Some folks just don’t care if they all look better at closing time

Human sexuality has become entirely too complicated for my liking. While it is well we have grown sufficiently in tolerance that we accept those of other persuasions and other predilections. So, we make space for heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and all the people who like to indulge in acts that range from the charming and sensual, to the bizarre, to the downright icky.

That’s OK, though. Consenting adults and all that. I know I have no concerns with virtually anything done by consenting adults, as long as it makes them happy and does the job.

But, according to British psychosexual studies, there is a group that maybe some of us were not aware of, and those who devote their lives (and governmental grants) to making findings, feel it is time that we accommodated those of no sexual preferences whatsoever. That is, the group within the general population that has absolutely and utterly no interest whatsoever, regardless of the circumstances, in sex. Yes, it would be a cheap shot to suggest I once dated this person, but what the heck.

But, seriously, they have found a group in society that has never had sex, has never hankered after sexual congress, and has not only virtually, but literally no libido whatsoever. Those same scientists (who I suspect look remarkably like the science nerd on The Simpsons) are so involved in this study that they believe it is only fair that these people, like homosexuals, heterosexuals, metrosexuals, transsexuals, etc. deserve their own category — nonsexuals.

How weird is that?, as Einstein was often purported to have uttered. And, just how many people are we talking about who have never had an attack of the horny vapors. Evidently somewhere in the realm of 1.05 percent of the population. Not exactly stunning numbers, but if you multiply by populations of assorted place, it does make for a goodly, if not necessarily enchanting, crowd.

For example, the US has a population of 295 million, and that means that there are around 3 million folks who are ‘not’ going to get too friendly with your spouse late in the evening at a party, if male, they are ‘not’ going to think all the girls in the bar are looking better at closing time. In fact, they are not going to care what the girls (or the boys) look like. They’re just not interested. Considering that Canada has 1/10th of the US population approximately, it means that we have about 300,000 not worth chatting up in your saloon or at a church supper.

I suppose there are advantages to being in that uncharmed 1.05 percent. You never have to worry about looking your best, since you are not trying to attract anyone. You never have to wonder, if single, who you are going to be with on a Saturday night. You never have to worry about unwanted pregnancy, STD transmission, or having to launder the sheets ‘yet again this week.’

One woman in Edmonton was reported to have said she has thoroughly enjoyed never having been aroused by anybody at any time, because this has left her life so uncomplicated and enabled her to get on with important things. What important things? Oh, I’m sorry. I guess I just cheapened myself by writing that. Anyway, in her case it may have something to do with the paucity of suitable candidates in Edmonton.

All I can say in conclusion is chacun a son gout, I suppose. But, I must also be thankful that I am in the 99.95 per cent group, despite the number of complications in the old ‘coupling’ field I’ve had to deal with in my life.


8 responses to “Some folks just don’t care if they all look better at closing time

  1. Ah, the vast multi-coloured rainbow of love… I’d be curious to know your opinions on those who practice objectum sexuality! 🙂

  2. Interesting question, Kimber. I am not entirely sure how OS differs from fetishism, which is a fine old and honored sexual proclivity. I must research it more. If somebody finds the statuary depicted in this blog arousing would that be OS, as opposed to obsessing about somebody’s undies?

  3. Very good question… is calling it ‘objectum sexuality’ (with a faint tinge of Latin prestige) a way of distancing the preference for high-brow architecture from the nasty, hum-drum, low-brow world of ‘fetishism’, where people lust after common items like shoes? **

    Hey, Pygmalion fell in love with a statue that he carved, which Venus then made into a real woman… maybe Pygmalion was a fetishist/objectum sexualist. I wonder, once his perfect, inert statue acquired a personality, was he still able to love a girl who moved, talked, breathed and talked back?

    As always, I’m leaving with more questions than answers. And that’s a good thing, in my books. 🙂

    **I don’t really think fetishism is nasty or hum-drum. Just to be clear.

  4. I have known people who described themselves as Asexual, which if I understand correctly is another way of saying the same thing, and recently read a very enlightening blog post by a woman who identified herself that way. I enjoy and embrace the complication of sexual attraction too, but I can definitely see where it would free up a lot of time, energy and focus not to have that desire to cater to!

  5. Kimber: I don’t think fetishism is remotely nasty or humdrum either, depending on what you’re doing with it. The creep who rifles through laundry hampers for knickers is a tad on the nasty side. And, I had forgotten the Pygmalion tale. Truly worthy of mention in the context.
    TT: But, you’d have to find something to do with that time, energy and focus if you were to foresake, so I think I prefer the conventional way. Mainly because I like it.

  6. Have a closer look at those 1.05%. Like the ugly younger sister and stupid younger brother in a family of limited means in Victorian England, chances are Mother Nature decided to take them off the reproduction roster because she didn’t want to perpetuate her mistakes. (I have no answer for what goes on in the Ozarks.)

  7. I always called them asexual. I’ve known only one true one. I used to think I knew two, but now believe that one of them had Asperger’s Syndrome. The one true one was friend of my brother. He just had no interest and didn’t “get” the whole thing. My brother thought he could fix him and hooked him up with a girl. The asexual guy went through the motions but got nothing out of it. If only we could inject his dna into pedophiles.

  8. Well, whatever turns you on… or doesn’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s