Jump to content

Its not over yet. Not for MSN anyway:


Vyanni Krace

Recommended Posts

I went on MSN to check out 'the latest news' as I do every morning and look what I found:

http://t.style.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/expecting-someone-to-commit-to-a-sexless-relationship-is-selfish Good lord, someone shut this journalist up. And lead her to AVEN. Force her to read all the topics.

Sorry Lisa Smith, you probably already know this but its not over yet.

Here's a short quote from it: 'Sex is what helps you bond with and feel close to your partner. It's also really good fun.' <------¬_¬...

And another: 'A relationship with no sexual feelings isn't a relationship: it's a strong friendship...' <------ >_< *Head-desk.*

That's all I have to say right now.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the journalists just writes stuff out of thin air without doing any research.

Even a short peek at the Wikipedia article will work.

That's why I no longer watch/read the news every day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

"A relationship with no sexual feelings isn't a relationship: it's a strong friendship, and it's unfair to ask anyone who isn't asexual to live with that."

"She has to accept that unless she finds an asexual man she can't have it both ways: romantic relationships need to at least have a spark of desire, otherwise what's the difference between your partner and your best friend?"

I forgive her for saying a sexless relationship is just a friendship, but the thing is, Lisa did say she wants to find an asexual partner (at least in the Daily Mail article - I don't have access to the TV show). She's not expecting a sexual man to give up sex for her. So I don't understand why the journalist needs to make a fuss over it.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

That "an asexual relationship is just a friendship" line always makes me chuckle....

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of a sexual person, which constitutes the vast majority of her audience these statements are 100% valid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Invisible Pumpkin

From the point of view of a sexual person, which constitutes the vast majority of her audience these statements are 100% valid.

but that doesnt mean we have to accept it, also, we could be a pain in the a s s for them, sending them letters and all that :P. We are a bunch of active people in Aven, it could means a little more than a simple and annoying noise.

We could create a single reply and we all send it apart :LOL: or each create their own reply :P.

Edited by Invisible Pumpkin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

The thing that really makes me wonder about it is why "emotional affairs" are such a big deal then. If sex is the only thing that makes a relationship a relationship, then any amount of emotional sharing and nonsexual affection with other people should be fine, right? I've learned the hard way that this isn't the case. :lol:

So it's like it only works in one direction but not the other.

Or maybe it really still is about sex. As in, sexuals assume that intense emotional intimacy will eventually lead to sex, and that's what they're ultimately afraid of with "emotional affairs". If they could be convinced that the "other person" is utterly incapable of (or disinterested in) sex for whatever reason, then maybe they'd see it as just a strong friendship and be fine with it.

I wonder about that a lot. My entire view of relationships at the moment sort of hinges on this basically.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of a sexual person, which constitutes the vast majority of her audience these statements are 100% valid.

but that doesnt mean we have to accept it, also, we could be a pain in the a s s for them, sending them letters and all that :P. We are a bunch of active people in Aven, it could means a little more than a simple and annoying noise.

We could create a single reply and we all send it apart :lol: or each create their own reply :P.

Alternatively, ask EVERYONE on the site to vote "NO" on the poll.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of a sexual person, which constitutes the vast majority of her audience these statements are 100% valid.

but that doesnt mean we have to accept it, also, we could be a pain in the a s s for them, sending them letters and all that :P. We are a bunch of active people in Aven, it could means a little more than a simple and annoying noise.

We could create a single reply and we all send it apart :lol: or each create their own reply :P.

What would that accomplish besides creating anomosity between sexuals and asexuals? Why can't you accept it? They have a different point of view than you. One is not less valid than the other.

The thing that really makes me wonder about it is why "emotional affairs" are such a big deal then. If sex is the only thing that makes a relationship a relationship, then any amount of emotional sharing and nonsexual affection with other people should be fine, right? I've learned the hard way that this isn't the case. :lol:

So it's like it only works in one direction but not the other.

Or maybe it really still is about sex. As in, sexuals assume that intense emotional intimacy will eventually lead to sex, and that's what they're ultimately afraid of with "emotional affairs". If they could be convinced that the "other person" is utterly incapable of (or disinterested in) sex for whatever reason, then maybe they'd see it as just a strong friendship and be fine with it.

I wonder about that a lot. My entire view of relationships at the moment sort of hinges on this basically.

Because for most sexuals, sex and emotional intimacy are inseparable. Either can easily lead to the other. Yes it's assumed "emotional affairs" will lead to sex simply because most sexuals have no interest in a sexless relationship.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the stigma this opinion creates, not only for asexual people but also for those people (and their partners) who, for one reason or another (medical issues, meds, injuries, psychological issues and/or others) cannot have sex, either temporarily or permanently.

EDIT: For once, I love most comments.

Edited by ithaca
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Invisible Pumpkin

From the point of view of a sexual person, which constitutes the vast majority of her audience these statements are 100% valid.

but that doesnt mean we have to accept it, also, we could be a pain in the a s s for them, sending them letters and all that :P. We are a bunch of active people in Aven, it could means a little more than a simple and annoying noise.

We could create a single reply and we all send it apart :lol: or each create their own reply :P.

What would that accomplish besides creating anomosity between sexuals and asexuals? Why can't you accept it? They have a different point of view than you. One is not less valid than the other.

>>>The thing that really makes me wonder about it is why "emotional affairs" are such a big deal then. If sex is the only thing that makes a relationship a relationship, then any amount of emotional sharing and nonsexual affection with other people should be fine, right? I've learned the hard way that this isn't the case. :lol:

So it's like it only works in one direction but not the other.

Or maybe it really still is about sex. As in, sexuals assume that intense emotional intimacy will eventually lead to sex, and that's what they're ultimately afraid of with "emotional affairs". If they could be convinced that the "other person" is utterly incapable of (or disinterested in) sex for whatever reason, then maybe they'd see it as just a strong friendship and be fine with it.

I wonder about that a lot. My entire view of relationships at the moment sort of hinges on this basically.

Because for most sexuals, sex and emotional intimacy are inseparable. Either can easily lead to the other. Yes it's assumed "emotional affairs" will lead to sex simply because most sexuals have no interest in a sexless relationship.

They are free to believe whatever they want, but we (the asexuals or sexual who dislike what they said) don't have to believe it or accept it. Your point of view it's totally valid to me however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a sexual viewpoint, if what she is saying is true and sex is a big part of a relationship, considering a lot of people are more than willing to give sex away without any commitment... why even bother with a relationship if everything else is so minor?

She actually makes it sound like sex is practically the be all and end all of any emotional commitment at all, strange lady.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ace-of-Blades

It frustrates me that this woman speaks as if she is some
kind of spokes person, that she would go so far as to define what a relationship
is. I understand that sex can be an important part of some relationships, but
to go so far as to generalise that sex is virtually essential to a committed
relationship; that shows a staggering amount of ignorance.

Jones eludes to the fact that asexuality isn’t natural, by

stating that ‘Sex is
a big part of any relationship and sexual desire is a natural response.’
I can’t help but feel offended by this, as would anyone if someone told you
that you were unnatural. Sure asexual’s only make up a total of 1-3% of the world’s
population, but to say that the unusual is unnatural is again; ignorant. And
that ignorance is exactly why Lisa Smith chose to take a stand.


  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

She sounds like a complete moron and who the hell is she to judge someone for not being sex obsessed ? Does she really think that you cannot love someone just because you have no desire to sleep with them ? I think we really live in a sad misguided world if people can't tell the difference between sex and love.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I'm so glad so many of the comments are taking Smith's side. :D I really think all of AVEN needs to jump on that poll and vote "no." As it stands we're currently outnumbered 5:1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of a sexual person, which constitutes the vast majority of her audience these statements are 100% valid.

but that doesnt mean we have to accept it, also, we could be a pain in the a s s for them, sending them letters and all that :P. We are a bunch of active people in Aven, it could means a little more than a simple and annoying noise.

We could create a single reply and we all send it apart :lol: or each create their own reply :P.

What would that accomplish besides creating anomosity between sexuals and asexuals? Why can't you accept it? They have a different point of view than you. One is not less valid than the other.

>>>The thing that really makes me wonder about it is why "emotional affairs" are such a big deal then. If sex is the only thing that makes a relationship a relationship, then any amount of emotional sharing and nonsexual affection with other people should be fine, right? I've learned the hard way that this isn't the case. :lol:

So it's like it only works in one direction but not the other.

Or maybe it really still is about sex. As in, sexuals assume that intense emotional intimacy will eventually lead to sex, and that's what they're ultimately afraid of with "emotional affairs". If they could be convinced that the "other person" is utterly incapable of (or disinterested in) sex for whatever reason, then maybe they'd see it as just a strong friendship and be fine with it.

I wonder about that a lot. My entire view of relationships at the moment sort of hinges on this basically.

Because for most sexuals, sex and emotional intimacy are inseparable. Either can easily lead to the other. Yes it's assumed "emotional affairs" will lead to sex simply because most sexuals have no interest in a sexless relationship.

They are free to believe whatever they want, but we (the asexuals or sexual who dislike what they said) don't have to believe it or accept it. Your point of view it's totally valid to me however.

What you should do is believe and accept that that point of view is valid for them and a large percentage of the population.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has been moved to World Watch.

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites

She sounds like a complete moron and who the hell is she to judge someone for not being sex obsessed ? Does she really think that you cannot love someone just because you have no desire to sleep with them ? I think we really live in a sad misguided world if people can't tell the difference between sex and love.

Who the hell are we to judge her? To many people, love includes sex. That's not sad or misguided; it's simply reality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Personally I prioritise sex and attachment equally, because casual sex makes me feel even more unloved. It runs off the thinking "if he wants to have sex with me he must like me a lot, so why am i so unsuitable as a girlfriend? I must be a joke to him." Flawed of course because some people enjoy just licking the icing and leaving the cake.

You'd make a good demisexual Sweetex. :lol:

Just imagine how much easier it would be for you if the whole idea of casual sex was viscerally incomprehensible for you, and the only way you could actually desire sex with someone is by having a deep emotional attachment already in place.

But yes, it's flawed, by how most people function anyway. Because it seems like for most sex really is the "good bit", and they can desire it by itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Thief Yatagarasu

I ended up commenting on this, so it ended up on my facebook. I came back from SFX to find that my big sister had this on her own facebook page:

'You seem to be confusing asexual for aromantic. While there are aromantic asexuals, you get plenty of asexuals who are still looking for romance. And while their sexuality does mean that they won't have the desire for sexual intercourse, they aren't going to be depriving their partners of emotional support and friendship, you know all the important things in a relationship. The article states that a lot of sexuality is "loving looks, being told you are beautiful and made to feel attractive, and the feeling of being desired", all of which can be provided in an asexual relationship. And if they still possess those factors, who are you to say that the relationship is fundamentally flawed? What business is it of yours to judge people according to your personal priorities regarding sex? If need be, it is something that the couple themselves will sort out and nothing for anyone to comment on.'

She...she gets it. She actually understands. I love my big sister so damn much, you wouldn't even know. Seriously, actual happy tears. :wub:

(and yes, I know aromantic people can be in queerplatonic partnerships and can be in romantic relationships, but she's generally going by the logic that an aromantic person wouldn't want a romantic relationship anyway, so yeah)

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy I went to uni with saw my comment and liked it, I thanked him and he sent me this!


A pleasure - I know 'liking' something can seem quite flippant as it only takes afew seconds to do but I really admired your frankness. I don't have any first hand experience of what it's like, and it's a topic you very rarely hear about, so it was quite striking to read someone speak so honestly about a topic that so few people have an understanding of (< a rare journalistic trait!). I went away and read abit more about it having seen your post actually, and apparently it's as common as 1% of people, so I hope you don't feel too isolated or alone in your feelings. 1% of people are ginger and you probably walk past afew red-haired people every day without even realising.

All the best, Kim!

It's restored my faith in humanity a little :D

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Invisible Pumpkin

A guy I went to uni with saw my comment and liked it, I thanked him and he sent me this!

A pleasure - I know 'liking' something can seem quite flippant as it only takes afew seconds to do but I really admired your frankness. I don't have any first hand experience of what it's like, and it's a topic you very rarely hear about, so it was quite striking to read someone speak so honestly about a topic that so few people have an understanding of (< a rare journalistic trait!). I went away and read abit more about it having seen your post actually, and apparently it's as common as 1% of people, so I hope you don't feel too isolated or alone in your feelings. 1% of people are ginger and you probably walk past afew red-haired people every day without even realising.

All the best, Kim!

It's restored my faith in humanity a little :D

:wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The writer of the article sounds very unpleasant.

Maybe it's just the fraction of comments I happen to be seeing, but most of them have the gist of, "shut up, she's not being selfish at all." Which makes me very happy.

I particularly liked this one:

imagine you are talking to a roomful of soldiers, marines, crewmen, sailors for instance who have ALL been injured in a way that PREVENTS them from having sex.....and explain your thinking to them?

Reminded me of an episode of classic Hawaii 5-O. Social ideas like this make things so much harder for people who've been hurt some way...we're definitely not the only ones who get stuck on the wrong end of it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Personally I prioritise sex and attachment equally, because casual sex makes me feel even more unloved. It runs off the thinking "if he wants to have sex with me he must like me a lot, so why am i so unsuitable as a girlfriend? I must be a joke to him." Flawed of course because some people enjoy just licking the icing and leaving the cake.

You'd make a good demisexual Sweetex. :lol:

Just imagine how much easier it would be for you if the whole idea of casual sex was viscerally incomprehensible for you, and the only way you could actually desire sex with someone is by having a deep emotional attachment already in place.

But yes, it's flawed, by how most people function anyway. Because it seems like for most sex really is the "good bit", and they can desire it by itself.

Yes it would be easier. I've had it suggested to me that I might be demisexual but I don't believe so. Its my understanding that a demisexual doesn't even perceive a person as sexually attractive until they've formed an emotional connection with them. I can find a stranger sexually attractive, I just have no desire to do anything about it because I like to preserve my boundaries.

Yeah, you're not demi. When you're demi it's not a conscious decision. It's totally internal. When presented with casual sex, your brain just naturally goes:

cat-cats-kitten-kitty-pic-picture-funny-

Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchofinsight

"A relationship with no sexual feelings isn't a relationship: it's a strong friendship, and it's unfair to ask anyone who isn't asexual to live with that."

"She has to accept that unless she finds an asexual man she can't have it both ways: romantic relationships need to at least have a spark of desire, otherwise what's the difference between your partner and your best friend?"

I forgive her for saying a sexless relationship is just a friendship, but the thing is, Lisa did say she wants to find an asexual partner (at least in the Daily Mail article - I don't have access to the TV show). She's not expecting a sexual man to give up sex for her. So I don't understand why the journalist needs to make a fuss over it.

She wants to create controversy that doesn't exist to make it a big story. Think from a journalist's point of view, how do I get a bigger following, report big stories. Sex generally sells, at worst poorly sells but its rarely ignored. Look at the headline, pretty much embellished the concept of her interview to get more readers and followers. This is why i hate most of the media, but sometimes even more the culture that follows them... they don't care about facts, twist the facts so its interesting and fun to read. Gah who wants the truth that isn't fun.

*head explodes*

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even read the article because the title just felt so obnoxious and annoying. I skipped down to the comments and most of it is people just slamming the author for being a bitch, loving it :D

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