I'm guessing they are talking about how people can have low to no sex drive due to things that can be treated, like low testosterone, and how that's different from asexuality.
edit: I see they beat me
Why isn't asexuality included in pride?
- Thread starter Hermii
- Start date
I'm guessing they are talking about how people can have low to no sex drive due to things that can be treated, like low testosterone, and how that's different from asexuality.
edit: I see they beat me
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
I agree that GSM should be the term moving forward, in fact I am going suggest this in the LGBTQIA thread.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
I'm not saying it shouldn't be included. I can explain why something is omitted while thinking it should be given more spotlight.
I'm optimistic that we'll get there. Where we can differentiate what is asexuality and what is a symptom of a medical condition. The reason why this matters, is because the treatments to the medical conditions already exist. Care is taken to not undermine it and I'm sure that's why health professionals aren't working hard to know when it's not something they should or can help.
SomedayTheFire
Member
it doesn't have the traction or history of use that LGBT+ has. honestly, while it's a good all encompassing term, it will just confuse some people unfamiliar with it. it'll be very hard to break away from the legacy of LGBT+ and it's derivatives.
Earthbound64
Banned
Do you really feel that's "why [asexuality] is omitted"?
I mean, read the responses in this thread. There are plenty of people saying it should be omitted, and hardly any of them using the reasoning that you gave.
Not to mention GSM's common usage as a mobile phone standard.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
MOGAI works too, but I guess why it wouldn't be that marketable because it looks like the word "moai" 🙃.
MOGAI= Marginalized orientations, gender alignments, and intersex. MOGII= Marginalized orientations, gender identities, and intersex.
I agree. But I also know that civil rights movements continually change and adopt new names as they progress. It might be better to adopt a more encompassing term while we continue to give marginalized identities platforms.
Why does everything require a label and recognition of said label? I understand in cases where there has been historical discrimination concerning a specific element of one's identity (being a minority race, being gay, etc)... But when we start slapping 5-20 different labels to describe ourselves and are expecting of society to know of, recognize, and appreciate said labels I just feel like we're all missing out on some of the most important elements of the human experience, ie getting to know ourselves and others through communication (not just some instant mention in a profile or something we throw out there as soon as someone asks to describe ourselves).
How would I describe being asexual without using the term (and again expect people to know and appreciate)? If one is dating or the topic of sexual desires comes up in conversation and one is willing to share: "I don't feel much or any sexual attraction to others, instead I feel emotional attraction or I'm attracted when stimulated in another fashion" or whatever the case may be.
Starting to think what I've just described above is being old-fashioned and out of touch, but it does genuinely bother me how much we define ourselves by pre-defined labels that often have very little to do with the individuals we really are.
How would I describe being asexual without using the term (and again expect people to know and appreciate)? If one is dating or the topic of sexual desires comes up in conversation and one is willing to share: "I don't feel much or any sexual attraction to others, instead I feel emotional attraction or I'm attracted when stimulated in another fashion" or whatever the case may be.
Starting to think what I've just described above is being old-fashioned and out of touch, but it does genuinely bother me how much we define ourselves by pre-defined labels that often have very little to do with the individuals we really are.
I've read thsi in the past a few times. It matters to me because someone close to me may or may not be asexual. I don't find that blog perfect because it can apply to pretty much anyone at certain periods of life. There's nothing wrong with being broad in and of itself but it doesn't do any good in convincing people that it's a thing.
I do not like them being included frankly. I've read how a gay couple kissed each other in front of an asexual who looked at them with disgust. You see it's ok because they think all couples kissing is disgusting, never mind the fact that one of the few spaces where gay people should be without fear of being themselves now no longer exists.
This desire to be all inclusive means its a meaningless community without purpose. If I have nothing in common with a group I see so reason they should be lumped with me. I honestly see this like groups dealing with racism, I want to congregate with other natives not some nebulous POC moniker. But even then other "POC" at least have something in common with me.
So whatever I guess, let them be included it's not like pride/queer/LGBT is for people like me now is it?
This desire to be all inclusive means its a meaningless community without purpose. If I have nothing in common with a group I see so reason they should be lumped with me. I honestly see this like groups dealing with racism, I want to congregate with other natives not some nebulous POC moniker. But even then other "POC" at least have something in common with me.
So whatever I guess, let them be included it's not like pride/queer/LGBT is for people like me now is it?
This isn't about the bullshit "oppression olympics" or any other alt-right buzzwords you want to throw around.
And this is about the law, and the LGBT movement's relation to the law. The LGBT movement has been about redefining the legal rights of LGBT people, since the very beginning. Every major advance, every major milestone, has been about rolling back the oppression of the state.
Nobody is saying Aces can't or don't face discrimination.
But their existence has never been literally illegal, it is not currently literally punishable by death in several countries, they have never regularly been beaten to death and had their murders swept under the rug.
For much of modern history, being LGBT has been a deferred death sentence, a Sword of Damocles hanging over our every moment. The LGBT movement is a fight against our state sanctioned murder and oppression, not against being called mean names or asked awkward questions.
....Tell me how you feel about transgender people.
SomedayTheFire
Member
maaaaaan, i didn't even think about that.
true for sure, I don't know though. I don't think something like "GSM" or "MOGAI" will catch on in the wake of LGBT+
what is this mess of a post
Dumb fucking post. Asexual people still date.
With all due respect, the other views expressed in this thread aren't from people who pay any attention to asexuality. They don't think it's a problem for people to have it, or that people can have it, and all of that has to do with how seemingly complicated it is for people to get.
People can argue (wrongly) up and down about whether or no homosexuality is a choice... but we got people not even sure if asexuality is even an imaginable concept.
Those who do pay attention (especially those with the power to say it isn't a medical thing) need the relatively more strict definition. In my opinion, I don't think asexuality has been fully defined. Every time it's described based on its symptoms it could easily be misunderstood as something else.
I think what I'm saying is... if it weren't all so blurry we'd have more professionals being as certain of asexuality as gender dysphoria.
Earthbound64
Banned
Yeah, seriously, that's probably the worst post in this thread - and that's saying something.
And can still have (and do) have children.
Earthbound64
Banned
I'll agree with that.
But disagree with that.
And I doubt that as well.
I think you've identified one thing you perceive as an issue, and are using it to explain far too many things.
Not because of the above post, but I'm going to have to check out of this thread. There's too much I have issue with in it.
this is some straight people talk lol
my being queer has had an insanely huge influence on so many parts of my life, from where i go clubbing and drinking, the groups of people that i surround myself with, the art that i care about, the places i work, how i create my own art, and so on and so on. things like our race and our sexuality play a huge part in our lives, especially when we identify with others that are outside the 'norm'.
If you doubt this, it must be because you misunderstand how absolute I'm being. If there simply no medical condition being associated with a lack of sex drive or other reasons why someone wouldn't be interested in sexual intercourse except for asexuality, asexuality in its potentially fully understandable definition would be out there for all the world to think whatever they wanted.
With all the programs and shows out there with people talking about their asexuality, it's not the easiest thing in the world to describe and it's part of why I'm relatively passionate about the rise in awareness.
To be frank, people who are all "who gives a shit, even if it were a thing it's not bad at all" are so ignorant it's not worth my time to address them.
PaulExcellent
Member
So, if an individual considers themselves as an asexual, you'll have doubts about their statement because there are people out there that have such issues like low testosterone and so on, which, according to you, may make them perceive that they're asexual when in reality they're dealing with a medical condition. Is that what you're saying? Cause THAT sounds pretty ignorant.
So what about the people that are sure of it?
No, I don't. Others certaintly do. Look at any discussion on it and it's basically what's happening.
People who say they are asexual are of course, asexual, but let's not pretend the average joe is going to understand their explanations. What I'm hoping for is when it's no longer necessary for everyone who is asexual to have a shot at defining or describing it because we've gotten a good grasp on it. I'm not saying I have to be right, this is just my opinion, but in the form of a condensed definition we really don't have a firm grasp.
Apologies if I don't think 3 page blogs are the pinacle of descriptors.
It'll get better and when it does, awareness will too.
I don't think asexuality is usually even viewed as its own thing. People seem to think of it as the DLC of sexualities. You're either attracted to the same sex, opposite sex or a bit of both. And depending on physical attraction to those sexes, you might also call yourself asexual if you have a particularly low sex drive. Other people use the word to describe people that aren't attracted to anyone period, they don't fit into any of the three main labels. I don't think people that don't enjoy sex (which is a lot), but still date and enjoy the company of a partner should be using the term, but rather the term should be used for people who just don't want to have relationships with anyone period. It seems like the exclusion of asexuality at pride has a lot to do with no one settling on a straight forward definition.
As far as I know that term isn't associated woth the alt-right, I've only heard it used by leftists critiquing other less inclusive leftists, especially on matters of race. But nice rhetorical attempt to imply I'm alt-right.
I never said anything about the law not being relevant, it's that the issues in play go beyond the merely legal. There are deep social and cultural forces at play here, but you almost certainly known that.
But again the self-same understanding of power that has been so key to the movement demands this deeper understanding. There is more going on in matters of sexuality and power than the legal.
You're right that more obviously different people have had it worse. You wrong in using that to exclude people as plenty of others in this thread have pointed out.
Well, there are a lot of people who consider themselves asexual that love and want to be in relationships but aren't keen on the whole sex bit.
I think it's because asexuality, when juxtaposed with heterosexuality or homosexuality takes it sounds like it's about not being attracted to either male or female. When it's not. I'm sure you can have hetero, homo, and bisexual, asexual people. Except of course, some peopel find that to be an oxymoron so they say "heteromantic" or such.
Im on mobile, making it not ideal to type, but there is a lot we could elaborate on. The lack of education and understanding at a social level can still leave aces in a desperate situation and seeing people within the lbgt+ community wanting to exclude people like them out is disheartening. It reminds me of the anti bisexuals who hurt the community by spreading hateful shit that can lead people into believing het rom is the only option because of the distrust that has been spread.
Understanding and education isn't a lot to ask for but apparently some people don't deserve it because laws never harmed them!?! That's just as stupid a notion as saying any type of bigotry/ oppression ends when laws exist to protect people. By wanting to shut people out you are further oppressing a community seeking acceptance. That is gross.
purseowner
Member
That's not what asexuality is. Hell, that's not even necessarily what aromanticism is.
And please don't try and define asexuality if you're not asexual - you don't have the right, and clearly, from your post, don't know what you're talking about.
I believe you think I have some agenda that I don't. Not in any way do I think I have called for such people to be silenced or not included "until" what I hope to be true becomes true. I'm not sure if your second paragraph is directed at me, but if it is, all I can say is that I'm sorry that I'm not articulating myself properly.
If asexual people want to have their comittee, their place in pride, it better be respected otherwise those within the LGBTQ community partaking are as ignorant as those they often disagree with.
It goes to show that awareness needs to rise even within a community like pride, just how misunderstood and mistreat asexuality is in the times we live in.
How About No
Member
...whut
boiled goose
good with gravy
It's in the +.
Pride is about celebrating diversity in sexuality
Pride is about celebrating diversity in sexuality
Izuna, most of it isn't directed at you. I was still aghast at the original post. After the first line or so I it became more directed at other posters and indeed certain types of members within the community.
Typing on mobile is a slog... sorry for not being clearer about the majority of the post not being about you.
Typing on mobile is a slog... sorry for not being clearer about the majority of the post not being about you.
A Link to the Past
Banned
What a gross thread. People are really vehemently, unjustifiably behaving in a bigoted fashion against asexual people.
Yes, and we'd probably point out that the comparison you made was a legitimately dishonest and unintelligent one.
And cis people in LGBTQIA+ view trans people with disgust
And lesbians think guys are gross
And gay people think women are gross
Turns out that generalizations about an entire group of people are the last thing a person should do
Yes, and we'd probably point out that the comparison you made was a legitimately dishonest and unintelligent one.
And cis people in LGBTQIA+ view trans people with disgust
And lesbians think guys are gross
And gay people think women are gross
Turns out that generalizations about an entire group of people are the last thing a person should do
No, it's cool.
Look, it's not even my place to discuss because I don't identify, but I like to find a way to describe these things to people who are ignorant without being offensive at the same time. Not that I care to find a middle ground, but some way to have a conversation might actually have people engage, think, and hopefully change their minds. I didn't expect to be perfect.
---
However, I feel like asexuality deserves to be more than "accepted, but not understood."
Look, it's not even my place to discuss because I don't identify, but I like to find a way to describe these things to people who are ignorant without being offensive at the same time. Not that I care to find a middle ground, but some way to have a conversation might actually have people engage, think, and hopefully change their minds. I didn't expect to be perfect.
---
However, I feel like asexuality deserves to be more than "accepted, but not understood."
yanipheonu
Member
I read the situation like I do with atheism.
The Existence of Sexuality implies the Absence of Sexuality. The moment you defined sexuality, you've also defined asexuality. Asexuality is therefore an implicit and intrinsic part of sexuality as whole, they both rely on each other for definition.
I'd argue you don't need a seperate category for asexuality, it's always been a part of the spectrum of sexuality.
Though as with all things inclusive, it cant hurt to add one other category if the demand is there.
Edit: this argument also implies that being asexual isn't some genetic sin, but rather an inevitable byproduct of sexuality. Some people just won't have sex. That seems fine to me.
The Existence of Sexuality implies the Absence of Sexuality. The moment you defined sexuality, you've also defined asexuality. Asexuality is therefore an implicit and intrinsic part of sexuality as whole, they both rely on each other for definition.
I'd argue you don't need a seperate category for asexuality, it's always been a part of the spectrum of sexuality.
Though as with all things inclusive, it cant hurt to add one other category if the demand is there.
Edit: this argument also implies that being asexual isn't some genetic sin, but rather an inevitable byproduct of sexuality. Some people just won't have sex. That seems fine to me.
Huh???
finowns
Member
Who knew how controversial my post would be. The idea that someone doesn't have sexual thoughts or feelings is hard to believe unless you have a chemical problem. Not that I know much about it.
How About No
Member
Its not controversial, people literally no idea wtf you even said
SparkleMotion
Member
"The idea that a man would find a man attractive is hard to believe unless you have a chemical problem."
See how bad your post sounds now?
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
It's called empathizing...and it's very much a thing, although it kinda seems like you are offended by the very thought of it.
Just like how 50 years ago people thought you had a chemical problem if you were gay.......
A Link to the Past
Banned
Like How About No said, your post didn't mean anything and didn't make any sense. It was a Donald Trump word salad.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
At this point, it would probably easier to just call it "non-straight" + trans?
Also, I wonder, does pride mean different things than what I learned its German translation is? I know the word having the meaning "a positive feeling of accomplishment", but I think everyone would agree that sexual orientation is nothing one can accomplish, so I am always a bit puzzled why the word "pride" is used rather than "happiness" or "content" or "satisfication".
Also, I wonder, does pride mean different things than what I learned its German translation is? I know the word having the meaning "a positive feeling of accomplishment", but I think everyone would agree that sexual orientation is nothing one can accomplish, so I am always a bit puzzled why the word "pride" is used rather than "happiness" or "content" or "satisfication".
finowns
Member
Not offended it's just hard to believe. I've never seen this really talked about outside of the internet. Who's the most prominent asexual?
There doesn't need to be a prominent figure in the community for the community to exist.
What a dumb question.
SparkleMotion
Member
purseowner
Member
This answers your frankly terrible question.
To give an actual answer, David Jay is perhaps the most prominent asexual activist.