(SP) Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 http://www.durham21.co.uk/archive/archive.asp?ID=22632013 Mod Edit: The above link doesn't work anymore, but the article has been archived here. For future reference: A sex thing.added 02.11.04Alexander Edwards finds that A-sexuality is not just for amoebas anymore...Sex trauma. | The movement.| Choice.Sex trauma.As a self-esteem boosting measure, and search for cheap entertainment, I can sometimes be found perusing the problem pages of otherwise-respectable broadsheet newspapers. One that has remained in my memory was a missive from a male in his mid-twenties to an agony aunt who was writing to ask for advice about his lack of interest in all things sexual. I think the reply was something like, don’t worry; sexuality is “actually a very small part of life”. You could be forgiven for thinking that this is really quite a depressing thing to tell somebody. Also untrue, given the prominence of sexual imagery and the frequency it occurs in the public domain. However, recent ‘isn’t life strange & funny’ pieces have been appearing in the same newspapers charting the birth of a nascent ‘asexual pride’ movement, a collection of people who seem to be turned off either with the whole of sexuality or just the sexual act (involving other people) itself.The idea of ‘asexuality’, as opposed to celibacy, has a definite history. I’m thinking here about the strange case of Victorian art critic John Ruskin, who was so traumatised by the sight of his wife’s pubic hair on their wedding night he couldn’t bring himself to actually make the two-backed beast. And then there’s George Bernard Shaw. I read somewhere that he didn’t lose his virginity until he was 29, and then he found the whole experience so shocking that he didn’t ‘get back in the saddle’ for another ten years (at least I think he was shocked. Surely nobody can be that disappointed). If it wasn’t him, I’d like to apologise, and hope that his ghost won’t curse me in some horribly appropriate way.The medical debate over asexuality appears to be lukewarm at the minute, and surprisingly open (to my mind) to the idea of asexuality. According to the ‘New Scientist’, recent studies have shown that some mammals, such as rats, gerbils and sheep, contain a minority that show no interest in mating.The movement.It’s difficult to know what to make of this, to say the least. To find out more about this phenomenon, mostly because I foolishly promised I’d write an article about it, I decided to trawl the internet via Google and see what floated in with the tide. Aside from a few of those articles from newspapers I mentioned, and a more serious piece from the ‘New Scientist’, there really isn’t much to write home about, apart from a moronic piece by some kind of online ‘lads mag’ that rubbishes the whole phenomenon, and was probably just written because it includes the word “…sexual” in the title, bringing in a few less salubrious internet searchers in a bid to justify their advertising fees. So obviously, it hasn’t really taken off. Yet.The asexual movement is naturally limited by the small number of its members. Figures being bandied around see it range from 1 to 2% of the general population, which is a bit smaller than similarly-bandied figures for homosexuals, a much easier group to quantify. As such, it has very limited potential to make the leap from small, curious phenomenon to shrill, angry, clamourous pressure group. However, some potential is definitely there. A quick trawl of the http://www.asexuality.org message board reveals posts from members in Southeast Asia, Inverness and South California, and like all movements it has its adamant members, like the Londoner who wrote in the ‘Could asexuality become a movement?’ thread that “Sex isn’t art or beautiful its animal and it is sick.” Though to be fair, that seems to be the minority view.Members of the asexual movement seem to range from those with a low sex drive to those who feel sexual arousal but don’t want to involve themselves sexually with other people. The former category represents the most ‘acceptable’ face of the phenomenon. Even if we don’t understand them, it’s a ‘neutral’ thing- they don’t do anything and it doesn’t affect anybody else. Some asexuals are even married or have otherwise stable, platonic relationships. You don’t see this in the gay movement; people are generally gay or straight, or at least bisexual. The universal prominence given to all things sexual in today’s culture- for instance that amount of money, time and research spent on giving stressed-out western men erections rather than deal with things like malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS etc in the third world- means a backlash is imminent, if not already happening, that the asexual phenomenon may be a part of.Choice.I never thought I’d find myself saying this, but it seems to me like the other part of the asexual movement, those who feel sexually attracted but only want to become involved in non-sexual relationships, are simply disillusioned, ‘turned off’ partly by the portrayal of sexuality in wider culture and partly by the priority accorded it by society at large. They’ve basically gone on sex strike en masse, if you will. I’ve always been radically I favour of free speech, freedom of expression and so on, but if the media and societal norms are actually alienating people from their own sexuality, then isn’t something going terribly wrong? Human beings are naturally sexual creatures. A lecture I recently attended entitled ‘Objectification, Pornography and the History of the Vibrator’ made some interesting points, as you can probably guess. For instance, did you know that the vibrator was the 4th ‘home appliance’ to be electrified, before the vacuum cleaner? I also found out that in four US states it is illegal to own more than five vibrators. Perhaps something to do with ‘intent to supply’…plus, have you ever seen the way that an attractive member of the opposite sex can basically slice about half of the IQ off an otherwise intelligent, articulate person and turn them into a shambling, bumbling, blushing adolescent? The reproductive/sexual urge is one of the most powerful instincts we have.Then again, maybe those asexuals who simply don’t want to have a relationship with anybody do have a point. Human beings are capable of conscious choices- there are no vegetarian lions for instance, and zoo animals do not go on hunger strike to win their freedom- so if they just want to avoid the complications of sexual relationships my instinct is that nobody has the right to tell them they’re wrong. One of the best things about being human, if not the best, is the weird diversity of tastes and behaviour you see everywhere. Even if willing abstention from a sexual life is a fit of masochism equal to trying to break the world record for most chilli peppers eaten in one minute (8 jalapenos, Anita Crafford, South Africa, August 10 2002), then its their choice.Alexander Edwards. Link to post Share on other sites
Abbey Normal Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Eh. This guy seems to mean well, but I don't think he gets it. He seems to think it's a crisis more than something that's always existed but nobody's really talked about up till this point. it seems to me like the other part of the asexual movement, those who feel sexually attracted but only want to become involved in non-sexual relationships, are simply disillusioned, ‘turned off’ partly by the portrayal of sexuality in wider culture and partly by the priority accorded it by society at large. They’ve basically gone on sex strike en masse, if you will. I’ve always been radically I favour of free speech, freedom of expression and so on, but if the media and societal norms are actually alienating people from their own sexuality, then isn’t something going terribly wrong? No, I am not on a sex strike. In order to go on strike, you have to do something to go on strike from. I have never wanted sex with anybody, so how can I quit? And while it's true I have gone rather numb to sexual imagery because of the media, I don't think it can be blamed, at least not entirely. I believe asexuality has always been a reality, it's just that our small numbers and the lack of a way of getting together, along with the rather passive nature of asexuality, have caused us to be a very quiet minority up till now. At least that's what the FAQ says :lol: There's no one "cause" of asexuality, any more than with any other orientation. there are no vegetarian lions for instance, and zoo animals do not go on hunger strike to win their freedom- so if they just want to avoid the complications of sexual relationships my instinct is that nobody has the right to tell them they’re wrong. While avoiding the mess of sexual relationships is part of my reason for living the way I do, it's not THE reason. No I don't want to deal with it, but I don't want anything to do with it either. It's like saying, "I don't want to deal with the mess of making a cake from scratch" when you really mean, "I don't like cake." Even if willing abstention from a sexual life is a fit of masochism equal to trying to break the world record for most chilli peppers eaten in one minute (8 jalapenos, Anita Crafford, South Africa, August 10 2002), then its their choice. Now that just bugs me. Who ever said asexuality was a form of masochism? If we were masochists, we'd have sex! This guy really doesn't understand the basics of asexuality. Even given the wide variety of experiences and personal definitions, we all have the same defining characteristic- we aren't interested in having a sexual relationship with anybody. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Link to post Share on other sites
ApolloSeek Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Deconstructicons, Transform and Attack! Source URL: http://www.durham21.co.uk/archive/archive.asp?ID=2263 Alexander Edwards finds that A-sexuality is not just foramoebas anymore... Sex trauma. | The movement.| Choice. Sex trauma. That's sex trauma? Yo ho ho and a bottle of opiated rum. Equating low sexual desire with real sexual trauma such as rape, pedophilia, etc. is a mortal insult to survivors of such events. Houston, we have a problem. Reality check has failed. As a self-esteem boosting measure, and search for cheapentertainment, I can sometimes be found perusing the problem pages of otherwise-respectable broadsheet newspapers. Aren't there better ways of boosting self-esteem? Or entertainment? Or do you glory in other's suffering? There's a word for that: sadism. One that has remained in my memory was a missive froma male in his mid-twenties to an agony aunt who was writing to ask for advice about his lack of interest in all things sexual. I think the reply was something like, don’t worry; sexuality is "actually a very small part of life". Guess what? She's right! This agony aunt deserves a Nobel Prize for clarity. It's so hard to think when you tongue is hanging out. You could be forgiven for thinking that this is really quitea depressing thing to tell somebody. No, you can't. You have something called a brain. If you use it, you'll find that even sexuals don't think about sex all the time, or even most of the time. That is, if you are thinking with your brain instead of your gonads. Or actually (gasp) thinking for yourself instead of letting media or culture do it for you. Thinking for yourself-what a great idea!! Also untrue, given the prominence of sexual imagery andthe frequency it occurs in the public domain. However, recent ‘isn’t life strange & funny’ pieces have been appearing in the same newspapers charting the birth of a nascent ‘asexual pride’ movement, a collection of people who seem to be turned off either with the whole of sexuality or just the sexual act (involving other people) itself. You got that right. Culture and media are saturated with sexual imagery. Funny how TV, radio, DVD player, etc has a off switch. Interesting how you can choose your DVDs, CDs and other media products. There's also thinking for yourself! And the tools of logic and reason! And using your brain! Oh, the humanity! Interesting, isn't it? The idea of ‘asexuality’, as opposed to celibacy, has adefinite history. I’m thinking here about the strange case of Victorian art critic John Ruskin, who was so traumatised by the sight of his wife’s pubic hair on their wedding night he couldn’t bring himself to actually make the two-backed beast. And then there’s George Bernard Shaw. I read somewhere that he didn’t lose his virginity until he was 29, and then he found the whole experience so shocking that he didn’t ‘get back in the saddle’ for another ten years (at least I think he was shocked. Surely nobody can be that disappointed). If it wasn’t him, I’d like to apologise, and hope that his ghost won’t curse me in some horribly appropriate way. Asexuality as sometime to identify with did not exist until AVENGuy put up AVEN. What you are describing is not asexuality. Asexuality is lack of sexual attraction. That's all. John Ruskin and George Bernard Shaw are not around to ask how they feel about asexuality as defined by AVENGuy. Therefore calling them asexual is sloppy thinking. Furthermore, their behavior is consistent with Victorian social mores and culture. And that has nothing to do with asexuality. Occum's razor just cut you. I'm sooo sad. Your snide comment "at least I think he was shocked. Surely nobody can be that disappointed)" indicates a complete disregard for logic, reason and tolerance. What's it to you if they were shocked? Does that deprive you of money, property or rights? Why are you so concerned about the sex lives of people who've been dead for decades? Get over it. The medical debate over asexuality appears to belukewarm at the minute, and surprisingly open (to my mind) to the idea of asexuality. According to the ‘New Scientist’, recent studies have shown that some mammals, such as rats, gerbils and sheep, contain a minority that show no interest in mating. News flash: That's the way good science operates. Gotta love it. The movement.It’s difficult to know what to make of this, to say the least. To find out more about this phenomenon, mostly because I foolishly promised I’d write an article about it, I decided to trawl the internet via Google and see what floated in with the tide. You choose the assignment. Don't whine to me about it. Aside from a few of those articles from newspapers Imentioned, and a more serious piece from the ‘New Scientist’, there really isn’t much to write home about, apart from a moronic piece by some kind of online ‘lads mag’ that rubbishes the whole phenomenon, and was probably just written because it includes the word "…sexual" in the title, bringing in a few less salubrious internet searchers in a bid to justify their advertising fees. So obviously, it hasn’t really taken off. Yet. The asexual movement is naturally limited by the small number of its members. Figures being bandied around see it range from 1 to 2% of the general population, which is a bit smaller than similarly-bandied figures for homosexuals, a much easier group to quantify. As such, it has very limited potential to make the leap from small, curious phenomenon to shrill, angry, clamorous pressure group. However, some potential is definitely there. A quick trawl of the http://www.asexuality.org message board reveals posts from members in Southeast Asia, Inverness and South California, and like all movements it has its adamant members, like the Londoner who wrote in the ‘Could asexuality become a movement?’ thread that "Sex isn’t art or beautiful its animal and it is sick." Though to be fair, that seems to be the minority view. Members of the asexual movement seem to range from those with a low sex drive to those who feel sexual arousal but don’t want to involve themselves sexually with other people. The former category represents the most ‘acceptable’ face of the phenomenon. Even if we don’t understand them, it’s a ‘neutral’ thing- they don’t do anything and it doesn’t affect anybody else. Some asexuals are even married or have otherwise stable, platonic relationships. You don’t see this in the gay movement; people are generally gay or straight, or at least bisexual. The universal prominence given to all things sexual in today’s culture- for instance that amount of money, time and research spent on giving stressed- out western men erections rather than deal with things like malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS etc in the third world- means a backlash is imminent, if not already happening, that the asexual phenomenon may be a part of. Thank you for actually bothering to understand. Choice.I never thought I’d find myself saying this, but it seems to me like the other part of the asexual movement, those who feel sexually attracted but only want to become involved in non-sexual relationships, are simply disillusioned, ‘turned off’ partly by the portrayal of sexuality in wider culture and partly by the priority accorded it by society at large. They’ve basically gone on sex strike en masse, if you will. Sigh. You were doing so well! Unfortunately the facts are otherwise. People strike an employer because they want to work there and the conditions of employment are not good. You don't strike a place you don't want to work at. Asexuals don't want to work for Sex, Inc. Therefore we don't send in resumes, seek interviews, or fill out applications. Furthermore, many sexuals are tired of hypersexuality. Hence the proliferation of nannyware, filtered Internet services, etc. I’ve always been radically I favour of free speech,freedom of expression and so on, but if the media and societal norms are actually alienating people from their own sexuality, then isn’t something going terribly wrong? Yes, you are right. What's gone wrong is two groups of idiots. The first is the media managers who lack social and personal responsibility. As a great teacher said "Man does not live by bread alone." The second is people who keep consuming hypersexualized media products. Human beings are naturally sexual creatures. ... Editing... Oh, really. Who died and made you God? Or the arbiter of what is natural? What is natural is random variation. That's right, random variation! And that includes random variation of sexual behavior. Asexuality is caused by normal physiologic variation.. Say it again: normal physiologic variation.. Doesn't that feel good? Link to post Share on other sites
Kaishi Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Asexuality is caused by normal physiologic variation.. Say it again:normal physiologic variation.. Doesn't that feel good? You're so mean....I like it. :twisted: Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.