a-d Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Right. It's just the overall presentation. I'm sure that the definitions of asexuality posted on the front page are likely to induce skepticism. It just seems to feed right into the expectations of detractors, in my personal view. That's not to discredit all the good things that they say. Link to post Share on other sites
Kez Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I mean, I know Karl and Victoria were picked for this segment before they realized they weren't asexual, Whoa, I musta missed the memo. Since when were K&V sexual? Link to post Share on other sites
141822 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I want to strangle some of these sex 'therapists'. One of my close friends IS one and you dont see her running off to perscribe me drugs, she's fine that I consider myself asexual. And I take that color blind reference semi- offensive. I say I sue her for human rights violations.. :D ha.. thanks for reminding me to look at the member list for spammers :D Can I make a list for you? Link to post Share on other sites
Amcan Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 For Kez - about K&V- The impression given by the website clips and the transcript on the 20/20 site about the asexual segement is that they no longer identify as asexual and are thus no longer associated with the site. It's true that even the most vocal asexuals can have a change of heart. To their astonishment, Victoria Glancy and her fiancé, Karl Hodgetts, recently discovered that their passions under the covers had been ignited. Glancy said she and Hodgetts had been getting very close to having sex recently. And Hodgetts is open to that possibility. "I just feel completely comfortable with Victoria. I don't think I've ever felt so comfortable with someone. And so I'm willing to, you know, try things," he said. So are Glancy and Hodgetts just ammunition for critics who say asexuals simply haven't found the right partners for themselves? That doesn't matter to Glancy, because, she said, there's a possibility she won't want to have sex — or have it more than once. Taken form the 20/20 site overview. Link to post Share on other sites
Kez Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Oh, yeah, but it doesn't say that they are 'sexual'. Although I suppose the viewing public will read that as being sexual, even though it doesn't specify they are. Link to post Share on other sites
cait Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Look at it this way though. Say a person is heterosexual. He or she is curious about having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex. Do you think this makes the person bisexual, and not hetero afterall? It is possible that person will never want to repeat the experience again, or never be interested in it again once that little bit of curiosity has been explored. Does being asexual completely rule out any sort of curiosity about the human body and its functions? I wouldn't say so. And I mean, that person might have a sexual experience with their own sex and actually find, "wait, I am homosexual". This does not prove that heterosexuality is not a ligitimate orientation. I mean, what are you afraid of the audience of the interview finding out? That human sexuality is not black and white? Do we have to bend rules and portray it that way so that we can gain popularity? edit: That was kind of in responce to this: However, just as a note, Karl and Victoria don't fit any reasonable definition of asexuality. It's one thing to argue over whether or not attraction without drive or drive without attraction constitute asexuality; it's another to say that people who've fooled around in spite of themselves are asexual. Link to post Share on other sites
ghosts Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 As far as I know, we can't prevent anyone from speaking about asexuality. Any single person here could do that if they want to, and they could say whatever they like. Yes, I know this could cause some problems, but we can't stop anyone. As for Cate & Liver, they've been here long enough and know enough about the community that I personally trust them to present asexuality in a positive light. Whoever wrote the article seemed to presume some things, like why the two of them are no longer on this board. Oh yeah- I've fooled around, and I am asexual. Link to post Share on other sites
ApolloSeek Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Their actions are playing into the "you've just got to wait for the right person" mentality. Whether or not that's true for them, it really trivializes most of the other thousands of asexuals here who really don't feel the way they do. 20/20 could have picked better representatives.On an unrelated note, the AVEN membership is approaching 7000, for what it's worth. Until we know to what extent the footage was edited, it is unfair to both Karl and Cate to speculate. Link to post Share on other sites
KAGU143 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I'm not sure what the editors may have done with the footage, but I was there and Karl and Victoria both presented asexuality in a very positive manner during the interview. All of us are ultimately at the mercy of the editors. -Greybird Link to post Share on other sites
141822 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 ACK it's on in 2 minutes and my parents came home early! ARG! Oh well, I bet everyone was great regardless of how they were portrayed! Way to go guys (girls, people, to be politically correct I suppose)! !!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Xenon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 They're calling the segment "Abstinence Forever", as if it's a choice. I already don't like the way it's going... Link to post Share on other sites
Beelzebuddy Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 AVEN segment is on in three minutes. (After this word from out sponsor.) :twisted: Link to post Share on other sites
bard of aven Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Rumor has it that Pittsburg and southwest Virginia are being March Madnessed/basketballed instead.....probably other venues also. boa Link to post Share on other sites
Beelzebuddy Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Hm. Davidson sounds like she wants to get tricked up in hose, leather corset, and SS cap to "cure" all you AVENites! Link to post Share on other sites
starrysky Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 You might as well label yourself not curious, unadventurous, narrow-minded, blind to possibilities. That's what happens when you label yourself as sexually neutered," Davidson said. So in order to be open minded you must refuse to admit the possibility that some people just aren't thrilled about sex? How is refusing to admit this possibility mean you are curious, open minded and seeing possibilities with a wide eye view. I don't get this line of thinking. "Uh, you consider that possibility as a valid option - you are so narrow minded and blind to possibilities." Do you follow this as being logical? I thought that's woman's comments were pretty stupid. The colorblind analogy was dumb--I have had sex plenty of times and I'm still not enjoying it, am I seeing in color yet or what? Then she uses the word narrow-minded... haha, that was ironic coming from her. Link to post Share on other sites
Shivers Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Well, that was dissapointing. Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but "How can you say you dont like it when you haven't had it" Didnt MOST of the people interviewed HAVE sex before?? Link to post Share on other sites
Xenon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Signal was loud and clear on WCBV Boston... Two observations: 1. The argument the sex therapist used to wave off the entire concept of asexuality could be used to convince a gay person to try to be come straight (or vice versa). Eesh. 2. The way the segment flowed, ending with V&K's relationship and their "shocking revelation": said "revelation" served to negate a lot of the rest of the segment, giving some validity to the "You just haven't found the right person" argument... (This is NOT a critical comment about V&K... it IS a critical comment about how ABC picks and chooses what it has taped in order to present a particular viewpoint...) Link to post Share on other sites
oberlinasexual Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Everyone did great tonight, even though some jackass in the TV Lounge was chuckling throughout the segment. I thought I saw Oberlin's Tappan Square in the background, because the one couple (sorry I don't know the names) was walking around on a college green-type thing with what looked like the Tappan square arch in the background, but upon further scrutiny I realized it wasn't. That sex therapist made a fool out of herself, but that's a whole other debate I'm sure we've all gone through a million times. Who would I be preaching to? Link to post Share on other sites
ApolloSeek Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Signal was loud and clear on WCBV Boston...Two observations: 1. The argument the sex therapist used to wave off the entire concept of asexuality could be used to convince a gay person to try to be come straight (or vice versa). Eesh. 2. The way the segment flowed, ending with V&K's relationship and their "shocking revelation": said "revelation" served to negate a lot of the rest of the segment, giving some validity to the "You just haven't found the right person" argument... (This is NOT a critical comment about V&K... it IS a critical comment about how ABC picks and chooses what it has taped in order to present a particular viewpoint...) ABC is a for-profit network that makes its $$$ by selling ads. Hence it's part of the EAC. Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Heartilly Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Yeah, I think "The View" segment was a lot better. There wasn't really enough said in this to defend the existence of asexuality. Every time that sex therapist said something, my dad looked at me and said "SEE?" He even did that when Victoria was talking. :( Link to post Share on other sites
Xenon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 ABC is a for-profit network that makes its $$$ by selling ads. Hence it's part of the EAC. EAC? Link to post Share on other sites
starrysky Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 But they also both said that just because they decide to sleep together doesn't mean that they'll necessarily like it, or want to do it again. They just want to try it. That doesn't seem contradictory to me. But don't you know, once you try it, you'll need it and won't be able to stop! Any sexual who's sitting around watching that is saying to themselves, "yeah, they'll be just like me once they do it and see how fantastic it is. Just goes to show all these asexuals need is to find the right person and get laid." Link to post Share on other sites
Sphinx Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Hey there. I've been reading this thread barely 10 minutes after I finished watching the 20/20 segment, and I think a few of the more adamant posters here might be seeing things differently than I did. Disclaimer: I am a sexual (yes, there's a space there), but I'm romantically involved with an asexual. I just want give my two cents about the segment. A few things I noted: 1. The cutting room floor is something that none of the interviewees can ever control. Personally, I think Cate & Liver did basically the best they could, and if Greybird says that they were extremely supportive during the raw interview, I'm gonna buy that. 2. There are two demographics that the segment could potentially cater to: confused maybe-asexuals, and the general populace. The segment actually did a grand job making the asexual community welcoming and inviting for those out there who may want to join, and did a good job conveying the very flexible tenets of the asexuality. BUT, the segment, be it through editing or through the actual interview process, doesn't cater too well to the general populace. I agree that Cate and Liver aren't paragons of "strict asexuality," but is that what AVEN is really about? Is this what asexuality is really about? It's true that some (okay, probably a lot) of the public will be more inclined to write off asexuality as a "phase" or what-have-you than if only "strict" asexuals were interviewed. 3. I believe that the segment, consciously or unconsciously, picked the right demographic to cater to: prospective asexuals. Trying to educate the general populace right at the outset of public exposure is a very dangerous and daunting task, especially for sexual minorities. When more people discover that they're A, and this slowly starts to make itself known, people won't be ABLE to write off asexuals off as "just another _____." 4. It is VERY dangerous to talk about "screening" or "s/he's not a 'proper' asexual" at this point. We do not want to shun or discourage those who aren't "strict" asexuals, and we certainly do not want the public to see us as a restrictive, exclusive club for "strict" asexuals. This will do us much more harm than the most dire presumptions about Cate & Liver. 5. The extreme point of view of the sex therapist did asexuals MUCH more good than if a more rational or moderate counterpoint was given. If there was really a calm, rational voice countering asexuality, then we'd really be in trouble, and the asexual would be THAT much easier to instantly write off. There it is. I liked the program. Edit: grammatical error. Link to post Share on other sites
Fayetje Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 They're calling the segment "Abstinence Forever", as if it's a choice. I already don't like the way it's going... Well, technically it IS a choice. You can't choose to be asexual, but you DO choose to act on your asexuality and not have sex. I think that's what they were getting at. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 They're calling the segment "Abstinence Forever", as if it's a choice. I already don't like the way it's going... Well, technically it IS a choice. You can't choose to be asexual, but you DO choose to act on your asexuality and not have sex. I think that's what they were getting at. That's like saying you can choose on your lack of thirst and not have anything to drink... :D I didn't choose to be asexual. I'm just not that interested in it. Link to post Share on other sites
Des Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 As for Cate & Liver, they've been here long enough and know enough about the community that I personally trust them to present asexuality in a positive light. Might I suggest that presenting asexuality in an accurate light is more important than presenting it as something definitively positive. Link to post Share on other sites
Brodertun Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 And after viewing the segment its clear that most of us jumped to the wrong conclusions about them - it specifically said they haven't had sex. and the sex therapist was pathetic. It was probably just nervousness but her speech was so forced it made it look like she was grasping at straws to hold on to her view point. I doubt most will take her seriously. Link to post Share on other sites
Dixie Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I doubt most will take her seriously. Don't underestimate the power(or lack thereof) of the masses. Link to post Share on other sites
Brodertun Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Does being asexual completely rule out any sort of curiosity about the human body and its functions? I wouldn't say so. I hope this isn't TMI but when I was with the guy I had sex with, my main interest in fondling him was curiousity about he coulgrow larger in that area. It was not a sexual interest. Link to post Share on other sites
Beelzebuddy Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 You asexuals are UN-NATURAL!!! Geez, that Davidson woman was practically frothing, like she was watching her practice melt before her very eyes. Everyone else came across as thoughtful, and quite sane. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.