Are A's Unfair to Others

[zero desire]

If we can agree that a concept of fair exists, can we say going without something (in the physical or psychological ranges) is means for equalization in other life areas?

What if others accused A's (or celibate A's) of being unfair as the above hypothesized equalizer came into play.

Likewise, could we say: living a celibate/A life isn't fair to us, and we desire equalization.

[Cynicus]

We have just as much option to do what everybody does.

And if you're talking about it being unfair to have less libido/sexdrive/whatever, then we should also "fix" people who don't like pizza, or choclade, or who don't like themeparks, because now WE themeparkfans are getting exploited by themeparkbosses :(

[spinneret]

Some of each, I'm sure. Life isn't fair.

[Angelica Soprano]

Yes, I'm trying my best here not to be wracked with guilt, that I'm not keen on being a recepticle for seminal fluids, but I think I can manage it! :)

[Trogdor]

Isn't the whole point of equalization that it eliminates unfairness, rather than creates it?

And besides, you can't say that asexuals are being "deprived" of something we don't want anyway, so there is no need for equalization in the first place. For celibates there is that need (which may be why monastaries and nunneries have historically been supported by the general population), but for asexuals this is not an issue.

[hoku]

For everything to be fair and equal, everyone has to be exactly the same. In this case, everyone has to either be sexual or asexual to eliminate any unfairness to anyone.

[Cynicus]

Which isn't fair to people with a own identity.

[hoku]

It never will be as long as there is someone who is different.

[Lordbob]

Its a f*cking cruel world. There is no concept of fair. I have seen first hand that no good deed goes unpunished. I just wasn't as strong as the others, so I ran for the "safe" side.

[zero desire]

Isn't the whole point of equalization that it eliminates unfairness, rather than creates it?

And besides, you can't say that asexuals are being "deprived" of something we don't want anyway, so there is no need for equalization in the first place. For celibates there is that need (which may be why monastaries and nunneries have historically been supported by the general population), but for asexuals this is not an issue.

The asexual definitions are wide enough to allow sexual activity, because asexuality is more a matter of desire and orientation rather than choice. That being said, some asexuals are going without sex while others in society (even homosexuals) are enjoying the pleasure. Then my point becomes that a just system works to restore justice as fairness.

I'd be interested in any asexual comments regarding whether their lives have been made more "fair" in any other areas of their lives.

[AVENCakes]

I believe Hollywood has already answered the question on whether or not it's "fair".

Sarah: That's not fair!

Jareth: You say that so often, I wonder what your basis for comparison is?

Scar: Life's not fair, is it? You see I, well I, shall never be king. And you will never see the light of another day. MMMM, adieu.

[Wolf X Omega]

Both, if there are two poles they will always have ONE part that will be unfair to the other, nobody's ever happy until everyone thinks the same, act the same and shag the same.

[bbctv]

i don't see how it's an issue of fair. it's a difference that can be inconvenient, but when i think of "fair" i think of some sort of matter of public policy.

it DOES mean i have a smaller number of potential romantic partners, but it isn't exactly like not wanting sex is the ONLY thing that reduces how many people i might consider. i mean, i have plenty of other preferences and points of compatibility that asexuality is hardly the only thing that's tough to match up.