bard of aven Posted September 23, 2003 Author Share Posted September 23, 2003 A perhaps weak joke. Orpheus is part of the muscle around here. He's always finding interesting ways to deal with the bad. boa Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Um...thanks boa. The point of my post is not my leaving, I think soe of you aye have missed it entirly. Don't focus on that part of what I said. Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 So tell me everyone, am I sudden;y not asexual? Am I sexual because I am willing to give in? Should I leave AVEN since I pretty much betrayed you all? Well come on, tell me. Who said you should leave? :shock: Please direct me to their throats. Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 No one said this, it's retoricale, I wanted to see what kind of responses I'd get, but never mind that now. Link to post Share on other sites
Cate Perfect Posted September 24, 2003 Share Posted September 24, 2003 It's not that you're no longer asexual if you decide to have sex, you're just sleeping with someone. It doesn't mean you like it or desire it, you're simply doing it in order to please someone else. However, it might be wise to change your signature, as you slept with your partner, and you didn't tell that person to fuck off. Then again, I'm not brilliant about staying on topic, so I suppose I can't say much about signatures. Cate Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 I can't change that Cate, it's a quote I realy said to somone once. Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 Only once?? *LOL* Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 More than once, many times, but you get what I'm saying. Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 orpheus, you leave & i'll stow away on the plane to japan & kick your ass. :twisted: Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 *sigh* Yet another person who just doesn't get it. Why do I bother trying. Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 i get it just fine. you're asking if you should leave because you started having sex. however, i think you should know that this site isn't just for asexuals - ASHLEY!!! sorry; friggin cat keeps rubbing against my hand while i'm typing - only. so, whatever you choose to consider yourself, know that you're still accepted here. besides, aven just wouldn't be the same w/out you. :) Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Nope, you didn't get it at all. HERE"S THE POINT EVERYONE! I am sexual active, at least when I go home, but I am still asexual because I do not have the desire to have sex nor do I get any pleasure from the action of sex in itself. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 uh, YEAH!!! :roll: so technically, you're still asexual, so you're not going anywhere. so kwitcherbitchin. Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 How's this aury, I'm not leaving, okay. I've no intent to. Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 good. & forgive me; i only got 4 hours worth of sleep today. & if i don't get more than 12 hours worth, i tend to get stupid. Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I'd never leave this place, not even if AVENguy wanted me too. :twisted: Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I got it the first time you said it *pets self on the back* :mrgreen: Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Good for you, give yourself a cookie. Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 see, i skimmed over that part. :? Link to post Share on other sites
Curiouser and Curiouser Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 I don't think it is a matter of honesty or dishonesty, integrity or hypocrisy, for an asexual to be in a sexual or quasi-sexual relationship. Doing something without having any particular and compelling reason or motive for doing it does not make you a liar or a hypocrite. (For example, I practiced as a religious person for several years after I stopped believing in God.) It might be uncommon, and it might even be strange, but I think there are enough reasons around for that sort of behavior. Anyway, I'd be hard-pressed to think of something that nauseates me more completely and more viscerally than the notion of oral sex, but I had a physical boyfriend for a while last year, and I didn't mind making out so much, but if he touched my breasts I would nearly hyperventilate. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose-Alini Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 For example, I practiced as a religious person for several years after I stopped believing in God. Err, that is pretty much the biblical definition of a hypocrite. Link to post Share on other sites
Curiouser and Curiouser Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 First, what do you mean by "Biblical?" (I don't know the New Testament well, but certainly within the canon accepted by Jews there is neither word nor concept corresponding to our -- Greek-rooted -- "hypocrite.") Second, again speaking within the confines and framework of Judaism, Rabbinic literature includes a midrash in which God says: "If only my people, though they forgot me, kept my laws;" so I felt fairly well within bounds at the time to express a religious identity and identification without being able to share in certain beliefs common to nearly all of its members, or others common to many or most of them. Had I considered myself a religious and God-fearing human being, yet (for example) lied cheated stolen murdered raped abused -- why, then you might be justified in pronouncing me a hypocrite. As it is, my beliefs mandated no particular course of action, and I followed a course of action more typically associated with another system of beliefs. You might consider that foolish or a waste of time, but it's not hypocritical. In the same way, I don't consider it hypocritical for someone to do something else -- for example something normally associated with sexual desire or attraction -- out of atypical motivations -- in this case motivations unrelated to sex -- even if I wouldn't do the same in similar circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites
Curiouser and Curiouser Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 On another note, you might ponder the Ethics of the medieval philosopher Peter Abelard, who considered that the moral essence of a deed lay neither in the intention to commit an action, nor in the commission of the action itself, but in the consent to it. "Thus to desire the wife of another or actually to lie with her is not sin. But to consent to that desire or to that action is sin. ... Thus a transgressor is not one who does what is prohibited. He is one who consents to what is prohibited. The prohibition is, therefore, not about action, but about consent. It is as though in saying: 'Do not do this or that,' we meant: 'Do not consent to do this or that,' or 'Do not wittingly do this.'" If you forget the normative and theological aspects for a moment, that is, just leave out "sin," then I think you can reasonably apply his criterion in a discussion of asexuality. Link to post Share on other sites
Jayann Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Hey cool, another CT person. :) Sounds as though someone's rather experienced in the field of theological theory. I suppose "hypocritical" more simply means to preach one thing, but to completely disregard one's own teachings and do the complete opposite. It's not as though all asexual people preach non-sex. What one feels naturally compelled to do (or not to do) is very different from preaching a way of life. If one were to say, "As an asexual, I would never for any reason have sex!" and then decide to go and have sex (even for the pleasure of another), then this would be hypocrisy. If you never make this assertion, then you can't be contradicting yourself if you have sex--you'll likely only be making yourself very uncomfortable since you are denying what is natural to you. And in other news, oral sex is the nasty. And anyone who believes (in the words of the great Lewis Black) that "b.j.'s don't count" is a retarded loser. Link to post Share on other sites
bard of aven Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 "Thus to desire the wife of another or actually to lie with her is not sin. But to consent to that desire or to that action is sin. ... Thus a transgressor is not one who does what is prohibited. He is one who consents to what is prohibited. The prohibition is, therefore, not about action, but about consent. It is as though in saying: 'Do not do this or that,' we meant: 'Do not consent to do this or that,' or 'Do not wittingly do this.'" By the time this discussion rolled around to Aquinas, it was slightly more nuanced, if I remember correctly (it's been a while since I did any Aquinas): I think his take on it would be that in itself, the action is still objectively a sin in its very nature as an act, but if the person doing it does not or cannot give full, voluntary consent for any of a variety of reasons, the person is not culpable and commits no sin. In his discussion of same-sex acts, for instance, he says that they are wrong and sinful in their nature, but for those in whom nature is deficient (A's term, I would perfer "different") in such a way that they see such acts as natural for themselves, they commit no sin in doing the sinful act. But Aquinas lifted a lot of his moral structure from Aristotle, often without saying so. Does that make him a plaigerist? Or a hypocrite? My $.02: I think the whole discussion of hypocracy is misguided and best avoided. Once we start slinging that term around, I don't know anyone it wouldn't stick to, me included. I think we all have areas in our lives where our words and theories do not match our deeds. If they did, we'd be perfect; we'd have nothing to strive for. A priest friend of mine once said, "Of course the church is full of hypoctires! That's where we belong! All the perfect people are in Heaven already." Call some one a hypocrite, might just as well say, "You human!" boa Link to post Share on other sites
dabishop Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 The biblical definition is closer to apostasy, which as BoA so elegantly put it, is in the eye of the apostated against. Besides which, Abelard lost a couple of dear pieces of anatomy for his backsliding. Let that be a lesson!! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.