This post of mine didn't seem to be appearing properly so I've resent
it. Sorry if it appears twice.

On Mar 7, 1:01 pm, Angelika Tobisch  wrote:
> lizardgirl schrieb:
>
> > homophobics seem to have a problem understanding that attraction need
> > not have a sexual component.
>
> Sorry, but I don't get that. As I see it, attraction without a sexual
> component does certainly exist, but it's got nothing to do with
> homosexuality. So where's the connection?

I think this is a linguistic issue. My thoughts are that the terms
homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual refer to which *sexes* one is
attracted to, as opposed to *sexual* attraction. So there can be
either romantic/emotional non-platonic attraction or else sexual
attraction or both; obviously, in practice it's common for one to feel
both of these for the same person. The concept of sexual orientation
is an inexact construct for this reason, and also for the reason that
some people cannot be neatly described as being of one sex/gender or
the other.

Likewise, the term "monosexual" refers to people who are attracted to
one sex (1, not 0 or 2 sexes). The term "asexual" or "asexual
reproduction", by way of contrast, is used in biology to refer to
organisms that do not reproduce sexually, and thus its usage differs
from the aforementioned terms. So whilst it may be true to say a
person is either bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual or asexual, the
usage in these categories differs. ("Asexual" is better than
"celibate", because people can be attracted to one or both sexes but
yet be celibate, because sexual orientation does not equate to
external behaviour.)

Matthew
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32