• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues March/April   03/15/17

      The newest issue of Avenues is out March/April
    • Kelly

      New Moderators and Declass members needed: Nominations   04/27/17

      Join the team!  See:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/154691-new-moderator-needed-for-for-sexual-partners-friends-and-allies-and-the-census-nominations/ http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/154693-new-moderator-needed-for-asexual-relationships-nominations/ http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/154692-new-declass-team-member-needed-nominations/  
♡ Fitzsimmons ♡

Conservapedia on asexuality

21 posts in this topic

If you're wondering, no, I don't generally visit this website (in fact I learned of its existence today). I was working on my usual World Watch Archives, and found this old thread.

Back in 2008, apparently Conservapedia only had a couple lines on asexuality. How about today? Well, go check yourself :o http://www.conservapedia.com/Asexuality

Quoting for future reference:

Asexuality

Asexuality is the sexual orientation of those who do not feel sexual attraction to people of either gender.%5B1%5D It is distinct from antisexualism, opposition to sexual behavior and sexuality. Some people, whether due to age or other biological causes, experience such low libido that they could be considered, for all practical purposes, asexual. On the other hand, it is possible to have libido without attraction, which accounts for why some asexual people engage in sexual self-stimulation.

Implications of low-libido asexuality for Christians

For those who have already decided to be celibate, a low sex drive could be rather convenient. Sexual appetites serve no Godly purpose in those who are unmarried and have no intent to become married, except as an exercise in building faith by asking God to take away those desires and having the petition be granted. Sexual desires can also pose problems for those who are married but whose spouses request or require temporary or permanent sexual abstinence, whether due to menstruation, disability, long-term military deployment, giving oneself to a period of fasting and prayer, or other circumstances.

In Matthew 19, Jesus responds to his disciples' statement that "it is not good to marry" by saying, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Paul also states in 1 Corinthians 7 that "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", that "I would that all men were even as I myself", "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I" and that the unmarried are better able to focus on pleasing the Lord without being distracted by those things of the world that are necessary to please one's spouse.

Those with little desire for sex may be in a good position to serve the Lord because they are able to remain single without falling into sinful thoughts that result from sexual frustration. However, those who do find that they must marry in order to avoid burning with lustful thoughts or succumbing to temptation to fornicate do not commit any sin by marrying; Paul notes, "every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

Some youthful asexual Christians may be dismayed by others' suspicion of their lack of romantic interest in the opposite sex as implying that they are closeted homosexuals. This type of willfully hateful slander is ironic indeed coming, as it often does, from leftists who claim to be tolerant of homosexuality and yet use accusations of it as a form of derision and disparagement against those unmarried persons who choose to remain chaste. This type of inconsistency is typical of hypocritical ideologies that are willing to discard principles of logic whenever they are inconvenient. To avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from making an explicitly disparaging comment, these unbelievers will typically mask their ridicule in plausible deniability by relying on snide innuendo.

Asexual Christians would do well to disregard such ignorant behavior and remember the admonition of Paul to the young pastor Timothy to "be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."%5B2%5D The ability to serve the Lord unimpeded by sexual desires can be regarded as a gift rather than a burden. It is not for man to question why he lacks as strong a sexual desire as other men; as Romans 9:20 asks, "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

Asexual movement

The asexual movement is mostly organized by the Asexual Visibility & Education Network, which is allied with the GLBTQ community. Their viewpoint is that the same logic by which non-heterosexuality should be accepted also demands that asexuality be accepted. This ignores the fact that the Bible condemns gay and lesbian sexual desires but does not condemn asexuality (so long as it is not a form that substitutes sexual self-stimulation for sexual relations between man and wife).

Although asexual Christians exist, there is no need for them to organize and agitate for their rights. Bible-believing Christians and society in general already accept as a legitimate option a celibate lifestyle that is abstinent from sexual self-stimulation, because it does not offend public morality and it causes no social problems, unlike fornication and "those things which are not convenient", viz., sexual acts that are against nature.%5B3%5D

References

See also

So now they also have an "Asexual" page:

Asexual

Asexual is a biological term meaning having no sex or sexual organs or being independent of sexual process.%5B1%5D

In nature asexual reproduction occurs in only one parent and in the absence of fertilization of gametes. Many single-cell organisms primarily reproduce asexually, although most of them are capable of exchanging genetic material with other individuals via various processes such as the complete merging of two separate organisms in a process called "conjugation". Asexual reproduction also occurs sparodically in various species of all the kingdoms of life, even including some vertebrates - for example, a species of shark (hammerhead) has been recently found able to to self-fertilize and produce progeny in the absence of males.%5B2%5D This process is called parthenogenisis, from the Greek words for "virgin birth".

Asexual can also refer to humans or animals that have no interest in sex or lack sexual attraction %5B3%5D.

References

See also

They link to AVEN :o I mean, that's a little good thing, right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the first paragraph is correct. That's pretty good for them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they don't realize high-libido asexuals exist. What spectrum do I exist on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the first paragraph was good, but the rest made me want to vomit from all the stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, and intolerance.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To click the link or to not click the link...sorry, I don't feel like being pissed off for the rest of the evening. I doubt it's anything really worth reading, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, if they saw into my mind they would know I think about sex more then most. My ace factor sure don't cut back on that at all. I have no interest in impressing and winning over the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "conservapedia point of view" seems to really push the Bible, doesn't it? I mean, sort of to the extreme. I'm a Christian, but I don't go around with an attitude like that of the "conservapedia." The whole entry has a Bible thumping sort of attitude, which seems rather odd. Can't they just explain the concept? Oh well.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like they got about 1/4th of their information right. I'd call it a success and let it be. This is Conservapedia after all - accuracy isn't a valued trait there.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservapedia is a rightwing Christian site -- "young earth" and the whole shebang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least they didn't go the condemning route, and if a christian is against asexuality (there have been threads about this) they are denounced as hypocritical leftists :huh:. Considering their intended audience they did an alright job, especially with the discouragement of bigotry against asexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sad about the posts on this thread so far. I don't agree with the Christian point of view either, but an article doesn't need to agree with my views to be good.

It's a really well-written article that speaks to its target audience. It presents asexuality in a very positive light, and all of the "incorrect" stuff is absolutely accurate for what it is -- naming different points in the Bible that mention chastity and asexuality, and pointing out that these passages hold asexuality and/or chastity in very high regard.

I feel really sad for the ace who wrote the Conservapedia article (because really, do you think a sexual was likely to have taken the time and effort to write something positive and thoughtful?). If the Christian perspective that asexuality/chastity is positive amounts to "stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, and intolerance," then it's not far from that to say that aces who have those beliefs aren't welcome in this community.

It's just, yeah, that just really saddens me.

I know that Christians can be incredibly intolerant and harmful. I myself am always wary of the attitudes coming from that direction. But in this one specific circumstance, the only thing that was "wrong" about it was that it presented the viewpoints in the Christian scriptures. Why in the world is that "wrong" on a site that is almost entirely for Christians?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the authors of the Conservapedia website want to put forth a Christian point of view, maybe they should call it "Christianpedia?" No, seriously. Because "Conservapedia" sounds like it should be just all political, or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the authors of the Conservapedia website want to put forth a Christian point of view, maybe they should call it "Christianpedia?" No, seriously. Because "Conservapedia" sounds like it should be just all political, or something.

Perhaps they just mean conservative Christians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heart, on 30 Apr 2014 - 02:26 AM, said:
thylacine, on 28 Apr 2014 - 5:48 PM, said:

If the authors of the Conservapedia website want to put forth a Christian point of view, maybe they should call it "Christianpedia?" No, seriously. Because "Conservapedia" sounds like it should be just all political, or something.

Perhaps they just mean conservative Christians?

As Thylacine says, they should say so. There are conservative atheists, conservative Jews, conservative Muslims, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel really sad for the ace who wrote the Conservapedia article (because really, do you think a sexual was likely to have taken the time and effort to write something positive and thoughtful?). If the Christian perspective that asexuality/chastity is positive amounts to "stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, and intolerance," then it's not far from that to say that aces who have those beliefs aren't welcome in this community.

The “Christian” perspective as presented in this article is that only a very particular kind of asexuality is acceptable. Homoromantic or genderqueer aces for instance, even aces who self-pleasure in any form, are not at all held “in very high regard.” To say nothing of other sexualities. And everybody who does not fall neatly into their very narrow specifications of what’s “godly” is implicitly and explicitly condemned (in the old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone way). There are many people (many Christians even) who see that as stupid, ignorant, hypocritical, and intolerant, yeah.

Aces who hold beliefs like that are, of course, welcome in this community, as is just about most anybody. This is an exceptionally welcoming and diverse crowd. As such, they will very certainly also find many aces here who disagree with their beliefs. Disagreements are fine, you know, even if they make one sad occasionally.

In another matter:

Conservapedia: "This type of inconsistency is typical of hypocritical ideologies that are willing to discard principles of logic whenever they are inconvenient. To avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from making an explicitly disparaging comment, these unbelievers will typically mask their ridicule in plausible deniability by relying on snide innuendo."

The irony distilled in these two sentences is capable of killing twenty horses in a drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “Christian” perspective as presented in this article is that only a very particular kind of asexuality is acceptable. Homoromantic or genderqueer aces for instance, even aces who self-pleasure in any form, are not at all held “in very high regard.” To say nothing of other sexualities. And everybody who does not fall neatly into their very narrow specifications of what’s “godly” is implicitly and explicitly condemned (in the old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone way). There are many people (many Christians even) who see that as stupid, ignorant, hypocritical, and intolerant, yeah.

The article mentions aces who masturbate, but it is extremely precise about which subgroup it's talking about. It's not talking about all aces who masturbate, just those who "substitutes sexual self-stimulation for sexual relations between man and wife." That's probably a reference to the story about Onan, which condemns using the pull-out birth control method during sex.
At least in the Catholic religion, it's not acceptable for a married couple to have sex if it doesn't end in a way that could cause pregnancy (assuming no infertility problems). It is not acceptable, for example, for a heterosexual man to have sex with his heterosexual wife and then climax during an activity that isn't intercourse.
So my reading of this is, masturbation is fine as long as it's a solo activity or as long as any sexual activity within marriage still ends with intercourse. (I didn't write the article so I don't know the writer's intention -- that's just a guess.)
If they meant to condemn all aces who masturbate, there would be no reason to specify that it's wrong when it's substituted for sexual relations between man and wife. They could just say something like, "but does not condemn asexuality (so long as the person doesn't self-stimulate)."
The intolerant point in the article is "the fact that the Bible condemns gay and lesbian sexual desires." Which is possibly partially an error in wording on the part of the writer, because I don't know of any major Christian faiths that believe that. From what I've seen, both the LDS and Catholic faiths (the main ones that come to my mind as condemning gay marriage) believe that having same-sex attraction is okay but acting on it is wrong.
If you assume a different wording, so that it says, "the fact that the Bible condemns gay and lesbian sexual activity," then it's true for certain major faiths including the Catholic and LDS churches. So the real flaw in that is in claiming it's a "fact" as opposed to specifying that it's only seen as a fact by particular Christian denominations.
The article doesn't mention homoromantic or genderqueer aces at all. It kind of implies that it's acceptable to be homoromantic, actually, because it particularly specifies "gay and lesbian sexual desires" as being what's unacceptable about attraction to people of the same sex.
In sum, my understanding of that article is:
All aces should be held in at least the same regard as heterosexual people are. Both groups (aces and heterosexual people) shouldn't engage in a certain kind of sexual activity (substituting masturbation for intercourse while married). Aces are more prone to behaving in accordance to Biblical values that constrain sex because more of us are disinterested in sexual activity.
Which is impressively tolerant for a conservative Christian site, particularly since that's a group that values conformity. There's an intolerant message toward homosexuality, obviously. But not toward asexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did I read that?

Yo! Can you put a trigger warning on this page of Christianity? Seriously I didn't think I was going to be reading some religious garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article reminds me of religion class when I went to a Catholic school for the first quarter of seventh grade... I'm rather indifferent to organized religion, and as long as it doesn't come off as "You will burn in Hell if you do anything wrong" I'm perfectly fine with reading the Bible and learning the history and narratives. The thing that bothered me was the unit on sex... It was really frustrating for me on so many levels... At least the church isn't against EVERYTHING about me. *giggle*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem like a very nice, level-headed person, Unassuaged, and your reading of this article is extremely generous. But I fear it is one that must disregard all context and implied as well as stated intent. The particular flavor of Christianity embraced by Conservapedia, on the other hand, is very far removed from any such generosity of spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christian Ace myself, I do actually find this article to be terribly offensive. Specifically the part about Christian Asexuals not needing to participate in any sort of movements of rights. Partially because of my own, personal, feelings regarding the LGBTQA community. Also because I do face a lot of difficulty in my church for not being married and a mother/pregnant. It's not necessarily outright, or hate-driven, but the pressure exists.

UGH.

After that my words have failed me. I just, no. I mean, I'm glad I guess that they're acknowledging that asexuality is a thing, but I almost wish that they weren't because I don't think they really understand it as much as they think they do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christian Ace myself, I do actually find this article to be terribly offensive. Specifically the part about Christian Asexuals not needing to participate in any sort of movements of rights. Partially because of my own, personal, feelings regarding the LGBTQA community. Also because I do face a lot of difficulty in my church for not being married and a mother/pregnant. It's not necessarily outright, or hate-driven, but the pressure exists.

UGH.

After that my words have failed me. I just, no. I mean, I'm glad I guess that they're acknowledging that asexuality is a thing, but I almost wish that they weren't because I don't think they really understand it as much as they think they do.

Have you pointed out this specific Bible passage to them? This may be your saving grace (ha!) No, but seriously. You should, this could be a great thing for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.