From: Mike Perry (mike@alcor.org)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 16:13:07 MDT
>From: "natashavita@earthlink.net" <natashavita@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: more sex, less brains?
>
>From: Samantha Atkins
>
>...>>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.<
>
>You agree? Alright Samantha!
>
>I'd like to hear Mike Perry's views on this.
>
>Natasha
It's been pointed out that "sex" means different things, so there is room
for confusion in what one may mean by "anti-sex".
Vanessa Novaeris said:
>... if the hormone surge can be delayed for
>a number of years, why not delay it indefinitely? Why not eliminate the
>distractions altogether rather than just delaying the inevitable?
>
>So now I think gonads are a dumb idea ...
As I took it, the general idea was to basically turn off or sidestep the
obsession with the reproductive act that nature has drummed into us.
Someone who desires or is comfortable with the turnoff could be called
"more or less anti-sex"--at least that's what I had in mind; sorry for any
confusion. Yes, it might be said that one is seeking asexuality, but to
achieve or approximate it may require a proactive stance; indeed, it's hard
to see how it would not, except in special circumstances.
Mike Perry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:33 MST