'House' episode offends asexuals

Cain said:
And I'd say that definition is too narrow as it suggests someone who wants to have **** animals is "asexual."*
Click to expand...

This objection makes no logical sense whatsoever. In the English language, context is used to help clarify issues like this. If someone is discussing asexuality in the same context as homosexuality or heterosexuality, it's bleeding obvious they're not talking about "animals".

Cain said:
I'm inclined to say no. Such a person still seeks sexual gratification.*
Click to expand...

If that sexual gratification doesn't involve fantasizing in a sexual manner because the person isn't sexually attracted to anyone, the person counts as asexual. Because in the context we're using it, asexuality refers to sexual attraction, not the act of having sex.

Cain said:
Is it possible for a man to seek out sex with other men, even at times resorting to violence to get it, and not be homosexual? Sure. Maybe he's in prison.
Click to expand...

Exactly! If a person who's asexual is under the impression that something is "wrong with her" and she has sex with someone for no other reason than she feels she has to try in order to be a "real woman", does that involve sexual attraction in any way? Does having sex that one or two times "make her hetero/homosexual" as the case may be? Of course not.

A person masturbating solely because the activity feels physically pleasurable and who isn't doing so "to the idea" of a fantasy (or real) person can still be asexual. *They're still not sexually attracted to anyone.
 
KingMerv00 said:
The 1% statistic is what precipitated the bet. House claimed they were ALL lying and wanted to effectively prove his hypothesis using this one case.

For what it's worth, it seems the writer's heart was in the right place:
Click to expand...

My problem with this is House didn't need to 'solve' the patient's sexual orientation, he could have figured out what exotic ailment was threatening the patient's life and left his orientation intact. His asexuality could have simply been a red herring.
 
The problem I had with the writer's apology was that the man's wife pretending to be asexual didn't have to happen for House to "correctly" solve the man's issue. It seemed like rather gratuitous knife-twisting. "Your husband isn't really asexual; it's a brain tumor that I just fixed." "Oh that's okay, I'm not even asexual! Now we can both have sex and be happy!" Huh?
 
Checkmite said:
This objection makes no logical sense whatsoever. In the English language, context is used to help clarify issues like this. If someone is discussing asexuality in the same context as homosexuality or heterosexuality, it's bleeding obvious they're not talking about "animals".
Click to expand...

Your own criticism describes this comment more than mine: it makes no logical sense. First off, the discussion does not take place in the context of heterosexuality and homosexuality, as others have already mentioned people attracted to children and animals and the thread of this particular discussion even mentions sunsets. So, nice try moving goalposts.

If that sexual gratification doesn't involve fantasizing in a sexual manner because the person isn't sexually attracted to anyone, the person counts as asexual. Because in the context we're using it, asexuality refers to sexual attraction, not the act of having sex.
Click to expand...

So let's be clear: they do not fantasize about anything. They do not (sexually) fantasize about being on top of a mountain, getting a raise, bossing people around, Redwoods, nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Exactly! If a person who's asexual is under the impression that something is "wrong with her" and she has sex with someone for no other reason than she feels she has to try in order to be a "real woman", does that involve sexual attraction in any way? Does having sex that one or two times "make her hetero/homosexual" as the case may be? Of course not.
Click to expand...

No. But if she masturbates three times a day imagining Grissom solving crimes with science then she's not asexual. It makes no sense for asexuals to masturbate. The man in my example "seeks" sex with other men. Asexuals seek sex with themselves. It's not like one night their hand rapes them. It makes some sense for dudes in prison to have sex with other dudes: human beings are sexual creatures.

A person masturbating solely because the activity feels physically pleasurable and who isn't doing so "to the idea" of a fantasy (or real) person can still be asexual. *They're still not sexually attracted to anyone.
Click to expand...
 
Sex requires two or more, that's why it's a union. Oral sex, anal sex, penetrative sex, masturbation---see how one doesn't have sex as part of the term? If masturbation is sexual, then so is urination--both make use of the genitals and leave the brain and its messy orientation out of it.

Yes, humans are sexual in the definition that applies to genetics. We're sexual in the definition that applies to phenotypes too. This thread is about the definition that addresses sexual orientation, in the context of other sexual orientations (meaning, aimed at humans). I'm sexual in that I possess both internal and external sexual characteristics (XX, female primary and secondary sex characteristics), but asexual in that I've never been sexually attracted to anyone. Or anything, since you seem obsessed about that.

Don't you think it's an enormous invasion of privacy for you to demand to know if someone masturbates? Don't you think it's an unwanted invasion if you deny someone's sexual orientation because of their behavior (which you really shouldn't be demanding to know about anyways)? It's none of your business!
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Sex requires two or more, that's why it's a union. Oral sex, anal sex, penetrative sex, masturbation---see how one doesn't have sex as part of the term? If masturbation is sexual, then so is urination--both make use of the genitals and leave the brain and its messy orientation out of it.
Click to expand...

Wow.... just wow...

Your understanding of sex is quite clearly non existent.

The reason urination is not a sexual activity is because it doesn't require you to be sexually active to do it. Masturbation does require you to be sexually active to do it. You need to have this thing called "hormones" (in men, testosterone, in women, progesterone), which allow you have this thing called "sexual desire". That's what defines it as a sexual activity. It has nothing to do with whether you're doing it with a partner or by yourself.
 
I'm referring to the Latin definition 'coitus', which means union or coming together. I have perfectly normal hormones, my uterus reminds me of this every month. Sexual desire is when you have the desire to have sex with someone. Scratching an itch is not a desire.
 
Cain said:
Your own criticism describes this comment more than mine: it makes no logical sense. First off, the discussion does not take place in the context of heterosexuality and homosexuality, as others have already mentioned people attracted to children and animals and the thread of this particular discussion even mentions sunsets. So, nice try moving goalposts.
Click to expand...

It's not me moving the goal posts; the people who have mention things like children, animals, and whatnot are the ones advancing your argument about asexuals not really being asexual (or whatever it is). All the Wiki article said was that "some masturbate"; presumptions about their motivations or fantasies and even how frequently they do so are all added by you, and you continually shift and morph and redefine them in an endless parade of speculative scenarios, in some kind of bizarre attempt to "gotcha" asexuality as a sexual orientation into nonexistence. Once again, when we say "asexual", we're referring to a lack of sexual attraction to any person of any gender, and we've been maintaining that without any changes at all for the entire thread.


Cain said:
So let's be clear: they do not fantasize about anything. They do not (sexually) fantasize about being on top of a mountain, getting a raise, bossing people around, Redwoods, nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Based on their own descriptions, yes - absolutely nothing. The ones that do so apparently enjoy the physical sensations and that's it - the way someone enjoys the taste of a meal or their favorite concerto and derives pleasure from it without it being "sexual" pleasure. Touching those places feels "nice" independent of sexual thoughts or feelings - or even despite mental displeasure, as some victims of child molestation will attest. Asexuals aren't numb below the waist; they're capable of noticing physical pleasure and they don't have to tie it to some kind of imagery.

Cain said:
No. But if she masturbates three times a day imagining Grissom solving crimes with science then she's not asexual.
Click to expand...

Whoever, but yes I'd agree.

Cain said:
It makes no sense for asexuals to masturbate.
Click to expand...

Does it make sense for a Mexican to enjoy Italian food on occasion?
 
Last edited:
Silly Green Monkey said:
I'm referring to the Latin definition 'coitus', which means union or coming together. I have perfectly normal hormones, my uterus reminds me of this every month. Sexual desire is when you have the desire to have sex with someone. Scratching an itch is not a desire.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.
 
Suppose you get your way, and anyone who masturbates isn't asexual. What then are people to be called? They still don't have sexual attraction, so they won't fit into any of the other sexual orientation categories. Do they just get put on a list for House to cure them?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Suppose you get your way, and anyone who masturbates isn't asexual. What then are people to be called? They still don't have sexual attraction, so they won't fit into any of the other sexual orientation categories. Do they just get put on a list for House to cure them?
Click to expand...


They are 'sexual'.

One doesn't have to be attracted sexually to someone or something else to be sexual.

Why is this so hard for you?
 
Nobody's keeping you in the thread...


So okay, there's all this manufactured contention over the ones who "masturbate". What about the ones who do not?
 
Checkmite said:
Nobody's keeping you in the thread...
Click to expand...


You certainly aren't.

I'll stay - there are a few here saying something interesting (or amusingly silly) on occasion.

All of this bickering about terminology is, I'm afraid, merely badly done masturbation.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Don't you think it's an enormous invasion of privacy for you to demand to know if someone masturbates? Don't you think it's an unwanted invasion if you deny someone's sexual orientation because of their behavior (which you really shouldn't be demanding to know about anyways)? It's none of your business!
Click to expand...

It seems this demented comment is directed at me. I do not recall asking any one what he or she fantasizes about while masturbating. You're taking this a bit too personally, and these words feel like an echo of something Kevin wrote earlier, probably to you.

Checkmite said:
It's not me moving the goal posts; the people who have mention things like children, animals, and whatnot are the ones advancing your argument about asexuals not really being asexual (or whatever it is). All the Wiki article said was that "some masturbate"; presumptions about their motivations or fantasies and even how frequently they do so are all added by you, and you continually shift and morph and redefine them in an endless parade of speculative scenarios, in some kind of bizarre attempt to "gotcha" asexuality as a sexual orientation into nonexistence. Once again, when we say "asexual", we're referring to a lack of sexual attraction to any person of any gender, and we've been maintaining that without any changes at all for the entire thread.
Click to expand...

And by making "presumptions" you of course mean asking questions, which are kind of the opposite of presumptions. You have held steadfast to your definition, I admit; too bad that definition is dumb. A person who wants to only have sex with horses could be considered asexual.

Based on their own descriptions, yes - absolutely nothing. The ones that do so apparently enjoy the physical sensations and that's it - the way someone enjoys the taste of a meal or their favorite concerto and derives pleasure from it without it being "sexual" pleasure. Touching those places feels "nice" independent of sexual thoughts or feelings - or even despite mental displeasure, as some victims of child molestation will attest. Asexuals aren't numb below the waist; they're capable of noticing physical pleasure and they don't have to tie it to some kind of imagery.
Click to expand...

Still... the masturbating bear is not asexual.

Does it make sense for a Mexican to enjoy Italian food on occasion?
Click to expand...

Yes, it makes perfect sense for a Mexican to eat Italian, but you're suggesting he can gobble down a pizza and it doesn't count against his hunger strike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom