From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 13:48:17 MDT
natashavita@earthlink.net wrote:
> Mike Perry <mike@alcor.org>
>
>
> However fuzzy it is becoming, our species is currently distinguished by
> genders (. Being anti-sex would be against not just both genders, but any
> gender.
Gender always was more "fuzzy" than most people usually assume.
According to a study at John Hopkins reported a bit ago, as
many as 2% of live births are in some way intersexed. There is
also a wide spectrum of variation within both genders in terms
of many physical and emotional characteristics. There are also
various forms of gender dysphoria, many of which cannot be
reduced to simply psychological issues. Sexuality is yet another
variation in gender related behavior. What is considered the
"norm" for a gender has fluctuated in particulars quite a bit in
various societies.
>While I see numerous gender possibilities in the future, the fact
> that gender does have relevance to who we are is consequential. So, if you
> want no gender ("non-gender") this would be fine, but would still be
> described as a type of gender. If you wanted to be cross-gender or
> multi-gender, this also would be an individual choice. But I don't see
> great value in being "anti-sex", unless it is for socio-political stance
> and that would have to have some relevance to extropian or
> extreme-longevity values, or at least rebel-rousing.
>
Sex and gender are nearly orthogonal. Being asexual or sexual
in various ways says little or nothing about what gender[s] (if
any) one sees oneself as. To over-simplify, sex is about who
one goes to bed with (or if one does), gender is about how one
sees oneself - who one goes to bed as.
> Even if sex got in the way of a creative process or professional
> commitment, the sidetrack is not that offensive or overtly distracting.
> How many hours are in a day? Most people don't have sex every day of the
> week, but if so - take a 20-minute break or have a quick fix. It's not
> that messy. This is not to diminish a person's wanting to do away with sex
> because of a personal desire not to be bogged down with all the hoopla
> about sex. Sometimes it is overwhelming and smacks of an "in your face"
> theater. Sometimes it might seem as if we could accomplish more without
> having to be bothered by the insistence of sex. But being anti-sex would
> probably take just as much effort.
>
The sex itself is the least complicated part of it. All the
attendant hooks, complications, anxieties, expectations,
seeking, avoiding and so on are much more complex and can color
(and apparently do for most people) much of life. Just letting
go of the entire business now and then can be quite liberating.
> The only part of "anti-sex" I think I stumble over is the "anti" part.
> Being non-sexual, asexual, <-sex, or zero-sex is sexier.
>
Fair enough.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:31 MST