And still the debate continues:"any relating to women is not sufficient to make it sexual, unless, again, your definition is so broad as to be indiscriminatingly pointless"
I don't think I'm defining anything, just noting differences--Huck's interest in that one family's daughter is a sign of his budding sexuality, women play a prominent role in Huck Finn, where they are practically absent in Tolkien.
"That is part of his charm, what makes him unique, special. Why must you insist on viewing it as a negative. Many fairy tales and fables are like that."
And yet many fairy tales aren't. Many of the Brother Grimm's fairy tales have a dark sexuality to them.
"In a way its also sort of like the androgynous characters of Oscar Wilde"
On Wilde, I think his characters are sexual, only not necessarily heterosexual.
"only with Tolkein, its their asexuality. I would think that alone would make him pretty interesting."
It would make him interesting if he has an attitude about his sexuality--fear of it, like with Hitchcock, or total disdain for it, like Kubrick. It just doesn't exist in his works.
"Why are you so insistent on denigrating childs play?"
Not all child's play, mainly the ones that are epic in scope, and I think pretension.