What's coming, Laurie, is the well-deserved destruction of this entire conceptual framework of sex as a 'pleasure-producing mechanism' which integrates into human behaviour by way of mathematical formulas dictating fixed gradations of experience like 'asexual', 'grey' etc
It's predictable that you take resistance to this totalitarian 'filing cabinet' approach to sexuality as an attack on sexuality itself, since you like to present this filing cabinet as the organic 'container' of sexuality (rather than a mediatic tool of social control)
There is a fundamental sociological dishonesty to a statement like 'not everyone is grey-asexual'- @PennyRed you know on some level that you are engaged in a kind of fictionalisation when you say something like this
Specifically, you are deliberately evading the inherently authored nature of all systems of identification and categorisation- that such identities are not organic 'types' which are 'found' in society, but part of an emerging discourse of sexuality of which you are a promoter
Actual conflict is not between pro-sex/anti-sex or pro-pleasure/anti-pleasure but between sex as a means to an end (pleasure) with the other as a contractee negotiating different 'packages' of mechanical assistance vs. sex understood as an inherently relational experience
The former view necessitates a world of relatively stable Lego brick identities that fit into contractural agreements in predictable ways e.g. the asexual's 'I do not desire sex but will have sex with you to produce Pleasure for you'
The latter view implies responsibilies and obligations ethical and personal as inherent to the sexual relationship in a way that transcends nonsense discourse abt the speculative 'ethical content' of 'pleasure'
Loading suggestions...