emotion can be good or bad), whereas rape is a form of physical control and abuse that just happens to involve forcibly inserting body parts. | 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}