I've thought about the idea of a genderless novel but ultimately I think being maximally descriptive is the best way to smash literary male hegemony

>>8244173

>Since humans are sexual beings

What does this mean?

>>8244189
muh cum

>>8244189
We like to fuck.

>>8244198

>>Like

Need actually.

>>8244173
This is actually a great question. Too bad I can't answer it kek

>>8244236
No one's ever died from lack of sex

I'd know

>>8244256
100% of people who don't fuck die.

true fact.

Sex is a need, but it's not the only one, so it's pretty flawed to argue that "humans are sexual beings" and everything we do revolves around sex.

>>8244173
I think sexuality is just one aspect of humanity, but >>8244189 is probably right to ask what the term 'sexual being' is supposed to mean.
If you're talking about sexuality in a broad sense, you could say that the desire to leave a legacy in some form is sexual, or even that the desire to succeed is sexual. By that sort of definition, I think that you would be hard pressed to avoid sexuality as a relevant aspect of any characters.

On the other hand, if being a 'sexual being' just means that people feel the urge to fuck, I think it can be less relevant to some people or characters, so you could probably avoid worrying about it if the direction of whatever you're writing doesn't focus intensely on the relationships between characters. That said, whether or not you believe intimacy (on whatever level) is relevant depends largely on your own personal beliefs, and how much you think or care about it.

Regarding sexuality as subject matter, i would definitely consider it appropriate subject matter, and a lot of (probably decent, i haven't really read any) books have been written about it. Any work that focuses on intimacy or romance is going to involve it, at the very least. If I were to write about sex, I would probably avoid focusing heavily on the acts themselves, and more on their purpose, or what the characters gain or find through it - an entire book about mindless fucking wouldn't be very interesting imo (unless the mindlessness itself is explored, but I digress).

tl;dr - dude, subjectivity lmao

>>8244256
Statistically, people who aren't in long term relationships die younger than those who are.

>>8244173
"Humans are sexual beings" means nothing.
Humans are also hungry beings. But emphasising food in every interaction would be ridiculous. And running around letting your sexuality define every aspect of your person still makes you a shallow and annoying little shit.

>>8244173
Watch Evangelion, it's almost entirely about how sex can corrupt and ruin human relationships. Your post is symptomatic of the sickness of our species, it disgusts me.

>>8244288
>If you're talking about sexuality in a broad sense, you could say that the desire to leave a legacy in some form is sexual, or even that the desire to succeed is sexual. By that sort of definition, I think that you would be hard pressed to avoid sexuality as a relevant aspect of any characters.
So I should describe how guys get boners from everything?

>On the other hand, if being a 'sexual being' just means that people feel the urge to fuck, I think it can be less relevant to some people or characters, so you could probably avoid worrying about it if the direction of whatever you're writing doesn't focus intensely on the relationships between characters.
Now I'm confused.
Or is this a "why not both?" sort of thing.

>>8244296
pretty much this.
sexuality is a single, relatively small, aspect of humanity. The recent emphasis on identity politics makes it seem more prominent than it is- it doesn't really accomplish anything beyond establishing "yes I am human and I prefer to stick my dick in this specific human subcatagory." Which, while important, shouldn't encapsulate a person's """identity""" any more than their color or gender or what have you. These are all practically non-entities to a person's narrative: the themes they encounter, their accomplishments, their worldview. These shape a person, but do not by any means define them, unless they are shallow, easily affected, and unfocused.

If you are
>Asian
>bisexual
>transgender
>whatever else
that's cool. You're a character in a story. Neat. But you're just standing at the starting line, you haven't gone anywhere, every other aspect of your humanity has gone untouched.

>Is a book about anything other than sex a waste of time?
this is just stupid.

Humans aren't "sexual beings." We're just beings. Sex is one of our infinite aspects, don't let your pubescent hormone fluctuations make you think otherwise.

>>8244173
Eroticism is shallow.

>>8244173
t. someone who values sex above most things in life. sucks to suck.

personally, I have a very low sex drive and sexuality figures minimally in my writing.

>>8244993
>subhuman catagory
ftfy

>>8244302

hahaha

sexuality is literally the least sick thing in the universe

>>8246348
No, that would be love, to which sexuality is a major obstacle.

>>8246387
>love
>being real
>not just a condition used to facilitate competition and even more fucking

>>8246411
I'm not referring to romantic love. Just to be clear, I have no problem with sex when it doesn't interfere with people's decency towards each other, it's just that it almost always does.

>>8244173
since human beings are hungry beings, is it necessary to emphasize the role of digestion in all interactions? since humans are shitting beings, is it necessary to emphasize the role of excretion in all interactions? since humans are speaking beings, is it necessary to emphasize the role of speech in all interactions?

>>8246418

>people's decency towards each other

when has this ever been a thing

>>8246444
Cynicism is sad. Cartoonish, thoughtless, knee-jerk cynicism is just stupid.