Vampyremage Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 When I said weird in a couple of post before me, I was talking about a specific type of weird, and not weird in general. I've knew many people who I called weird who wasn't asexual. I guess the best way I can say it is you call someone weird, but ask yourself why. Why is that person weird? Was it an action that they done, or something about them? Why does that person own animals? It can be many reasons. Not one person has the exact same reason as another, but that reason can be shared. What aura does that person give off? I hate to say this, but at this point I assume you're young, like in high school. You seem to think that people are easily divisible into categories. Why do people have cats? Do you honestly think there's an asexual vs. sexual reason for cat ownership? Do you think my partner and I have completely different relationships with our pets? Do you honestly think there's a type of "asexual weird"? If there was an asexual, say, The Great WTF, who isn't the least bit queasy about sex, sex talk, sex jokes, etc, and you had a sexual who is rather modest or shy, how could you tell them apart? How could "weirdness" possibly show you anything but whether or not someone likes sex, or is social, etc? And how could that possibly help you, since lots of sexuals are shy, inhibited, or not particularly sexual, and some asexuals aren't at all shy, inhibited, and are highly sexual? Please, tell me what specific type of weirdness an asexual has that a sexual cannot have by virtue of their sexuality. No, just no. Where do you get that from my post? Categories? Asexual and sexual cat ownership? Eh, no matter how many times I'm going to explain more than likely it is just going to be misinterpreted. Maybe I'm just really bad at explaining my point. Take what you want from it. <_< I'm not sure that its so much a matter of misinterpretation as it is people disagreeing with you. Personally, I just don't think there's any such thing as an asexual vibe or aura beyond, perhaps, interacting with a person who displays a marked disinterest in sexual activities. I think there's an argument to be made that if an individual is actively displaying behaviors to suggest they are not interest in sexual pursuits or activities, then there is a reasonable chance of that person being asexual, though even then its far from certain. Beyond that, I don't believe there's much that can be said with enough consistently to suggest someone is or is not asexual. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I'm not sure that its so much a matter of misinterpretation as it is people disagreeing with you. Good point. If you've explained yourself a number of times and people still don't go along with your idea, then consider the probability that more explanation won't change the outcome. Link to post Share on other sites
Kai99 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Even though I still don't think I explained myself too well, agree to disagree. Link to post Share on other sites
Mismatched Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 It seems like the OP has gathered a certain asexual archetype from online videos and from information of people they suspect is asexual and just inputting that data of the suspected asexual into the asexual archetype formula, and therefore confirming their that the suspected asexual is asexual because they suddenly fit the formula perfectly. It is like a positive feedback look, and in terms of control theory, positive isn't a good thing especially when you are trying to create a model. And this whole thing that asexuals are extra intelligent and specialized in their field, as if sexual people aren't as likely to be smart or invested in their field. I worked in a lab with another engineer, where that other engineer did express that they definitely did want to have sex, and found the opposite sex to be attractive and appealing. How did we behave differently? Actually we didn't. We spent the same amount of time in that lab, we watched shows online to help us awake, and we beat our heads while dealing with the same exact program we were working with. And come next year, there was another person who joined us in the lab, who spent just as much time and had similar priorities that we did, and this person definitely was sexual, as well. But because someone is sexual it doesn't mean that they put their sexual desires as a top priority. Sure sex is a part of their priority list, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the list or how it is ordered is all that different from an asexual, or an asexual's list is different from a sexual's. People are just people. Some people are weird, some people are genial, some people act differently based on environment and motivations with a different situation, but people are still just people if you don't try to shove them into a box. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Even though I still don't think I explained myself too well, agree to disagree. You did explain what you were thinking. But what you were thinking just didn't make logical or experiential sense. Read the comments in this thread and perhaps you will understand why there was disagreement with what you said. It's good to try to figure out why people disagree with you. Then you can either continue with your proposition, or take some new information in and perhaps adjust your thinking. Link to post Share on other sites
trewdys Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Here's my attempt at interpreting Kai's thoughts. Asexuals exhibit characteristic X. The underlying cause of characteristic X is some deep subconscious Jungian psyche whackothingum, let's call it personality Y. Therefore there is a correlation between asexuality and personality Y. This correlation is numerically more abundant in asexuals than sexuals. ...or Kai just has a strong A-dar that intuitively detects asexual auras. idunno. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts