Thursday, May 11, 2006

Well, that's timely.


Proud Canadian Barbara Kay comes to the defense of "asexuality." Simultaneously, Mr. Kay discovers a new excuse for why he doesn't want to have relations with the missus ever, ever again.

5 comments:

Rosie said...

So.......If these asexuals are being glorified, then I guess the right can stop harping on gay people for "ruining" the family?

An "under-populated utopia"? Don't we hear whines about how all the white people are aborting themselves into extinction?

Anyways, more reason to vilify sex I guess.

Anonymous said...

Kay is always out to lunch. I have yet to read a single column of hers with which I agree.
In this asinine edition, I especially enjoyed the finishing touch of describing young women as 'dressing like hookers'. As usual, Kay fundamentally misunderstands why young women would choose to dress that way.
Sanctimonious bitch.

Chimera said...

While asexuals probably don't really need to be defended, I thought the article was a good one. Kay is correct that we are a sexually-driven society -- the only animal that is obsessed with sex to the point where we make it our business to know eveyone else's sexual business.

I can almost understand Cijay Morgan's view that freedom from sexual urges could be liberating. Imagine a world where the advertisers of products actually had to tell you what the product does for real, rather than try to tell you how sexy and appealing it will make you! From toothpaste that actually helps fight cavities to a fuel-efficient car -- truth in advertising! What a concept!

"As usual, Kay fundamentally misunderstands why young women would choose to dress that way."

Okay...'splain it to me. Why would little girls want to dress like hookers?

Anonymous said...

You know, I'm seeing alot of asexual bashing going on here, which really isn't very progressive. Asexuals don't want to "vilify" sex, they just happen to believe that a non-sexual sexual orientation is perfectly natural, inborn and healthy just like being hetero, gay, or bi. It's not like they're out to get us hets, gays and bis and make us stop shagging.

I do, however, disagree with the tone of the article, as Kay is trying to equate asexuality with asceticism, which it is not. asceticism is giving up something that you do desire, wheras asexuals have no desire whatsoever.

As for Stella's comments, while I do take offense to Kay's description of how young females dress as being "like hookers", I don't see any reason why we do it that isn't grounded in the patriarchy. Why do we wear uncomfortable clothes if not because we've been culturally conditioned to believe that it's what we do? If not to pretend we're "empowered" by offering ourselves to the male gaze?

Rosie said...

I don't believe asexuals villify sex.If asexuals want to be "ra-ra" about their sexless lifestyle, then thats fine. Everyone deserves the right to be who they want to be, sexually or otherwise, as long as they don't hurt or victimize anyone in the process.

I felt the author villified sex, implying that asexualism is the thing to be.....Utopia, so to speak.

True, many ills of society would be fixed if no one wanted sex, no rape, incest, teenage pregnancies.....and women can be artifically inseminated, therefore technically there's no downfall, right?

The drive for sex kinda corresponds to species survival. Other animals are very obsessed with sex-their primary goal in life is to reproduce and assure the survival of their young. I think our society's obsession with sex stems from it being such a taboo subject for so long! Things are scandalous when they are "dirty".

My point was, maybe not so eloquently stated, is that people (not necessarily Kay, I am not familiar with her opinions on this stuff) should stop crapping on other non-reproducing people about their lifestyle choices if they are going to be promoting this one.