Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Oh yes I absolutely felt screamed at for being sexual, like I need to have basic human dignity, as a concept, megaphoned into my head. Unless I've missed something, no one has to have sex no matter what, and forcing people to have sex is rape regardless of orientation. The impression I got from an asexual screaming at me about not raping people is that the author assumes that before asexuality, sexuals all just banged each other with wild abandon. But like... in reality we don't need to be shouted at about not being rapists just because some girl on the internet discovered she's asexual. Sad thing is, some sexuals do need to hear that megaphone. What I see as problematic in the article, though, is that it starts off right from the first line as addressing all sexuals ("Dear allosexuals (etc.)"). That is an unfair generalization, and much as the SJW crowd tries to invalidate responses like #NotAllINSERTGROUPHERE into bad-check-your-privilege-poo-poo, I do wholeheartedly consider #NotAllSexuals a not only valid, but neccessary reply to the tone of the article. Because it is true: Not all sexuals are entitled proto-rapists. Call me too hopeful, but I try to live my life in the trusting assumption that the majority of sexuals aren't. Implying they were - which the opening address, unfortunately, does insinuate - is an insult to the ethical integrity of a good number of people I care for deeply, including one I was in a loving relationship with for over six years. Don't. Just, dont. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Yeah. I mean, there is little I don't agree with as a concept in it. And yeah, some people need to be told "You know, threats / coercion / manipulation to get sex from your asexual partner is bad, OK?" - we've even had a few on here and they've gotten yelled at by the aces and the sexuals alike - but it was addressed to all sexuals. And was very aggressive in tone. And seemed a bit "holier than thou" with the whole being an ethical partner is less important to you than sex, etc. I kinda got the feel that the person might even get that aggressive towards maybe a sexual that says "I can't take a sexless relationship anymore, we need to split up"... which is a totally legit thing to say if you can't. As a frustrated rant from a person on the net that no one should really pay attention to cause they're just venting? Fine. People get frustrated and yell at the air (or their blog) all the time. But, as a useful "hey this is how to be a partner to an ace" thing? Nope. Link to post Share on other sites
Snao Cone Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I kinda got the feel that the person might even get that aggressive towards maybe a sexual that says "I can't take a sexless relationship anymore, we need to split up"... which is a totally legit thing to say if you can't. I agree, it's entirely reasonable for a person to end or decline a relationship because they can't go on with it without sexual intimacy. That's people looking out for their own needs, not arrogantly dismissing the needs of others or disrespecting an asexual identity. Link to post Share on other sites
dissolved Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 This thread has been most entertaining :D RE: original article/blog/whinge, I think the author was probably too angry at the time, and comes close to saying "fuck" as many times as I do in your average day. They don't mention (as far as I could see) actually desiring sex, so I'm guessing they are actually asexual... I suppose I could read some of their other posts to check but I'm getting hungry and I don't care enough. But as far as the topic goes, the author is right in that no one can demand sex from an asexual (or anyone for that matter) but if the asexual seeks out sex for its own sake, then they're in denial about their sexuality. I'm pretty sure I had something decent to say but I've "liked" posts that I agree with and now I'm rather hungry, so :P Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 OP here. I don't think the thread needs to be locked per se but it DEFINITELY got off-topic and escalated VERY quickly. I understand I shouldn't expect control over what people decide to comment about but 99% of the replies have very little (if anything) to do with the original post, i.e. the article. Actually the article discussed asexuals not wanting sex/sexuals wanting sex, and the vast majority of this convo has been about whether or not asexuals can innately want sex (or if desiring sex for your own pleasure makes you sexual..which it does) ..which is in direct relation to the title of this thread "Most aces don't want sex" ..other than the thread color discussion (which was more an attempt to calm things down than anything else) this has remained on topic. If you literally *only* wanted people to talk about the article "this was a good article" "I didn't like the article" then maybe specify that next time? But most of this conversation has been about ideas presented in the article, and whether or not people agree with them. You can't really agree or disagree with something without having a discussion about *why* you agree or disagree with it. But yeah as I said, the vast majority of this conversation has been about whether or not asexuals want sex. Which is the title of this thread... EDIT: rereading the OP I really can't see how you think the discussion was off-topic when it was all directly related to whether or not aseuxals want sex, which you appeared to be asking for people's thoughts on when you said "most asexuals aren't that into sex... thoughts?" And yes we discussed the definition but that's because the definition directly ties into whether or not asexuals want sex. Regarding the article, I agree 100% with Skyllery Maid Link to post Share on other sites
Confusion 0 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 This argument is still going??? Please can it stop? -_- Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 This argument is still going??? Please can it stop? -_- We're (mostly) agreeing now, so it's not that much of an argument anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 This argument is still going??? Please can it stop? -_- We're (mostly) agreeing now, so it's not that much of an argument anymore. I'd also like to add that it's been going on for years now, and until AVEN can add an educational section about sexuality so people here can have a better understanding of it (sexuality, and what makes someone a sexual person) the ''argument'' (though I prefer to call it a discussion) will continue. Asking people to stop is relatively pointless, it's not going to stop (plus this thread had kind of moved on from that, though it's still a thread titled ''most asexuals don't want sex'' there will always be people on both sides of the fence, hence, discussion) and these discussions are very helpful for a lot of people (they help people learn a lot and give a lot of food for thought) ..and if it is frustrating seeing it (believe me, I know how frustrating it is) there are hundreds of threads here not discussing this sort of thing so there's always that. Anyway yeah the thread has mostly moved on to dissing the person who wrote the article (okay, dissing some of their opinions) but if someone comes here and wants to give their own two cents about whether or not asexuals want sex, I personally don't think it would be polite to say to them ''stop this thread has moved on!'' or whatever, it is still the title of the thread, and the article itself states more than once that ''most asexuals don't want sex'' (actually it says ''the vast majority of asexuals don't want to fuck you'').. There are always bound to be opinions on that and people should be allowed to voice those opinions. The article is also very aggressive towards sexual people (inferring they all expect to be given sex regardless of whether or not you want it etc) so yeah, as long as the article is being discussed, there is bound to be heated discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
m4rble Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet. You can always report something if you see something that needs to be reported. I don't see anything too bad (besides that whole bit on font color... stay on topic :P) but this is more of a hot box thread than a gray-area thread for sure. I don't think it should be locked, it just seems like the type of thread that would be. Link to post Share on other sites
Lost247365 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet. You can always report something if you see something that needs to be reported. I don't see anything too bad (besides that whole bit on font color... stay on topic :P) but this is more of a hot box thread than a gray-area thread for sure. As the person who started the color font derailment, I feel I owe it to everyone in this thread to say: I REGRET NOTHING!!! It was much needed lighthearted fluff in an increasingly angry thread! :P Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 The separation of attractions also helps aromantics, but then because romantic attraction isn't really definable because it's an emotion, if what they feel doesn't match up with what's more popularly attempted to define it, yet they have ALL the attractions but that one, then they call their relationship queerplatonic when it's clearly visually a romantic relationship (i.e. QPP vids on youtube; particularly one). Some of them say they've been in romantic relationships and didn't like it, but really it just seems like they're hyporomantic (i.e. the romance needs to be low key; it's normal to not feel comfortable with actions you don't desire). For others it seems they never experienced romantic attraction before and are calling it QP because it doesn't fit their romantic assumptions due to romantic films. Link to post Share on other sites
m4rble Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 The separation of attractions also helps aromantics, but then because romantic attraction isn't really definable because it's an emotion, if what they feel doesn't match up with what's more popularly attempted to define it, yet they have ALL the attractions but that one, then they call their relationship queerplatonic when it's clearly visually a romantic relationship (i.e. QPP vids on youtube). Some of them say they've been in romantic relationships and didn't like it, but really it just seems like they're hyporomantic (i.e. the romance needs to be low key; it's normal to not feel comfortable with actions you don't desire). For others it seems they never experienced romantic attraction before and are calling it QP because it doesn't fit their romantic assumptions due to romantic films. I still don't understand the difference between dating and having a QP. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.