'House' episode offends asexuals

Asexual can mean more than one definition, you know. The same way run can describe either the motion of a liquid or something one does with one's legs or something one does with a computer program.

No, using the specific definition of asexual you are insisting on using, it does not describe a sexual orientation. The orientation definition is a second definition people have only recently begun using; it is separate from the definition you are insisting should be the only one for whatever reason.
 
Checkmite said:
Asexual can mean more than one definition, you know.
Click to expand...

No, it cannot. The definition is transparently clear. That you want to come up with additional made up definitions, is a complete different thing and it is a game I'm not interested in playing.

I believe we are done here. No progress is going to be obtained.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
No, it cannot. The definition is transparently clear. That you want to come up with additional made up definitions, is a complete different thing and it is a game I'm not interested in playing.

I believe we are done here. No progress is going to be obtained.
Click to expand...

It is immaterial whether you think that the word "asexual" should be used to describe people with no sexual orientation. The fact is that it is the word that is used, however illogical you may find it. Feel free to try to change it to something else, but I don't fancy your chances.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
It is immaterial whether you think that the word "asexual" should be used to describe people with no sexual orientation. The fact is that it is the word that is used, however illogical you may find it. Feel free to try to change it to something else, but I don't fancy your chances.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to tell that to Checkmite, as that is his position, and that's what I've been arguing with him.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
No, it cannot. The definition is transparently clear. That you want to come up with additional made up definitions, is a complete different thing and it is a game I'm not interested in playing.
Click to expand...

I'd hate to have to tell you this, but that train left the station a few years before this thread was ever started. It's not me "making up new definitions", it's me simply using definitions that were made up and have been in use for quite a while already.
 
Checkmite said:
I'd hate to have to tell you this, but that train left the station a few years before this thread was ever started. It's not me "making up new definitions", it's me simply using definitions that were made up and have been in use for quite a while already.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual

Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality),[1][2][3] in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction to others[4][5][6] or the lack of interest in sex.[7][6] It may also be considered a lack of a sexual orientation.[8] One commonly cited study published in 2004 placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1%.[9][8]
Click to expand...

Oooh will you look at that?
So how can a lack of sexual orientation be a sexual orientation, Checkmite?
 
Hey, "lack of sexual attraction" is the material part. If you want to say it can't be a sexual orientation because it describes a lack of one, that's fine and I'll agree with that happily, as long as you accept that it can refer to sexual interest (or lack thereof) independent of whether a person does or does not masturbate or engage in sexual activity.

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs[10]; sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring"[11]. Some asexuals do engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to please sexual partners.[6]
Click to expand...

AVEN was founded in 2001, giving this use of the word asexual over a decade of precedent.
 
Last edited:
Why is the blank-sexual important at all? People typically describe their orientation as straight, gay, lesbian, or bi. "Asexuals" who masturbate can instead identify as autoerotic or autosexual or whatever.
 
Checkmite said:
Hey, "lack of sexual attraction" is the material part. If you want to say it can't be a sexual orientation because it describes a lack of one, that's fine and I'll agree with that happily, as long as you accept that it can refer to sexual interest (or lack thereof) independent of whether a person does or does not masturbate or engage in sexual activity.
Click to expand...

No. We can't agree on that. Sorry.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
I think you meant to tell that to Checkmite, as that is his position, and that's what I've been arguing with him.
Click to expand...

From my reading of the thread, you are saying that the word "asexual" shouldn't be used to describe such a person (ie one who has no sexual attraction towards either gender). Am I not correct in that? If I am, then the fact remains that it is the word currently used for such people whether you like it or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
 
Checkmite said:
Well again, it's been used that way for at least 10 years; there's no stopping the signal.
Click to expand...

That's about as long as people have been pushing "bright" as a term for rationalist. How's that signal coming along? Maybe not so well because it's a pretty stupid choice of words for what it's describing. I suspect "asexual" as a word for sexual people who don't have any particular orientation might be more in that category.
 
Puppycow said:
Why treat asexuality as a medical condition instead of just another sexual orientation?
Click to expand...
I was thinking why a 7-page thread or "outrage" about asexuals having a hissy, or about them at all for that matter? :boggled: ie frankly who gives a rat's behind? What's next, uproar over a TV episode which offended left-handed Italians? The humanity!! They're oppressed! sniffle
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
That's about as long as people have been pushing "bright" as a term for rationalist. How's that signal coming along? Maybe not so well because it's a pretty stupid choice of words for what it's describing. I suspect "asexual" as a word for sexual people who don't have any particular orientation might be more in that category.
Click to expand...

That's the thing - ten years is how long people have been trying to get "bright" accepted. Too many of the people who would be considered "bright" rejected the word and that's why it failed; it was resisted from in front, from behind, and from all over.

Hardly any (none I'm personally aware of) asexuals objected to the term "asexual"; thus it succeeded. People haven't been "trying" to get it accepted for the past decade, it's been accepted and people have just been actually using it for that long.
 
bookitty said:
A person who isn't sexually attracted to other people is a normal but uncommon variation on adult human sexuality. This orientation would cause unique issues in our culture which places a high value on sexual relationships. Because this orientation is uncommon, less people are aware of it and the issues unique to this orientation could cause misunderstanding. Better information in general will help prevent misunderstandings. In order to get the information out there, a descriptive title is helpful.

No orientation description is entirely accurate because human attraction works on a sliding scale. For the purposes of describing someone on the very far side of the sexual interest scale, asexual is appropriate. It is easily understood, makes the case succinctly and has been adopted by the people who feel a part of that orientation.
Click to expand...

QFT

Ron_Tomkins said:
Then they are celibate, or whatever you want to call it. But if they are sexually active, if the have hormones that give them the desire to masturbate, they are not asexual.

For the last time: Asexuality is not a sexual orientation. It's a lack of sexual desire.
Click to expand...

Morrigan said:
I really don't get why people have so much trouble understanding that.
Click to expand...

Because it's the people who actually have this lack of attraction who get to decide what they call themselves, not you. Just like homosexuals who decided to co-opt the word "gay". You can argue that they're wrong until you're blue in the face, but they're going to keep on calling themselves that.
 
ZirconBlue said:
Because it's the people who actually have this lack of attraction who get to decide what they call themselves, not you. Just like homosexuals who decided to co-opt the word "gay". You can argue that they're wrong until you're blue in the face, but they're going to keep on calling themselves that.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

I think that a few of the people in this thread really need to get laid, or something, to take their minds off of this stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom