• Announcements

    • Kelly

      AVENues Holiday Special Edition is now live   08/17/17

      The new edition of AVENues is done!   See:        
    • Kelly

      New Team members Needed--Moderator and Project Team: Voting   11/01/17

      Voting has started. See:     http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163513-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163514-new-moderator-member-needed-qa-co-mod-and-gray-area-mod-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163513-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/  
    • Lady Girl

      Ace Community Census   11/06/17

      It’s time for the 2017 Ace Community Census!   see:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162675-announcing-the-2017-ace-community-census/  
    • Heart

      Help fund AVEN's servers!   11/06/17

      AVEN is doing its annual fundraiser to raise donations for server costs! See http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163251-aven-server-fundraiser/ for more details.  
timewarp

The Guardian writing weird things about asexuality

Recommended Posts

timewarp

So I've just had a look if the article Why don't I enjoy sex? You asked Google - here's the answer mentioned asexuality at all. It does indeed - as a condition!

 

This is what it says about asexuality:

 

Quote

You might be asexual, although given the condition only affects an estimated 1.5% of the male population, it’s not the most likely reason. You may also simply be doing it wrong. While the only unnatural sex act is one you can’t perform, to paraphrase Dr Kinsey, some of our most popular routes to pleasure simply don’t deliver.

 

Condition? Seriously? Also why is it 1.5% of the male population? What about other genders?

 

I would have expected something else from the Guardian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Titchwithpitch

I had actually noticed I hadn't really seen anything other on their website about AAW in general (feel  free to correct me). but that is really odd and a little disappointing if I am honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

It's an odd article. The 1.5% figure is linked to a Kinsey blog which says nothing of the sort,not even close. It might be badly written, or badly edited. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maks9090

"Condition" pfsh. Affecting only 1.5% of the male population, pfsh. Not only is that excluding a lot of other people, but a lot of men are probably too ashamed they don't enjoy sex to even consider asexuality, toxic masculinity and all that...

 

Urgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maks9090
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's an odd article. The 1.5% figure is linked to a Kinsey blog which says nothing of the sort,not even close. It might be badly written, or badly edited. 

Or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arekathevampyre
12 minutes ago, timewarp said:

Condition? Seriously? Also why is it 1.5% of the male population? What about other genders?

exactly what I am thinking . 

Disappointing and upsetting that the person who wrote this article is getting their facts wrong and honestly , it irritates me 😡

 

7 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's an odd article. The 1.5% figure is linked to a Kinsey blog which says nothing of the sort,not even close. It might be badly written, or badly edited. 

yeah maybe 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Titchwithpitch
13 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I probably should have clarified that there doesn't seem to be anything (again from what I have seen, also thank you for the links I'm going to go have a read) written recently or linked to where you can actually see it and if there has been something written recently then it's not very easy to find because I couldn't see anything.

 

Edit: I was in particular referring to yesterday before I saw  this post.

Edited by Stitchwithpitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldgeeza

I have found that most British people think that asexual means that a person has both sets of genitals or it's another word for gay, homosexual, etc, whereas people from other countries that live here in the UK fully understand the term asexual and its meaning with regard to humans as well as plants etc, they also accept asexual people for who they are, so to see a report stating it as a "condition" really doesn't surprise me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nemu_X
46 minutes ago, timewarp said:

You might be asexual, although given the condition only affects an estimated 1.5% of the male population,

*throws book at article* 

 

1 hour ago, timewarp said:

You may also simply be doing it wrong.

*throws trashcan at article* 

 

Asexuality is a condition?

Do these humans know what they're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NerotheReaper
Quote

You might be asexual, although given the condition only affects an estimated 1.5% of the male population, it’s not the most likely reason. You may also simply be doing it wrong. While the only unnatural sex act is one you can’t perform, to paraphrase Dr Kinsey, some of our most popular routes to pleasure simply don’t deliver.

Yeah seriously, 1.5% of the male population, what about the other genders are they trying to say 1.5% of the total population? Then say "oh you may be doing it wrong?" how can you be doing attraction wrong, I am sure they are referring to having sex. Though asexuality isn't the lack of the ability to get off, it is the absence of attraction in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Titchwithpitch
7 minutes ago, NerotheReaper said:

Yeah seriously, 1.5% of the male population, what about the other genders are they trying to say 1.5% of the total population? Then say "oh you may be doing it wrong?" how can you be doing attraction wrong, I am sure they are referring to having sex. Though asexuality isn't the lack of the ability to get off, it is the absence of attraction in the first place. 

I'm going to admit I was previously very uneducated, but things like those that are in this article really don't help at all. It just flat out annoys me tbh. (I read it a second time and wished I hadn't)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyfossil

This made me so angry. Sick of seeing asexuality described as a condition. And how can they put a pathetic sentence about asexuality in the same paragraph as bad technique? It's offensive and so misleading!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamwiseLovesLife
1 hour ago, timewarp said:

You may also simply be doing it wrong.

Wait.. It doesn't go up the nose?? THIS MUST BE WHY I THOUGHT I HAD THIS 'ASEXUALITY' CONDITION! Cured, thanks Guardian :')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciri

As a female Asexual, I’m still waiting for myself to *poof* out of existence in an explosion of purple and silver sparkles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain

What do you expect from a paper that has been known to misspell its name on the masthead? 

 

Also, when have you known a fact ruin a journalist's viewpoint in an article? :P:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fioryn

I've seen some great articles on the Guardian about asexuality, some of which were linked in a post above. ^

 

I'm going to assume that whoever wrote this article was not thinking in-depth about it while writing it. As I'm reading it, it doesn't feel like a cohesive piece. More like a rush job, to get people to click a cool headline. (Because I guess Googling sex problems is a topic people resonate with?) I doubt they were interested in actually giving factual information. It really looks like they did a quick Google search, typed up some sh*t about what they found, and bam! Article submitted.

 

At least, I hope that's what happened. Otherwise, I'm really disappointed in the Guardian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

 

Quote

Also, when have you known a fact ruin a journalist's viewpoint in an article?

I know you were being facetious, but... you wouldn't be able to tell, would you? They might've started off with a different viewpoint, changed their mind, and reported what they found out; or more frequently, they report what other people say. It looks more like this woman has got her facts round her neck than has an agenda.

 

I hope people are questioning the article on the Guardian website, not just here. That way, it might have some effect.

 

And the misspelled masthead was a joke in Private Eye, as far as I can tell. It did used to be pretty bad for typos tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, Fioryn said:

I've seen some great articles on the Guardian about asexuality, some of which were linked in a post above. ^

 

I'm going to assume that whoever wrote this article was not thinking in-depth about it while writing it. As I'm reading it, it doesn't feel like a cohesive piece. More like a rush job, to get people to click a cool headline. (Because I guess Google autocomplete's answers to your sex problems is a topic people are dying to know?) I doubt they were interested in actually giving factual information. It really looks like they did a quick Google search, typed up some sh*t about all the autocomplete responses, and bam! Article submitted.

 

At least, I hope that's what happened. Otherwise, I'm really disappointed in the Guardian.

Sadly, I doubt it. According to her website: 'She regularly contributes to the GuardianVice, and the Telegraph on civil liberties and censorship issues, sex and the law, and gender politics.'

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fioryn
4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Sadly, I doubt it. According to her website: 'She regularly contributes to the GuardianVice, and the Telegraph on civil liberties and censorship issues, sex and the law, and gender politics.'

 

 

Wow. I would've expected more from someone who does this for a living.... Anyone can do a search and type up some statistics from a research paper, like 80% of women can't do this, and 22%.... And 1.5% of the population has this.... It doesn't read like writing from an expert. It reads like a research paper you turn in for a class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sea-lemon

Some good news... I tweeted her (it was the only form of contact listed) and she apologised for the wording and asked whether 'identity' would work better. Win! (I hope) ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Yeah, it's really fragmented and fragmented for an experienced journalist (she just wouldn't keep getting commissioned if she regularly turns it stuff as rubbish as this). I've had some dealings with freelance stuff being reworked by the Guardian, and it looks far likely that's where it's all gone wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, sea-lemon said:

Some good news... I tweeted her (it was the only form of contact listed) and she apologised for the wording and asked whether 'identity' would work better. Win! (I hope) ^_^

You can comment on the Guardian site too. You have to scroll down a long way though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sea-lemon
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

You can comment on the Guardian site too. You have to scroll down a long way though.

Ahh must have missed that, maybe doesn't show up on my phone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arekathevampyre
3 minutes ago, sea-lemon said:

Some good news... I tweeted her (it was the only form of contact listed) and she apologised for the wording and asked whether 'identity' would work better. Win! (I hope) ^_^

Awesome !! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fioryn
7 minutes ago, sea-lemon said:

Some good news... I tweeted her (it was the only form of contact listed) and she apologised for the wording and asked whether 'identity' would work better. Win! (I hope) ^_^

Awesome! I think people just don't think about how they phrase things sometimes. It's awesome that she responded. Hopefully the wording gets changed in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSmokingSkellie

>the guardian does something stupid

What else is new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan99

"oh shit, these people don't like banging, must be a mental condition, oh no" wtf. seriously, I don't get why people think it's wrong to not want sex, not have a sex drive, or not be attracted to people sexually.

 

Psychopathy in a mental illness where someone doesn't have any empathy at all. Anxiety can be a mental illness that causes a lot of stress. Autism is a mental condition that can range from high functioning to severely low functioning to the point where someone can't speak and/or literally has the mind of a toddler. Anorexia is a mental illness where someone thinks they're over weight now matter how skinny they are and will starve themselves.

 

Someone not feeling a desire for sex isn't bad or weird or anything. I'm so sick of seeing these "<gender or sexuality> is a mental condition and these sad people should fix themselves and be normal". If someone's not in distress over it, is fine with the way they are, and in the case of trans people, changing their appearance because if someone is uncomfortable with the sex specific parts of their body, that isn't a bad thing, and it's their choice to do something and not anyone else's, then why complain about how "broken" people are?

 

I'm sorry for the rant, this just pisses me off.

 

I know, I'm taking a stupid website like the guardian too seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Quote

"oh shit, these people don't like banging, must be a mental condition, oh no" 

That's not what she says. She says asexuality is less likely to be the cause of someone not enjoying sex than trauma, bad communication, or stress, which is true. It doesn't really get mentioned too much on AVEN, because the site is all about asexuality, but it is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nidwin

The article is quite good, especially for the guardian.

 

Condition and the 1.5% male population are a bit unfortunate although. The reference to "doing it wrong ..." isn't about asexuals but a possible explanation for sexuals having sex issues. The author explains it in the other paragraphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now