'House' episode offends asexuals

I'm afraid Silly Green Monkey and Pixel42 you aren't going to win this one. If you carry on describing yourselves as asexual, the vast majority of us will understand what you mean, but if you ever encounter Kevin Lowe, be prepared to be thoroughly interrogated about whether or not you masturbate, as it seems very important to him. :)
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
I'm afraid Silly Green Monkey and Pixel42 you aren't going to win this one. If you carry on describing yourselves as asexual, the vast majority of us will understand what you mean, but if you ever encounter Kevin Lowe, be prepared to be thoroughly interrogated about whether or not you masturbate, as it seems very important to him. :)
Click to expand...

I guess if you don't have something sensible to say you can always poison the well and caricature someone. It's not very classy but there's nothing in the MA saying you can't do it.
 
Vortigern99 said:
According to which definition? If an act involves the sexual organs performing a sexual (as opposed to excretory) function, that by definition is a sexual act, regardless of how many sets of organs are involved.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's sexual activity (Maslow 1) and sexual intimacy (Maslow 3).
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
I'm afraid Silly Green Monkey and Pixel42 you aren't going to win this one. If you carry on describing yourselves as asexual, the vast majority of us will understand what you mean, but if you ever encounter Kevin Lowe, be prepared to be thoroughly interrogated about whether or not you masturbate, as it seems very important to him. :)
Click to expand...

Looking to win some kind of unfairness award? Kevin's posts achieve what so many on this forum desperately lack: clarity in logic and writing. It's not obvious how someone can reconcile asexuality with masturbation.


Checkmite
Masturbation doesn't perform a sexual function (ETA: if it doesn't involve any other person in some way.)

EATA: Think of it strictly in terms of biology. "Sexual" refers to organisms that reproduce by way of interaction between others of compatible genotype. "Asexual" organisms do not. In terms of human sexuality, "sexual" humans reproduce and derive sensory pleasure through interactions with others humans; "asexuals" do not.
Click to expand...

If you want to think "strictly in terms of biology," then you're saying homosexuals do not have sex since homosexual _ _ _ is inconsistent with reproduction. What if I masturbate for purposes of reproduction. Should we consider that sex?

Instead of asexuals we should probably call those masturbators autosexuals, but the move to say that the stimulation of sexual organs has nothing to do with sex is ******* ridiculous. So it's only sex if someone else has their hand on my cock? How do you explain robot handjobs?
 
Cain said:
Checkmite


If you want to think "strictly in terms of biology," then you're saying homosexuals do not have sex since homosexual _ _ _ is inconsistent with reproduction.
Click to expand...

That's right; and my arbitrary threshold of how "technically" to use the word sexual would be no less valid than yours.

When people call themselves "asexual" it's pretty self-evident to everyone that they're talking about orientation (or a lack thereof, at any rate). Only you and Kevin seem to have some hangup over whether or not some kind of "sex drive" still exists or not. Whether or not it does in any particular individual, it remains that asexuals are those who are not sexually attracted to anyone of any gender.
 
Checkmite said:
When people call themselves "asexual" it's pretty self-evident to everyone that they're talking about orientation (or a lack thereof, at any rate). Only you and Kevin seem to have some hangup over whether or not some kind of "sex drive" still exists or not. Whether or not it does in any particular individual, it remains that asexuals are those who are not sexually attracted to anyone of any gender.
Click to expand...

But again, if someone regularly fantasizes about men, women, children, sheep, whatever, while masturbating, then it's difficult to say that person is asexual.
 
Cain said:
But again, if someone regularly fantasizes about men, women, children, sheep, whatever, while masturbating, then it's difficult to say that person is asexual.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that anyone is saying that. What about someone who masturbates without fantasising about anything?
 
OK, but first thing's first. If a man (say) masturbates to the idea of a woman (say),and he can fantasize about anything (he's not necessarily saying "My hand is a pussy, my hand is a pussy") then can he still be considered asexual? If someone "gets off" on sunsets or situations involving winged unicorns, can we consider that person asexual? I'm inclined to say no.

As for people who want to be master of their domain for purposes of a restful night's sleep, and do not imagine ANYTHING, then I still think the term asexual is misleading in an unirregardless way, but I could possibly make peace with it.
 
Checkmite said:
That's right; and my arbitrary threshold of how "technically" to use the word sexual would be no less valid than yours.
Click to expand...

No. Words mean things, and you aren't Humpty Dumpty.

When people call themselves "asexual" it's pretty self-evident to everyone that they're talking about orientation (or a lack thereof, at any rate).
Click to expand...

What we have here is a falsifiable prediction.

I think if you said to 1000 randomly selected, reasonably educated people "This friend of mine is asexual and they masturbate all the time" most of them would do a double take and think you'd said something self-contradictory.

You seem to think that most of them would say "It's self-evident to everyone that they're talking about orientation, and self-evident to everyone that asexuality is an orientation, and there is nothing the least confusing about that statement".

I think that's about as likely as asking 1000 people who have never heard of Christianity whether a father, a son and a ghost makes three entities or one entity, and all 1000 saying "Well it's pretty self-evident that it's one entity".
 
Let's see - a number of people in this thread; only you having some kind of problem...doesn't seem like such an incredibly unlikely prediction to me so far.
 
Checkmite said:
Let's see - a number of people in this thread; only you having some kind of problem...doesn't seem like such an incredibly unlikely prediction to me so far.
Click to expand...


Many of us may disagree with you but not want to bother to say so.

It gets old.

Do not conclude agreement from a lack of response.
 
Complexity said:
Many of us may disagree with you but not want to bother to say so.

It gets old.

Do not conclude agreement from a lack of response.
Click to expand...


Oh hey, two people. My mistake.

So since you've spoken up what's your disagreement? Is it the idea of people not being attracted to anyone at all that confuses you, or the idea of someone masturbating without have a sexual fantasy about anyone while doing it?
 
Checkmite said:
Let's see - a number of people in this thread; only you having some kind of problem...doesn't seem like such an incredibly unlikely prediction to me so far.
Click to expand...

Do you think just maybe there might be a self-selection effect in play where people who identify as asexual are more likely to click on and post in threads that have asexual in the title?
 
Well yeah, I guess that's unfair. So we're left with me making an untested prediction which theoretically could be tested, just not anytime soon by any of us in a sufficiently controlled manner. Guess we'll just have to drop this particular haggle until such time as some kind of actual data appears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom