If it is necessary to distinguish "trad folk" from (implied) other kinds of folk, it would seem necessary, to be fair, to select just one (or a few) kinds of sex so that approximately equal domains and ranges of performance be compared on both sides of the discussion.

I'm not sure whether "trad" folk have different knowledge and experience of the full range of "sex" than would be found in a broader and more inclusive group(?) of folk exemplars, but the implication that discussion is open to all kinds of "sex" seems to place an imbalance of confusions on the two sides of the debate.

If only trad folk are accepted, only narrow understanding of the other side is to be expected, while the all-inclusive "sex" side is bound to be completely at a loss even to define "what is sex?".

Although comments thus far have been thoughtful and constructive, without more specific definition of the terms and limits the entire debate might collapse into frivolous s.a. quips and retorts, rather than the serious and considered conversation that might lead to understanding on both sides - which certainly would be a shame when so much progress has already appeared.

John