I find your argument well reasoned and incredibly well represented.
Well done sir. While I'm still not convinced that this need to divide and catagorise is for the best I will concede that it's something that will always be there. Human nature and all that jazz.
You have swayed me.
EDIT - I know this is a 'serious thread' and that this may be frowned upon, but this gif pretty much sums up my current feelings.
Yeah, still not working out for me.
Maybe I'm not "Progressive" enough, the idea that someone has absolutely no sexual attraction at all, to anything, seems weird.
Face it, there are some guys/gals that are just yum.
After thinking about it for a while, asexuality makes a little bit more sense to me now.. However, I am still skeptic about the ridiculous amount of asexuals that sometimes pop up on the Escapist.
Accepted. I will point out that there are a statistically higher number of people who are asexual who are involved with nerdly habits (you've got to fill the time the rest of us spend rutting, after all) as well as pointing out that straight people don't have a need to come out and say "hey, I'm straight" because they're the "norm".
There are over many people who say they are asexual though.
i dont know if this makes me bi, but i can look at a guy and say "wow he's attractive, he must get all the ladies", but im not aroused in the slightest.
Yeah, still not working out for me.
Maybe I'm not "Progressive" enough, the idea that someone has absolutely no sexual attraction at all, to anything, seems weird.
Firstly, you do know the difference between objective and subjective right?
"I find that arousing: <- subjective.
"That thing aroused me." <- objective.
Its philosophy 101 basically.
Secondly, 2500 categories is more accurate than three. One can simply be more specific when there are more categories, and therefore more terms and concepts, to explain the variations. Having 2500 categories is also more of a headache to keep track of, so I can understand that much.
Thirdly, everything has a gray area that has to be taken into account. By your logic, are you saying that taking the possibility that you find both men and women attractive is "arbitrary gray area" and therefore warrentless of a category to separate it from those who only find attractive and those who only find women attractive, gender notwithstanding?
For starters, MY philosophy 101 was at least one different statue of a naked man every class and a pretentious hipster crying about Christianity ruining the world for over 2000 years for one and a half hours twice a week. I wasn't even aware this had anything to do with philosophy.
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Sexuality as a subjective concept:
Only exists in the mind.
Is a characteristic of an individual
Relates to specific conditions of the mind distinguished from general or universal experience
Sexuality as an objective concept:
.
.
.
Yeah, I think I know what subjective and objective mean
Second and third can be mashed together, I was(i thought obviously) being sarcastic about some people's need to overclassify everything to the point of meaninglessness. If you had to pick on a percentage scale just how gay you are, what do you pick? 32% 88%, 0%, 100%? How do you even figure that out? You don't, because you can't. If you can't accurately put yourself into a classification, there are too many.
Edit: Also on a loosely related topic, Asexual is a method of reproduction that is basically self replication. Unless people suddenly start splitting off into two copies, it doesn't really make any sense to call them that. Nonsexual is a clear, unmistakable, self explanatory word.
Okay, so to start, some backstory of why I came up with this: Yesterday I was forced to discuss sexuality with a man who believed it was a black and white, set in stone thing, you are either Gay or Straight (Bisexuality is something he doesn't believe in) which really irked me since I know better.
So you ignore that by simply acknowledging that bisexuality is indeed a thing, I in fact do know better than the man who says there is only gay and straight.
Although I can only assume that your complete lack of proper response is more to the tune of you not thinking Nonsexuality is a thing, well I am one and I've never really had any reason to be anything else. There's no trauma in my past, there has been opportunity, several occasions of them in fact, but without any real proper proof that isn't going to be good enough for you.
Same goes for you.
Again, it's just a theory, but I'd be willing to bet on it.
Nonsexuality is a joke of a word. You're asexual. And I was commenting on your wording. The irony lurking behind the words I emphasized is delicious, because he's thinking the exact same thing right now.
And you're both wrong. You don't know shit.
Assuming that I have some severe childhood sexual trauma and then proceeded to repress it all is far easier to accept than the fact that I'm just not interested in sex? Are you by chance a proponent of Freudian Psychology?
And I don't know anything about my own sexuality and how I view it, all of which is presented here not as fact, but something I took some time in concocting while at work one day, all because you are objectively right, since because.
Thanks, I was starting to feel tired, now I can stay up for fear of Fever dreams involving Clowns and the subsequently ludicrous amounts of cocaine derived from said clown.
Yeah, as you've already been told, such a scale (and a much simpler one, I think, having tried to follow along with your description) already exists. But of course, there are also subdivisions, and qualifiers, and whole others sets of sexuality with a plethora of prefixes attached. It's quite a complex thing, really.
This kind of thing, ultimately: is why certain mental conditions and general states of being that used to be more categorized are being reduced back down to a single concept which are then based around the individual.
The same reason why they are trying to phase out the various types of schizophrenia (I don't mean to draw too much comparison to sexuality and mental health, it just happens to be what i'm most familiar with, as a person who generally doesn't feel the need to stop and deconstruct their own sexuality) such as paranoid or catatonic schizophrenic .
This [http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li5x6nPgxi1qczqtfo1_r1_500.jpg] is the closest categorization sheet I have found that accurately expresses orientation and identity. It doesn't split romantic inclination vs sexual inclination, but that's my one gripe about it.
With any luck, all the folks that are bi just because it's trendy will move to the new, even more special snowflake sexuality, thus marking them for all to mock.
Assuming that I have some severe childhood sexual trauma and then proceeded to repress it all is far easier to accept than the fact that I'm just not interested in sex? Are you by chance a proponent of Freudian Psychology?
And I don't know anything about my own sexuality and how I view it, all of which is presented here not as fact, but something I took some time in concocting while at work one day, all because you are objectively right, since because.
Doesn't have to be a single event, it could be a number of events that made you have a Pavlovian negative response to sex. There's nothing Freudian about it.
It's either psychological or physiological, but aside from some serious illnesses I don't know of anything physical that completely eliminates sex drive other than castration.
And as for the second paragraph: yes. People need to realize they know far less about everything, including themselves, than they think.
Unsilenced said:
It's Hollywood psychology to think that every atypical personality trait stems from a traumatic event.
A lack of desire does not in any way indicate a phobic aversion.
I mean, you're straight, right?
Were you molested by a rainbow? Involved in a horrible accident at a sausage factory? A victim of fashion police brutality?
I was in no way inferring that all abnormal personality traits originate from trauma. Being straight or gay is determined by physiology, most likely.
But a complete lack of sex drive despite pristine health is something I have yet to see outside of our species. To lack such a basic drive, something must have transpired to classically train them to have a neutral or averse attitude towards intimacy.
Doesn't have to be a single event, it could be a number of events that made you have a Pavlovian negative response to sex. There's nothing Freudian about it.
It's either psychological or physiological, but aside from some serious illnesses I don't know of anything physical that completely eliminates sex drive other than castration.
And as for the second paragraph: yes. People need to realize they know far less about
How do I factor into your calculations? I'm asexual, I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, but I've still got a sex drive. I still want to have sex (seems like a fun thing to do), Hell, I'm even kinky.
I found this a very interesting topic to read.
I think that the OP's scale actually had potential. There's no reason that just because the Kinsey scale already exists that he cant make a better version. However with regards to the sexual activity scale I believe it would be shaped as a bell curve with z=o being at the norm, the lowest on the scale being Asexuals and the highest being of course Captain Jack Harkness.
Sometimes I feel that ironically it might make my life easier.
But alas, I am drawn to beautiful women! XD
(Well, I like women with interesting personalities, (though looks do factor in a bit. A little better than plain with a great personality, definately overides a gorgeous women thats as dumb as a brick))
I wonder though if my sexual and relationship preferrences would change, when I actually do become sexually and romantically active.
(Hasn't happened yet oddly enough. I guess there must be something about me women find repulsive! X'D (Probably looking in the wrong places. But I hate going to those kind of places (I'd preffer to be at home, gaming. heh.)))
EDIT: Is it weird that I avoid porn, yet get aroused by sex scenes in movies?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
