We continue with an attempt to find out how workshop sexuality differs from other sexualities. In Part I, we stopped at the observation that workshops are didactically organized, follow a plan and prescribe certain rules and manners. This is why the assertion that workshops break social norms is only partially true. As is so often the case, breaking norms does not simply go hand in hand with freedom from norms, but with a new norm. Normal in the sense of "common" in our society is, for example, that sex is largely non-verbal. And this doesn't mean a lack of dirty talk, but an honest and respectful exchange about what you like and what you don't like. In sex-positive workshops, on the other hand, clear communication is paramount. Before intimate interactions (and these can even be greeting hugs), it is important not only to obtain the consent of the other person, but also to communicate with each other during the rest of the process in such a way that the boundaries of all participants are respected and best-case scenarios of desired experiences are made possible. This norm goes hand in hand with establishing your own language codes. The vacation flirt will probably be surprised if you respond to their rejection with a "Thank you for respecting your boundaries". This is common practice in the area of workshop sexuality.

Norms, standardizations and normalizations are double-edged, can inhibit as well as enable - even more so, they should not really be thought of as swords, but as intertwined pretzels: only through restriction can greater freedom arise; greater freedom leads to new restrictions. Loopyloop. Anna Mense, for example, points out a possible intertwined trap of the workshop norm:

"The invitation to express desires and emotional states could be an opportunity to break through taboo language cultures and start a transparent discourse. But it could also encourage a culture of disclosure, where people carelessly share personal information in an exposing and detrimental way. For example, sharing intimate information with a community could lead to building a dependent reward and rescue structure in which people are socially rewarded for revealing their vulnerable selves. [...] Getting virtually naked in conversation does not necessarily enable intimacy, but could rather lead to non-distance that brings people into inappropriate proximity with each other."

Workshop sexuality thus has one crucial thing in common with the other sexualities mentioned so far, which in turn all differ from forms of radical anarchist sexuality. Because whether it is said that one should talk about sex or not, in any case something is prescribed here and a normality is established. And that means trying to stay as clean or in control as possible while dealing with something potentially risky, dangerous, dirty, contaminating. Sex therapist Marty Klein summarizes it this way: "'Normal' means trying to set boundaries around sex so that it can't break out, become too powerful or hurt others. Normal' means trying to make sex small enough that it doesn't threaten us or require us to grow. 'Normal' means recognizing that eroticism is located in the unconscious: an untidy little dumping ground and junkyard."

Further double-edged pretzel-ness is explored in Part III...