Private vs public sexuality
One advantage that a general "coming out has is that it raises awareness and hopefully acceptance of that version of sexuality. So those who chooose to keep it private don't have to fear it becoming public. Yes, one should feel free to keep their intamite secrets to themselves, but The difference between keeping your sexuality to yourself and "remaining closeted" is the fear factor- people who keep intamite things to themselves are self assured, those who hide thier sexuality are afraid of the response.
My RA is a good example. He's Gay, Openly, and yet he's not flamboyant, or even obvious about it. he doesn't beat you ove rhte head with it, I've never seen him with a guy over, or make out in public, or rip off his underwear. he's just a quiet, normal individual who just happens to be gay. It's no secret about his preference, but the details aren't public knowledge. I think this is the sort of respect for itamicy many of you wish more homosexuals showed, but that sort of quiet reserve is a personality aspect. The man who ripped off his speedo ona gay pride float wasn't really representing homosexuals with that act, he was representing Oversexuals, classification opposite Asexual that spans All sexualities. And our mortal enemies.
Re: Sexuality and Gender
Ok, so here's a theory equating sexuality and gender that I just came up with that I find extremely exciting. It builds on some aspects of femenist and queer theory that not everyone will be familiar with, but I don't have time to rewrite it from this E-mail to my friend. Sorry!!
Ok, we're going to start with the age-old question:How can you be an interesting, fun-to-know person without being sexually attractive?
And, because it will give us some equations we need, we'll throw in a new question. One that has only become pertinant since I've tried to ingratiate myself with local queer politics: What is the link between sexuality and gender performance?
So what do we know so far? We know that gender isn't a set thing, its just a set of performed bahaviors. We know that sexuality and gender are (somehow) deeply intermingled, heterosexism isn't about breaking sexaul codes, really, it's about breaking gender codes. And conversly people who break gender codes are labeled as "sexually deviant" in one way or another.
So can I solve the attraction paradox and get the trannies on my side in one fell swoop? And most importantly will I stop to consider the moral implications before scientifically sweeping forward?(I won't.)
So what the hell IS gender performance anyway? What distinguishes "gender behavior" from other types of behavior? What if, for our own dark and devious purposes, define gender as that which is sexually attractive. So when someone finds something about you sexually attractive (that is to say it's not a factor of you that would necessarily factor into a nonsexual relationship) then that thing is gender performance. It's kind of twisted but it works. Anything we do to try and be sexually attractive is a performance of gender. So when we want to be attractive for someone we "turn up" our gender performance in some way. We also, of course, turn up our general-interesting-person-ness, because that's also a part of the relationship that we're trying to build. SO....
1)Conversly, if you want to be interesting to people without being sexually attractive, you just "turn down" your gender and keep the rest of the interesting stuff. If people notice the interesting stuff but not your gender then they'll like you but not consider you sexually attractive.
2)People control their sexual life by defining their gender performance. This fits extremely well, because people who want different types of sexual lifestyles tend to put on different types of gender performance. People who are "sexually succesful" are praised ALONG LINES OF GENDER.
3)There's now a simple way to translate talking about sex to talking about gender and vice versa. This is HUGE (for me anyway) because all to often discussions will get stuck on one and not be able to bring in the other.
4)It shows why messing with gender performance pisses people off so much, messing with gender performance means messing with OTHER PEOPLE'S sexuality (what they're attracted to.) So it is an extremely personal way to fuck with someone.
Go BRC! Your machiavellian attempts at manipulationg gender roles will be greatly aided by your new understanding, I can only hope your new super-weapon won't be used for evil that affects me.
To aid in your argument, an list of Gender roles and their sexual attraction purposes would be useful. ie:
Male:
Behavior Reason for sexual attraction
Strong fighter------------Protector role
Fixes things---------------Provider role
Works----------------------Provider role
Wears pants-------------------????
Likes sports------------------????
Drinks------------------------????
Female
Behavior Reason for sexual attraction
Playing with dolls----------Good mother
Housekeeping--------------Nesting behavior
Concern over appearance---Displays genetic superiority
Frilly, Impractical Clothes----????
Docile-------------------------????
Gossippy-----------------------????
Vindictive---------------------????
Disclamer: The examples above in now way reflect the authors views on genders, nor are they meant to stereotype Men and Women. They are some randomly selected (read:what I thought of first) gender roles prominent in my enviornment (kansas)
Allying with Oversexuals
I'm going to challenge your idea, Platonicpimp, that oversexuals are our mortal enemies. Our hypothetical example has been the guy in the pride parade ripping off his speedo. Another would be my campus, where the local queer group gets together 3 times a year with sidewalk chalk and covers the ground with same-gender sexually explicit material. I join them, here's why: As much as flamboyant expressions of sexuality SEEM contradictory to asexual interests, I don't think it adds up. Our "enemies" are not those people who are exptremely sexual, but those people who consider sex to be really important (necessary for love/marraige/a valid existance.) When there's a notion sex being sacred it automacally shuts us out in the cold and harshly attacks "profane" forms of sexuality, like same-gender sexuality. So what's going on with the chalkings, or with the guy ripping off his speedo? Those are both extremely political (if sexually political) actions. Both are saying "I'm being profane and its completely fine." Both are challenging the ingrained notion that sex is this sacred-or-profane REALLY IMPORTANT thing. Both are essentially telling people to chill out and not make such a deal about sexuality. Which is exactly the point that we want to get across. Ideally people could be sexual however they wanted or not sexual at all and it wouldn't be made into a big thing. So flamboyant sexuality is helping us.
Platonicpimp, a gay man on your campus who has another man over is considered flamboyant? Is the code the same for staight couples?
Re: There is a spectrum I assume?
i am wrestling with the possibility of being asexual. Are there those that do have some sexual desire and attraction?
This is a confusing issue. There are several different opinions in this matter if I understand you correctly.
We can count individuals who want romantic relationships without sex and those who don't want a romantic relationship at all here.
There are individuals who state that masturebate [sic?] and some who state that they don't.
The most important idea that this club promotes is that there are individuals like us out there who have no desire to have sex.
Certainly, we will have our individual factions which will have a different intepretation of asexuality, but our fundamental belief remains intact.
Re: Masturbation
What is everyone's philosophy on masturbation? In your opinion, can someone who masturbates truly be "asexual"?
(btw, check out my site: www.asexuality.net)
By definition, if you don't want to have sex with another, then you are asexual. Simple as that.
Whether one pursues a nonsexual romantic relationship or they masturbate does not change their convictions when it comes to asexuality.
Some will certainly question the success rate and the existence of a nonsexual relationship which I must include myself, but I cannot deny those true asexual believers in their desire for no sex.
I don't believe that masturbation quantifies as a romantic relationship nor as sex so I don't see it as troublesome issue.
Re: Allying with Oversexuals
I'm going to challenge your idea, Platonicpimp, that oversexuals are our mortal enemies. Our hypothetical example has been the guy in the pride parade ripping off his speedo. Another would be my campus, where the local queer group gets together 3 times a year with sidewalk chalk and covers the ground with same-gender sexually explicit material. I join them, here's why: As much as flamboyant expressions of sexuality SEEM contradictory to asexual interests, I don't think it adds up. Our "enemies" are not those people who are exptremely sexual, but those people who consider sex to be really important (necessary for love/marraige/a valid existance.) When there's a notion sex being sacred it automacally shuts us out in the cold and harshly attacks "profane" forms of sexuality, like same-gender sexuality. So what's going on with the chalkings, or with the guy ripping off his speedo? Those are both extremely political (if sexually political) actions. Both are saying "I'm being profane and its completely fine." Both are challenging the ingrained notion that sex is this sacred-or-profane REALLY IMPORTANT thing. Both are essentially telling people to chill out and not make such a deal about sexuality. Which is exactly the point that we want to get across. Ideally people could be sexual however they wanted or not sexual at all and it wouldn't be made into a big thing. So flamboyant sexuality is helping us.
Platonicpimp, a gay man on your campus who has another man over is considered flamboyant? Is the code the same for staight couples?
Absent for one week, and all hell breaks loose. In my absence, X and company have what appears to be a lively discussion on coming out with asexuality. Personally, I don't have any new ideas to add to the discussion so I will leave it as it stands.
However, I have a related confession. Perhaps I am naive and/or I don't wear a sign that says "I am asexual", but I was unaware that we asexuals had enemies at all. Furthermore, I did not realize that we had legitimate political reasons to send out a rallying cry.
To my knowledge, I have never been discriminated against or denied any of my rights because of my asexuality. Maybe, I am blind to society, and don't see the injustice right in front of me.
Actually, I thought our little club was supposed to send out the word that if you our asexual then you are not alone. Nothing more. All this discussion makes me curious if our club's role is changing, or whether it was never clearly defined before.
Re: Allying with Oversexuals
I'm going to challenge your idea, Platonicpimp, that oversexuals are our mortal enemies. Our hypothetical example has been the guy in the pride parade ripping off his speedo. Another would be my campus, where the local queer group gets together 3 times a year with sidewalk chalk and covers the ground with same-gender sexually explicit material. I join them, here's why: As much as flamboyant expressions of sexuality SEEM contradictory to asexual interests, I don't think it adds up. Our "enemies" are not those people who are exptremely sexual, but those people who consider sex to be really important (necessary for love/marraige/a valid existance.) When there's a notion sex being sacred it automacally shuts us out in the cold and harshly attacks "profane" forms of sexuality, like same-gender sexuality. So what's going on with the chalkings, or with the guy ripping off his speedo? Those are both extremely political (if sexually political) actions. Both are saying "I'm being profane and its completely fine." Both are challenging the ingrained notion that sex is this sacred-or-profane REALLY IMPORTANT thing. Both are essentially telling people to chill out and not make such a deal about sexuality. Which is exactly the point that we want to get across. Ideally people could be sexual however they wanted or not sexual at all and it wouldn't be made into a big thing. So flamboyant sexuality is helping us.
Platonicpimp, a gay man on your campus who has another man over is considered flamboyant? Is the code the same for staight couples?
The oversexual comment was more of a joke, really.
And remember, BRC, that I'm in Kansas. But what I was getting at is that, while it's no beig secret, neither is his sexuality something he feels the need to shout from the roof. Just trying to say there's something in between Closeted and flamboyant.
On an unrelated note. . .
Bloody Red Commie,
I was looking at your school's web page and I noticed that they have a graduate program in Ethnomusicology. That's pretty cool. I am really interested in that field.
Re: On an unrelated note. . .
Bloody Red Commie,
I was looking at your school's web page and I noticed that they have a graduate program in Ethnomusicology. That's pretty cool. I am really interested in that field.
Yeah. I'm a physics/sociology major myself, but the dept is good. We're got a full javanese Gamalon.
Re: Did anyone show up for the 2nd meeti
I apologize for being absent for Thursday night's scheduled chat meeting. Some friends of mine took me out for a bit of celebrating. Did a meeting take place? If so, what was discussed?
I had a reshceduled rehearsal, so I couldn't make it...
-DJ
unexpected reactions
Well, in the last few days, I got some very unexpected reactions from people about my asexuality.
It's strange, of some of them, I expected a rather uneasy reaction. Those turned out to be very supportive. On the other hand, of some other I expected a supportive reaction, but the reaction I got was or a very silent one (they do not say much anymore as long as you talk about asexuality), or a reaction that marked asexuality as a problematic issue, "probably caused by one or another trauma".
It's as if people need to see it as a problem, so that it can be solved (as someone put before in a message). I find that those people look down on others. They put themselves at the point of reference and everything different is "sick".
I was even more surprised because one of them is a lesbian. I thought she would have understood that not all people are like the norm...
Re: unexpected reactions
Well, in the last few days, I got some very unexpected reactions from people about my asexuality.
It's strange, of some of them, I expected a rather uneasy reaction. Those turned out to be very supportive. On the other hand, of some other I expected a supportive reaction, but the reaction I got was or a very silent one (they do not say much anymore as long as you talk about asexuality), or a reaction that marked asexuality as a problematic issue, "probably caused by one or another trauma".
It's as if people need to see it as a problem, so that it can be solved (as someone put before in a message). I find that those people look down on others. They put themselves at the point of reference and everything different is "sick".
I was even more surprised because one of them is a lesbian. I thought she would have understood that not all people are like the norm...
I've gotten very similar reactions from people. It makes sense, in a way. We don't get strong negative reactions the way that gay/lesbian/trans people have in the past, because we're not breaking social sex/gender codes (how could we, we're not doing anything sexual.) In my experience people will be confused without really realizing it. The basic concept of asexuality seems really simple, so they understand that and generally are supportive. The problem is that they, whether consciously or otherwise, consider sex to be really important (after all, that's what society tells them). It's a really simple concept, but sex they can't imagine a complete life without sex. So either they think you have an incomplete, problematic life, they get confused and shut down when you bring up the topic, or they (if you're lucky, or if you can coax them into it) ask questions. I've sometimes even had people be supportive to mask that they had no real concept of what was going on.
Re: Hi... I'm new...
I'm Geraldin Rich Jones 21 entertainer and asexual... Nice to meet a like minded group...
What's it like here...?
<a href=http://members.tripodnet.nl/MissGeri/id17.htm target=new>http://members.tripodnet.nl/MissGeri/id17.htm</a>
Welcome!! Based on looking at your site I'd say that you'll get along fine here, we have alot of the same opinions and concerns about sexual importance and asexual visibility. I run AVEN, I'm the one who thought up the triangle symbol, though there are a few other floating around. Right now we're still coming together as a community, but there are alot of exciting things happening. If you have time go back and read some of the earlier posts.
-BRC
Masturbation and asexuals? Huh?
By definition, if you don't want to have sex with another, then you are asexual. Simple as that.
Whether one pursues a nonsexual romantic relationship or they masturbate does not change their convictions when it comes to asexuality.
Some will certainly question the success rate and the existence of a nonsexual relationship which I must include myself, but I cannot deny those true asexual believers in their desire for no sex.
I don't believe that masturbation quantifies as a romantic relationship nor as sex so I don't see it as troublesome issue.
I can understand how certain types of celibate people would masturbate and still consider themselves celibate, but asexuals masturbating?
Can someone clarify? If one is asexual, or averse to the type of sexual activity that could lead to reproduction, that would seem to preclude orgasm or any desire for orgasm, in which case masturbation would also not be desirable.
What is the goal of masturbation for an asexual? For a hetero, they masturbate visualizing an image of a desirable sex partner in a sexually stimulating scenario. What does an asexual visualize when they masturbate? What is the object of thinking that would bring them to a such a mental and physical state culminating in orgasm?
-fk
Re: Masturbation and asexuals? Huh?
I can understand how certain types of celibate people would masturbate and still consider themselves celibate, but asexuals masturbating?
Can someone clarify? If one is asexual, or averse to the type of sexual activity that could lead to reproduction, that would seem to preclude orgasm or any desire for orgasm, in which case masturbation would also not be desirable.
What is the goal of masturbation for an asexual? For a hetero, they masturbate visualizing an image of a desirable sex partner in a sexually stimulating scenario. What does an asexual visualize when they masturbate? What is the object of thinking that would bring them to a such a mental and physical state culminating in orgasm?
-fk
As you read through these posts, the only clear definition for asexuality that everyone here would completely agree with is one who does not desire direct sexual intercourse with another person. I have not heard anyone speak ill or otherwise of oral sex.
Therefore, if an asexual who pursues a non-sexual romantic relationship, they are part of the gang. If an asexual masturbates to am image of another person, once again, they are part of the group.
From a personal stand point, I am still confused how an asexual can maintain a romantic relationship so I can relate to your dilemna. No one has yet been able sufficiently explain it to me how this asexual romantic relationship works.
With that said, the best explanation that I could come up with is that here sex is defined by an act between two persons, not one. So, yes, masturbation still applies here.
Re: Masturbation and asexuals? Huh?
As you read through these posts, the only clear definition for asexuality that everyone here would completely agree with is one who does not desire direct sexual intercourse with another person. I have not heard anyone speak ill or otherwise of oral sex.
Therefore, if an asexual who pursues a non-sexual romantic relationship, they are part of the gang. If an asexual masturbates to am image of another person, once again, they are part of the group.
From a personal stand point, I am still confused how an asexual can maintain a romantic relationship so I can relate to your dilemna. No one has yet been able sufficiently explain it to me how this asexual romantic relationship works.
With that said, the best explanation that I could come up with is that here sex is defined by an act between two persons, not one. So, yes, masturbation still applies here.
I really can't address the masturbation issue because I don't do that. I can address the non-sexual romance (or at least I'll try to again).
I consider myself to be a hetero-Asexual. I also admire beautiful things. I like to look at flowers, tree-lines, fresh fruit, clouds and I like the way some men look, they're cute to me! I can even compliment a beautiful woman (and not feel attracted to her). I don't want to have sex with the men (coital, oral, or otherwise), but I do enjoy spending time with them. I like hugs, kisses on the cheeks, and cuddling in front of a tv. I also like giving and receiving cards, gifts, poems, and chocolates. All of these things that I like are parts of what make up the whole concept of "romance". The real phenomenon that separates platonic friendship from romantic friendship is this...butterflies in the stomach! You can have all of the other elements (and more) with someone who doesn't give you butterflies and still not have "romance". I've experienced a few non-sexual romances before so I know that it can happen. It wasn't merely a lack of opportunity that caused those relationships to remain non-sexual (because where there's a will, there's a way). We didn't want to spoil what we had by reducing our relationship to a sweaty humping session. I hope this helps to shed light on the concept of an asexual romance. (If not, then I'll quit trying. Some get it, some don't.)
This also fits into the spectrum theory. Hetero-Asexuality is part of a continuum like Homo-Asexuality and Bi-Asexuality. If you think of a complete circle, then label points on the circle with all of the known orientations, then you will see that the chances of most people being "pure" anything is very slim compared to the wide-rimmed opportunities for people to fall "in-between" two labels. Therefore, asexuals can have a desire for romance and..."nothing more" (as our newcomer eloquently states in her poem). *:o)
Re: Masturbation and asexuals? Huh?
I really can't address the masturbation issue because I don't do that. I can address the non-sexual romance (or at least I'll try to again).
I consider myself to be a hetero-Asexual. I also admire beautiful things. I like to look at flowers, tree-lines, fresh fruit, clouds and I like the way some men look, they're cute to me! I can even compliment a beautiful woman (and not feel attracted to her). I don't want to have sex with the men (coital, oral, or otherwise), but I do enjoy spending time with them. I like hugs, kisses on the cheeks, and cuddling in front of a tv. I also like giving and receiving cards, gifts, poems, and chocolates. All of these things that I like are parts of what make up the whole concept of "romance". The real phenomenon that separates platonic friendship from romantic friendship is this...butterflies in the stomach! You can have all of the other elements (and more) with someone who doesn't give you butterflies and still not have "romance". I've experienced a few non-sexual romances before so I know that it can happen. It wasn't merely a lack of opportunity that caused those relationships to remain non-sexual (because where there's a will, there's a way). We didn't want to spoil what we had by reducing our relationship to a sweaty humping session. I hope this helps to shed light on the concept of an asexual romance. (If not, then I'll quit trying. Some get it, some don't.)
This also fits into the spectrum theory. Hetero-Asexuality is part of a continuum like Homo-Asexuality and Bi-Asexuality. If you think of a complete circle, then label points on the circle with all of the known orientations, then you will see that the chances of most people being "pure" anything is very slim compared to the wide-rimmed opportunities for people to fall "in-between" two labels. Therefore, asexuals can have a desire for romance and..."nothing more" (as our newcomer eloquently states in her poem). *:o)
That was beautifully said, that's exactly how I feel!! But I could never put it to words...
Re: Hi... I'm new...
Welcome!! Based on looking at your site I'd say that you'll get along fine here, we have alot of the same opinions and concerns about sexual importance and asexual visibility. I run AVEN, I'm the one who thought up the triangle symbol, though there are a few other floating around. Right now we're still coming together as a community, but there are alot of exciting things happening. If you have time go back and read some of the earlier posts.
-BRC
Thank you for your welcome :-)
Romance, masturbation...
Celibbrat, I want to add my thanks for your post about asexual romance; in fact, you helped me to define it for myself! I was always puzzling about what the difference was between "just friendship" and what my companion and I feel for each other, and that's it: the butterflies. We are always thrilled to make contact with each other (usually via YM!), and the few times we manage to get together in person, it's just, well, "butterflies" --without the sexual tension. Thanks so much for your words.
Masturbation. My friend has a theory that most people start out in life with no sexual activity, then begin masturbating, then have sex with people, then later on go back to masturbating, and then when they are really old, back to nothing! Ha ha.
Anyway, my feeling about masturbation is that it is a sex act, partly because it involves fantasizing about having sex with a person (at least for me it always has, and I think it does for most people). But even if it didn't, it would still be a sexual act, i.e., simulating the genitals with the intention of arriving at orgasm. Therefore, I really don't thing a person who masturbates is asexual, and I honestly don't even believe that a celibate who masturbates is really a celibate, either. I know there are other opinions about this; I'm merely offering mine. :o)
X.
Re: Romance, masturbation...
Celibbrat, I want to add my thanks for your post about asexual romance; in fact, you helped me to define it for myself! I was always puzzling about what the difference was between "just friendship" and what my companion and I feel for each other, and that's it: the butterflies. We are always thrilled to make contact with each other (usually via YM!), and the few times we manage to get together in person, it's just, well, "butterflies" --without the sexual tension. Thanks so much for your words.
Masturbation. My friend has a theory that most people start out in life with no sexual activity, then begin masturbating, then have sex with people, then later on go back to masturbating, and then when they are really old, back to nothing! Ha ha.
Anyway, my feeling about masturbation is that it is a sex act, partly because it involves fantasizing about having sex with a person (at least for me it always has, and I think it does for most people). But even if it didn't, it would still be a sexual act, i.e., simulating the genitals with the intention of arriving at orgasm. Therefore, I really don't thing a person who masturbates is asexual, and I honestly don't even believe that a celibate who masturbates is really a celibate, either. I know there are other opinions about this; I'm merely offering mine. :o)
X.
The masturbation thing is complicated, I think it gets back to the difference between sex drive and sexual attraction. That is you can be programmed to enjoy sex without feeling compelled to be sexual with anyone. You can have a sex drive and just not have it influence your interactions with people, and therefore have little or no affect on your life. I don't see the destinction between asexuals who masterbate and those who don't to be a relevant one (at least now), because whether or not someone masturbates is essentially irrelivent to the rest of their life. What's relevant is the way that they form relationships, and the way that sexuality influences those relationships. The more I think about sex itself the more I realize that it really isn't that important in the larger scheme of things, its the abstract and often socially constructed way that it affects things. Not being sexual is a big deal not becuase of sex itself, but because of the stuff that's associated with sex.
Speaking of which->asexual romance. I can definitely understand how asexual romance can work, I like the butterflu description alot. Because of a good deal of relationship analyzing I guess I consider romance to be something of a necessary evil of the sexual world, a type of relationship founded on expectations instead of on experience, but that's a bit of an overgeneralization and I can definitely understand how other asexual people wouldn't agree. What's really mystifying to me is the idea of a nonsexual gender orientation. What is it about women that excludes you from having "butterflies" about them? After all, gender is a pretty loose amalgamation of alot of stuff (and it's obviously not the anatomy.) The distinction makes some sort of sense in the sexual world, gender and sexual attraction are intimately related (if not two sides of the same coin), but how does that work nonsexually? I believe you that it does, it's just a new concept I'm trying to grasp. (Would you say that sexual people experience nonsexual gender orientation?)
Re: Romance, masturbation...
The masturbation thing is complicated, I think it gets back to the difference between sex drive and sexual attraction. That is you can be programmed to enjoy sex without feeling compelled to be sexual with anyone. You can have a sex drive and just not have it influence your interactions with people, and therefore have little or no affect on your life. I don't see the destinction between asexuals who masterbate and those who don't to be a relevant one (at least now), because whether or not someone masturbates is essentially irrelivent to the rest of their life. What's relevant is the way that they form relationships, and the way that sexuality influences those relationships. The more I think about sex itself the more I realize that it really isn't that important in the larger scheme of things, its the abstract and often socially constructed way that it affects things. Not being sexual is a big deal not becuase of sex itself, but because of the stuff that's associated with sex.
Speaking of which->asexual romance. I can definitely understand how asexual romance can work, I like the butterflu description alot. Because of a good deal of relationship analyzing I guess I consider romance to be something of a necessary evil of the sexual world, a type of relationship founded on expectations instead of on experience, but that's a bit of an overgeneralization and I can definitely understand how other asexual people wouldn't agree. What's really mystifying to me is the idea of a nonsexual gender orientation. What is it about women that excludes you from having "butterflies" about them? After all, gender is a pretty loose amalgamation of alot of stuff (and it's obviously not the anatomy.) The distinction makes some sort of sense in the sexual world, gender and sexual attraction are intimately related (if not two sides of the same coin), but how does that work nonsexually? I believe you that it does, it's just a new concept I'm trying to grasp. (Would you say that sexual people experience nonsexual gender orientation?)
Hi, b-r-c....you said, "What is it about women that excludes you from having "butterflies" about them?" Not sure if you were addressing me, but I'd just like to say that I HAVE had "butterflies" about women, although not with a desire to have sex with them.
Back to good old masturbation. I think, at least for me, that it's an important issue. As I said, I believe it is sex, and there is "stuff"--perhaps pesonal and private, rather than social--that goes along with it. I, for one, never felt particularly good about myself after a jerk-off session, and found that when I stopped doing it my self-esteem rose considerably. I'm sure not everyone feels that way, but that's how I feel.
X.
A footnote...
Hi, b-r-c....you said, "What is it about women that excludes you from having "butterflies" about them?" Not sure if you were addressing me, but I'd just like to say that I HAVE had "butterflies" about women, although not with a desire to have sex with them.
Back to good old masturbation. I think, at least for me, that it's an important issue. As I said, I believe it is sex, and there is "stuff"--perhaps pesonal and private, rather than social--that goes along with it. I, for one, never felt particularly good about myself after a jerk-off session, and found that when I stopped doing it my self-esteem rose considerably. I'm sure not everyone feels that way, but that's how I feel.
X.
Actually, now that I think about it, to me masturbation is equally as demeaning as the sex act with another person, the only difference being that you get to be demeaned by yourself instead of with someone else.
X.