(no subject)

Happy birthday, pameladean!

Yes, but

Okay, I respect people's right to be asexual and define themselves as such and to point out that it's not a pathology.

But when someone makes a statement like this:
"For me it basically just means that I don't look at people and think 'hmm yeah I'd have sex with you,' that just doesn't happen," says Jenni.
I get up from my seat and break into the 'It's All More Complicated Bop' to the startlement of passersby and quite possibly frightening any horses that happen to be in the vicinity..

I will concede that this may just be an artefact of how the reporter reports what the subject said and their position is probably a good deal more nuanced than supposing that people who are sexual spend all their time thinking of people in those terms.

Most people who identify as capable of experiencing sexual desire and arousal don't actually go around having these feelings about just anyone.

They may not even spend their time doing elaborate calculations of where, on the scale between 'tear their clothes off NAO' and 'total repulsion, please give me several 10 foot poles', any randomly encountered person lies.

I think this interesting thinky piece by Cory Silverberg (who for other reasons, hem-hem, I think a person of good taste and excellent discernment) on sexual desire, activity and satisfaction may fit in here.

No, literally, haunts of coot and herne

Had occasion to mosey over to The National Archives at Kew today for A Meeting on some matters of common interest.

Those of you who have visted TNA will know that there is a water feature in front of the entrance - a pond bisected by a causeway.

This usually has some kind of waterfowl disporting themselves on it.

Today there were:

Seagulls.

Swans.

Moorhens.

Coots.

And standing on the bank just below the railing and looking rather grumpy:

A heron!!!