Gender Jumper

Back when I was facilitating Poly101s/201s, I think we struggled to get to the questions underneath the questions; this entry's title came to me as one of the simplest questions that doesn't get asked and, as such, hinders so many people's understanding of their own relational values. Ethics, orientation, priorities, negotiation, a lot of it comes back to this:

"If there were no emotional, logistical, or financial hindrances nor benefits to doing so, would you pursue sexual pleasure for its own sake (and if so, how much)?"

This is also my quick and dirty measure of what someone may have of their place on the asexual spectrum (which is a real and valid phenomenon, but I have seen interpreted in such extremes as to supplant the existence of what we used to call "chemistry" (as in, "those two have a real chemistry together," I wonder if they'll fuck? Honestly "alchemy" might be better used here, but that's a whole other topic). 

Anyway, I think a lot of people would have difficulty answering the question, and that's a good thing. They should slow down and pay attention to how their answers vary from others'.

Religious and hyper-monogamous types are pretty straightforward: the answer is no because it is wrong or undesirable to them. You're not going to convince them otherwise, nor should you! (Shoutout to my college sweetheart, who at the tender age of 44 recently had nonromantic sex for the first time. I'm so proud!) Others are fully asexual and would prefer to pursue some other kind of pleasure guilt-free. A very very few of us will be able to answer in the straightforward, "Yes, absolutely." We may or may not have higher libidos than average, but we are significantly less encumbered with moral and cultural scripts about what sex is "supposed to" connote than others. Either we grew up with fewer of them or we've done a lot of personal work to unpack and reevaluate them (and perhaps most frequently a bit of both, as in my own case). And we, of course, still have to think carefully about the rest of the question, because there is reality behind the abstract: if we were to construct our lives in such a way that pleasure were more easily accessible, what would we be willing to sacrifice? Time? Status? Emotions?

The overwhelming majority of folks I've met would have difficulty accepting the premise, because they have never been able (whether from external influence or internal enforcement) to disentangle their own values from the values others have placed on them. Pleasure has baggage for them, and this baggage is the real reason for asking the question. "What are you holding onto that makes this question so difficult?" Their character, meanwhile, is demonstrated by how they might sit with such discomfort: are they intrigued, frustrated, or even upset? Not many people (nonmonogamous or otherwise) are any good at negotiating multiple relationships, power dynamics (real or imagined), and social exile for making an unpopular choice unless they have leaned into such inquiry.