Talk:Antisexual

From AVENwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'd like to reconsider the quote "Sexuality makes no sense because it is too complicated for its functions; the variety of orientations, kinks, fetishes, and especially destructive variations like sadism and unsafe sex, make human sexuality seem too bewildering to be practical."

First of all, sadism is not destructive. It can be part of a perfectly healthy kinky lifestyle - sexual or nonsexual. Second, the whole back half of the sentence reads as biased. Kinks and fetishes are not necessarily sexual, and to present them as only being part of sexual relationships is incorrect. Third, I have to question the reasoning of the whole statement. Saying sexuality is too complicated to understand seems strange; there are a number of vectors and it is complicated, but there are many things that are complicated about being human. I can't imagine suggesting that we stop eating because there are too many varieties of food and ways to prepare it. I understand the poster's idea that sexuality itself is complicated and even unfathomable at times, and that rejecting sexuality altogether is a valid strategy for dealing with this issue. However, the statement as it reads as belittling to kinky people (including asexual kinky people) at the very least.

Perhaps a more neutral statement such as *Sexuality is complicated compared to its supposed purpose; the variety of orientations and execution of sexual relationships can be too bewildering to be practical" could serve for this argument and doesn't single out any particular type of sexuality as problematic. Kisahawklin 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I’d support that change, please go for it. If the point of the statement really is “sexuality is complex beyond its reproductive function, so why bother”, questionable reasoning aside, there is no real reason I can see for singling out sadism or kinks. Honestly, I've never made any major modifications to this article because I've never bothered to seek out in-depth understanding of the antisexual mindset. It just seems so irrational to me, so it's a struggle to have a NPOV on the subject. --Hexaquark 03:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions on sex

One might decide that it's better to forgo sex given all the restrictions that have been placed on it recently. For example, the new rules of college sex make it so that drunken hookups can easily ruin a person's life (in more ways that they already used to). If you sext or distribute nude pics of your ex you could end up on lifetime supervised release (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(k)). Or, even if you don't get prosecuted, it's often possible to be accused of exploiting or objectifying a person if you have a sexual relationship that doesn't involve trying to behave in a way that will please that person in every possible respect.

On the other hand, there's a stigma attached to not having a family too. All of the recent U.S. Presidents have been married men who had kids. So really, there's no way to win, unless you happen to have been grandfathered in under the old system (i.e. you sowed your wild oats and then "settled down into," (or maybe "settled for,") a monogamous relationship). Leucosticte (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)