'House' episode offends asexuals

[Cain]

I was talking about weirdness, not popularity. Or perceived popularity, for that matter. Male enjoyment of receiving oral sex is much less widespread than the cultural expectation of doing so.

I'm also talking about weirdness, but also normalcy. Not sure where you get "popularity."

You said:

Everybody defines "normal" sexuality as things they themselves do and/or are interested in.

I don't think that's true for reasons mentioned earlier.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

it's popular opinion that defines normalcy, that's where. What is 'normal' is different based on location and time.

 

[Complexity]

I was talking about weirdness, not popularity. Or perceived popularity, for that matter. Male enjoyment of receiving oral sex is much less widespread than the cultural expectation of doing so.

Maybe you're doing it wrong.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So you chose you be pedantic on asexual but not homo/hetero/bisexual, why is that?

Sorry but words mean things, and poorly-chosen word usage brings about confusion rather than communication. You can defend any misuse of language by trying to accuse the person who points out the misuse of engaging in "pedantry", but it's such a general-purpose argument it is meaningless. To make the argument stick you need to prove that this is actually pedantry in the negative sense - that nothing hangs on the distinction I am making.

I don't think you can do that, which is why you have to resort to vague and unsupported accusations of "pedantry".

I prefer the dictionary definition of them not having a biological sex.

When you encounter someone whose argument is to pick the least applicable definition of a word from the dictionary then you can be fairly sure they haven't got any intelligent arguments to deploy.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That would be me.

This is a discussion about semantics, not about what does or doesn't turn you on personally.

It makes sense in that the a- prefix means -lack of, so when I say I am not sexually attracted I am saying that I lack a sexual orientation. You can't call in religion and rocks at the same time, to make the same point. Rocks are incapable of behavior, and religion IS behavior. Neither is really relevant to the presence or absence of attraction-----behavior follows attraction, it doesn't define it (or require it).

Say what? Since when are we not allowed to have to separate arguments that both make the same point? Is anyone with two or more arguments for their position automatically wrong in your opinion, or is this a special one-off deal for me?

I'm not talking about attraction or about orientation - what gets your motor running - I'm talking about sex drive, the existence of the motor itself. If you have a sex drive and you masturbate to orgasm then you've got the motor.

Why do you believe this?

This is a bizarre question. I believe it because people in this thread have claimed that their are a-oriented people who masturbate and I have no reason to believe that they were lying about the existence of such people. If you have evidence they were lying then I'd like to see it. If you don't then let's get back to the question of whether you acknowledge that there is a difference between a-oriented masturbators and a-oriented a-sexual people. Ideally you'd answer the question this time rather than evading it by asking a strange and seemingly irrelevant question of your own.

 

[Beerina]

3. "Bachelorette" - you are dead to me.

Fine.


Good luck calling chicks "Old maid".

 

[Vortigern99]

What other group? I'm using the term in the same vein as heterosexual (attracted to members of the opposite sex), homosexual (attracted to members of the same sex), bisexual (attracted to members of both sexes), pansexual (attracted to all sexes, not just the imposed binary) and asexual (attracted to neither/no sexes). Sex drives really aren't part of sexual orientations, unless you want to claim nymphomaniac as its own orientation. There's asexuals who masturbate, asexuals who don't, asexuals who seek relationships, and asexuals who don't, but what we all have in common is that we don't experience sexual attraction to anyone or anything.

The hi-lited assertion confuses me. Masturbation is by definition sexual: it concerns the stimulation of the sexual organs for pleasure and/or the release of sexual fluids. A person who masturbates is performing a sexual act.

ETA: Yeah, what K-L writes in post #145.

 

[Checkmite]

The hi-lited assertion confuses me. Masturbation is by definition sexual: it concerns the stimulation of the sexual organs for pleasure and/or the release of sexual fluids. A person who masturbates is performing a sexual act.

Incorrect. In order for an act to be "by definition" sexual, it must involve more than one person in some way.

 

[Vortigern99]

Incorrect. In order for an act to be "by definition" sexual, it must involve more than one person in some way.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Weird Science]

Oh for heaven's sake, I should have thought this was obvious. Everybody defines "normal" sexuality as things they themselves do and/or are interested in. Anything outside that is "weird".

We often hear such claims, but is this true? Using this definition there is no sexual orientation or desire whatever that is abnormal, which would makes "normal" and "abnormal" totally meaningless when it comes to sexuality.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Say what? Since when are we not allowed to have to separate arguments that both make the same point? Is anyone with two or more arguments for their position automatically wrong in your opinion, or is this a special one-off deal for me?

I'm trying to say that those two examples are incoherent and contradictory.

I'm not talking about attraction or about orientation - what gets your motor running - I'm talking about sex drive, the existence of the motor itself. If you have a sex drive and you masturbate to orgasm then you've got the motor.

That's nice? You can't say you aren't talking about orientation when you are talking about behavior. Whether or not someone has a 'motor' reflects in no way in their having 'steering' or 'wheels'. Just to stretch your analogy a bit further.
In the context of sexual orientation, sexual orientation is all that matters. There are people whose sexual orientation is not towards males, females, both accepted extremes, the entire spectrum of sexual possibilities, but to 'none of the above'. This is where asexuality is perfectly comparable to atheism, the atheist looks at the list of religions offered and chooses 'none of the above'.

This is a bizarre question. I believe it because people in this thread have claimed that their are a-oriented people who masturbate and I have no reason to believe that they were lying about the existence of such people. If you have evidence they were lying then I'd like to see it. If you don't then let's get back to the question of whether you acknowledge that there is a difference between a-oriented masturbators and a-oriented a-sexual people. Ideally you'd answer the question this time rather than evading it by asking a strange and seemingly irrelevant question of your own.

I've been answering it all the way through, I thought, I don't consider a individual's behavior to invalidate their sexual orientation. A man sexually attracted to men is homosexual (or a mix of bisexual if there's attraction to women) regardless of whether or not he EVER has sex, regardless of who he might ever have sex with. He is homosexual whether or not feather tickling arouses him, is he not? If fetishes don't all get their own orientations, and kinks just enhance the usual sexual interactions, why would how an asexual chooses to scratch an itch (whether or not I can relate to that itch) invalidate his or her sexual orientation?

I'm trying to figure out why you're jamming behavior into orientation, it's even there in the question you want me to 'acknowledge' ---of course there's a difference between a-libidinous asexuals and asexuals with a libido! They're all still asexuals if none are sexually attracted to anyone. This definition has been constant throughout all of my posts, I've explained it at least twice now. Someone who is not sexually attracted to anyone (or anything, I feel the need to add that in) counts as asexual.

To put it another way, I am a human female, so I don't have a penis. Suppose I decided that anyone who had experiences different from mine (like being able to catch the penis in a zipper) couldn't possibly be a person, as I defined myself. Would that make any sense at all for me to do? Would humans who happen to be male and possess a penis not feel insulted by this invalidation of their identity?

 

[Ferguson]

Fine.


Good luck calling chicks "Old maid".

If spinster has really become such a degrading term, why not just call unmarried's of both genders bachelors?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm trying to say that those two examples are incoherent and contradictory.

They are neither, and I think if you try to express clearly why they are inconsistent you'll discover that.

I think the problem here is that by your own admission you perceive any questioning of how you are using the term "asexual" to be insulting and an invalidation of your identity. It's very difficult for most people to reason about anything they perceive as part of their identity, which is a good reason for rationalists to try to construct their identity so that it doesn't depend on holding any particular ideas or labels.

That's nice? You can't say you aren't talking about orientation when you are talking about behavior. Whether or not someone has a 'motor' reflects in no way in their having 'steering' or 'wheels'. Just to stretch your analogy a bit further.

Sure I can. Masturbation is a behaviour. Gays, straights, paperclip-fetishists and a-oriented people all masturbate. That behaviour has nothing to do with orientation and everything to do with whether or not you have a sexual motor running.

In the context of sexual orientation, sexual orientation is all that matters. There are people whose sexual orientation is not towards males, females, both accepted extremes, the entire spectrum of sexual possibilities, but to 'none of the above'. This is where asexuality is perfectly comparable to atheism, the atheist looks at the list of religions offered and chooses 'none of the above'.

So why not call this "a-oriented", and leave the term "asexual" to refer to people who don't have any sex drive and don't masturbate? Other than that you've decided to make calling yourself asexual part of your identity, and so you feel that any criticism of that choice of words is an attack on your identity?

You're what you are. What you or anyone else calls you can't change it.

I've been answering it all the way through, I thought, I don't consider a individual's behavior to invalidate their sexual orientation. A man sexually attracted to men is homosexual (or a mix of bisexual if there's attraction to women) regardless of whether or not he EVER has sex, regardless of who he might ever have sex with. He is homosexual whether or not feather tickling arouses him, is he not? If fetishes don't all get their own orientations, and kinks just enhance the usual sexual interactions, why would how an asexual chooses to scratch an itch (whether or not I can relate to that itch) invalidate his or her sexual orientation?

You keep begging the question by assuming that "asexual" is a sexual orientation and then reasoning from there.

I'm trying to figure out why you're jamming behavior into orientation, it's even there in the question you want me to 'acknowledge' ---of course there's a difference between a-libidinous asexuals and asexuals with a libido! They're all still asexuals if none are sexually attracted to anyone. This definition has been constant throughout all of my posts, I've explained it at least twice now. Someone who is not sexually attracted to anyone (or anything, I feel the need to add that in) counts as asexual.

I'm glad we finally got that out in the open.

The problem here is that it's just plain counterintuitive to someone outside your particular social and linguistic clique to say "I'm asexual, and I masturbate like crazy". That statement makes no sense, except to people who've bought in to your particular cultural memes.

You're calling people who clearly have a sex drive asexual, and then calling the lack of any sexual orientation a sexual orientation. It's backwards twice, and it's a recipe for confusion.

I can see how it's useful for trolling, because people will bite at the misuse of language. I can also see how it could seem politically useful to piggyback on the gains of sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. However I don't think that usefulness makes up for the straightforward incorrectness of your chosen terminology.

To put it another way, I am a human female, so I don't have a penis. Suppose I decided that anyone who had experiences different from mine (like being able to catch the penis in a zipper) couldn't possibly be a person, as I defined myself. Would that make any sense at all for me to do? Would humans who happen to be male and possess a penis not feel insulted by this invalidation of their identity?

I already said this one, but obviously I have to say it again because you don't deviate easily from your preferred script. I am making absolutely no normative argument about how people should behave or be perceived. I'm making a strictly semantic argument about the terms you use and how you use them. If your self-identity is so bound up with the word "asexual" that you can't even discuss the use of the word without feeling insulted at this invalidation of your identity then maybe this is just a topic you should avoid.

It's kind of weird because you position yourself as asexual in the sense I think the word should be used, so my argument is no threat to your identity anyway, but whatever.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry but words mean things, and poorly-chosen word usage brings about confusion rather than communication. You can defend any misuse of language by trying to accuse the person who points out the misuse of engaging in "pedantry", but it's such a general-purpose argument it is meaningless. To make the argument stick you need to prove that this is actually pedantry in the negative sense - that nothing hangs on the distinction I am making.

I don't think you can do that, which is why you have to resort to vague and unsupported accusations of "pedantry".

And use defines meaning

When you encounter someone whose argument is to pick the least applicable definition of a word from the dictionary then you can be fairly sure they haven't got any intelligent arguments to deploy.

So actual dictionary definitions don't count only definitions you make up and think are in dictionaries? Or do you have any evidence that your definition exists in any dictionaries? That is the usage of the word that is actually in dictionaries so it must be the one used here right?

 

[Pixel42]

If person A is sexually attracted to person B they want to know whether there is any chance that that attraction might be recipricated and "sorry, I'm asexual" is the easiest way for someone who is not attracted to either sex to break the news that there isn't, in the same way "sorry, I'm gay" would be if person A was heterosexual or "sorry, I'm straight" would be if person A was homosexual. What person B gets up to in the privacy of their own bedroom may be of interest to students of human sexuality but it's of no relevance to person A, who needs to understand that they are wasting their time pursuing person B and should look elsewhere for a sexual relationship.

If there was a word that could be used to get that message across that would satisfy the pedants more then fine, but I can't think of one. Celibate certainly isn't it, because that would surely suggest a choice is being made which could be changed. So using the word asexual to describe someone who is not interested in any kind of sexual relationship, regardless of other less visible aspects of their sexuality, seems reasonable to me. It's the word I use to describe my own sexuality, on the rare occasions that I need one.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If person A is sexually attracted to person B they want to know whether there is any chance that that attraction might be recipricated and "sorry, I'm asexual" is the easiest way for someone who is not attracted to either sex to break the news that there isn't, in the same way "sorry, I'm gay" would be if person A was heterosexual or "sorry, I'm straight" would be if person A was homosexual. What person B gets up to in the privacy of their own bedroom may be of interest to students of human sexuality but it's of no relevance to person A, who needs to understand that they are wasting their time pursuing person B and should look elsewhere for a sexual relationship.

Whether a term is convenient for a social purpose isn't what determines whether it's accurate or not. If telling them you were an axolotl worked even better that wouldn't make you an axolotl.

If there was a word that could be used to get that message across that would satisfy the pedants more then fine, but I can't think of one.

How about "I'm not interested"?

The logic here seems to be that you don't have a convenient term to use, so that makes it okay to appropriate the most convenient term and use that even if it doesn't make sense. I wouldn't have a problem with it except that calling people with a sex drive asexual is just asking for confusion. Maybe it doesn't seem that way to you because you've been using that term your way for a while, but believe me to someone outside your clique it's a very weird way to use the term.

And use defines meaning

Certainly, and what percentage of the population do you think would do a double take if you said "I know this asexual person who's always masturbating"?

Unless you're Humpty Dumpty and you think that you personally can define words as you see fit on the fly, the defined meaning of asexual is not a good fit for people with a sex drive, regardless of what does or does not get them hot and bothered.

So actual dictionary definitions don't count only definitions you make up and think are in dictionaries? Or do you have any evidence that your definition exists in any dictionaries? That is the usage of the word that is actually in dictionaries so it must be the one used here right?

In my younger days I took a degree of pleasure in beating people over the head with a dictionary, but these days my view is that if someone's just plain wrong about the meaning of a word and they can't look it up on their own then the odds of me getting anything out of an exchange with them approach zero. Nowadays I look for people who are wrong in more interesting ways than that.

Here's a link to one on-line dictionary, the top google hit. Pick a different such source if you prefer. Lack of interest in or desire for sex is there in black and white. Lack of sexual orientation while masturbating as much as anybody else isn't.

If you can't find more interesting ways to be wrong I see no further point in responding to you.

 

[Checkmite]

If there was a word that could be used to get that message across that would satisfy the pedants more then fine, but I can't think of one. Celibate certainly isn't it, because that would surely suggest a choice is being made which could be changed. So using the word asexual to describe someone who is not interested in any kind of sexual relationship, regardless of other less visible aspects of their sexuality, seems reasonable to me. It's the word I use to describe my own sexuality, on the rare occasions that I need one.

That's pretty much it, exactly. This forum must be the only place I've seen where anybody expressed confusion over what exactly someone means when they refer to themselves as asexual. Where homosexual means attracted to members of the same sex, heterosexual means attracted to the opposite sex, and bisexual means attracted to members of either sex, everyone (until now) seems to "get" that asexual means attracted to no one of either sex (even if they don't understand how that's possible).

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What other group? I'm using the term in the same vein as heterosexual (attracted to members of the opposite sex), homosexual (attracted to members of the same sex), bisexual (attracted to members of both sexes), pansexual (attracted to all sexes, not just the imposed binary) and asexual (attracted to neither/no sexes). Sex drives really aren't part of sexual orientations, unless you want to claim nymphomaniac as its own orientation. There's asexuals who masturbate, asexuals who don't, asexuals who seek relationships, and asexuals who don't, but what we all have in common is that we don't experience sexual attraction to anyone or anything.

Tsk tsk tsk. I see what you did there. You changed the wording. You made it so that instead of defining it as "Not attracted to any sex", you reworded it to "Attracted to neither/no sexes", so that it looks like it belongs in the list of "Attracted to..." options. But no. It turns out, it doesn't belong. In the same way that Atheism doesn't belong in the list of Religions, even though a lot of people define Atheism as "Belief that there is no God", and so they claim that "You see? Atheists are also believers!". It's the same dishonest rewording technique.

 

[Complexity]

How can a discussion about House, a delightful and irreverent show, become so deadly dull?

What a shame.

Several of you are utterly lacking a sense of humor.