A sexual's view of Asexuals

[Guest fridayoak]

I think a million people could make the same point to him and he either a) still wouldn't get it or b) wouldn't be prepared to admit defeat and back-down. He's either an idiot or a prick.

[Qutenkuddly]

Actually, that third point brings up an excellent example of reductio ad incommodum (reducing to the uncomfortable). You say that in order for someone to legitimately claim that he or she is not sexually attracted to other people, that person must actually engage in intercourse to 'prove' his or dislike. Applying your very own logic, you, in order to legitimately claim you are not interested in having sex with animals, would have to try bestiality in order to prove you don't like it. Your logic cannot be applied in one case, but not the other. So tell me, should your logic be applied?

Good logic, except for the fact that (as I have stated multiple times) I only wish for people to try out things which they say thay are. I do not say I am into bestiality, so would not need to try it. I know it seems a wierd conclusion to 'try' asexuality by trying sexual situations, but I believe the two are linked.

By that logic, as long as you don't make any verbal declaration that you are anti-bestiality, you're off the hook as far as proving you don't like bestiality by trying it?

Taken from another angle, you want people to 'try out' things they say they are. Well, most of the declared asexuals here have 'tried not wanting to have sex with someone' quite successfully.

Of course, that example was pretty obvious, so your evasion of a direct answer to that question leaves me with two possibilities to consider: you deliberately evaded addressing it properly as you knew it demonstrated the fundamental flaw in your logic, but you refused to concede defeat on that point, or you did genuinely miss the point, thus demonstrating an opportunity to learn by reviewing your arguments in particular, and your debating skills in general. Which is it?

....That would be the second, but tell me (and I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this) which one did you think it was?

Truthfully, I expected you to evade answering the question altogether. However, your willingness to accept the second option certainly provides proof of it.

[Rivan Vox]

Hiya Notako! Your avatar is from Megatokyo, right? Largo-san?

There's been a whole lot of really long discussion, which I've skimmed through, but could you please state your view in bulletted-list-form?

I'd like to know the following:

- Why have you come to AVEN?

- What do you hope to accomplish?

- Do you see asexuality as a valid orientation?

- What do you think asexuality is?

- Will you accept what asexuals say about themselves as true?

~ Ily <3

( and welcome to AVEN! Have some )

[Olivier]

Actually, that third point brings up an excellent example of reductio ad incommodum (reducing to the uncomfortable). You say that in order for someone to legitimately claim that he or she is not sexually attracted to other people, that person must actually engage in intercourse to 'prove' his or dislike. Applying your very own logic, you, in order to legitimately claim you are not interested in having sex with animals, would have to try bestiality in order to prove you don't like it. Your logic cannot be applied in one case, but not the other. So tell me, should your logic be applied?

Good logic, except for the fact that (as I have stated multiple times) I only wish for people to try out things which they say thay are. I do not say I am into bestiality, so would not need to try it. I know it seems a wierd conclusion to 'try' asexuality by trying sexual situations, but I believe the two are linked.

Yes, it seems a weird conclusion (perhaps the key is for you to explain why you believe it isn't a weird conclusion, when even you admit that it seems like bollocks), because as far as I can see it's holding asexuals to an entirely different standard to sexuals. If an asexual feels that they experience no draw to sex, after interacting with people in much the same way as their sexual peers who DO feel that attraction, then why not just accept that at face value? Effectively, what you've been told over and over and over in this thread is that many asexuals feel that they HAVE done enough to know even without pushing on to explicitly sexual situations, and YOU, who know nothing of the insides of their heads, are telling them that in your eyes that's insufficient to convince you. I believe the correct response in such a situation is "Who gives a fuck what YOU think?", which in case you've not noticed, is the response you've been getting. I don't think you need to understand more about asexuality, I think you need to understand more about people, full stop.

Anything I can say has already been said.

And it has been said quite well by all hands, except the OP.

Good to see respect for others opinions is alive and well on this forum :)

I've lived 44 years without ever seeing respect earned by whining about not getting any. I'm guessing this profound revelatory experience will elude me once more here.

[Nameless123]

I don't think you need to understand more about asexuality, I think you need to understand more about people, full stop.

Maybe your opinion as being that of a sexual person will be more convincing to Notako.

[------]

Sometimes I feel sorry for Joe as well :(...

And why might that be?

Probably because you're friends with me.

He should be feeling sorry for you really.

He probably does.

1) Yes, I agree, no one should say that something is good or bad without having experienced it.

I'm going to have to jump on this, no offense. People who are very self-aware can say that they like or don't like something without having experienced it. Not to get into too much detail, but I get "overstimulated" very easily by many things. Sex would be *extremely* uncomfortable mentally, emotionally, and physically. So yes, even though I have never experienced it, it is bad for me. To summarize what I'm saying: I know getting shot in the arm would be bad for me. XD

Let's say you're on your way home and you get mugged and the mugger shoots you in the arm and legs it with your bag and valuables. A man who hears the shot rushes you to hospital and the bullet it taken out, some damage to the nerves unfortunately but you've got a shiny new scar. You get into a deep conversation with one of the nurses and you trade e-mail addresses because she seems pretty awesome and it would be fair to say you'll be best friends for a long time. A friend comes to pick you up and takes you back to your house. Turns out a tree has fallen onto your house, in your bedroom and had you not been in hospital you would have been in there and killed.

I think you getting shot is a good thing.

[Nameless123]

1) Yes, I agree, no one should say that something is good or bad without having experienced it.

I'm going to have to jump on this, no offense. People who are very self-aware can say that they like or don't like something without having experienced it. Not to get into too much detail, but I get "overstimulated" very easily by many things. Sex would be *extremely* uncomfortable mentally, emotionally, and physically. So yes, even though I have never experienced it, it is bad for me. To summarize what I'm saying: I know getting shot in the arm would be bad for me. XD

Let's say you're on your way home and you get mugged and the mugger shoots you in the arm and legs it with your bag and valuables. A man who hears the shot rushes you to hospital and the bullet it taken out, some damage to the nerves unfortunately but you've got a shiny new scar. You get into a deep conversation with one of the nurses and you trade e-mail addresses because she seems pretty awesome and it would be fair to say you'll be best friends for a long time. A friend comes to pick you up and takes you back to your house. Turns out a tree has fallen onto your house, in your bedroom and had you not been in hospital you would have been in there and killed.

I think you getting shot is a good thing.

Huh?

[Notako]

I'm sorry Steve (Notako), what's your point to all this? You seem to be counter arguing with everyone about sentences you've said which are incorrect, but you've never actually stated WHY you're here.

So kindly state your intentions, or bugger off. Because if you don't, I'll hit you on Monday.

I've said multiple times why I did this on here, and to you in person. I'll continue to post here until either I'm banned, no one else is replying, or everyone's being nice and we can all settle on the discussion. Whichever comes first.

Redeeming qualities. Riiiiiiight.

You do realise you're saying that directly after a paragraph where I made a statement twice, once about makes and once about females, and right before a paragraph where I first use a female as an example, and then use a male, right? And that the sex ratios of example people in my post was in fact even?

Okay. Why does it make any difference whatsoever in any conceivable way why my example was male? Just curious.

What exactly do you define sexual experiences as? In that post above, you say any situation which "would, by their standards, have ellicited some kind of sexual arousal/attraction/desire". But unless you live your entire life without any human contact - and if you do so you have far more problems than figuring out your sexual identity - then exactly how is anyone supposed to not have experienced those kinds of situations? All that's necessary to feel sexual attraction is to see an attractive person of a one is attracted to. That's it. Considering how many people we might see on an average day in a town centre, plus all the attractive people plastered on advertisements, on the television, in films... Any human being growing up in Western society will have seen attractive people thousands if not millions of times in their lives. So why do we, who've never felt attraction to a single one of them, need to have "sexual experiences"?

Well surely it's subjective whether or not someone will have been in situations creating some kind of attraction to others? You can't just say "everyone will have experienced this at some point in their lifetime" and it will be true for 100% of cases. Nitpicking aside, I do agree. Everyone will have been subjected to 'attractive people' lots of times during their lifetimes, it's just their standards that would indicate to them their sexuality based on that. I'm agreeing completely on this point.

They're complete opposites?

So hang on, let me get this right. You're saying that the statement, "I experience sexual attraction towards some, but not all, members of the opposite sex. I do not experience sexual attraction towards any members of the same sex." is the exact opposite of "I do not experience sexual attraction towards members of either the opposite or the same sex"?

Meanwhile, the statement, "I experience sexual attraction towards some members of the same sex. I do not experience sexual attraction towards any members of the opposite sex." is also the exact opposite of "I do not experience sexual attraction towards members of either the opposite or the same sex"?

No, I'm saying 'I experience sexual attraction' is the opposite of 'I do not experience sexual attraction'. You have shown, quite eloquently, that heterosexuality and asexuality are not opposites, and that neither are homosexuality and asexuality. I agree, but that's not what I said. I said sexuality and asexuality are opposites.

Let me try to explain... Earlier in the thread, you said,

Therefore I can be sure I am heterosexual.

In other words, you have made a positive claim about your sexuality. You have claimed to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and not at all sexually attracted at all to the same sex. That is the definition of heterosexual.

Now, by your own logic, you should "try out" your heterosexuality to be certain you are right. I'll assume you have had a sexual experience with someone of the opposite sex, so we'll leave that part of the definition aside. However, the other part of the definition of heterosexuality is the lack of attraction to the same sex. Therefore in order to claim to be heterosexual, you should have a "sexual experience" with the same sex in order to confirm that you are indeed heterosexual (and not, for example, bisexual.)

Similarly, someone who claims not to be sexually attracted to animals has made a claim about their sexuality, and by your logic must have a "sexual experience" with an animal to prove that they are not sexually attracted to animals.

Basically, if "I do not feel sexual attraction at all" needs to be tried and proven, then so does "I do not feel sexual attraction to the same sex" or "I do not feel sexual attraction to animals".

You are applying part of a definition of heterosexuality to me which I do not include in my own definition, so it isnt relevant to me at all. Like I stated before, I do not believe heterosexuality gives any statement of ones attraction to the same sex. So, by that definition, I have no need to prove my lack of attraction to the same sex. Now I can understand the irony here because what you did was exactly what I did to everyone here in the beginning. Here's yet another example for the skeptics (two in one post!) of me accepting what you guys say and changing what I think accordingly.

By that logic, as long as you don't make any verbal declaration that you are anti-bestiality, you're off the hook as far as proving you don't like bestiality by trying it?

Um, yes! The other option is to go around proving/disproving everything and anything one might be considered to be.

Taken from another angle, you want people to 'try out' things they say they are. Well, most of the declared asexuals here have 'tried not wanting to have sex with someone' quite successfully.

I'm going to assume the rediculousness of that statement was intentional, although I'd like to know how you can 'successfully' do something when to do so doesn't actually involve 'doing' anything at all. If I had never in my lifetime thought about the existence/non-existence of God, does that mean I would be classified as an atheist? I would say no, but again, it's just what I think. Also, I don't want people to do anything. I'll just base my opinions on them on whether they have done it or not.

Hiya Notako! Your avatar is from Megatokyo, right? Largo-san?

There's been a whole lot of really long discussion, which I've skimmed through, but could you please state your view in bulletted-list-form?

I'd like to know the following:

- Why have you come to AVEN?

- What do you hope to accomplish?

- Do you see asexuality as a valid orientation?

- What do you think asexuality is?

- Will you accept what asexuals say about themselves as true?

~ Ily <3

( and welcome to AVEN! Have some )

Thanks! I've gotta say you are quite possible the nicest person I've ever met on a forum :P and it's awesome to see a fellow Megatokyo fan ^^

Anyways, as for your questions:

-(this answers the first two in one) I want to learn about asexuality and for the facts upon which I base my opinions to be correct.

-Yes I do.

-A lack of any sexual attraction.

-If the majority of them are saying the same thing, yes.

I don't know what the etiquette is for cake, but have some too

[Notako]

And about the bold statement I made concerning the way your argumentation strikes me as implying something offensive - I've had enough discussions with people in my life to know when someone argues for the sake of it, not for trying to understand anything about the other side. You just want to be right, that's all. But see, you can't really win in a forum for asexuals. As has been suggested to other sexual people on this board, if you want to see your views of how sexuality has to work in your view of the world confirmed, visit a forum where guys bitch about their wives withholding sex from them.

No offense :)

This is actually my favourite sentence from the entire thread. :lol: I'm putting it in my sig, it's that good.

[asexual cake]

Hiya Notako! Your avatar is from Megatokyo, right? Largo-san?

There's been a whole lot of really long discussion, which I've skimmed through, but could you please state your view in bulletted-list-form?

I'd like to know the following:

- Why have you come to AVEN?

- What do you hope to accomplish?

- Do you see asexuality as a valid orientation?

- What do you think asexuality is?

- Will you accept what asexuals say about themselves as true?

~ Ily <3

( and welcome to AVEN! Have some )

Thanks! I've gotta say you are quite possible the nicest person I've ever met on a forum :P and it's awesome to see a fellow Megatokyo fan ^^

Anyways, as for your questions:

-(this answers the first two in one) I want to learn about asexuality and for the facts upon which I base my opinions to be correct.

-Yes I do.

-A lack of any sexual attraction.

-If the majority of them are saying the same thing, yes.

I don't know what the etiquette is for cake, but have some too

Is that not what we've been doing? Asexuals are people who don't experience sexual attraction. Simply seeing people is enough to experience sexual attraction. We've all seen people. We didn't experience sexual attraction. Therefore, we're asexuals.

There, solved. Let's all have .

The whole discussion re: proving asexuality is nonsense. There are a number of people who are heterosexual but who have experienced horrible, unpleasant sex - often as they were beginning to have sex, or trying it out, or whatever else. The quality of their experience or the degree to which they enjoyed it do not define their orientation, but rather their independent desire for such an experience based on attraction to other people. You can't prove wanting or not wanting something, and you certainly cannot do so by encouraging people to engage in activities they didn't have any interest in to begin with to validate their claims that they weren't interested.

[Nameless123]

This is actually my favourite sentence from the entire thread. :lol: I'm putting it in my sig, it's that good.

I'd kindly ask you to remove it. It only makes you seem petty.

[Notako]

Is that not what we've been doing? Asexuals are people who don't experience sexual attraction. Simply seeing people is enough to experience sexual attraction. We've all seen people. We didn't experience sexual attraction. Therefore, we're asexuals.

There, solved. Let's all have .

The whole discussion re: proving asexuality is nonsense. There are a number of people who are heterosexual but who have experienced horrible, unpleasant sex - often as they were beginning to have sex, or trying it out, or whatever else. The quality of their experience or the degree to which they enjoyed it do not define their orientation, but rather their independent desire for such an experience based on attraction to other people. You can't prove wanting or not wanting something, and you certainly cannot do so by encouraging people to engage in activities they didn't have any interest in to begin with to validate their claims that they weren't interested.

Brilliant! I agree, I have a feeling everyone else will, and I won't get beaten up tomorrow. Everybody wins!

[Sally]

You WILL get beaten up for not removing Prozac's comment from your signature, since you were asked by them to do so.

[sonofzeal]

A warning has been given to fridayoak for a post in this thread. They have been notified via pm with more details.

Please remember that the TOS states:

Personally insulting other users is unacceptable.

For more information on the TOS you may read it here: http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=19982

Additionally, we would like to remind everyone that threats of violence are taken seriously here. Please refrain from any comments that could be interpreted as threats. Instead, consider simply leaving the thread, or contacting an admod with your concerns.

Finally, please be respectful of other users when it comes to using their quotes out of context. While we have no official policy here, it is also something we take seriously and will handle on a case by case basis.

- sonofzeal, SPFA moderator

[Guest fridayoak]

I would have thought threatening to beat someone up is more deserving of a warning than simply stating my opinion of someone based on what they posted but there you go.

[sonofzeal]

I would have thought threatening to beat someone up is more deserving of a warning than simply stating my opinion of someone based on what they posted but there you go.

It is, usually, but we came to the conclusion that Herr Joseph was probably joking around since he seems to know Notako, and that Sally was probably making reference to Herr's comment with her own. Both have received a "nudge", or "unofficial warning", as a reminder to watch that kind of talk.

Our ways may be mysterious, and we're not infallible, but we usually have some idea what we're doing.

[Typical Power]

Alright so I have a question for the OP.

I've been in many relationships that came very close to being sexual, however never did, as I wasn't interested, because I don't like things that are close to sex. (Lets take foreplay for example) I don't like it, and tangentially, therefore, I do not like sex. Even though I have not directly had sex, I have done things in close relation to sex.

Now, if your first question would still apply to me because I haven't had sex, then that is a very close slope to the "You haven't had the RIGHT sex"

I may not have read twilight, but I've read an Anne Rice Novel. I know that the Romantic-Vampire combination is something I like to avoid.

Of course, your other two points do not include me, being a virgin, and a non-libidoist.

[eee]

so I came back to see how this debate is going, wow, it sprawl out like a octopus. I am actually amused. Someone here has a very quirky, absurd and indifferent logic.........this is fun, better than reading my horoscope. Please, don't mind the by stander, keep going, it won't change a thing for both the sexual or the asexual. I will make myself some pop corns!

[Sally]

I would have thought threatening to beat someone up is more deserving of a warning than simply stating my opinion of someone based on what they posted but there you go.

It is, usually, but we came to the conclusion that Herr Joseph was probably joking around since he seems to know Notako, and that Sally was probably making reference to Herr's comment with her own. Both have received a "nudge", or "unofficial warning", as a reminder to watch that kind of talk.

I was making a joking reference to Notako's comment that he wouldn't get beaten up. I'm sure he didn't mean physically, and I certainly didn't.

[sonofzeal]

I was making a joking reference to Notako's comment that he wouldn't get beaten up. I'm sure he didn't mean physically, and I certainly didn't.

Indeed, if we thought a user was actually threatening another, that's almost certainly be a warning. Still, it's difficult to read tone of voice and context over the internet; your comment may have been in jest, but Notako or someone else may have taken it seriously.

Be careful joking about things that would violate the Terms of Service if true. That's really all I'm saying here.

[BLANK BLANK BLANK]

I agree with everything you've posted Notako, even the bits that seemed to contradict each other or made no sense. So, can we drop the matter now you've "Won"?

[eee]

can't fight with crazy people, they always win

[sonofzeal]

Notako hasn't posted in over two weeks. No good will come from leaving this thread open. I'm closing it until further notice.

If you have questions or comments, or have a reason for it to be re-openned, please PM me.

- sonofzeal, SPFA moderator