ShiroTora Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 My question is this, What is your views on other sexualities as an Asexual? For me, I've made friends on line and such who are Bisexual and Homosexual, I'm completely not fazed who's who and what thier sexuality is. I'm all for gay rights and that. Haha, makes me think to one of my gay friends, he was telling me what he likes in a guy, and pointing them out as we walked in the mall, and I would be...Eww...gross...they're stupid...stop discribing...I don't care! Noooo.... And of course, he would do this because he know it gets on my nerves. XD Link to post Share on other sites
TheOtherDibbler Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Hehe - that's what friends are for. :D My opinion on other sexualities can be described as: meh, so you're gay/straight/bi/other, your point was? A person's a person, I don't care what sexuality they are, doesn't bother me. Several people I know online and in RL have been revealed to me as bi or gay (or straight) and my reaction has generally been "'kay" and move on to the rest of the conversation. But I don't think this has anything to do with my being asexual, it's just who I am as a person. I have the same response to things like nationality, ethnicity, number of kids, and so on. I try not to assume anything about anyone (for example just because someone is 'Asian' in appearance doesn't mean they're Asian, they could be Australian or American or something). Whenever I find out one of those things about someone it gets filed as 'something I know about this person' and that's about it. I see no reason to get caught up about any of these things. (And I support the move for the legalisation of same-sex marriage - and child adoption) Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I'm rather indifferent. I'm for gay rights and all, but your sexuality does nothing to my views of you as a person. Link to post Share on other sites
thylacine Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I don't care who they want to do, as long as they don't want to do me! Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I don't care who they want to do, as long as they don't want to do me! exactly my sentiments! Link to post Share on other sites
fern Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Hehe - that's what friends are for. :DMy opinion on other sexualities can be described as: meh, so you're gay/straight/bi/other, your point was? A person's a person, I don't care what sexuality they are, doesn't bother me. Several people I know online and in RL have been revealed to me as bi or gay (or straight) and my reaction has generally been "'kay" and move on to the rest of the conversation. But I don't think this has anything to do with my being asexual, it's just who I am as a person. I have the same response to things like nationality, ethnicity, number of kids, and so on. I try not to assume anything about anyone (for example just because someone is 'Asian' in appearance doesn't mean they're Asian, they could be Australian or American or something). Whenever I find out one of those things about someone it gets filed as 'something I know about this person' and that's about it. I see no reason to get caught up about any of these things. (And I support the move for the legalisation of same-sex marriage - and child adoption) I know I couldn't have said this better myself so I'm just going to do a big DITTO. Link to post Share on other sites
Parth Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I like gay guys because they're males I can actually make friends with :D Seriously, sexual orientation is really a nonissue. I say more power to ya no matter who you are attracted to! Link to post Share on other sites
HelloToYou Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 People are people. Sexuality is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites
owen. Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Just to mix the subject up more, what about people with more controversial sexual attachments? For instance, I would argue that a lot of things we call -philias are sometimes used by people as sexual orientations. This is clear because there are people whose sexual interest is focused on specific groups. For example, what about pedosexuals (sexual orientation towards prepubescent children), ephebosexuals (sexual orientation towards developing children), zoosexuals (sexual orientation towards animals), necrosexuals (sexual orientation towards the dead), or any of the numerous others? I just bring this up, because I think that even for people accepting of mainstream sexual orientations, most people would draw the line at some point, and it's interesting to find out just where that line is for people. Especially considering asexuality is not considered a mainstream sexual orientation itself. Link to post Share on other sites
Hallucigenia Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Oh, not this debate agaaaaaaaaain. Hurting other people/beings by performing sexual acts on them without their consent is totally different from the rest of the sexual orientation debate. There are plenty of paraphilias besides the harmful ones you mentioned, though. I have no problem with a person who's sexually attracted to, say, math or cars or polyester fabric - in fact, there are probably people like that on AVEN (given that the lack of attraction to humans would give them a ton in common in terms of relationships with a "real" asexual...) Link to post Share on other sites
TheOtherDibbler Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Hurting other people/beings by performing sexual acts on them without their consent is totally different from the rest of the sexual orientation debate. What Hallu said. Link to post Share on other sites
PollyB Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Yes, hesitant about opening this up again, but many of us would say mutual informed consent is not possible in that set of (usually illegal) practices. It separates them from sexual practices with a level of shared understanding between those involved, and is to prevent anyone trying to defend those practices from suggesting a grey area around the word "consent". (A sexual attraction for math, though, how would that work - can you have it for poetry as well? Mmm, villanelles...) Link to post Share on other sites
spinneret Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 *sidesteps sticky conversation this time* (A sexual attraction for math, though, how would that work - can you have it for poetry as well? Mmm, villanelles...) I think I remember charlieprose being attracted to villanelles as well. . . Link to post Share on other sites
Hallucigenia Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I read a story in Open Mic once about a guy who was sexually attracted to math. I actually found it strangely adorable. And, although it may be a completely fictional example, I'm pretty sure there are documented cases of fetishists here who can get turned on by specific concepts but not by the standard romantic/sexual interactions with other people, and who consider themselves asexual for all intents and purposes. And as long as they're not hurting people (as discussed above) I really don't have a problem with that kind of thing. *shrugs* Link to post Share on other sites
ChildOfTheLight Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 *sidesteps sticky conversation this time*(A sexual attraction for math, though, how would that work - can you have it for poetry as well? Mmm, villanelles...) I think I remember charlieprose being attracted to villanelles as well. . . Villanelles? Oh, baby... :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
owen. Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Well, I think it's one thing to support someone's sexual orientation, and it's another to say they can act out on it. Most people don't act out on it. So basically all you accomplish is to stigmatize them for the way they think. Link to post Share on other sites
Hallucigenia Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Well, I think it's one thing to support someone's sexual orientation, and it's another to say they can act out on it. Most people don't act out on it. So basically all you accomplish is to stigmatize them for the way they think. Hmm... Maybe we're approaching the same thing from different angles? Having a sexual orientation that will hurt people if you act out on it can't be pleasant for anybody involved - so I don't see how it would at all be helpful to "support the orientation" in such cases. However, I definitely think that one should support the human beings who are unfortunate enough to feel certain ways, as they go through their lives engaging in the universal human struggle to live morally. Does that make sense? Link to post Share on other sites
owen. Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Yeah, that's how I mean. I just think it makes more sense to support them as human beings, and work with them as human beings rather than as creeps or perverts or whatever. I just don't like where it gets to stigmatizing people for their thoughts, instead of stigmatizing the acting out of those thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites
HelloToYou Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 Owen (happy apples), I have thought about that sort of thing as well. I basically came to the same conclusion as you. You can't judge them for how they naturally feel, but it is clearly wrong for someone such as a pedosexual to act on their desires. Link to post Share on other sites
Parth Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 I think the vast majority of us can agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites
owen. Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 Well, going off that, I also think that it shouldn't be illegal for people with paraphilias (or parasexualities) to have explicit materials, just as long as they don't purchase them (or obviously, produce them). In the past, things like child pornography were illegal primarily because by purchasing them, you end up supporting the initial crime. But with things like the Internet, people don't have to, and so they can satisfy themselves without a) having to abuse anyone themselves B) supporting people who do abuse others. I find the idea of police raids against people who didn't do either very disturbing, as it's essentially a form of thought crime. Also, it's inconsistent with other things. If someone with a twisted mind wants to watch brutal murders, or view grotesque images, they're free to, so long as they aren't directly financing the murderer in question. It's better they'd do that, than make their own videos... I don't know, just my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
PollyB Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 happy apples, I appreciate what you're saying about being kind to people, but I'm not really sure how that would work, as a lot of "erotic" internet imagery is big business, governed by laws of supply and demand (and for which a lot of money changes hand by credit card). Even if no money changes hand, I don't think this argument lets "consumers" off the hook from supporting abuse that takes place in the production of images. Link to post Share on other sites
brian_w Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 .......I don't think this argument lets "consumers" off the hook from supporting abuse that takes place in the production of images. Ok, I'm probably going to muddy the waters a bit here, but most, if not all images of a 'violent pornographic nature', are not abusive in their production, in that most 'models' participate of their own free will (albeit for money, but that's no different from other people selling their services via whatever job they do). There's also plenty of evidence that non-consensual abuse isn't part of the equation here, since many of those same models can be seen in numerous productions made by different and often unconnected producers. If the UK government has it's way, then simple possession of these images may well land you in jail for up to 3 years, and even if you're not convicted you'll still likely to be placed on the UK's sex offenders register. Very few people will argue that non-consensual images etc should be considered illegal, but where this proposal falls down, is that it makes no distinction whatsoever between these and the consensual ones. Indeed, as it stands, this proposed law would create a Thought Crime making it illegal to possess "sexual images" that, in the subjective opinion of members of the Home Office, show activities "liable to cause serious injury or death" even if the participants were consenting adult actors. In other words, if during passionate lovemaking (ok, I realise that that this bit might not apply to many people here :)) you restrain your partner and proceed to spank them with your hand or whatever, then this is generally considered ok. BUT take a photo of that situation, and even if it's for your own personal viewing etc., then you could be prosecuted for possession of a violent sexual image, since to an outsider (ie a jury) it *could* be considered as abuse, even though both parties consented to the situation in the first place. There's more info and discussion about this proposed law at: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ And for those in the UK who may wish to add their voice to a growing list of people (who are not necessarily connected with bdsm, porn etc, but *are* concerned about the threat to our privacy and what we can/can't do in our own homes, or as consenting adults), there's an on-line petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.