Never have I been acquainted with the term, “asexual.” I always just assumed that everyone had desires and attractions whether it to be people of the same gender, opposite gender, or both. Asexuality represents a whole new category of people “who prefer no physicality with others, or only some forms, or only self-gratification, as well as people who don’t experience themselves as having sexual “needs” or “desires” but will have and enjoy sex with their sexual partners.” Biologically speaking, wouldn’t this be the worst when it comes to reproductive fitness? The desire for physical sexuality comes from the innate sense to reproduce and pass on genetic material; where asexual people claim that there are people who either don’t have this physical desire and/or only want the pleasure.
Mosurinjohn’s article, “School’s Out: Asexy Teens” talks about how children are perceived as lacking sexuality but then are sexually targeted and marketed to. This is quite the paradox. Everyone’s been a child / pre-teen and experienced the sex questions, sexual frustrations, lust, desire, confusion, etc. Quite clearly, most kids are not asexual, so why do we treat them as so? They’re being targeted by seemingly innocent companies like Disney. The comic mocking disney princesses really nails it – describing Cinderella, “If you’re beautiful enough, you may be able to escape your terrible living conditions by getting a wealthy man to fall for you.” There is something to be said about the condition of the princesses and beauty being used for Disney. I’m pretty sure that all little girls grow up watching most, if not all these Disney movies. And what is Disney teaching these little girls? It enforces heterosexuality, shows what “beauty” should look like, and a maybe even throw in a little racism. Oh Disney, you put these thoughts in my head before I even knew what they meant. No one’s really teaching kids about the spectrum of sexuality, or letting them being sexually free of societies constraints because they’re being looked at very asexually.
Now on to bisexuality. Angelide’s A History of Bisexuality: “…the nature of sexuality is fluid not fixed..the erotic discovery of bisexuality is the fact that it reveals sexuality to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable, knowable state of being…” (page 3). I completely agree with this statement. There have been times where I have questioned my own sexuality (and I know I’m not the only one) thinking that maybe I could be attracted to other girls… but what I never really figured out whether it was attraction, adoration, desire, or something in between. It really brings up the question, where do we draw the line? Perhaps we can’t. The fluidity of sexuality makes it nearly impossible to say which category a person truly falls in to – heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, (don’t forget about asexual!) Even though sexuality is very fluid, society still looks at it as being very rigid. Anything other than the “norm” of being attracted to the opposite sex is looked at as being wrong (except maybe when two girls are looking for some attention at a party). So why is this fluidity so wrong?
Merstar: remember when you directly quote a reading you need to cite it with the (Author & page number) so it would look like this: (Troka 19).
Your question about asexuality and reproductive fitness is an interesting one. First of all, do you think it is possible that someone could identify as asexual but still have sex and possible get pregnant (I am thinking obviously just about women) but I guess if you are talking about men could have sex and get someone pregnant. Why would they do that? What might motivate an asexual person to have sex without desire or attraction? Does that ever happen?
Finally, your question about fluidity is an interesting one. What is so threatening about thinking of sexuality as fluid and possibly changing over time?