A CALL FOR YOU TO PUT YOUR PANTS BACK ON AND THINK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND

it's so easy to feel the void that's supposed to be filled by a significant other, but why does it have to be a void? and if it cannot be any other way, why does it have to be filled by only that one thing? do you really need it? in the long run, for most of us, yes, but right now?

there are certain things that we need because we're constantly told that we need them. one of these things is the love-sex-romance continuum.

i feel that films, television shows, contemporary songs, literature, photography and advertising dictate to us that without a sexual/romantic partner, we are nothing, useless human beings who have nothing to share with anyone and no future to look forward to. every character in every story about young people is either in love, dating or having sex with someone or many many people or looking to have sex, date or fall in love with someone or many people.

every character is in some form of a relationship with another human that involves sexual or romantic tension and fulfillment. even the single characters.

the single character is a complex one, however, portrayed primarily through paradox. they are alotted a certain amount of freedom, but always in the context of having the choice between partners at the snap of a finger. but in the end, they are never allowed to NOT have any sexual interests. they always pursue and either succeed or fail. i move that these characters are not single at all, for they are reliant on these relationships or potential relationships, however meaningless or fleeting they may be.

but what if we were to invent a character that was driven by other motivations than procreation and sexual pleasure? what if success and failure with regards to relationships was irrelevent to this person? no major character that i've come across has been free of their sexual impulses or perceived romantic responsibilities. for once i'd like to see a film in a conventional setting (ie person goes about daily life trying to find meaning) that has NOTHING to do with sex. a film i saw tonight, called The Rage in Placid Lake, came close, but of course ended in the same old female-male hookup at the end. a novel by michel houllebecq called the elementary particles works in reverse, starting it out with a relationship that ends up inspiring a character to reject sexuality from his world view. i propose that sex not be a part of the equation from point a to point z, just for once. an experiment in trying to concentrate on something else.

i believe that some of the greatest minds in history have prevented themselves from improving humanity because they were unable to channel their unrequited sexual feelings into a different kind of energy that still propagates the good things about the human condition.

you might say that making an asexual character would be problematic because it wouldn't be realistic. true indeed. we are all sexual creatures and we act upon those urges and desires daily. but for chrissakes! it's fiction we're dealing with here! we can make up anybody we want!

let's put this sacrifical lamb into the fray and see what happens.

now, if you'll excuse me, i have to go and fantasize about the lovely gemma from the aforementioned film.