Classmate said it's "logically impossible" to be ace

[Superfox]

In my English class today, asexuality came up in a conversation between my professor and a fellow student. The professor had given him an education magazine to look at. It had some articles about diversity and acceptance of LGBT students, etc. That led to a conversation about transgender students and the issue of who uses what restroom/locker room. As we were on the topic of “ridiculous” things, the student said, “Some people identify as asexual now, can you believe it? Like, what, are you a plant or something?” The professor responded, “Well, yes, I mean what would you do with your equipment?” (I’m still shocked that even came out of his mouth.) “Yeah,” said the student, “It’s logically impossible to be asexual!” I almost lost it. I tried calmly suggesting that it was an attraction-based subject, not necessarily a reproduction-centric one, but no one really listened.

I have resolved to write the student a short paper proving it is logically possible to be asexual (and maybe bet him $20 I can do it, too).

I’m curious: how would you argue that it is logically possible to be asexual?

[MoffatDecay]

To be honest, this topic hasn't really come up in my school or in my family. My mother's demi-sexual, my little sister is ace or demi and my father is just a little confused about the whole thing. But, if I had to argue this, I have two arguements.

Arguement A.) Asexuality: without sexual feelings or associations. Ex. "She rested her hand on the back of his head, in a maternal, wholly asexual, gesture."

Noun: a person who has no sexual feelings or desires.

Excerpt from the dictionary.

This should be self explanitory, but for those people out there who cite that it's just a new fad for people to adhere to like being a hipster, asexuality has been around for ages. That would be like saying being gay has only recently cropped up. What's actually going on is that people are finally acknowledging these sexualities and deciding whether or not they think it's ok.

Isaac Newton was reportadly an asexual, as well as, surprisingly, Tim Gunn. Anyone who's ever watched 'Project Runway' would assume the man gay, but he has reported himself as an effeminate but asexual man.

However, asexuality does not equate to celibate. Celibacy carries with it, a temptation tha one has to hold themself back from. With asexuality, the desire is simply not there. Whether this is a biological, a mental thing or something that transends what scientists can figure, is not yet known, but asexuals everywhere will agree, they don't really feel the urge to have sex with every attractive person that walks by (I assume that's what straight/gay/bi people think, I don't actually know).

They should also know that it is 'logically impossible' for them to be straight, gay, bi or whatever else. Because being completely practical, what would the point of life be if our only goal was to have sex and make babies. We'd never have any advances in technology (personal imput here but I believe that everyone has some level of asexuality. Some, like me, more than others. Some straight people can be aromantic and some ace people can be the sweetest partners ever. I think asexuality works in degrees).

Arguement B.) Shelock Holmes. Khan. The Doctor (more specifically the 12th). Haruhi Fujioka. Dexter. All asexual in some sense. Some are aromantic, but that brings up a whole other arguement I don't want to get into right now.

Hope this helps!

MoffatDecay

[Sally]

You can't logically argue that it's logically possible to be asexual, any more than you can argue that it's logically possible to be heterosexual or homosexual. Peoples' orientations are not an issue that can be proven, one way or another. Rather than talking to your fellow student (who won't listen), talk with your professor, and refer him to AVEN. He's the one who's having contact with students and saying silly things. Don't use fictional or historical characters as proof asexuals exist; it's up to authors whether their characters are asexual, and we have absolutely no way to prove, or even assert, that someone two hundred years ago was asexual.

[SithLord]

While I doubt using fictional character will work as reference to asexuality existing, go tell your teacher to fuck off because they totally ruined a class that was supposed to be about acceptance. That's like starting a conversation about gender acceptance and then laughing about people who identify as other than the binary genders most people recognize. If that was my professor I'd stand up in class and tell him to not talk about something he has no idea about.

On the who "illogical" thing, I could use the same argument for other orientations. If you use the argument that sex is for procreation, any non-straight people wouldn't make sense. If it's for fun, any non-pan people wouldn't make sense. If you come down to preferences, then that's still defaulting to everyone being bi/pan.

Go ahead and tell your teacher they're an asshole for me. Saying that about a gay student would get them written up.

[Atmetller]

I guess they would like proves:

-why did Alfred Kinsey leve the category x? (if there weren't asexuals it would be useless)

-Nicola Tesla was asexual (but I guess they will considered him celibate)

-I guess websites and forums won't be enough prove (specially if we consider that some people create websites about quackery... but well, it's quite strange that some people that weren't in contact and didn't know of each other had similar childhood and teenage experiences regarding sexual attraction)

-There is some scientific research (this article mentions some of it, but don't use this article because it will be considered opinion: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/are-there-asexuals-among-us-on-the-possibility-of-a-fourth-sexual-orientation/

)

Edit: And... Yes, your teacher response was asking for: "I have a question sir: Would your comment about the asexuals be considered tolerant/correct if you talked about gay people instead?...Thank you sir."

For more resources, this Wikipedia article mentions some scientific papers about the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

[Tarfeather]

You have to laugh because otherwise you have to cry.

Seriously, there are people who have reasonable enough justifications for their stupid beliefs. And then there are people who are just stupid without excuses. It's a mystery how they've managed to survive so far.

[Lost247365]

Okay. This might be a tad bit long but I am going to try and prove that asexuality HAS to logically exist.


BACKGROUND of the proof:

In logic there is this thing called an implication. An implication is a statement in which one says "if X, then Y." For example, you buy a washing machine and the manufacture guarantees you that if it breaks, then a repairman will come and works on it.

To put it in mathemetical terms: X→Y

Implications are always tautologies (always true) so long as the antecedent (the if statement, or first part, of the argument) is true, and the consequent (the then statement, or last part, of the argument) is NOT false.

For example, in the case of the manufactures guarantee, if the machine does not break down (antecedent is False ) the manufacturer has still upheld the implication/guarantee regardless if a repairman comes or not. This would be the case of a repairman coming for routine maintenance.

Now if the machine breaks down (antecedent is True) and they a send a repair man to fix it, they have once again upheld the implication/guarantee. BUT, if it breaks down and they DON'T Send someone to fix it, they have broken the guarantee/implication.

Now, I am going to use an implication to PROVE that logically asexuality must exist.


The Proof

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, no thermodynamic process can occur with 100% efficiency (except at 0 kelvin). Further, due to this inefficiency, eventually all thermodynamic will eventually break down without an external source of energy supporting it. This applies to biological systems as well as mechanical. This is the reason we experience senescence (why we get old), the teleomeres on our DNA do not wind down 100% efficiently and slowly break down.

Even, the biological processes that occurs as our brains develop in the womb do not work 100% efficiently and that includes the process that forms the centers of our brain that cause us to develop our sexual orientations. Sometimes, this results things like homosexuality. Further, it can be said that the processes that govern our sexuality in and of itself are just as much a thermodynamic process and thus can break down resulting in asexuality.

Therefore, if all thermodynamic processes can break down (argument p), then asexaulity must exist (argument q). Or, mathematically:

p→q.

Our possibilities are:

Option 1: T→T Implication is a tauntology
Option 2: T→F Implication is a contradiction (always wrong)

Option 3: F→T Implication is a tauntology

Option 4: F→F Implication is a tauntology

Now the laws of thermodynamics are unique in that they are the one set of laws in which NO exception has ever been found. They are true in all situations and places throughout the known universe. To quote Albert Einstein on the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”

So, it is safe to say that the antecedent and the implication itself have to be true. If not, the second law of thermodynamics would cease to be. Thus option 2,3, and 4 are all impossible. Therefore, we are left with one and only one possible option for the consequent argument. It has to be true. Asexuality HAS to exist.

This is pure mathematical logic. Your classmate is logically and categorically wrong. Asexuality has to exist as a result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which is what had to be proven.

QED.

■

[Kuebiko]

Okay, it's actually impossible to prove, logically, that asexuality is a thing using fiction, because fiction is always up for interpretation. In fact, facts and stats found by researchers also always have a little bit of bias in them.

But we'll try.

• How do you know it's logically impossible to be asexual?
• Genitalia are not just for sexual pleasure, it's also for reproduction, which some asexuals do.
• Just because there is no actual proof for asexuality doesn't mean it does not exist. (I'll just direct you here where some arguments are brought up).
• Okay, and plants actually do sexual reproduction too. That's why you have male and female plant parts. (Do you people study biology?)
• It's perfectly okay for someone to not be attracted by something (ie. you can be totally indifferent to a glass jar). Attraction to something, particularly sex, is not compulsory in every human being.
• Animals have been proven to be asexual (and gay, too, but that's another story) here on AVEN wiki
• Asexuals exist because it's the environment's way of dealing with overpopulation (I'm not very sure about this one but if you want to argue evolution then here you go) and also we've got more time to actually do something about the world problems because we don't have sex so much.
• More factual information here, a paper on Empirical Asexuality and the Scientific Study of Sex (if you can't open it PM me and I'll email you or something)

Also, what seems logical may not be the truth. We do this in math and physics all the time. Some answers you can't just get by logic. The answers may be counterintuitive to a person who has never studied these subjects but if you work it out step by step the answers make sense. So even arguing by logic itself, doens't hold any water at all.

Lost's post came out as I was typing mine and honestly their's seems much more logical. But I'm going to give my two cents anyway.

[SithLord]

Can I start a slow clap for Lost247365's reply?

That's by far the best justification I've ever read and it nearly brought a tear to my eye that it was done with logic and math.

Also this one:

Also, what seems logical may not be the truth. We do this in math and physics all the time. Some answers you can't just get by logic. The answers may be counterintuitive to a person who has never studied these subjects but if you work it out step by step the answers make sense. So even arguing by logic itself, doesn't hold any water at all.

Would've quoted Lost's as well but it's just too long and cutting it would've been a disservice.

[Star Bit]

Asexuality isn't attraction based, but desire based. The above banner's definition is inaccurate.

[allrightalready]

personally it would depend on my mood

on a good day i would just walk away shaking my head

on a day where i had already had too many sensory or other issues i would most likely pop off with "you are too stupid to continue to talk to" (my mouth gets me in a lot of trouble at times)

i love lost247365's answer though

[booksoversex]

I don't think it's possible to prove, but I think you should challenge him. Ask him whether he believes homosexuality to be "logical". And show him the Boegart article Frigid Pink often shares, it is very academic and that might cut it. Tell him that science suggest asexuality exists in several species, for instance rams. I think you should also talk to your teacher and explain to him that it's not about capacity for arousal (though some aces don't have that), but about a lack of attraction and desire towards others.

[R_1]

I'm pretty sure you can argue that humans exist with different responses to the environment because of the differences between the brain. Some can see, and some are blind. Some lacks some emotions, and some do have it. Thus, it is logical for one to have the state of being in which one lacks desire to engage into sexual activities with other.

[Telecaster68]

they don't really feel the urge to have sex with every attractive person that walks by (I assume that's what straight/gay/bi people think, I don't actually know).

Please don’t. That shows the same level of patronising ignorance as people saying to asexuals that they just haven’t met the right person yet.

[Sisky]

The only way this is possible is that the persons in question a) have never been in any language class and learned that words can have different meanings, b) were too dumb to understand that concept, and/or c) were too lazy to learn a basic thing about language. And if this applies to a commonly accepted and well-known fact, how can they possibly be qualified to have an informed opinion about something that isn't? And since in an academic setting, "it's this way because I say so" doesn't cut it, it is only logical to me to dismiss both of their reactions.

So the thing I would do is point out that there are different meanings to words, so they were wrong from the get go. Try again.

[SithLord]

Asexuality isn't attraction based, but desire based. The above banner's definition is inaccurate.

I think you all who focus on this issue are just too caught up in definitions. If we define ourselves similarly to heterosexuals (attracted to the "opposite" sex/gender), homosexuals (attracted to the same sex/gender), etc then it makes more sense. Defining attraction is hard, but unless you want to change all the other definitions as well then there's no point in trying to correct others when they define asexuality.

Plus, using that definition in this case would confuse the ignorant student and teacher into thinking we're just celibate, abstinent or otherwise not an orientation. The people could then just say asexuals are prudes, picky, etc since they wouldn't understand what desire is meant in that definition.

[booksoversex]

Asexuality isn't attraction based, but desire based. The above banner's definition is inaccurate.

I think you all who focus on this issue are just too caught up in definitions. If we define ourselves similarly to heterosexuals (attracted to the "opposite" sex/gender), homosexuals (attracted to the same sex/gender), etc then it makes more sense. Defining attraction is hard, but unless you want to change all the other definitions as well then there's no point in trying to correct others when they define asexuality.

Plus, using that definition in this case would confuse the ignorant student and teacher into thinking we're just celibate, abstinent or otherwise not an orientation. The people could then just say asexuals are prudes, picky, etc since they wouldn't understand what desire is meant in that definition.

But that wouldn't be correct either - since a lot of people ARE attracted to others, just not in a sexual way. The other orientations, while they might actually talk about SEXUAL attractions, are interpreted to mean all attactions, not just sexual, but also romantic etc.

[Calamity Jim]

Claiming something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy. Here is the formal breakdown.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

[Autumn Season]

Asexuality isn't attraction based, but desire based. The above banner's definition is inaccurate.

I think you all who focus on this issue are just too caught up in definitions. If we define ourselves similarly to heterosexuals (attracted to the "opposite" sex/gender), homosexuals (attracted to the same sex/gender), etc then it makes more sense. Defining attraction is hard, but unless you want to change all the other definitions as well then there's no point in trying to correct others when they define asexuality.

Plus, using that definition in this case would confuse the ignorant student and teacher into thinking we're just celibate, abstinent or otherwise not an orientation. The people could then just say asexuals are prudes, picky, etc since they wouldn't understand what desire is meant in that definition.

But that wouldn't be correct either - since a lot of people ARE attracted to others, just not in a sexual way. The other orientations, while they might actually talk about SEXUAL attractions, are interpreted to mean all attactions, not just sexual, but also romantic etc.

Heterosexuals usually don't know what I'm talking about when I mention "sexual attraction", so now I'm using the desire-based definition and it works. While I really like the existence of the phrase "sexual attraction" and I definitely believe that it exists, it seems that for sexual people all attractions are mixed. For this reason "I don't find nobody sexually attractive" can sound like "I feel NOTHING for other people, beyond maybe platonic friendship". No aesthetic, romantic or sensual attraction. This way it can be confusing for sexual people. Furthermore, when faced with the question "Is somebody who doesn't experience sexual attraction, but wants to sleep with others for their own sake, asexual or sexual?", I find it more logical to answer "Sexual". (They can be grey-a though.) Thus the desire-based definition is useful here as well.

[Hardly any]

I actually burst into uproarious laughter at the subject of this thread. It's completely ridiculous.

[logic]
QED.

Marry me.

[Squirrel Combat]

I'll bet that kid who said it's logically impossible to be Ace jerks off to pictures of Spock at night. :P

[Rising Sun]

He can have the opinion he wants... The worst problem is when you have someone who genuinely believes that he's smarter than the rest of the world.

A little bit (or a lot ?) like that guy who pretends to solve all the problems in the world if everybody listens to him... You know, that guy in a bar who is holding a beer in his hand and who doesn't speak quite clearly. Just let him ramble. He won't listen to anyone else than himself.

[Guest]

This is a trainwreck waiting to happen, holy christ.

Leave the student alone. He doesn't want, and it's not going to help you to give him, a report on asexuality. That's going to make you look (justifiably, IMO) like a giant tool and give him more ammunition to level at you. People can believe whatever they want to believe. It's not your personal duty to instigate one-on-one teaching sessions with everyone you think is wrong. Doing that is... beyond obnoxious.

Talk to the professor, however. His job is to be educated and pass down useful information, not encourage stupid bigotry. It's well within your role as student in his class to bring that up.

[Guest]

Claiming something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy. Here is the formal breakdown.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

No no no, trying to logically prove non-existence is impossible. Claiming things don't exist is just that... claiming things don't exist. Lots of things don't exist: dragons, psychics, my children, actual physical lines dividing states... I could go on and on and on naming things that don't exist and it certainly isn't a logical fallacy. If, however, I said "god exists but I have no proof, you prove he doesn't exist", then I'm mistaken in the way logic works. I have to prove his existence because non-existence is unprovable.

[Calamity Jim]

Claiming something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy. Here is the formal breakdown.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

No no no, trying to logically prove non-existence is impossible. Claiming things don't exist is just that... claiming things don't exist. Lots of things don't exist: dragons, psychics, my children, actual physical lines dividing states... I could go on and on and on naming things that don't exist and it certainly isn't a logical fallacy. If, however, I said "god exists but I have no proof, you prove he doesn't exist", then I'm mistaken in the way logic works. I have to prove his existence because non-existence is unprovable.

The key word is 'logic' in the most technical sense. I have a philosophy degree and I use it on the internet. ;)

technically, you CAN'T prove that unicorns don't exist. You can claim that they are highly unlikely to exist, but you can't prove them as an impossibility. All I need to do to prove that they do exist is find a unicorn. Or a unicorn skeleton.

And yes, if you claim that God, or let's go unicorns because it is less touchy, exist, then it is up to you to prove your claim, or at least prove evidence for. That's called burden of proof. The person who makes an assertion that something is is the person who has to provide evidence as to why it is or should be.

The opposition is only required to prove that the other persons assertions are logically unsound. But the all nay sayers are proving is that things are unlikely, not impossible, because the moment they say "Unicorns can't exist" their logic is flawed.

It is why court systems are designed in such a way that we have to prove guilt and that the events did happen, instead of trying to prove innocence and that the events didn't happen. Is there a reasonable doubt that events happened this way? Then the person is found Not Guilty, which is different from Innocent.

[Guest]

Actually that's not why our courts are set up that way at all. It's a moral thing, not a logic thing. And, if we're strictly speaking logical proofs, I can prove almost anything I want. All depends on which assumptions you're starting with.

I have a degree in philosophy and a law degree. Booyah.

[Star Bit]

Asexuality isn't attraction based, but desire based. The above banner's definition is inaccurate.

I think you all who focus on this issue are just too caught up in definitions. If we define ourselves similarly to heterosexuals (attracted to the "opposite" sex/gender), homosexuals (attracted to the same sex/gender), etc then it makes more sense. Defining attraction is hard, but unless you want to change all the other definitions as well then there's no point in trying to correct others when they define asexuality.

Plus, using that definition in this case would confuse the ignorant student and teacher into thinking we're just celibate, abstinent or otherwise not an orientation. The people could then just say asexuals are prudes, picky, etc since they wouldn't understand what desire is meant in that definition.

I can completely see where someone would get that impression, but that's simply not the case. The problem is that people who technically find no one sexually attractive but fully desire sex for other reasons (not including desire to reproduce or make partner happy) are calling themselves asexual. There is a loophole in attraction based definitions and that's why it's inaccurate. Many people also go off of their assumptions and misinterpret what sexual attraction is supposed to mean and then turn away from asexuality to continue feeling lost. Some people think finding someone else aesthetically attractive is sexual attraction and other simply a licking fetish sexual attraction when neither of those are. There are a ton of people who think asexuals are everything you mention in your second paragraph, regardless of which definition, so mute point. And all the student would have to do is inform the teacher in one sentence that it's not celibacy or any other possible misconceptions. And how the hell do people have an incomprehension of the absolutely common word desire?! Look it up in a dictionary, it's extremely simply worded and most people already know what it means.

[SithLord]

I think you all who focus on this issue are just too caught up in definitions. If we define ourselves similarly to heterosexuals (attracted to the "opposite" sex/gender), homosexuals (attracted to the same sex/gender), etc then it makes more sense. Defining attraction is hard, but unless you want to change all the other definitions as well then there's no point in trying to correct others when they define asexuality.

Plus, using that definition in this case would confuse the ignorant student and teacher into thinking we're just celibate, abstinent or otherwise not an orientation. The people could then just say asexuals are prudes, picky, etc since they wouldn't understand what desire is meant in that definition.

But that wouldn't be correct either - since a lot of people ARE attracted to others, just not in a sexual way. The other orientations, while they might actually talk about SEXUAL attractions, are interpreted to mean all attactions, not just sexual, but also romantic etc.

But we also desire others. Platonically, romantically, etc. Same thing. Simplifying it as attraction, and further explaining sexual attraction, is what we all have to do. Not everyone fits as hetero for all attractions, or homo, etc.

What they assume is up to them.

[Hardly any]

I mean I have a romantic desire for others (or rather, I desire a romantic partner) but no intrinsic desire to have sex with anyone. Desire definitions also work.

I think people worry that if you take "attraction" out of the definition then it delegitimizes asexuality as an orientation and then we aren't as "cool".

[SithLord]

I think you all who focus on this issue are just too caught up in definitions. If we define ourselves similarly to heterosexuals (attracted to the "opposite" sex/gender), homosexuals (attracted to the same sex/gender), etc then it makes more sense. Defining attraction is hard, but unless you want to change all the other definitions as well then there's no point in trying to correct others when they define asexuality.

Plus, using that definition in this case would confuse the ignorant student and teacher into thinking we're just celibate, abstinent or otherwise not an orientation. The people could then just say asexuals are prudes, picky, etc since they wouldn't understand what desire is meant in that definition.

I can completely see where someone would get that impression, but that's simply not the case. The problem is that people who technically find no one sexually attractive but fully desire sex for other reasons (not including desire to reproduce or make partner happy) are calling themselves asexual. There is a loophole in attraction based definitions and that's why it's inaccurate. Many people also go off of their assumptions and misinterpret what sexual attraction is supposed to mean and then turn away from asexuality to continue feeling lost. Some people think finding someone else aesthetically attractive is sexual attraction and other simply a licking fetish sexual attraction when neither of those are. There are a ton of people who think asexuals are everything you mention in your second paragraph, regardless of which definition, so mute point. And all the student would have to do is inform the teacher in one sentence that it's not celibacy or any other possible misconceptions. And how the hell do people have an incomprehension of the absolutely common word desire?! Look it up in a dictionary, it's extremely simply worded and most people already know what it means.

You can use that definition, but use it for all orientations is all I'm saying. Say sexuality is desire based, not "asexuality is desire based".

Plus, we shouldn't be so ready to exclude people from using asexual when it doesn't perfectly fit them. I'm guilty of this as well, but there are loads of people who don't fully fit the other orientations they identify as. Straight women have been quoted saying they prefer sex with women, find themselves attracted to women more, etc but are still considered straight. That's just one example.

People wouldn't understand desire because the source of the desire is what you're calling into question. Desire for reproductive purposes = exception. Desire for partner satisfaction = exception. Desire to satisfy a libido = ? Desire to not have sex for religion = not an exception.

All of these are desires and you saying the absence of desire to have sex doesn't make sense when you have to ask what qualifies and what doesn't. A religious man who doesn't have a high libido and chooses celibacy might be ace, he might not be. You saying "well, does he desire sex?" is moot because of course he doesn't since he desires what celibacy does for him religiously more and may not even acknowledge his desire for the flesh.