Jump to content

Should only innate asexuals use the label?


Recommended Posts

The dictionary definition of “person” is pretty broad, at least according to Merriam Webster.  While “human” (or “individual,” which is in itself broader) is the first definition, there are six other accepted ones.  The third, for example, is the Christian triumverate godhead.

 

While I don’t personally believe in some of the things listed, I don’t think it’s patently illogical/incorrect - for/on behalf of those who do believe - to refer to them as persons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:47 PM, ryn2 said:

The dictionary definition of “person” is pretty broad, at least according to Merriam Webster.  While “human” (or “individual,” which is in itself broader) is the first definition, there are six other accepted ones.  The third, for example, is the Christian triumverate godhead.

 

While I don’t personally believe in some of the things listed, I don’t think it’s patently illogical/incorrect - for/on behalf of those who do believe - to refer to them as persons.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

My personhood depends solely on my own traits. It must. Anything else is antithetical to the concept of person, which of course requires independent existence. 

Agreed.  The question at hand is “what traits are essential to personhood?”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts
7 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Remember, the vast majority of civilised humanity across time has accepted the reality of spirits, gods, whatevers - even now strict materialists are in the tiny minority ...

It’s not about that. It’s the fact that when you say a person, you are talking about a human being. Not humanoid, not a spirit, nor an object. It can be a being that’s as smart as us and looks like us but it’s not a person because it’s not of our species. That’s how the English language works with the word “person”

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreamsexual said:

So self-controlled ... I can barely go an hour or two ... :)

 

1 hour ago, CustardCream said:

Yeah, that's how I see it too. I would certainly not wish to sleep with my character if they came to life, which is the key reason I class myself as fictoromantic rather than fictosexual. To be honest, I can go a long time without thinking about them at all, so I guess I'm not exactly besotted!

Same here, Dream, I don't think about Cloud constantly, but he crosses my mind throughout the day from time to time and when I get home I think about him a lot more. Right before bed is the best time since your mind is more relaxed and can focus.

 

2 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Although a lot of objectums & similar already do view their lover's as alive and in a shared world with them ...

 

Edit:

So ... are ficto-sexuals outside the asexual grouping?

Ok Question, in your opinion what would you describe or call someone who imagines sharing their life with a fictional character? Like I imagine Cloud and I as engaged and I imagine this relationship to progress over time like a "real" relationship would (I didn't auto-engage him or make him my bf, it took time and a "get to know you phase" happened lmao). But I'd still never go as far as to tell people "I'm engaged!" And I still refer to myself as single, part of because heck, I can't just blurt out I'm engaged to a fictional character, and two I'm still "single" in terms of real human beings. I don't see him as "alive alive" as you would another person like your sister or your friend, but still as a character someone else created. I just like vividly imagining things and making up scenarios for us (almost like I do when I write my books for other characters).

 

2 hours ago, CustardCream said:

Its kind of the same with ficto. If you are just vividly imagining a relationship with a fictional character, I see that as not really intrinsically different from a fantasy, but some people say fantasies are OK for asexuals, but fictoromanticism is more of a sexual thing. I still get very confused.

Now I'm confused lmao... I thought fictorom was just loving the romance or desiring a romance with a fictional character, and of course sexual is sexual. People can be either rom or sexual or both together, just like sexuals and romantics/aromantics with real people.

 

 

Oof, I read everything again and it seems like everyone has slightly different ideas? Bottom line is I think people should just use terms they think fit them and are appropriate to them... I like how some else said use terms that help you communicate yourself/sexuality (or lack thereof) to people :P

 

*ps I'm on mobile right now so please forgive any unfortunate typos!! This topic is just so juicy I keep coming back haha

 

edit: apparently I missed a lot of comments and only read one page of new things... I'll have to catch up later on everything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

This conversation is useless to the topic. 

It would probably fit better in the “defining dreamsexual” thread, agreed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:49 PM, Star Lion said:

It’s the fact that you say a person, you talking about a human being

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:49 PM, Strifed said:

in your opinion what would you describe or call someone who imagines sharing their life with a fictional character?

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Agreed.  The question at hand is “what traits are essential to personhood?”

Right. Which is what I had just defined? If the only argument in favor of objects being people is that some people feel feelings for them... not good enough. The traits would have to come from the object itself, not the viewer. 

 

I don't disagree that gods and spirits would be people if they were real, but the mere fact that you can conceive of a possible being doesn't make that conception, which exists only in your head, a person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:55 PM, Skullery Maid said:

if they were real

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

You know I disagree with your anthrocentrism already @Star Lion, so I'm not gonna argue. Just gonna remind you that your opinion is your opinion, not absolute authority.

 

I actually don't see objects as people; if I did I couldn't be attracted to them nor would I be as comfortable in their presence. The fact that machines are machines is exactly why we get on so well. I simply don't see someone as needing to be a 'person' to be worthy of respect and love.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts
1 minute ago, Skullery Maid said:

Right. Which is what I had just defined? If the only argument in favor of objects being people is that some people feel feelings for them... not good enough. The traits would have to come from the object itself, not the viewer. 

 

I don't disagree that gods and spirits would be people if they were real, but the mere fact that you can conceive of a possible being doesn't make that conception, which exists only in your head, a person. 

 

Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Pretty much settles the whole argument right there.  A big 'if'.

I don’t agree with any of this. There is a clear definition of what a person is

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:58 PM, Star Lion said:

There is a clear definition of what a person is

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts
1 minute ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I actually don't see objects as people; if I did I couldn't be attracted to them nor would I be as comfortable in their presence. The fact that machines are machines is exactly why we get on so well. I simply don't see someone as needing to be a 'person' to be worthy of respect and love.

Very good point

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

I don't disagree that gods and spirits would be people if they were real, but the mere fact that you can conceive of a possible being doesn't make that conception, which exists only in your head, a person. 

Agreed.  As someone who doesn’t believe but who also accepts that none of us can prove either argument I’m just willing to concede that...  it’s not up to me?  Something like that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Why do I feel like some people would just be a lot more comfortable telling me the correct label for people like me is 'mental', lol :)  You're just too polite here.

*snorts*

 

I’m agnostic.  It’s a broad thing, not a you thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
31 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Why do I feel like some people would just be a lot more comfortable telling me the correct label for people like me is 'mental', lol :)  You're just too polite here.

As I said, I've been called delusional on here before. Which is odd, because I've told two therapists and neither sectioned me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

As I said, I've been called delusional on here before. Which is odd, because I've told two therapists and neither sectioned me.

Want to be very very clear here that I was not calling you delusional. Unless I missed something, we were just talking about the definition of asexuality? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
2 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

Want to be very very clear here that I was not calling you delusional. Unless I missed something, we were just talking about the definition of asexuality? 

No not you, not this thread or even this month. The 'culprit' is still around though.

 

Asexuality and intersecting identities, yeah.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 4:54 PM, Skullery Maid said:

Want to be very very clear here that I was not calling you delusional. Unless I missed something, we were just talking about the definition of asexuality? 

I .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 4:29 PM, Telecaster68 said:

Nope, too tightly modded...

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
15 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

@Skullery Maid Maybe I misunderstood you then, in which case I'm sorry.  A lot of posts were flying around.

 

If I believe an immaterial non-human person with objective existence interacts with me, perhaps possibly inhabits/ possesses an object, am I not delusional in your POV?

I don't think @Skullery Maid can tell you that according to ToS, and she's respectful enough I don't think she would anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 5:24 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I don't think @Skullery Maid can tell you that according to ToS, and she's respectful enough I don't think she would anyway.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 5:40 PM, Skullery Maid said:

I don't think it's any of my business and I most certainly don't think I have anywhere near enough info to have an opinion even if it was. 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

I don't think it's any of my business and I most certainly don't think I have anywhere near enough info to have an opinion even if it was. 

*nods*

 

I think it’s pretty much impossible to determine whether or not a stranger on the internet has lost touch with reality.  That’s a vastly different assessment than “is the logic behind this definition internally consistent?”

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...