Did we just have sex?

[lightcastle]

Surprising to probably no one reading this,
people can't agree on a definition of sex. Single Americans are also shockingly ignorant about contraception. <-- PDF

Some of the stats on contraception knowledge shown here are depressing.

As for the "what is sex" thing, that's a long-standing discussion for me and many people I know. I remember Rek having an interesting one involving hands and genitals and of course there is the infamous "if you are in a room with someone while sexual activity is going on, you have had sex with them" definition.

As I think I've mentioned before, I am torn on this issue myself. A purely mechanical description is probably best from the ease of making it a binary side of things, I can accept a mechanical description from the point of view of medical risk, but then that's not the real question present in "have you had sex with that person".

At the same time I know in my personal history I have counted the same actions done with different people as sex or not sex. I shy well away from any definition that doesn't take consent and intent into account.

The whole "how is sex defined" also plays into some of the persistent myths about rape, such as the whole "date rape/campus rape is a "one time, bad decision", which David Lisak's research shows is rarely so.

Last time I remember talking about this, someone proposed the definition must be mutual for the two people. i.e. - If I think we had sex and you don't, I should revise my opinion of the matter. That still doesn't sit right in my gut, although I don't really have a good argument against it.

Then there is the related but not identical question of cheating. My test for "did you cheat" is only tangentially related to "did you have sex". For me, the answer is "if you have to think about it and come up with a technicality about why you didn't really cheat, then you did."

So who among you has an actual definition of "this is sex" beyond my rather vague "I know it when I see it/do it"?

(p.s. If people do contribute, no telling them they are wrong. Please feel free to disagree and discuss, but please keep it civil and constructive, thank you.)

Comments

[pictor]

I've always used something roughly like this...

2 or more people interacting in such a way to cause mutual arousal in your partner, and having the goal for inducing eventual orgasm.

Orgasm is not a requirement in other words, but if it wasn't even a goal, then it's just fooling around. I have debated whether some level of nudity was an element of my definition, or genital contact....but I figured those were needless semantics.

[lightcastle]

*nod*

Having been with people who cannot orgasm due to medical reasons, I am not sure I still want it in the definition. (Unless it is just one of the people involved who need that as intent.)

[dagibbs]

So, if man rapes a woman (and let's make it specifically PiV rape), they likely didn't actually have sex (by your definition)? (Because there was likely no mutual arousal.)

[pictor]

I don't know if that's a semantic that needs to be clarified, the fact it's rape trumps any "did we have sex" discussion, but broadly speaking, I'd say you are correct. They certainly did not have sex with each other. The "with" portion of that sentence doesn't feel appropriate.

[lightcastle]

I happen to agree that a definition I would be comfortable would exclude rape as a matter of course.

[dagibbs]

I find that odd.

Since, at the most basic, I see rape as defined as sex without consent, to then define sex to exclude rape, makes the definition of rape ... undefined.

[lightcastle]

An interesting point.

[dagibbs]

And, some might say, I'm just arguing semantics..., but this whole post & thread is a question of semantics.

[lightcastle]

Well yes, exactly.

[dagibbs]

Hm... and what if there was no intent to have an orgasm, but one happened anyway?