'House' episode offends asexuals

The only real asexual people, are those who, because of a physical condition, do not have, nor can develop, sexual desires even if they wanted to.

You can consciously decide you're never going to have sex, but that's not really being asexual. You can also consciously decide to have sex with a person of your same gender, even if you don't really feel any attraction, but that doesn't make you gay.

There are real asexuals, and real gay people. There also are people who label themselves as such and behave as such, but in reality aren't.
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
The only real asexual people, are those who, because of a physical condition, do not have, no can develop, sexual desires even if they wanted to.

You can consciously decide you're never going to have sex, but that's not really being asexual. You can also consciously decide to have sex with a person of your same gender, even if you don't really feel any attraction, but that doesn't make you gay.

There are real asexuals, and real gay people. There also are people who label themselves as such and behave as such, but in reality aren't.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this; it's essentially a reiteration of what some of us were saying earlier about someone being abstinent (attracted but choosing not to engage in sex) as opposed to asexual (not sexually attracted to anyone).
 
Cain said:
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?
Click to expand...

It would frequently not be considered sex if they were heterosexual. Many homosexuals are life long virgins as they don't have vaginal intercourse by common standards.

Now these standards are frequently applied differently to homosexuals than heterosexuals but by common definition it holds.
 
I'm puzzled (and not sure if I'm arguing against K.L.'s arguments or against ghosts in my head) so I'm going to ask straight out---is it that you object to using 'asexual' in the same linguistic path as 'homosexual', 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'pansexual', 'other sexual orientation I haven't thought of'? I've done google searches for "a-oriented" (something about circuit boards), and "hetero/homo-oriented" was in use but seemed more for environment rather than individual preference----"hetero-oriented world" for example, indicating that relationships and social groupings focused on heterosexuals to the exclusion of anyone else.

If your objection is just over what term a sexual orientation gets to use, I'm afraid that ship sailed so long ago the pier is rotted. We're on the Kinsey scale and in psychology books and everything.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
I'm puzzled (and not sure if I'm arguing against K.L.'s arguments or against ghosts in my head) so I'm going to ask straight out---is it that you object to using 'asexual' in the same linguistic path as 'homosexual', 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'pansexual', 'other sexual orientation I haven't thought of'?
Click to expand...

Yes. Asexual already has a different meaning.

I've done google searches for "a-oriented" (something about circuit boards), and "hetero/homo-oriented" was in use but seemed more for environment rather than individual preference----"hetero-oriented world" for example, indicating that relationships and social groupings focused on heterosexuals to the exclusion of anyone else.
Click to expand...

It was my suggestion for a term that might describe better the group of people you want the term "asexual" to point to. "Not oriented" or "no orientation" would also work.

If your objection is just over what term a sexual orientation gets to use, I'm afraid that ship sailed so long ago the pier is rotted. We're on the Kinsey scale and in psychology books and everything.
Click to expand...

There are lots of terms academics have made up or appropriated that are unfortunate, and if what you say is correct I'm happy to call this usage of "asexual" one of them for the reasons I've already explained.
 
I think House would say that we've spent far too much time on asexuality and not nearly enough on sex.
 
Checkmite said:
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...

By this definition, oral sex is not sex. Anal sex is not sex. A handjob is not sex. Insertion of devices and/or electrical stimulation of the genitals by another person is not sex. Gay men and women do not have sex. I reject this line of thinking as absurd.

Further, according to your stated biological criteria, human beings are not asexual. We reproduce sexually. Even individual members of our species who do not procreate still have sexual organs and fluid emissions. Activity involving the sexual organs is sexual activity. This includes masturbation.
 
Yeah, we're past that part already and into the part where we're figuring out why someone masturbating matters, since asexual is used to describe a person's sexual attraction to other people (none, in this case), not whether he masturbates.
 
Checkmite said:
Yeah, we're past that part already and into the part where we're figuring out why someone masturbating matters, since asexual is used to describe a person's sexual attraction to other people (none, in this case), not whether he masturbates.
Click to expand...

I thought we were in to the part where people repeated "asexual is used to describe a person's sexual attraction to other people" over and over again hoping that if they said it enough it would become true?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I thought we were in to the part where people repeated "asexual is used to describe a person's sexual attraction to other people" over and over again hoping that if they said it enough it would become true?
Click to expand...

Is it not used in that manner? A link has been posted to an entire website which uses it in that manner. Articles have been written using it in that manner. Am I lying?
 
Checkmite said:
Is it not used in that manner? A link has been posted to an entire website which uses it in that manner. Articles have been written using it in that manner. Am I lying?
Click to expand...

Using it in that manner is counterintuitive to the majority of the population, incorrect by the dictionary definition, appropriates a term which is useful and related, and has no positive arguments in its favour except "we do it" and "it's convenient for us to do it because it avoids explanations". Am I lying?

It's also just plain linguistically wrong because you are describing a lack of an orientation not an orientation, and because the people you want to call "asexual" engage in sexual behaviour as the term is both commonly and scientifically defined.

I don't expect you to actually change your personal use of this word. As I said earlier few people are capable of reasoning about matters they think are core to their identity, and obviously the appropriated term "asexual" is important to the identity of some posters here. I'm just pointing out the relevant facts for the readers.
 
In the immortal words of Cate_Perfect, who departed AVEN long ago, "you'll have to take it up with Daniel Webster, he seems to think words can have more than one meaning."

Asexual has many meanings, from reproduction (number of sexes) to genital configuration to sexual orientation. Every sexual orientation out there ends in --sexual, so why do you feel those who lack a sexual orientation, the exact meaning of the Latin a- prefix, must use another term? Can special pleading be used to argue against something as well as for? If it can, then you are using special pleading to deny that asexuals (defined as lacking sexual attraction) can use the terms ALREADY IN COMMON USE for sexual orientations. You appear to be appealing to authority, and 'common sense/usage' is a crappy authority to appeal to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom