UNDERSTANDING SEX

"Adults are never strictly asexual," Andrew Foley was saying to a gathering of friends in the newly-furnished sitting-room of his three-roomed flat. "They are either positive or negative, depending on their sex. Only children and the very old could be described as asexual - the former because they haven't yet come-of-age, the latter because they've gone way past it."

Muffled laughter broke from the throats of some of his guests, and someone said: "Post-sexual would be a better definition of the aged!"

On a more serious note I volunteered the suggestion that children were neutron equivalents, and this brought raised brows from a number of quarters.

"Ah, so you're back to your subatomic theories again, Gerald!" observed the host, who then asked me to explain, for the benefit of those who hadn't heard such theories before, how they applied to the sexes.

"Traditionally, women have usually functioned as proton equivalents and men, by contrast, as bound-electron equivalents, with children coming in-between as neuters, or neutron equivalents," I obligingly affirmed, for the benefit of all but a few of the gathering. "But nowadays the atomic integrity of the traditional family unit is being superseded by the elevation of women to quasi-electron equivalents and the elevation or, rather, transformation of men into free-electron equivalents, with children still remaining neutral. Thus marriage is on the way out because it conforms to an atomic age rather than to an incipiently post-atomic one."

"How very interesting!" exclaimed a white-haired gentleman of elderly years, who prompted a grudging acknowledgement of the probable veracity of my theory from a couple of females seated close-by. "A free-electron equivalent is more likely to be a man for the men than one for the women, is that it?" he conjectured on a mischievous note.

"Not necessarily," I hastened to assure him, while simultaneously casting a slightly embarrassed glance in the direction of my girlfriend, who sat to my left. "He will simply be a man who isn't tied down by marriage to any particular woman. But to the extent that a woman functions as a quasi-electron equivalent, she is effectively a superman and therefore not someone to discriminate against as a woman. A quasi-electron equivalent and a free-electron equivalent don't form an atomic integrity, and unless such an integrity is formed, there can be no justification for marriage."

"Here, here!" shouted a young woman farther to my left, whose overall appearance suggested that she habitually thought of herself in superhuman terms. Especially notable, in this respect, were her short hair, absence of make-up, T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. She was also wearing steel-rimmed spectacles.

"Well," said Foley, following a brief pause in the conversation during which Gerald Riley's standard theory of protons and electrons was juggled about in more than a few minds, most of whom were thoroughly perplexed by it and somewhat sceptical if not downright dismissive, "I'm married, so I must be a bound-electron equivalent and my wife, by contrast, a proton equivalent."

Doris Foley, true to her station of affable hostess and compliant wife, nodded her head without, however, showing any facial signs of approval. Indeed, her face was virtually impassive. Nevertheless she did ask: "And what would you describe yourself as, Gerald?"

"Undoubtedly a free-electron equivalent, albeit one more heterosexual than homosexual," I assured her, before casting another glance at my girlfriend, as though for confirmation.

"Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe yourself as quasi-homosexual," the young woman in steel-rimmed spectacles suggested. "You're not married to Deborah for the simple reason that, like me, she's a quasi-electron equivalent, otherwise known as a liberated female, whose standing not only precludes the formation of a genuine atomic integrity between you, but simultaneously prevents your relationship from being genuinely heterosexual. Were she a woman, in the traditional sense, then things would of course be different. But Deborah is effectively a superman, so your relationship is, I repeat, quasi-homosexual."

There were titters of admiring laughter from all sections of Foley's rather crowded sitting-room, and the white-haired gentleman, quick to rise to the occasion, said: "My goodness, girl, what hair-splitting logic!"

"Or side-splitting nonsense!" Foley opined, eyeing its alleged instigator with mock reproof. "So it transpires that you, Gerald, are quasi-homosexual because your girlfriend is effectively a superman."

"Thanks for the honour!" I jokingly responded, and noticed that Deborah was blushing madly behind her makeshift fan - a folded newspaper. Despite her good intentions, she could never get used to the idea of being regarded in such a post-atomic light. In every liberated female there existed an old-fashioned streak of basic femininity. Would they ever succeed in eradicating it, I wondered, or would we, their spiritual superiors? Superior in degree of superhumanity, it may be, but unable or disinclined to discriminate against them as women.

A sudden eruption of ostentatious flatulence from the white-haired old gentleman brought a moment's almost surrealistic reprieve from the sententious austerity of the debate, but it was soon rejoined again when Foley, taking-up the distinction of positive and negative sexual characteristics once more, asseverated that, traditionally, women were the negative and men the positive sex. "And so far as I'm aware, that's generally still the case today," he concluded.

"Bullshit!" I countered. "For these days the transformation of women into supermen is giving rise to a situation where they're becoming less negative and correspondingly more positive in their relations to sex. Which means they're becoming more like men - passive rather than active."

Andrew Foley was clearly not impressed, since he immediately retaliated with: "D'you mean to tell me that you equate positivity with passivity and negativity with activity?"

"Most assuredly, because that is really closer to the truth," I replied. "Men are positive to the extent that they're spiritual, women negative to the extent that they're sensual, and nowadays women are becoming more spiritual and less sensual. Thus they aren't as sensuously active as formerly, though that applies more to the strategies of seduction than to their actual vaginal contribution to coitus. After all, the vagina's a pretty active thing when a man has part of himself inside it, and the clitoris has rarely been outplayed, as it were, by the penis. Au contraire!"

There were various expressions of amusement at large in the air no sooner than I had said this, and although one or two of the guests couldn't prevent themselves reacting with disapproving looks, the general consensus of opinion was nevertheless such as to suggest an affirmation of my viewpoint. The mannish young woman in steel-rimmed spectacles seemed particularly impressed by it, and accordingly voiced the opinion that quasi-electron equivalents were less inclined to flirt with men than their proton precursors, being more inclined, by contrast, to improve their commitment to cultural or intellectual affairs.

"Yes, that would generally appear to be the case," I confirmed, not exactly to the pleasure of my host and hostess, who were each showing signs of unease - the former by turning pale, the latter by turning red.

"Would you not then say that coitus involved the application of the positive male principle to the negative female one?" Foley somewhat ironically inquired of me.

"No, I wouldn't," came my confident response. "For coitus only takes place by dint of the man's lowering himself to the negative principle and thereby drawing on the feminine, active side of his atomic constitution. Love-making is the result of two types of negative functioning, the woman's and the man's, and is only possible to the extent that men are capable of behaving negatively. Should the positive and truly spiritual side of a man's constitution develop to any significant extent, he'll be much less inclined to have sex with a woman. In fact, the highest, most spiritual men have usually been the ones whose intellectual or cultural commitments kept them celibate. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche afford us two notable examples."

"How extraordinary!" exclaimed the white-haired old fart, who had sufficiently recovered from his bout of flatulence to be capable of playing an active role in the discussion again. "I had always imagined that the real philosophers were great lovers, like Bertrand Russell or Voltaire! Just shows how mistaken one can be!"

Not everyone was as honest as him, but no overt dissent was expressed, not even by Andrew Foley, who had better reasons than most to be dissentient! However, his wife, having recovered from her embarrassment, was now eyeing me suspiciously. What could she be thinking, I wondered?