E-Leigh Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 The Sydney Morning Herald published this a few days ago: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/life-without-sex-the-women-who-say-no-20130830-2suvv.html It actually comes quickly on the back of an article I posted about here: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/91709-australia-no-sex-please/ So it seems asexuality is the new 'in' thing in these parts (Does this mean I am FINALLY 'trendy'....? :o ). :p 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Spoon Train Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Not bad. Reeks of heteronormative stereotypes a bit though. I especially don't like any hinting that female sexuality "should" be more subdued than male sexuality. Or anything that hints that being demisexual is the norm for women. Urgh. EDIT: Also, is it just me? Or did the woman in the photo look pregnant at first glance, but then you realised it was just the way the sheets sit? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notte stellata Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Seems like an article about celibacy rather than asexuality. It never even mentioned asexuality (I just did a text search to make sure :P). EDIT: Also, is it just me? Or did the woman in the photo look pregnant at first glance, but then you realised it was just the way the sheets sit?Yeah, it does look like she's pregnant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Leigh Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 Seems like an article about celibacy rather than asexuality. It never even mentioned asexuality (I just did a text search to make sure :P). True... All the same, 'not having sex' seems to be a big topic of late.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philiarocks Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Leaving aside the fact that it's not about asexuality per se, and that it does have a couple of issues, I always appreciate it when the media makes it clear that being sexually active is not compulsory. Thanks for sharing! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koppeli Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Maybe those people are just demisexual and they don't know it yet :P The fact is, sex outside a committed relationship is deeply dissatisfying for me 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Spoon Train Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Maybe those people are just demisexual and they don't know it yet :P Yeah, this is my thinking too - as someone who's been self-identifying as demisexual for nearly two years (not "out" particularly though). But the funny thing is, this article came at a time when I've been in a very "at war with labels" mood lately. I've actually thought about dropping the label and going with the flow. I'm probably out of whack with the way most people are - when they're "sexuals" who are simply celibate for whatever reasons like most of those in the article, but I'm starting to feel like that doesn't really matter much. Gotta admit though - there would be some lolz happening if I just acted like my motivations are a "normal" thing. In certain situations anyway. :lol: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artemisofephesus Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Hmm, I read this article today and thought that it was quite... interesting. Obviously it's not actually about asexuality because it's about behavioural choices (some I guess borne out of emotional experiences), rather than experience of attraction. But one one hand, I like that the choice of celibacy and the 'you must have sex to be normal' thing are being discussed. On the other, some parts of the article niggled me the wrong way. Like this bit: Celibacy “creates independence and inner strength”, she says “and by choosing not to compromise ourselves with unsatisfying sex we become aware of how sacred we are. Women may even find that they want to set the bar higher when it comes to choosing sexual partners.” I find that this comes off as a little sanctimonious, the inner strength and sacredness bit in particular. I get the feeling that it's also not a totally realistic way of looking at sex, that ony brilliant sex is good for you or something like that. And everything that isn't perfectly satisfying doesn't even rate a mention as proper sex? I'm not sure, something about it just seems a little off. I find this bit wierd as well: She says that she has also experienced “great resistance to the idea that a woman's grace and elegance is a reflection of not being driven by one's desires and insecurities.” Pretty sure that you can be driven by desires and have insecurities and still be a graceful and elegant person. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thylacine Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 The photograph shows a lady alone in bed... where's the cat ??? Gotta have a cat !!! Yah can't be single and celibate without a cat !!! (Okay, kidding again... you could have a dog, maybe.) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Leigh Posted September 5, 2013 Author Share Posted September 5, 2013 Yeah, this is my thinking too - as someone who's been self-identifying as demisexual for nearly two years (not "out" particularly though). But the funny thing is, this article came at a time when I've been in a very "at war with labels" mood lately. I've actually thought about dropping the label and going with the flow. I'm probably out of whack with the way most people are - when they're "sexuals" who are simply celibate for whatever reasons like most of those in the article, but I'm starting to feel like that doesn't really matter much. Gotta admit though - there would be some lolz happening if I just acted like my motivations are a "normal" thing. In certain situations anyway. :lol: Funny in that I have had the same. I only just came to the boards recently, and what has struck me is the huge number of additional 'labels' - demi / aromantic / ace / grey etc that there are!! I only recently discovered the term 'asexual' was real (here I was using it to describe how I felt, without knowing it really did exist!!). But I have never been one for over labelling, or boxing people into catagories. There are all sorts of dangers you get into if you do this (in terms of how a person sees themselves, their life, and their ability to change their situation). YES => some labels are, of course, necessary - day to day life would be chaotic without them. They also allow people to communicate or understand one another better. But I have been talking with some other members (and bought it up in a chat the other day too) as to why go on with so many subdivisions? People / emotions tend to be fluid. There are large spectrums of states at any one time - and one end of 'a state' may still be within the boundaries of 'normal' (so to speak), with out needing to be defined / given the title of 'abnormal'.... Why define yourself so specifically and box yourself into a single state of being? Why not just let things 'be as they are'.... Generally give yourself a direction, but without defining yourself so tightly? There are changes that occur as people grow, as life changes, as situations arise, as your reactions change. If you set yourself with 'mental boundaries' you run the risk of subconsciously closing your mind to options you had previously been open too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bxx Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 “There are a lot of people, men too, who really only want to have sex if they are in a meaningful relationship." What?! How could this be? I figured that there were people who keep sex to committed relationships, but people AND men? Those sex-crazed "bro"-spewing beer-drinking football-watching nonpersons? I'm calling BS on this one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Spoon Train Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 “There are a lot of people, men too, who really only want to have sex if they are in a meaningful relationship." What?! How could this be? I figured that there were people who keep sex to committed relationships, but people AND men? Those sex-crazed "bro"-spewing beer-drinking football-watching nonpersons? I'm calling BS on this one. :lol: My personal feeling (which is being backed up scientifically more and more) is that the spread of sexual interest among people is equal. It doesn't correlate with gender. In other words: just as many women as men are into casual sex, and on the other end of the spectrum - just as many men as women need a meaningful emotional connection to desire sex with someone. So the perceived general difference in this area between males and females is entirely culturally constructed. But of course, the stereotypical perceived difference is so deeply ingrained and socially institutionalised, that people actually believe it. And feel it as if it's "real". In a twisted social realpolitik sense it kinda is "real" I suppose, but it doesn't have to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayve Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Ick. I hate whenever someone mentions asexuality as something that is "in" as if it is a simple trend that will eventually pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Leigh Posted September 5, 2013 Author Share Posted September 5, 2013 Ick. I hate whenever someone mentions asexuality as something that is "in" as if it is a simple trend that will eventually pass.Was this directed at me, or the article?If this was directed at me, I do apologise if it came across that way... I myself identify as ACE and jn no way do i feel it 'is a trend that will pass'. My comment was actually said tongue in cheek and - It was a poke at how the media tends to pick 'themes' / concepts and runs with them and the SMH / Australian press had been running a lot of these types of articles (including a few on a sexuality specifically) of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayve Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Ick. I hate whenever someone mentions asexuality as something that is "in" as if it is a simple trend that will eventually pass.Was this directed at me, or the article?If this was directed at me, I do apologise if it came across that way... I myself identify as ACE and jn no way do i feel it 'is a trend that will pass'. My comment was actually said tongue in cheek and - It was a poke at how the media tends to pick 'themes' / concepts and runs with them and the SMH / Australian press had been running a lot of these types of articles (including a few on a sexuality specifically) of late. Haha, no. I was just googling asexual articles and that whole "in" and "trendy" thing kept repeating so when I saw that I was just remembering it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Leigh Posted September 6, 2013 Author Share Posted September 6, 2013 Ick. I hate whenever someone mentions asexuality as something that is "in" as if it is a simple trend that will eventually pass.Was this directed at me, or the article?If this was directed at me, I do apologise if it came across that way... I myself identify as ACE and jn no way do i feel it 'is a trend that will pass'. My comment was actually said tongue in cheek and - It was a poke at how the media tends to pick 'themes' / concepts and runs with them and the SMH / Australian press had been running a lot of these types of articles (including a few on a sexuality specifically) of late. Haha, no. I was just googling asexual articles and that whole "in" and "trendy" thing kept repeating so when I saw that I was just remembering it. Ahh - ok! Good. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts