Jump to content
swankivy

Asexuality on The Morning Show

Recommended Posts

swankivy

Asexuality got mentioned on The Morning Show apparently.

They kind of treated it like "omg that's confusing let's laugh a lot and sort of make a scene over how we don't get it," but I guess they were trying to be lighthearted or something. I wasn't quite sure what to think of it and I think it might have been more confusing than enlightening, but they did give suggestions on where to get more info. And this would be why google.com.au is pinging the crap out of my website.

Note: I had no idea this piece was going to be done, and was notified afterwards that I had been mentioned. Nice surprises are nice.

Here's the clip:

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/the-morning-show/video/-/watch/26773063/understanding-asexuality/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samael

Two (adult??) hosts of some talk show giggling at asexuality. Very mature, vary mature of them really. :rolleyes:

It seems the director might have ordered the hosts to act as some confused clowns. It would have been nice if they had even tried to maintain a serious appearance. It hurts our visibility / awareness if our orientation is seen as a laughing matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise

Congratulations on being mentioned.

Too bad it's another 'Asexuals Exist' segment. This isn't news and the producers should be ashamed of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozian13

It kind of felt like they were making fun of us... They could've been just a bit more serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959

I was actually impressed by how in depth they decided to discuss this. I wasn't too bothered by their amusement, I mean, they weren't denying the existence of asexuals, if anything, it made it more enjoyable to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bristrek

I think the hosts should have been briefed and had this explained to them before hand so that they wouldn't be so giggly and waste time like that. Loved the sexologist woman though even if she seemed to be getting put off by the hosts.

I think the hosts should have been briefed and had this explained to them before hand so that they wouldn't be so giggly and waste time like that. Loved the sexologist woman though even if she seemed to be getting put off by the hosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swankivy

I was actually impressed by how in depth they decided to discuss this. I wasn't too bothered by their amusement, I mean, they weren't denying the existence of asexuals, if anything, it made it more enjoyable to watch.

Yeah, see the problem is that the hosts needed a 101 and the sexologist kind of wanted to talk about the breadth and depth and various categories of asexuality. They probably should have decided what they wanted it to be before broadcasting it . . . either explain what asexuality is and address a couple of the misconceptions so people will say "oh, neat, I didn't know about these folks" (or, possibly, "wow, that sounds like me!"), or do a longer segment that can actually discuss sexual behavior among asexuals, demisexuality, romanticism, and queerness without confusing the hell out of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wineblood

That wasn't too bad. They did laugh but it seemed to be more in confusion, you know that nervous laughter. The male presenter did get serious when he moved onto the next question.

They did get the good points in. Sex =/= love, asexual aren't broken, asexuality is diverse and the sources cited were good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meph

It seems that the idea of aexuality makes them feel uncomfortable, thus the giggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Too bad it's another 'Asexuals Exist' segment. This isn't news and the producers should be ashamed of themselves.

The thing is, it might not be news to you, but it certainly is news to a lot of people. And some asexuals find the community because of pieces like that. Any publicity, good publicity etc.

I was actually impressed by how in depth they decided to discuss this. I wasn't too bothered by their amusement, I mean, they weren't denying the existence of asexuals, if anything, it made it more enjoyable to watch.

Yeah, see the problem is that the hosts needed a 101 and the sexologist kind of wanted to talk about the breadth and depth and various categories of asexuality. They probably should have decided what they wanted it to be before broadcasting it . . . either explain what asexuality is and address a couple of the misconceptions so people will say "oh, neat, I didn't know about these folks" (or, possibly, "wow, that sounds like me!"), or do a longer segment that can actually discuss sexual behavior among asexuals, demisexuality, romanticism, and queerness without confusing the hell out of people.

I was rather impressed with Nikki Goldstein, she took it all in stride without being all "yeah I know right? Pretty strange." If she is going to do a segment on pansexuals, she might need to get her definitions straight though. I'm pretty sure she said "sexualities" while meaning "genders".

Transcript below the cut:

Understanding Asexuality – The Morning Show

Kylie Gillies: While we live in a society that’s driven by attraction and intimacy, but not everyone acts on these desires. Fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld and TV personality Tim Gunn are famous faces who identify themselves as asexual.

Larry Emdur: Now, they aren’t the only ones though. As much, ah, as many as one percent, as much as one percent of the population is said to be of asexual orientation. To talk us through the steps and stereotypes behind asexuality, we’re joined in the studio now by sexologist Nikki Goldstein. Good morning to you, Nikki.

Nikki Goldstein: Good morning!

Emdur: Umm, let’s start with what this means. What is asexuality?

Goldstein: Okay, so this one is a little bit more complicated, so I’m going to start off by saying what it’s not. So it’s not just someone who’s not having sex. So it’s a multileveled, multifaceted sexual orientation that is defined by somebody’s lack of sexual attraction. So yeah, sexuality is very unique for a lot of people, and so is asexuality, so it’s experienced differently by different people.

Gillies: Right. [smiling, side-glances at Emdur] Clear as mud. Okay. Do asexual people have sex?

Goldstein: So this is where it starts to get all a bit sticky.

Emdur: No, no – it got –

Gillies: Don’t say sticky! [laughs]

Goldstein: Sorry, complicated, I won’t even say hard, complicated.

Emdur and Gillies: [laughing] [incoherent]

Goldstein: He’s lost it. Come on, be mature, Larry. So back to asexuality –

Gillies: Sorry Nikki. [laughing]

Goldstein: – there is a study at the moment that is being done by Asexuality Awareness Week, so they have projected that about 5% of asexuals are currently sexually active. So we’re saying that asexuals have a lack of sexual attraction, but just for the same reasons everyone else might have sex, asexuals might also be having sex.

Emdur: [interrupts with strange noise] So… yeah?

Goldstein: Sooo this is things like experimenting, –

Emdur: Right.

Goldstein: – being curious, differentiating a relationship to a friendship, and also compromising in a relationship. –

Emdur: Right.

Goldstein: So this is the interesting one. You said that one percent of the population is affected.

Emdur: Yes, I did say that.

Goldstein: So there is a high possibility, that someone who is an asexual is going to get into a relationship to somebody who is not an asexual and still has a level of sexual attraction.

Emdur: Correct.

Gillies: What!? [laughing]

Emdur: And this is why I started this segment with “I don’t understaand” and [looking at Gillies] you didn’t believe me.

Goldstein: I’m trying, it’s just –

Emdur: So just for some clarity, just so we’ve got absolute clarity on this, five percent of the one percent that don’t, do.

Goldstein: Yes.

Emdur: So one percent don’t, and five percent of the one percent do, that say they don’t do

Goldstein: Yes. Yes, they don’t do, but they do do it for the same reasons you might be having sex.

Emdur: Sorry, what!? [laughing] Don’t bring me into this, thank you.

Gillies: Now asexuality, it’s a very broad orientation, there are different categories. Can you talk us through these different categories?

Goldstein: If you can keep a straight face.

Gillies: Yeah, yeah. Sorry, we’ll be mature.

Goldstein: Sorry. People are defined by, sometimes, how they love. So whether they want to have sex or not is another issue. So then we get things like aromantic, which is people who don’t really want to have a relationship with anybody, heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic, and even panromantic. So that’s defined by who they love, not by who they have sex with

Emdur and Gillies: [together] What’s panromantic?

Goldstein: Panromantic is pansexual. So that means they’re neither –

Emdur: [interrupting] It’s something in the kitchen.

Goldstein: – bisexual – it means they’re attracted to the person, not the sexuality. That’s another segment!

Gillies: What? What is going on out there? [laughs]

Emdur: [laughing] What are you people doing? Why don’t you just get up, watch the morning show, go to work, and come home and watch the news? Like…

Gillies: [incoherent]

Emdur: Good luck to you. What are some of the other miscon… no, I don’t… What are some of the other misconceptions because there must be a lot around this and you can’t kinda blame the general population because it is hard to understand.

Goldstein: Well people still deny that it’s a sexual orientation, so they often say things like “they’re unlucky in love”, “they’re celibate”, “they’re afraid”, “they’re suffering from sexual dysfunction”, or “they’re unattractive” which is my favourite one because David Jay, who is a spokesperson and activist for asexuality in the US, I think is really attractive, so it just goes to show you that asexuality does not mean that they are unattractive or ugly people.

Emdur: So if you got involved in a relationship with him –

Goldstein: Oh, don’t even go there. [laughing]

Emdur: Would that be pan – hetero –

Gillies: Transatlantic –

Goldstein: That would be heteroromantic.

Emdur: Trans… pansatlantic! [laughing]

Gillies: Transatlantic. [laughing]

Emdur: [quietly] Oh can you ask the next question?

Goldstein: Maybe you should come back to sex school with me? [laughing]

Emdur: Oh dear.

Gillies: Um okay –

Emdur: People are looking for support, because there clearly is a very serious side to this. If people are looking for support, and help finding their way through this, what is, you know, is a complicated maze, where do they go?

Goldstein: Well, the best website is AVEN, which is Asexuality Visibility and Education Network. Now there’s also, on there, is a link to Asexuality Awareness Week, which is coming up in October.

Emdur: Oh okay.

Goldstein: And I also suggest to you there’s some YouTube videos by a woman called swankivy, it’s a little bit of a comic take, but there’s a lot of information that’s quite easy to digest.

Emdur: So I’m Googling swankivy.

Goldstein: Swankivy.

Gillies: Not on a work computer. [laughing]

Emdur: No!

Goldstein: No no no, there’s nothing sexual about it. It’s quite fun.

Emdur: Nikki, um, for what it’s worth, thank you. We really appreciate your time

Gillies: Yes, doubly thank you. And sorry we giggled all the way through. It’s a serious issue.

Emdur: No! Well you did, that was disgusting behaviour.

They kept interrupting each other, but it's pretty complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise

The thing is, it might not be news to you, but it certainly is news to a lot of people. And some asexuals find the community because of pieces like that. Any publicity, good publicity etc.

I would like to see the news start covering issues that actually relate to Asexuals, like they do for other Asexual minorities. That is far better than just rehashing 'oh, asexuals exist'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark
The thing is, it might not be news to you, but it certainly is news to a lot of people. And some asexuals find the community because of pieces like that. Any publicity, good publicity etc.

I would like to see the news start covering issues that actually relate to Asexuals, like they do for other Asexual minorities. That is far better than just rehashing 'oh, asexuals exist'

I would like that too and I agree that it would be better. My sexuality is not a novelty. But those hosts weren't ready for that, and their audience probably wasn't ready for that. If you take their word for it, the hosts couldn't even come to grips with 101, and it is hard to have a good discussion when one side has no idea what you are talking about.

It's easy for me to momentarily forget that not everyone has sought out or received an education that covers sexual and gender minorities, let alone heard of asexuality. This is a reality check for me: poll on how people found AVEN. The internet part of that (search engines, static links, forums) makes up over 70% as of this posting. The media, not quite 10%, friends or family less than 5%, and meatspace organizations only one out of the 400 some odd members who have voted. Until we have a day where people know about asexuality growing up, rather than through insightful Googling, and who can come out as asexual without doing a presentation on what that means, I am fine with seeing "asexuality exists" reports. It is better than "asexuality doesn't exist", which is the message that my sex education unwittingly gave me.

I believe broader discussion of asexuality beyond the ace community will happen, and it can happen right now in certain contexts. But there is still a lot of room for 101.

Besides, if it isn't news, why did Asexual News report on it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF

I thought it was great

firstly for aus it was a main chanel programme mentioning it..the lady explaining it didn't do too bad

and yes i thought the humour was appropriate given it highlights how super sillious some in aven are and give so many definitions that anyone would be confused

i liked it..if you took it too seriously..you have had a sense of humour bypass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samael

I thought it was great

firstly for aus it was a main chanel programme mentioning it..the lady explaining it didn't do too bad

and yes i thought the humour was appropriate given it highlights how super sillious some in aven are and give so many definitions that anyone would be confused

i liked it..if you took it too seriously..you have had a sense of humour bypass

Sense of humour is one thing, but they just weren't laughing / giggling at asexuality, they were clearly mocking it publicly. It promotes the idea that it's generally acceptable to not take asexuality seriously, as if it didn't even exist.

Perhaps I'm just too serious a person to see the fun in this mockery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swankivy
Sense of humour is one thing, but they just weren't laughing / giggling at asexuality, they were clearly mocking it publicly. It promotes the idea that it's generally acceptable to not take asexuality seriously, as if it didn't even exist.

I actually agree with you . . . I don't think it was appropriate and I think immediately/reflexively mocking the idea gives the wrong impression--it's certainly not an open-minded approach. The problem was that with these guys, they didn't even know any better. They didn't know what they were being asked to react to, and they misinterpreted it as contradictory. (In my various awareness stuff I sometimes get the whole "why call celibacy something else?" criticism, and when I try to explain that asexuality isn't celibacy, they seem to get very confused because they don't understand the distinction between inclination and behavior.)

I wasn't particularly offended, because what I saw was people not understanding what the orientation even is rather than people processing what we're saying and THEN dismissing it as impossible or ridiculous, and the joking wasn't of the usual variety--wasn't "haha, but everyone's sexual, they should really get to therapy."

That said, if this offends you, it offends you. I don't think it's fair to say "well then you're too sensitive." I can't stand it when people say other people shouldn't be bothered by something just because they themselves aren't bothered. We're all attacked for our orientation to different degrees and it affects us all in a different capacity. So if someone feels hurt or mocked by this segment, it isn't fair to say "your feelings aren't valid." If the hosts didn't really mean it that way or you can see the positive in the presentation, those are good things, but don't blame yourself for being "too serious." There's a difference between "I am offended" and "this is offensive." You can be offended even if there isn't a consensus on whether this "is" objectively offensive. Some people obviously aren't bothered by it, and their experience is valid too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samael
Sense of humour is one thing, but they just weren't laughing / giggling at asexuality, they were clearly mocking it publicly. It promotes the idea that it's generally acceptable to not take asexuality seriously, as if it didn't even exist.

I actually agree with you . . . I don't think it was appropriate and I think immediately/reflexively mocking the idea gives the wrong impression--it's certainly not an open-minded approach. The problem was that with these guys, they didn't even know any better. They didn't know what they were being asked to react to, and they misinterpreted it as contradictory. (In my various awareness stuff I sometimes get the whole "why call celibacy something else?" criticism, and when I try to explain that asexuality isn't celibacy, they seem to get very confused because they don't understand the distinction between inclination and behavior.)

I wasn't particularly offended, because what I saw was people not understanding what the orientation even is rather than people processing what we're saying and THEN dismissing it as impossible or ridiculous, and the joking wasn't of the usual variety--wasn't "haha, but everyone's sexual, they should really get to therapy."

That said, if this offends you, it offends you. I don't think it's fair to say "well then you're too sensitive." I can't stand it when people say other people shouldn't be bothered by something just because they themselves aren't bothered. We're all attacked for our orientation to different degrees and it affects us all in a different capacity. So if someone feels hurt or mocked by this segment, it isn't fair to say "your feelings aren't valid." If the hosts didn't really mean it that way or you can see the positive in the presentation, those are good things, but don't blame yourself for being "too serious." There's a difference between "I am offended" and "this is offensive." You can be offended even if there isn't a consensus on whether this "is" objectively offensive. Some people obviously aren't bothered by it, and their experience is valid too.

I'm not offended per se, but I do think this event did more damage to our visibility and acceptance than helped raise awareness. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Thanks for posting it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roarasaurus

I'm so disappointed about this interview, not offended though, and I agree that this interview damaged our visibility and acceptance. It seemed like the sexologist had done her homework, but the response to her claims that asexuality exists from the interviewers seemed to be “haha...really?..but it’s so silly!”. I wish there had been more discussion about it before it was recorded because it has probably just encouraged people to laugh at us more.

I just kept thinking if I had watched this interview a year ago, before I stumbled across AVEN I would have laughed along with the presenters at asexuality and shrugged it off as being something that’s a bit silly and doesn’t make sense.

Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF
Perhaps I'm just too serious a person to see the fun in this mockery?

orrr..perhaps you just saw mockery where many saw reasonable confusion

how did it damage our visibility?..it was on the major aussie breakfast time show

man you want eggs and a cook to make them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

I'm so disappointed about this interview, not offended though, and I agree that this interview damaged our visibility and acceptance.

What visibility? At this point in the game, we even have to be grateful for Dan Savage because, even though he'd rip us apart, we'd at least be getting some kind of mention. Frankly, IMO, these hosts weren't all that bad and even attempted to be supportive between periods of idiocy. They were certainly much better than the hosts of The View were for David Jay.

To me, a lot of the giggling seemed to be the result of nervousness arising from awareness of one or another's cluelessness. Frankly, I actually got a chuckle out watching them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unidentified username

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

Just watched the clip for the first time. The sound died for the last 20seconds or so, so hopefully didn't miss much. I live in Australia and had never heard of asexuality until I did an Internet search a few weeks ago. I am in my thirties so I don't know if it's an age thing or not, maybe younger people here (in Australia) have heard of asexuality, but I feel for most people who watched show it was probably the first time they have heard the word asexuality. I am not surprised aven got lots of google hits after the show was broadcast, because I was the same after I found out about asexuality on the Internet and that there were others like me, I wanted more and more information. Aussie humor is programmed such that anything with a sexual reference ie 'it getting hard' comment requires copious amounts of laughter. I think it was a tough topic for the presenters at that time of day, it was probably a bit early for them. I think the benefits of the show far outweighed anything else. How can people discuss asexual issues if they don't even know it exists. I think the community of aven is a very learned one on the spectrum of knowledge about asexuality but there are still a lot of people at the other end who haven't even heard of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stitch

I watched this clip a few weeks back and it would've been such a great clip if the interviewers hadn't spent the whole time mocking it. The sexologist was really quite impressively clued up on it. Wasted opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bluebanana2014

They NEED to interview an actual Asexual who can tell people really what it is and what it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swankivy

They NEED to interview an actual Asexual who can tell people really what it is and what it's not.

Normally I'd agree, but I think in this case this particular sexologist was doing a series of spotlight pieces on various types of lesser-known sexualities, and they aired the clips separately. If they were doing a more significant piece on it, though, I think it would be irresponsible of them to not have someone from the actual group representing. But even real asexuals don't always represent everything correctly sometimes. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glass weegie

i caked my pants a little when she mentioned aven... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wineblood

i caked my pants a little

epic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PiF
They NEED to interview an actual Asexual who can tell people really what it is and what it's not.

good luck on that one..you ever read our boards..even with a simple definition of an asexual is a person that lacks sexual attraction..that causes years of debate about what is and isn't an asexual

and this is why the broadcasters were laughing..not at us..but the confusion within the community..it was what aven seeks..visability..on that note it did well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inevitable

I thought that Sexologist was really good.

Much better than the last one I saw trying to talk about asexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Violet_Loves_Iliona

I thought that Sexologist was really good.

Much better than the last one I saw trying to talk about asexuality.

Definitely, I agree!! She seemed to get slightly thrown at one point and didn't get the panromantic definition exactly right, but I don't think you can blame her for that given all the giggling by the two hosts (who are known for their giggling, Larry Emdur especially, and who even had me giggling at one point). All the sexologists in the clips I've seen seem to have a problem with asexuality or deny that it even exists, whereas this sexologist seemed intelligent, knowledgeable and open to asexual people. In retrospect, she also might have made her introductory comment less wordy/academic so that the less academically-minded could understand just as fully as the rest of us, but that is really quite a minor criticism of a job which was very well done. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jas_Strawberrez

At least the facts are right, the giggles were un-necessary though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...