durham 21

[(SP)]

http://www.durham21.co.uk/archive/archive.asp?ID=2263







2013 Mod Edit: The above link doesn't work anymore, but the article has been archived here. For future reference:

A sex thing.

added 02.11.04

Alexander 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.

[Abbey Normal]

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.

[ApolloSeek]

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 for

amoebas 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 cheap

entertainment, 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 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".

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 quite

a 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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, 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?

[Kaishi]

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: