Apparently A-pride is the latest new sex club. But the
difference is that this A stands for asexual. According to a recent
New Scientist report in the US, it's seriously cool to be asexual. You
can buy the T-shirt, join the messageboards at www.asexuality.org
with 1700 or so registered members, shop online, or wear the
slogan-printed G-string. Although only limited research exists, one
survey suggests that just 1 per cent of the population are asexual.
Apparently these are people who don't experience sexual attraction;
never have, never will.
Quite why they're so keen to be out there when there's nothing to
be out there about is not only a troubling contradiction but also adds
to the suspicion they're just desperate for attention. Asexuality as a
sexual orientation reeks of not having your cake and eating it. Saudi
Arabians, Japanese and Cubans are signing up to AVEN (Asexual
Visibility and Education Network) founded by American David
Jay in 2001, who admits to liking girls but only ever hugging them.
While asexuals may be only a small proportion, of far more interest
are all the happy singles not having sex. This group is much larger
and growing; what's more, they don't need a support group, exist
without having to make a statement, have a USP, or wear the logo.
Not having sex isn't about laziness, dysfunction, celibacy, lack of
desire or opportunity, bitterness, or taking a position. It's not
about refusing all sexual favours in a Lysistrata pact. Not having sex
is just a statement of fact and the thing about facts is they have
nothing to prove and cannot be sexed up. So here it is again,
unadorned: many happy singles aren't having sex.
Why? It's just that enough relationships have soured for many
grown-ups to know it's got to be pretty good to be worth it next time.
Who wants the aggro, the health risk, the letdown, the fake intimacy,
the second guessing, the whole commitment phobic ritual-cum-charade
that goes with getting close to someone in a modern world built on
false hopes, lost faith, quick fixes and the lies of those to whom we
are entrusted?
The thing is, after 50 years, people have become cleverer than the
pill. If someone doesn't look like "getting" - or
understanding - you, why would you choose to have sex with them? We
are our own contraception now.
Sex, one of the building blocks of life, might be in full view on
billboards, pop videos and magazines, but it's not happening in many
bedrooms. Why worry about the decreasing marriage rates, the rising
divorce statistics, the child-free relationships, the singletons, when
many people are happily not even getting to first base? Unless you're
Hugh Grant, in an individualistic world, great sex is not a matter of
life and death, but bad sex is just not worth it. Instead of negative
equity, could this be a case of negative evolution?
There are other forms of "not" that may otherwise be seen
as forms of withdrawal from the world, but are just nots. Such as: not
marrying, not working for a company, not living in a city, not taking
the job promotion, not believing in God, politicians or lawyers, and
not watching TV.
Some might call it anarchy, but that's too strong a word. You could
say it's a beta way of life, where the nots are taking over from the
haves.
Source by Hilary Burden, November 3, 2004 - The
Sydney Morning Herald ©2004
