h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Kea,



My apologies it did not mean to sound like that. And this year they were Parades not Marches - Hurrah! Seeing a dozen TV Nuns walking through Glasgow was quite humourous especially when they were being passed by a dozen Goths who looked equally wacky.

Once I have read Hoov's stuff I may well reply if he hasn't made the points I am going to.

Alf

It sounds like I might have misunderstood you?

"Unless you like living where you are."

Er... hang on.

If you LIKE living where you are, what are you complaining about? There's either intolerable homophobia, or there isn't. If you like living where you are, great!

"Or your children live there with your ex."

Don't get me started on choices regarding families. Children should live where it's best for them, and adults should remember they're adults and not whine about the choices they made, including the choice to have an ex-partner.

"Or you have other dependants (elderly parent, disabled sibling) living nearby."

Again - a choice exists. And if you're not moving, you're acknowledging that you prefer the status quo.

"Or you can't afford to move."

Again - a choice. If you want to, you'll afford it. People move to cities with *nothing*, and survive. If you can live in the country, you can live in the city. In fact, you can probably live more easily in the city, because your access to essential services will be easier.

"Or you or your partner has a job here that they can't get easily elsewhere."

Lifestyle choice.

"Or you are raising kids on your own,"

Lifestyle choice.

"or are ill, or are disabled, and all your family and support system are in the area you already live in."

You're now getting into an area where I'm forced to wonder if you're that housebound and dependent on others for help, how much outsider homophobia can affect you.

"Or you belong to a group of people who relate in clan system and you need them culturally and spiritually."

What? Yet again, you're talking about a choice. Homophobia and your "cultural and spiritual" needs met, or acceptance and self-reliance? Pick one.

"Or you have a deep cultural or spiritual conneciton to the place you live in."

If it's that deep, homophobia is surely irrelevant? If you're that connected to the land, the attitudes of mere humans seems small beer.

"Or you are 15 or 13 and have no way to support yourself yet...."

Then I counsel patience - most rural 13-15 year old want to get away from their culturally bankrupt backwaters for a whole host of reasons. Gay teenagers are worthy of no more compassion than anyone else who wants to get away. But tough - that's life. Get an education, then get a bus. In that order.

"I could go on."

Perhaps, but I can't imagine you making a point I can't counter, most likely by pointing out that being in a place where homophobia is a problem is a definite CHOICE for most people. They may not like to think it is, they may come up with a whole host of reasons why they can't go somewhere else, somewhere enlightened and accepting of them the way they are - but it is their choice.

"I've lived in a couple of rural places and I don't find them backward."

You're lucky then.

"I think that there is still just as much bigotry of all kinds in cities"

The difference is that in cities there is sufficient population for several sub-cultures to thrive alongside one another, and you can find the subculture that suits you and live in it. In more rural areas, there's a monoculture, and if you don't fit in, for whatever reason, accent, colour, sexuality, you're odd, end of story.

"it's just that country people are more honest about their feelings."

'Honest about their feelings', or as we more often say in English, 'rude'.

"Rural communities are still where most of our food comes from and I personally hope that they don't die a slow death."

I think I meant more that their attitudes and foibles would die a slow death as the country takes on more urban attitudes.

H.

Yes you can move, but why should you.

I think expressing your sexuality isn't just about snogging ones partner in stations, or wearing a tee shirt saying 'I f**k chicks'.

It's about a quick kiss good by at a railway station or airport, it's about talking about your parter at the office. It's about taking them as your date to office do's. It's about having their photo on your desk.

These are all things that hetrosexuals can do easily that gaypeople can't.

Admittedly if you are single it doesn't really affect things, but if you were in a long term relationship then it does make a difference.

If you have a partner it affects your life. Everytime you mention 'my wife' at work you express your sexuality.

Z - straight but lives with a gay flatmate (whose experiences were shamelessly drawn on in the above)so assumed to be gay by an irritating large amount of people.

I can imagine that single people also suffer in 'group events' e.g. being invited x plus 'partner', being set up with a companion to make even numbers, being teased by colleagues for not having a partner.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/14/asexual.study/

Just one of the many articles about asexuality and promoting awareness and acceptance of it.

I can see that some of the reasons why highlighting asexuality will be a good thing – the frigid woman yes but then again women who just decide not to have sex before marriage can have the same problem too. But to start having Asexual Pride Marches just seems over-the-top. Gay Pride Marches – yes they were done due to the whole inequality in law and the real abuse that gay people get. You hear of queer bashing I have not heard of Asexual-bashing yet.

I used to avoid talking about sex because I couldn’t get any like a lot of other people for various reasons like 1) not being able to read signals; 2) being scared to ask someone out 3) being ugly 4) being fat 5) being shy (not all of these are me).

It seems like the only real problem that asexuals have are that they are a) looked on as a bit strange if they admit that they are and b) get accused of being frigid or gay when they are unmarried at 35years old.

Well, boo hoo. Now I have to tell people in this position JOIN THE CLUB. Most hetrosexuals have those two problems as well however where asexuals have the great benefit is that they haven’t got the angst, worries and self-doubt that most heterosexual people get when they are at this stage. Or the worry and stress of asking people out, dumping and getting dumped and the stress that this has that screws up a hetrosexuals life for months afterwards while all the lucky asexuals are out enjoying sports, dancing and socialising with friends and just having a darn good time without that base instinct of seeing whether there is someone there who they fancy. I am getting quite jealous of asexuals now you know!


The question: are asexuals embarrassed or ashamed of their lack of sexuality which is why we do not know many could be answered that possibly they are enjoying themselves too much to care. Or maybe with the continuing acceptance of gay people that there is no need to get acceptance. It is just how they are made.

Kea said < In terms of asexuality - heterosexism assumes that normal sexuality is always between a man and a woman, and I think it also assumes that people should want sex, and that there is some kind of norm for how much sex people should want or have. I think prejudice against asexuals is more subtle than homophobia, but I don't think it's healthy or ok for anyone to be repeatedly told their sexuality is abnormal.>

Is there a lot of prejudice against asexuals in any different way to the ‘prejudice’ afforded to middle aged heterosexual people?

Or indeed the prejudice and slights given to childless couples – my sister has had two miscarriages in the past year – she’s fine – they are going to try again. However an evil woman whose daughter I used to know went up to my mother last week and said I don’t want to rub it in but my daughter is having her third – this also had the added hint of and you still aren’t a grandmother. This happens a lot the assumption that ‘there is something wrong with them if they can’t have kids...what a shame - snigger.’

I don’t want kids through choice – I have no feeling towards wanting children smell lumps that they are. Maybe it is part of my biological make-up people who state they do not wants kids certainly have things said about them in subtle ways. Who is up for a ‘Childless Person Pride March’ I will get the T-shirts made up – “Childless – yes with no stretch-marks”, “No kids for me – but my car is still mine”. “I don’t need to prove I am a man by getting someone pregnant – I just enjoy the practice”.

Oh and as for celebrating diversity in sexuality I just let people be who they are with out needing to celebrate it – it’s a bit like celebrating the fact that I have ten toes…it’s a socially accepted part of me and once we finally get over all the hang-ups that we all have about sexuality (which is bubbling under every post here) then no-one will give a damn what your sexuality is and the better for it.

And another thing:

Now that it has been shown that there are asexuals we now have a split in the '35 years old and still single' brigade.

35 years old, still single and asexual: It is just the way I am. It is totally natural.

35 years old, still single and hetrosexual/gay: I am socially inept and inadequate there must be something wrong with me but it isn't down to me genes. It *must be me*.

How do you become asexual it seems like it would be a weight off my shoulders.

"How do you become asexual "

Try cutting your goolies off.



H.

Hoov,

I think that is a very insensitive thing to say - you obviously did not read the link I posted. There is a subgroup of asexuals who are specifically people who have had their things ripped off in accidents. I would prefer not to go through that pain - I would have to get my trousers recut. Although it would be humourous to stand in the middle of a pub and get a mate to kick you in the groin and watch all the men double over.

Sidebar: a pint of large if anyone can name a recentish asexual film character who has just come to mind.

Not everyone who has lost their bits in accidents is asexual.

"a pint of large if anyone can name a recentish asexual film character who has just come to mind."

R2D2?



H.

Don't leave that comment *ahem* dangling there. Any chance of enlightening us please.

Sorry Hoo not R2D2 says slowly he-is-a-robot.

This character may not have it swinging between his legs but he was still a swinger (strangely enough).

Well, assuming said person is male..if you had lost your bits you could have testosterone replacement (indeed you'd have to to avoid osteoprosis), this would give you a sex drive. And there's plenty of sex that doesn't invole a penis.

If said person was female it would make it difficult, but again there's more to sex than penatrative sex and often erogenous zones move around the body and stimulation can occur in ohter ways.

Getting back to the topic...I'm not at all clear if this 'asexuality' refers to a biological, psychological or social phenomenon. There seems to be a range of possible asexualities:

Those who are biologically missing components (genitals, neurological bits) and therefore lack sexual responses. These people will (I imagine) tend not to have sex - unless socially pressured into it.

Those who have disfigured genitals (through accident or mutilaion). These may still have a sexual response. Some of these will find genital sex painful or embarassing and will thus avoid it. Others will find solace in other forms of non-genital sexual activity.

Ditto those with genital malfunctions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that men with erectile dysfunction still desire sex and therefore seek out Viagra etc.

Those with other disfigurements or disabilities who want sex but find it socially difficult to get sexual partners. The Dutch health service funds a prostitution scheme for such people (I read it in The Grauniad last week!)

Those whose neurochemical sexual response system is turned off by medication (a possible side-effect of SSRI and other antidepressants)

Those who have been socially unable to find appropriate partners. Chances are that most of these will still have sexual responses (eg they will masturbate) - but conceivably some will get out of the habit.

Those whose lives are too busy, tiring or stressful to have time for sex. Anecdotal experience suggests that this happens a lot to parents! In such cases the sexual response may either lie dormant with occasional eruptions, or may wither in one or both partners.

Those who due to psychological trauma (rape, childhood abuse, mistreatment by partners) - cannot face the intimacy of sex.

Those who are pyschologically damaged by their cultural upbringing and thus find sex 'icky'.

Those who make a 'moral choice' to avoid sexual behaviour - possibly as a cover for their pyschological or social problems (it is to be sassumed, for example, that a certain prominent female Tory MP suffers from masturbation guilt).

Have I missed any? Are we only talking about the first? I reckon so. I suggest that in the other cases also include both homosexual and heterosexual 'asexuals', whilst the first (by definition) does not.

"Seeing a dozen TV Nuns walking through Glasgow was quite humourous"

TV nuns? What, you mean like Sister Wendy the art critic?



And now, an actual serious question. I joke that there are five fundamental forces in the universe - weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, gravity, and sex.

All fundamental forces have a "mediating particle", the particle that "carries" the force between the interacting bodies.

For weak and strong nuclear forces they are gauge bosons and pions.

For electromagnetic force, they are photons.

For gravity, they are (probably) gravitons.

And obviously, the mediating particle for the force of sexual attraction is called: the turnon.

Ay theng yo.

On to the serious question: what exactly is going on when you get turned on? Clearly it's an endocrine response, but what are the hormones and where are they secreted?

I'm assuming that adrenaline is one, but I have no idea where the adrenal gland is.

Can someone (Z, this means you) tell me a bit more about exactly what is happening, so that we know what's NOT happening for our *perfectly normal* asexual friends?

H.

*looks for the correct book*

I've just remembered the story about when Ian McKellern phoned Alan Bennet to persuade him to take part in a benefit concert. At the end of the converation, McKellern said "I'm assuming, of course, that you are gay" to which Bennet replied "That's rather like asking a man dying of thirst in the Sahara whether he'd prefer Perrier or Malvern Water."

I also don't see that asexuals have a more difficult life than those people who are permanently single. We also get a lot of stick for it, people might think you're gay, and people look strangely when you're eating alone in a restuarant. At least they have a good excuse.

*book confirms what I thought*

What actually happens when you are turned on is not well understood.

We know what happens at the buisness end,

In women.

Mental arousal + tactile stimulation of breasts and clitoris/labia lead to sexual excitment. Which leads to the release of VIP (vasoaactive intestinal polypeptide) from the nerves in the in the vagina, this leads to lubricating muscus to be secreted from the vestiubular gland and if stimulation continutes the rythmic muscular contractions of orgasm.

In men much the same thing happens, except different neurotransmitters are released from the nerves in the penis.

What we don't know is what causes the neurotransmitters to be released from the nerves. We know that administering hormones make people more likely to get aroused, but I could give you a massive dose of testosterone and you still wouldn't get horny, you'd need to think of sex first.

Basically the brain controls whether or not you get turned on, hormones make the brain more likely to send those signales, but they don't initate them on there own. And we don't understand what in the brain causes it.

So let me see if I've got this straight (pardon the pun)

1. Getting turned on is NOT, a matter of hormone secretion from glands, it's a matter of neurotransmitter release from nerves? And that those neurotransmitters are released "on site", as it were, unlike hormones which are released from the glands and carried around in the bloodstream?

2. This neurotransmitter release is under "remote" control via the brain, and not a, for want of a better word, "mechanical", localised response (like, say, a blister forming on the site of a burn), i.e. you *have* to be, on some level, thinking (if only subconsciously) about sex for it (i.e. lubrication/erection) to occur.

H.