A nonbigoted antisexuality

[shaiith]

Mimir, your thoughts are fascinating, truly :)

Everybody speaks from their own perspective of course. By all means, hang out on AVEN to discuss your thoughts and feelings as they come up, compare and contrast, and make of it what you will.

This gesture, like similar ones from Alaska and Hot_Air_Balloons, means a lot to me, and I do have a weakness for cake. However, one reason I'm hesitant to reply to other threads is that some people who've posted here seem to consider me a bigoted pretender to scientific thinking. I'm afraid how they would react. I don't want to be anybody's enemy.

(piping up for the first time here)

Mimir, reading through this thread has been interesting, and regardless of whether or not I agree with your opinion on sexuality, you seem like a reasonable person who is capable of discussion and explaining yourself calmly (which is a plus in my book) and I don't believe you came here and posted with any bad intent or anything. I am inclined to agree with Averillo Armadillo.

I also didn't miss these things from within your posts:

At the same time, I want to distinguish myself from those who think that sexual behavior is inherently destructive or unethical and thus that everyone should be celibate.

I didn't invent the term "antisexual". I got it from the Antisexual Stronghold. The Stronghold (if you haven't already heard of it, given the history it shares with AVEN) is a Russian community that advocates ideas similar to mine. Under the aegis of the tiny, informal International Antisexual Movement, these people denounce sexuality as harmful to humanity, for secular reasons. But the official platform is too radical for me to endorse. It calls for all people to distance themselves from sexuality, whereas I think celibacy would do most people more harm than good. It suggests that sexuals are foolish and immoral for behaving sexually, whereas I think that normal people's sexual behavior is better thought of as a consequence of different Goals in Life or simple inertia. And it downplays the emotional costs of sexual abstinence for sexuals, which I am keenly aware of myself, and which I think no sexual should be unaware of before taking the rugged road of celibacy.

and

Edit: Wait a minute! Over dinner, I just realized something. I think we're both barking up the wrong tree, and it's my fault. By repeatedly saying I'm against "sexuality"—by using this word so consistently and arguing about the concept from a pretty abstract perspective—I've misled you as to what I'm really against. My antisexuality is not essentialist. I'm not complaining about everything that might be called "sexuality". Rather, I'm complaining about a very particular psychological phenomenon, one which produces the effects found in the Ariely and Loewenstein study, Van Den Bergh's experiments, and a hypothetical human equivalent of the Bradley and Meisel study. If human sexuality were magically changed to remove all pernicious influences on decision-making, then I would have no theoretical objection to it, although (according to terror-management theory) I would still want to abstain. In this sense, I'm not against all of sexuality but rather, particular consequences of it, as I imagine you would be against the consequence of trait hostility that makes people violent but not the one (which I don't know exists, but I see no reason to dispute the point here) that causes British humor.

[Jacqui]

Sally, I want to be a researcher, not a clinician. In other words, I'm interested in these guys, not these guys.

So you pretty much agree that your theories hold no merit…

No, I think you've mixed up my ideas about sexuality vs. not-having-a-sexuality with my ideas about abstinence vs. sexual activity. I make no claims that abstinence is a cure for sexuality. I only know that, in my own case, it makes life more tolerable. The only panic attack I've had in my life was during a week I was trying masturbation.

Nothing you said in your first post, apart from the specific bit I objected to initially, contradicts what I said in my first post.

…maybe people should train themselves to become better at blocking out distractions…

I think it would be overly optimistic to believe we can get ourselves to nullify such pernicious influences on decision-making by training ourselves somehow. Not even Daniel Kahneman is invulnerable to decision-making biases, although if anybody knows how to train himself appropriately, he should.

Really? Because your original post seems to say that if one is celibate, they will not be distracted by sexually attractive people because they won't have any sort of sexual attraction or it will at least be minimal. My post pointed out that celibacy does not affect sexual attraction and that it would not, in any way, stop you from being distracted. It may make it more tolerable for you, but celibacy will generally not cure anything.

It may be overly optimistic, but you have a better chance at changing your skills of blocking stuff out than you have at altering your sexual orientation.

[test account]

Hmm.

[Mimir]

Because your original post seems to say that if one is celibate, they will not be distracted by sexually attractive people because they won't have any sort of sexual attraction or it will at least be minimal.

But that isn't what it says. Take a closer look at the paragraph that starts "So that's why I'd like to be asexual. My justification for general abstinence, then, is…" The best abstinence can do, at least in my case, is reduce my frequency of intrusive sexual thoughts and eliminate the especially intense feelings I would experience while actually masturbating or having sex. My capacity for sexual attraction per se is apparently unchanged.

When I was twelve or so, I wishfully thought my sexuality would atrophy if I ignored it for a sufficiently long time, but I've since been disillusioned.

Nevertheless, it might interest you to know that I spent my whole 20s never masturbating or anything at all, and it was no problem, because abstinence was a habit. When I left religion, I made a conscious decision to change my behavior - it didn't just happen, and it sure wasn't easy to make the change.

That does interest me. I would hazard that it's a general experience that both free-reined sexual behavior and abstinence are easy enough once you get used to them; the difficulty is switching sides. And switching sides is nigh-impossible if you're even a tiny bit ambivalent. You have to be one hundred percent committed in order to pull off the transition cleanly, instead of remaining forever in a nightmarish limbo.

[under_the_radar]

And even though I can't particularly argue a brilliant case for that opinion I don't believe an antisexual attitude can ever be anything else than bigoted.

Oh I hate how this word is thrown around on here, I hear it no where else. Lets look at a few definitions.

Definitions of bigoted on the Web:

* blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigoted

* Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigoted

* bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Everyone regardless of their intent to some degree is intolerant to ideas and in the opinions of others blindly follows whatever they do believe. Just cause is also not a requirement for forming an opinion and even with just cause others are not going to understand where you are coming from. Even being obstinately or intolerantly devoted to views considered "good" are bigotry right down to making the claim that someone is a bigot of any sort. I just would like to have this word evaluated by those who use it because there is a reason it's only historical context I have heard normally from old rerun episodes of All In The Family. Claiming bigotry by definition is bigotry so why I don't hear the word outside of AVEN does make sense because it's a bold, paradoxical claim.

Now onto the topic, I think Mimir is onto something and I do understand what he is saying about balancing the level of control any involuntary subliminal thought can effect a person, sex of course should be included in subconscious obstacles for a clear mind and abstinence of course is not the way. Once you crack this thing your Ph.D thesis should be quite the original work to earn the title. Hope I paraphrased the basic intent right in two sentences! :)

He has a high enough education level (a Master's) to get licensed and practice clinically so saying he cannot use the title that does not include "doctor" or any rank not earned attached to it is ludicrous.

[Sally]

He has a high enough education level (a Master's) to get licensed and practice clinically so saying he cannot use the title that does not include "doctor" or any rank not earned attached to it is ludicrous.

A practicing psychologist would not find it ludicrous. I asked a friend who is a practicing psychologist and she said it's inappropriate, to say the least, to call yourself a psychologist if you don't WORK as either a clinical or research psychologist. You're misrepresenting yourself.

Other people on AVEN, and in real life, for the sake of argument, say "I'm a XXXX." That leads people to think that you have knowledge and, most importantly, EXPERIENCE which you don't. Being a psychologist (or a scientist or a teacher or whatever) means something besides having taken university classes or working in a lab under a professor. It's a really important distinction, because you are making a claim about yourself. When someone makes an improper claim, it's a lot harder to believe anything they say.

[Nameless123]

And even though I can't particularly argue a brilliant case for that opinion I don't believe an antisexual attitude can ever be anything else than bigoted.

Oh I hate how this word is thrown around on here, I hear it no where else. Lets look at a few definitions.

Definitions of bigoted on the Web:

* blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigoted

* Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigoted

* bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Everyone regardless of their intent to some degree is intolerant to ideas and in the opinions of others blindly follows whatever they do believe. Just cause is also not a requirement for forming an opinion and even with just cause others are not going to understand where you are coming from. Even being obstinately or intolerantly devoted to views considered "good" are bigotry right down to making the claim that someone is a bigot of any sort. I just would like to have this word evaluated by those who use it because there is a reason it's only historical context I have heard normally from old rerun episodes of All In The Family. Claiming bigotry by definition is bigotry so why I don't hear the word outside of AVEN does make sense because it's a bold, paradoxical claim.

You do know that the author of this thread used the word "bigoted", yes? It's actually in the headline.

He claimed there is the possibility of a nonbigoted antisexuality, I said I don't think so. The end.

[under_the_radar]

He has a high enough education level (a Master's) to get licensed and practice clinically so saying he cannot use the title that does not include "doctor" or any rank not earned attached to it is ludicrous.

A practicing psychologist would not find it ludicrous. I asked a friend who is a practicing psychologist and she said it's inappropriate, to say the least, to call yourself a psychologist if you don't WORK as either a clinical or research psychologist. You're misrepresenting yourself.

Other people on AVEN, and in real life, for the sake of argument, say "I'm a XXXX." That leads people to think that you have knowledge and, most importantly, EXPERIENCE which you don't. Being a psychologist (or a scientist or a teacher or whatever) means something besides having taken university classes or working in a lab under a professor. It's a really important distinction, because you are making a claim about yourself. When someone makes an improper claim, it's a lot harder to believe anything they say.

I would ordinarily agree with this observation if it weren't for the fact that licensing to work in the clinical field as a psychologist does not require a doctorate in all states, there are states where a master's degree and passing the board allows that title to practice clinically. Just like there are a few states that allow a psychologist to prescribe psychiatric medications very much like how D.A.s and LPNs can diagnose and prescribe medications without being a medical doctor.

In the case that the OP is in one of these states and has those state requirements, he may be actively working in the field while applying for acceptance to get a doctorate or specialized doctorate like an Ed. S. There is a chance he is not making an improper claim is all I'm saying.

You do know that the author of this thread used the word "bigoted", yes? It's actually in the headline.

He claimed there is the possibility of a nonbigoted antisexuality, I said I don't think so. The end.

Actually nonbigoted carries a different definition and is a distinction far different than the word bigoted, it is an antonym after all. I do treat it differently, no offense taken I hope as I just wanted to point out a couple of different points in my post.

[Mimir]

Okay, there seems to be a bit of confusion with respect to where am I on my career track. I don't have a master's degree. I don't even have my bachelor's degree yet. All I have is a high-school diploma and ambition. Right now, I'm a senior in a four-year liberal-arts college with a double major in psychology and mathematics. I expect to graduate in May. In the fall, I'll start a five-year PhD program in cognitive neuroscience which will likely award me a master's along the way. I've designed and run one psychology experiment and I'm about to begin running another, but I never have done and never intend to do anything remotely resembling clinical work.

I'm not a psychologist yet. I only intended for "as a psychologist, I see…" to mean "as someone with a stake in psychological science, I see…", in the same way as I might say "As a mathematician, I object to your use of the word 'proof'" even though I'm not a mathematician and most likely will never be one.