Article in The Times

[TheSMMG]

There's an article about asexuality in today's (17th March) T2 section of The Times.




2013 Mod Edit: The article can be found here. For future reference:

Not tonight, dear. In fact, not ever... I’m asexual
Michele Kirsch
Published at 12:00AM, March 17 2005

Hormone deficiency, lifestyle choice or just the way they are? A growing number of young people neither like nor want sex

“HOW do I know I don’t like sex if I’ve not tried it,” muses Rebecca Paine, 21, restating a question people have asked her dozens of times, a question that she answers in a tone that suggests it’s a really stupid question.

“What if I told you bungee jumping is the greatest thing in the world. Would YOU try it?”

Sorry guys, to read the rest of the article you can subscribe, or you can contact Project Team or myself to have a copy:

[Live R Perfect]

LINK!! :D :arrow: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1528022,00.html

I tried to attend a London meeting arranged by another group, but no one except me showed up. You don’t know rejection until you have been stood up by an asexual.

:lol: Haha! I assume that was one of the meetup.com meetups.

Cate, not someone you would want as your babysitter, calls children “little freedom-sucking, weirdo, alien-looking things”.

:lol: I totally agree, Cate!

Interesting... the Times wrote an article about us back in October. I wonder why they decided to write another now?

[(SP)]

Seems like a sort of weird, cluttered article.

Also I'm I the only one who feels like the wing of asexuality that has no drive('libido') is getting disproportionate attention?

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'm bothered by this:

I write to a man seeking a wife on the Aven network. I tell him I am a journalist and though I can’t marry him — even I wouldn’t go that far for a story — I would like to hear how he intends to go about the wife and children business without having sex. He writes back accusing me of not being a journalist at all, and adds: “Unless you won’t mind marrying me, I ain’t really interested.” Then he finds out I am a journalist, and writes back to confess that actually he is not asexual, not really, but has “a life-long sexual fetish which leaves me totally incompatible in terms of the usual interaction. This causes a dirty, shallow lifestyle which I would dearly like to leave behind in favour of a stable marriage with a family.” He adds that he would never reveal his fetish to his unsuspecting asexual wife, should he manage to procure one.

I wonder who she's referring to.

[Mallard]

Seems like a sort of weird, cluttered article.

Also I'm I the only one who feels like the wing of asexuality that has no drive('libido') is getting disproportionate attention?

Yes, the article was slightly strange. Maybe it was written by someone who is very sexual.

And the typical journalist technique: quote selectively. Nowadays, journalists love to write these "look, what sick communities there are on the Net" articles.

I pretty much agree on that no-drive thing.

[Meggie]

I just nipped round the local shop to pick up their last copy of The Times - but wondered why I'd bothered. Not a brilliant article.

[Eta Carinae]

Seems like a sort of weird, cluttered article.

Also I'm I the only one who feels like the wing of asexuality that has no drive('libido') is getting disproportionate attention?

No. I've been complaining about this for a while.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I think it's because those with a sex drive are not seen as being weird or unusual by the media. Celibates are more widely known than asexuals, so they just assume that the asexuals with drive are celibate and focus on the freaks who don't have the sex drive all humans have.

[Peyton]

I read the first page and that was enough. That was some of the poorest, stilted and most disrespectful 'journalism' I have seen in a long while, written by someone who more than likely has issues themselves. I wonder if the same line of disrespect would have been used on someone who was 'of colour' or gay and lesbian for example. I think not. What I'm surprised about is that such a gutter level writer could make it to The Times when their writing style owes more to The Star or the The Mirror.

[Live R Perfect]

Hell...I didn't think it was THAT bad! :shock:

One thing that DID offend me when I went out and bought the paper today was their choice of illustration for the article. Like another publication did before them (though I can't remember which) they decided that the best way to illustrate the concept of asexuality was to take photos of naked clothes mannequins... :roll: Yeah, that's right, we're all lifeless plastic simulants with no genitalia.

[Peyton]

the best way to illustrate the concept of asexuality was to take photos of naked clothes mannequins.

Well, if THAT isn't bad I don't know what is. There were assumptions on the first page that Asexuals are Peter Pan types, or that we are disgusted by sex etc etc ... all the usual stereotypes in play.

[bard of aven]

Is that what passes for journalism in the London Times these days? (That was the London Times, no?) Maybe someday soon, we will find out what the New York Times does on the subject--All the News that's Fit to Print, ya know?

boa

[Chozo]

We need to start writing our own articles :|

[Eta Carinae]

Having just actually read the article, it was worse than I thought. Not the majority of it -- though I didn't like the exclusive focus on people with low libido, it was relatively decent, with the author quoting authorities supportive of asexuality and seeming rather reasonable. But that last section? Really obnoxious, and quite surprising -- I expect that sort of thing from disapproving articles about childfree people, not pieces on asexuality.

[Islander9]

SGM - am I misunderstanding you?

"the sex drive ALL (my emphasis)humans have"

O dear, I'm not human then.

Well, given what humans have done, that's cool-

[Cate Perfect]

Uh...

Well, at least I'm reminded why I don't read The Times. *pats Guardian*

Is that Cate quoted me? Huh. I don't recall saying that (and I know no one contacted me about it) but we have quite a few Cates.

And that thing about the women here being sure about not wanting children even though our biological clocks haven't even begun to tick...Right. Most women who are suddenly overcome with the urge to procreate in their early 30s had some sex drive BEFORE then.

MAN. This is the kind of coverage we get in a paper like The Times?! Makes that Penthouse article seem like Pulitzer material.

Cate

[Rob Peterson]

Is that Cate quoted me? Huh. I don't recall saying that (and I know no one contacted me about it) but we have quite a few Cates.

I ran a search for "freedom-sucking" and it only brought back this post, so it would seem that no Cate on this forum publically made such a claim. It looked like the quote was used out of context for shock value, anyway, regardless of who it came from (provided the journalist didn't make it up). I figured she was quoting you, considering your often-quotable 9,195 posts.

This reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons. In it, Homer looks at a family portrait where Bart is holding up a cardboard word-bubble that reads "I Stink" next to Homer's mouth. Upon looking at it, Homer comments, "Hey! I don't remember saying that..." It appears this journalist decided to hold up a word-bubble next to your mouth, Cate.

[Cate Perfect]

Thanks, Rob. :) I did a search for those words and only came up with this thread, as well. I'm no fan of children, but I don't recall quite those words. Then again, I do post a bit so I thought it might be something I'd forgotten saying.

Cate

[Mallard]

But that last section? Really obnoxious, and quite surprising -- I expect that sort of thing from disapproving articles about childfree people, not pieces on asexuality.

I can't help thinking that the person who wrote the article has some problems of her own in this area. Maybe *her* biological clock is ticking?Or she secretly envies childless persons?

I'm surprised that while there are *lots* of people who are not so strongly sexual, asexuals are still seen as freaks.

[Peyton]

We (Asexuals) have always been around, the only difference is now we have a name for what we are and are becoming ever more visible and that may make some people feel uncomfortable and instead of dealing with their own issues, they may resort to projecting their own insecurities outwards onto others.

[Hexpiral]

But I still wouldn´t pay you to babysit, Cate.

[Cate Perfect]

But I still wouldn´t pay you to babysit, Cate.

:D

Thank God. You COULDN'T pay me to baby-sit!

Cate

[Silly Green Monkey]

SGM - am I misunderstanding you?

"the sex drive ALL (my emphasis)humans have"

O dear, I'm not human then.

Well, given what humans have done, that's cool-

Uh Islander, I was being sarcastic, and trying to say what a reporter would be thinking....

[Live R Perfect]

But that last section? Really obnoxious, and quite surprising -- I expect that sort of thing from disapproving articles about childfree people, not pieces on asexuality.

I can't help thinking that the person who wrote the article has some problems of her own in this area. Maybe *her* biological clock is ticking?Or she secretly envies childless persons?

I'm surprised that while there are *lots* of people who are not so strongly sexual, asexuals are still seen as freaks.

The last section was actually written by a different person to the rest of the article. It is in a separate box on the page of the newspaper. Odd...

[michelekirsch]

I am the journalist who wrote the main body of copy ( not the box out about the women not wanting children) and most of the people I quoted were from this network.. The quotes are selective only in that all quotes are selective, I was not after a certain angle or theme, just trying to help non asexuals see how asexuals felt about not being sexual. Most of it is quotes from other people , there is none of my opinion in there, it it what you yourselves are saying. As for the libido slant, yes of course it was, that is how you define yourselves by the very name. Like or not, that is what people care about, the thing that makes you different from them. They don't care if you if you like bowling on Saturday night or Woody Allen or anything else. There was a huge outpouring of sympathy for the guy who wanted to get married when he first raised the issue on AVEN. I got to the truth of the matter and frankly I would find that alarming, that there is this fetish guy posing as an asexual.

I thought all lhe people I interviewed were articulate, smart, and described how they felt or didn't feel very well, in a language that non asexual people could relate to. The only gratuitous humour ( and these Times related posts seem to imply that you lot , those who feel the piece was hatchet job- are a humourless bunch, so wrapped up in your own feelings it doesn't occur to what consitutes a good , fun, but not making fun of- read for the general public) was about the amobea girl who wrote about her interests- shrines and all that. You have to entertain as well as inform. I would like to thank all those who particpated and spoke so thoughtfully and for those who didn't like the piece, why don't you get out there and write some letters to The Times , or write your own articles. Michele

[Live R Perfect]

Also I'm I the only one who feels like the wing of asexuality that has no drive('libido') is getting disproportionate attention?

No. I've been complaining about this for a while.

I'm confused... can you elaborate on this?

[Live R Perfect]

We need to start writing our own articles

...those who didn't like the piece, why don't you get out there and write some letters to The Times , or write your own articles.

This is something I've said before. I'm sure that there are plenty of us here who COULD write some great articles about asexuality, but who would publish them? Do newspapers just accept articles from random members of the public? If this is so, then I say we do it. No disrespect to qualified members of the press but no matter how well-intentioned they might be, it is difficult to accurately portray such a diverse community of people unless you are somehow acquainted with them.

Michele: You are the first journalist I am aware of who has returned to check on our reaction to your article. I certainly don't think that this is the worst article that has been written about us and I am a little surprised at how aggressive some people's criticism has been. I'm not surprised that you are somewhat pissed off.

[Eta Carinae]

As for the libido slant, yes of course it was, that is how you define yourselves by the very name. Like or not, that is what people care about, the thing that makes you different from them. They don't care if you if you like bowling on Saturday night or Woody Allen or anything else.

That's how we define ourselves by our very name? So, what, bisexuals have two sex drives?

All snark aside, the issue wasn't that you weren't bringing up that we like bowling or cooking or cats or whatever. It's that asexuality is often also defined as a lack of sexual attraction -- just as heterosexuals like the opposite sex, and homosexuals like the same sex, and bisexuals like both, asexuals are attracted to neither. And while this is, in some cases, related to a low libido, it's not exactly the same thing.

[(SP)]

Also I'm I the only one who feels like the wing of asexuality that has no drive('libido') is getting disproportionate attention?

No. I've been complaining about this for a while.

I'm confused... can you elaborate on this?

Well....Asexuality 101 is that asexuals do not experience sexual attraction.

While many people here also have no sex drive(whether they experience other attractions or have no attraction of any type).

Some, however have a drive that isn't directed out at anything, and still lack sexual attraction.

While I seem to have lost most of any drive(and I'm fine with that) for the past while.I did a ways back have a very weak drive. I was still never attracted to anyone, and even when I masturbated I didn't think of anyone/anything(or at least think of anything in order to cause arousal)

That's just my specific case, there can be other variations of that.

...and in recent articles and discussions that 'type' of asexuality seems to get ignored.

While many asexuals do lack a drive, if we just concentrate on, or call it "low libido"...well then almost everyone on earth goes through a low drive period, alot of the elderly lose their drive, every second person in some crappy marriage for 20 years loses drive, every third person on Zoloft loses their drive.........and I'm not really sure if that's what we should stress only in asexuality

[Chozo]

The end (which I appreciate you didn't write) was very unprofessionally written and certainly had an aggressive mocking tone. It is possibly that tainted the whole article for some people, although I didn't really like the overall tone.

You're not being entirely truthful if you say you wrote it without a slant - that's almost impossible to do, because everything we see is filtered by our own experiences and judgements. Especially since you later say that you wanted to entertain and inform. Is that not taking an angle? You also admit that you write what people want to read.. this is also taking an angle.

And finally the libido thing is WAY over simplifying things. It isn't helping to write us all of as emotionless robots.

This wasn't the worst article I've ever read but it is a mile away from being something I'd be happy to associate myself with.