I think LGBT is a bit shit. T isn't a sexuality so shouldn't just be lumped in with the others.
Personally I don't like labels. Coincidentally, I had to review my personal info my employer keeps today (things like emergency contact) and noticed that I had "declined to answer" questions about my sexuality and race (which are presumably asked to monitor diversity). I had forgotten I did that.
This began in the Religion forum, Ken Ham: Stop Using LGBT. Jobar.
-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
LGBT and other labels
-
Ozymandias
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:11 pm
LGBT and other labels
Last edited by Jobar on Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[quote=""Ozymandias""]I think LGBT is a bit shit. T isn't a sexuality so shouldn't just be lumped in with the others.
Personally I don't like labels. Coincidentally, I had to review my personal info my employer keeps today (things like emergency contact) and noticed that I had "declined to answer" questions about my sexuality and race (which are presumably asked to monitor diversity). I had forgotten I did that.[/quote]
LGBT was never meant to be a categorical descriptor - in fact, the whole reason for the rainbow flag was that Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts had been suffering in isolation to that point, but realized they didn't need to. The LGBT label came into vogue as advocacy on sex and gender issues became more of a shared political project, between groups that had historically seen themselves as separate but recognized that mutual advocacy would result in better gains for all. A disparate group working together is more effective than tiny but well-defined groups working separately, if all four are fighting essentially the same political engine, religious conservativism, that was equally inimical to anyone who fell outside of a certain set of rigidly defined gender norms. The label has grown, because the alliance has grown.
Personally I don't like labels. Coincidentally, I had to review my personal info my employer keeps today (things like emergency contact) and noticed that I had "declined to answer" questions about my sexuality and race (which are presumably asked to monitor diversity). I had forgotten I did that.[/quote]
LGBT was never meant to be a categorical descriptor - in fact, the whole reason for the rainbow flag was that Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts had been suffering in isolation to that point, but realized they didn't need to. The LGBT label came into vogue as advocacy on sex and gender issues became more of a shared political project, between groups that had historically seen themselves as separate but recognized that mutual advocacy would result in better gains for all. A disparate group working together is more effective than tiny but well-defined groups working separately, if all four are fighting essentially the same political engine, religious conservativism, that was equally inimical to anyone who fell outside of a certain set of rigidly defined gender norms. The label has grown, because the alliance has grown.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
[quote=""Tubby""]
Nonhuman species have divisions of sex, they do not have gender roles. Gender is by definition a product of society, and because of this are free to vary wildly. If you are a panda, being biologically male or female gives you different instincts, which you follow. If you are a human, being a "man" or "woman" (or "trans" or "mahu" or "hijra") gives you a set of social ideals to live up to that are particular to your culture, and which likely change over time even within your lifetime. Being cultural constructs, gender perceptions change along with culture much faster and variably than a sex instinct could.
What is your explanation for gender roles seen in nonhuman species?[/QUOTE]Rheanne;679190 wrote: The point I'd like to make is that gender is a social construct.
Nonhuman species have divisions of sex, they do not have gender roles. Gender is by definition a product of society, and because of this are free to vary wildly. If you are a panda, being biologically male or female gives you different instincts, which you follow. If you are a human, being a "man" or "woman" (or "trans" or "mahu" or "hijra") gives you a set of social ideals to live up to that are particular to your culture, and which likely change over time even within your lifetime. Being cultural constructs, gender perceptions change along with culture much faster and variably than a sex instinct could.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
That sums it up very well.
There is no denying that binary sexes confer an evolutionary advantage, but the sex roles created thereby are static and by necessity inflexible in the face of selective pressure, since they are biological in origin and expression.
Gender roles, on the other hand (and here it comes), are memetic.
There is no denying that binary sexes confer an evolutionary advantage, but the sex roles created thereby are static and by necessity inflexible in the face of selective pressure, since they are biological in origin and expression.
Gender roles, on the other hand (and here it comes), are memetic.
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Politesse""]
If I remember correctly the entire gay rights movement (globally) is a direct result of the Stonewall riots in New York. In that riot the first stones was thrown by transvestites, who also put up the best fight. So when the acronym was created (1988?) LGBT was given, since it reflected the make-up of the Stonewall rioters. And it just stuck.
Adding new letters after it is natural since it's fundamentally an inclusive movement. Acronyms are a tool for communication. As long as it starts with LGBT it does it's job.
What cracks me up in every Pride parade is the asexuals. There's a sexuality that doesn't belong, since it's not. It would be like an atheist showing up at Catholic mass celebrating the glory of not-God. And of course with their flag LGBTQA ha ha ha. They're the atheists of the queer movement.
LGBT was never meant to be a categorical descriptor - in fact, the whole reason for the rainbow flag was that Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts had been suffering in isolation to that point, but realized they didn't need to. The LGBT label came into vogue as advocacy on sex and gender issues became more of a shared political project, between groups that had historically seen themselves as separate but recognized that mutual advocacy would result in better gains for all. A disparate group working together is more effective than tiny but well-defined groups working separately, if all four are fighting essentially the same political engine, religious conservativism, that was equally inimical to anyone who fell outside of a certain set of rigidly defined gender norms. The label has grown, because the alliance has grown.[/QUOTE]Ozymandias;678833 wrote:I think LGBT is a bit shit. T isn't a sexuality so shouldn't just be lumped in with the others.
Personally I don't like labels. Coincidentally, I had to review my personal info my employer keeps today (things like emergency contact) and noticed that I had "declined to answer" questions about my sexuality and race (which are presumably asked to monitor diversity). I had forgotten I did that.
If I remember correctly the entire gay rights movement (globally) is a direct result of the Stonewall riots in New York. In that riot the first stones was thrown by transvestites, who also put up the best fight. So when the acronym was created (1988?) LGBT was given, since it reflected the make-up of the Stonewall rioters. And it just stuck.
Adding new letters after it is natural since it's fundamentally an inclusive movement. Acronyms are a tool for communication. As long as it starts with LGBT it does it's job.
What cracks me up in every Pride parade is the asexuals. There's a sexuality that doesn't belong, since it's not. It would be like an atheist showing up at Catholic mass celebrating the glory of not-God. And of course with their flag LGBTQA ha ha ha. They're the atheists of the queer movement.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
-
Jackrabbit
- Posts: 1312
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
- Location: City Dump
Are they mistreated like the others? Denied shit and despised? Certainly catholics would hate them, for not participating in the overpopulation mandate, but what about other religious fanatics?
On the other hand, there's no actual reason for the hatred of atheists either, so there ya go. The crime is "not being exactly like me".
On the other hand, there's no actual reason for the hatred of atheists either, so there ya go. The crime is "not being exactly like me".
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]If I remember correctly the entire gay rights movement (globally) is a direct result of the Stonewall riots in New York. In that riot the first stones was thrown by transvestites, who also put up the best fight. So when the acronym was created (1988?) LGBT was given, since it reflected the make-up of the Stonewall rioters. And it just stuck.
[/quote]Sounds like a folk history to me. GLBT didn't really come into common use until the late 1990s. If I had to point to a "reason" for the inclusion, it would be the very vocal advocacy of bisexual rights types like Maggie Rubenstein, and if there were a single incident that really pushed the term into mainstream use, I would point to the crucifixion of Matthew Shepard and the subsequent outcry. But the term was already floating around for a few years before then.
[/quote]Sounds like a folk history to me. GLBT didn't really come into common use until the late 1990s. If I had to point to a "reason" for the inclusion, it would be the very vocal advocacy of bisexual rights types like Maggie Rubenstein, and if there were a single incident that really pushed the term into mainstream use, I would point to the crucifixion of Matthew Shepard and the subsequent outcry. But the term was already floating around for a few years before then.
If you think it's foolish to make common cause with other religious minorities, I can't help you with that! I imagine you suck at chess? When Rastafarians and Vodouisants and FLDS lose rights under the law, so do you; any curbing of religious freedom curbs your independence also.What cracks me up in every Pride parade is the asexuals. There's a sexuality that doesn't belong, since it's not. It would be like an atheist showing up at Catholic mass celebrating the glory of not-God. And of course with their flag LGBTQA ha ha ha. They're the atheists of the queer movement.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Politesse""]
If you think it's foolish to make common cause with other religious minorities, I can't help you with that! I imagine you suck at chess? When Rastafarians and Vodouisants and FLDS lose rights under the law, so do you; any curbing of religious freedom curbs your independence also.[/quote]
When has anybody ever had a problem with asexuality?They're fighting for rights that nobody ever has threatened to take away from them. They're not fighting for a common cause... because they don't have one.
Yes, I'm aware that the LGBT movement isn't about sex. It's about love. But people who love each other only to meet and play chess, aren't in a relationship IMHO. They're just friends. If they live together, they're not a couple. They're flatmates.
I think they just feel left out. They also want to feel the need to fight an oppressor. To have sexual relationships like regular people, but thanks to a low libido/testosterone deficiency, they just can't find it in them. So they crash the LGBT Pride parade... with their gloomy... no fun... faces... and glare at everybody. Yup, they all do. It never fails. Just suck the fun out of the parade. Well... they try. Doesn't work. Other people are to busy having fun. At least Rastafarians smoke weed. I'll have homophobic Rastafarians over boring asexuals any day.
I think sex is something you do. Not having sex isn't having a different kind of sex. It's just not having sex. I don't think they're fighting a common cause. I think they are fun-parasites.
If you think it's foolish to make common cause with other religious minorities, I can't help you with that! I imagine you suck at chess? When Rastafarians and Vodouisants and FLDS lose rights under the law, so do you; any curbing of religious freedom curbs your independence also.[/quote]
When has anybody ever had a problem with asexuality?They're fighting for rights that nobody ever has threatened to take away from them. They're not fighting for a common cause... because they don't have one.
Yes, I'm aware that the LGBT movement isn't about sex. It's about love. But people who love each other only to meet and play chess, aren't in a relationship IMHO. They're just friends. If they live together, they're not a couple. They're flatmates.
I think they just feel left out. They also want to feel the need to fight an oppressor. To have sexual relationships like regular people, but thanks to a low libido/testosterone deficiency, they just can't find it in them. So they crash the LGBT Pride parade... with their gloomy... no fun... faces... and glare at everybody. Yup, they all do. It never fails. Just suck the fun out of the parade. Well... they try. Doesn't work. Other people are to busy having fun. At least Rastafarians smoke weed. I'll have homophobic Rastafarians over boring asexuals any day.
I think sex is something you do. Not having sex isn't having a different kind of sex. It's just not having sex. I don't think they're fighting a common cause. I think they are fun-parasites.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
Yes, I'm aware that the LGBT movement isn't about sex. It's about love. But people who love each other only to meet and play chess, aren't in a relationship IMHO. They're just friends. If they live together, they're not a couple. They're flatmates.
I think they just feel left out. They also want to feel the need to fight an oppressor. To have sexual relationships like regular people, but thanks to a low libido/testosterone deficiency, they just can't find it in them. So they crash the LGBT Pride parade... with their gloomy... no fun... faces... and glare at everybody. Yup, they all do. It never fails. Just suck the fun out of the parade. Well... they try. Doesn't work. Other people are to busy having fun. At least Rastafarians smoke weed. I'll have homophobic Rastafarians over boring asexuals any day.
I think sex is something you do. Not having sex isn't having a different kind of sex. It's just not having sex. I don't think they're fighting a common cause. I think they are fun-parasites.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you should avoid LGBTQIA+ events for a little while...
When has anybody ever had a problem with asexuality?They're fighting for rights that nobody ever has threatened to take away from them. They're not fighting for a common cause... because they don't have one.Politesse;679256 wrote: If you think it's foolish to make common cause with other religious minorities, I can't help you with that! I imagine you suck at chess? When Rastafarians and Vodouisants and FLDS lose rights under the law, so do you; any curbing of religious freedom curbs your independence also.
Yes, I'm aware that the LGBT movement isn't about sex. It's about love. But people who love each other only to meet and play chess, aren't in a relationship IMHO. They're just friends. If they live together, they're not a couple. They're flatmates.
I think they just feel left out. They also want to feel the need to fight an oppressor. To have sexual relationships like regular people, but thanks to a low libido/testosterone deficiency, they just can't find it in them. So they crash the LGBT Pride parade... with their gloomy... no fun... faces... and glare at everybody. Yup, they all do. It never fails. Just suck the fun out of the parade. Well... they try. Doesn't work. Other people are to busy having fun. At least Rastafarians smoke weed. I'll have homophobic Rastafarians over boring asexuals any day.
I think sex is something you do. Not having sex isn't having a different kind of sex. It's just not having sex. I don't think they're fighting a common cause. I think they are fun-parasites.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you should avoid LGBTQIA+ events for a little while...
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
-
Ozymandias
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:11 pm
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
Yes, I'm aware that the LGBT movement isn't about sex. It's about love. But people who love each other only to meet and play chess, aren't in a relationship IMHO. They're just friends. If they live together, they're not a couple. They're flatmates.
I think they just feel left out. They also want to feel the need to fight an oppressor. To have sexual relationships like regular people, but thanks to a low libido/testosterone deficiency, they just can't find it in them. So they crash the LGBT Pride parade... with their gloomy... no fun... faces... and glare at everybody. Yup, they all do. It never fails. Just suck the fun out of the parade. Well... they try. Doesn't work. Other people are to busy having fun. At least Rastafarians smoke weed. I'll have homophobic Rastafarians over boring asexuals any day.
I think sex is something you do. Not having sex isn't having a different kind of sex. It's just not having sex. I don't think they're fighting a common cause. I think they are fun-parasites.[/QUOTE]
Wow. I thought I was an unempathic bigot, but it looks like you have me beat.
When has anybody ever had a problem with asexuality?They're fighting for rights that nobody ever has threatened to take away from them. They're not fighting for a common cause... because they don't have one.Politesse;679256 wrote: If you think it's foolish to make common cause with other religious minorities, I can't help you with that! I imagine you suck at chess? When Rastafarians and Vodouisants and FLDS lose rights under the law, so do you; any curbing of religious freedom curbs your independence also.
Yes, I'm aware that the LGBT movement isn't about sex. It's about love. But people who love each other only to meet and play chess, aren't in a relationship IMHO. They're just friends. If they live together, they're not a couple. They're flatmates.
I think they just feel left out. They also want to feel the need to fight an oppressor. To have sexual relationships like regular people, but thanks to a low libido/testosterone deficiency, they just can't find it in them. So they crash the LGBT Pride parade... with their gloomy... no fun... faces... and glare at everybody. Yup, they all do. It never fails. Just suck the fun out of the parade. Well... they try. Doesn't work. Other people are to busy having fun. At least Rastafarians smoke weed. I'll have homophobic Rastafarians over boring asexuals any day.
I think sex is something you do. Not having sex isn't having a different kind of sex. It's just not having sex. I don't think they're fighting a common cause. I think they are fun-parasites.[/QUOTE]
Wow. I thought I was an unempathic bigot, but it looks like you have me beat.
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Ozymandias""]
Yay. It looks like I won the Internet!!!
Wow. I thought I was an unempathic bigot, but it looks like you have me beat.[/QUOTE]DrZoidberg;679258 wrote:When has anybody ever had a problem with asexuality?They're fighting for rights that nobody ever has threatened to take away from them. They're not fighting for a common cause... because they don't have one.Politesse;679256 wrote: If you think it's foolish to make common cause with other religious minorities, I can't help you with that! I imagine you suck at chess? When Rastafarians and Vodouisants and FLDS lose rights under the law, so do you; any curbing of religious freedom curbs your independence also.
Yes, I'm aware that the LGBT movement isn't about sex. It's about love. But people who love each other only to meet and play chess, aren't in a relationship IMHO. They're just friends. If they live together, they're not a couple. They're flatmates.
I think they just feel left out. They also want to feel the need to fight an oppressor. To have sexual relationships like regular people, but thanks to a low libido/testosterone deficiency, they just can't find it in them. So they crash the LGBT Pride parade... with their gloomy... no fun... faces... and glare at everybody. Yup, they all do. It never fails. Just suck the fun out of the parade. Well... they try. Doesn't work. Other people are to busy having fun. At least Rastafarians smoke weed. I'll have homophobic Rastafarians over boring asexuals any day.
I think sex is something you do. Not having sex isn't having a different kind of sex. It's just not having sex. I don't think they're fighting a common cause. I think they are fun-parasites.
Yay. It looks like I won the Internet!!!
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
Some while back, I joined Christian Forums.
So I can well believe that many asexuals are entirely out of place at any sort of LGBT+ parade or gathering; I wouldn't doubt a lot of them are Christians. And we all know how most Christians celebrate and enjoy their kinkiness, don't we?Well, there are individual posts in some of those 'Struggles with sexuality' (their name for it) forum threads which are... non-condemnatory, I suppose is the right word. More gentle, more generous. And of course I've only read a tiny percentage of them. But the general atmosphere is just awful, sad, self-hating; so many of them claim they wish they were totally asexual.
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Jobar""]Some while back, I joined Christian Forums.
[/quote]
Nice theory. But we've got plenty of them in atheistic Sweden. I think asexuality is a symptom of something. Could be all manner of things. But for whatever reason, psychological or physical, they're turned off sex. What they need isn't acceptance, it's help. I think accepting these people will have the opposite effect. I mean... the last thing teenagers need is somebody telling them that abstinence is the answer. That's just asking for teen pregnancy. This is the same but opposite. Sometimes telling people that they're fine the way they are, isn't actually helping them.
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
I think it's doubly inappropriate at a Pride parade since gays have in all ages been asked to "can't you just not have sex?". I think it's anathema to what Pride is IMHO. Not that anybody asked me.
Just by the look of them I think all the asexuals I've seen at Pride parades are all clinically depressed. I base this on nothing but superficial judgement. I am not a professional and really shouldn't make judgements like it. But if I had to put money on a diagnosis... that's where I'd put my money.
So I can well believe that many asexuals are entirely out of place at any sort of LGBT+ parade or gathering; I wouldn't doubt a lot of them are Christians. And we all know how most Christians celebrate and enjoy their kinkiness, don't we?Well, there are individual posts in some of those 'Struggles with sexuality' (their name for it) forum threads which are... non-condemnatory, I suppose is the right word. More gentle, more generous. And of course I've only read a tiny percentage of them. But the general atmosphere is just awful, sad, self-hating; so many of them claim they wish they were totally asexual.
[/quote]Nice theory. But we've got plenty of them in atheistic Sweden. I think asexuality is a symptom of something. Could be all manner of things. But for whatever reason, psychological or physical, they're turned off sex. What they need isn't acceptance, it's help. I think accepting these people will have the opposite effect. I mean... the last thing teenagers need is somebody telling them that abstinence is the answer. That's just asking for teen pregnancy. This is the same but opposite. Sometimes telling people that they're fine the way they are, isn't actually helping them.
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
I think it's doubly inappropriate at a Pride parade since gays have in all ages been asked to "can't you just not have sex?". I think it's anathema to what Pride is IMHO. Not that anybody asked me.
Just by the look of them I think all the asexuals I've seen at Pride parades are all clinically depressed. I base this on nothing but superficial judgement. I am not a professional and really shouldn't make judgements like it. But if I had to put money on a diagnosis... that's where I'd put my money.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
I'm happily hetero, and still active at 62- but I don't think that asexuals are always less happy or necessarily unsatisfied with their lives, really. I do wonder if they have more social problems, since sexuality is so tightly bound up with most peoples' social lives. Is anyone aware of any studies done on asexuality, happiness, and social adaptation?
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Nice theory. But we've got plenty of them in atheistic Sweden. I think asexuality is a symptom of something. Could be all manner of things. But for whatever reason, psychological or physical, they're turned off sex. What they need isn't acceptance, it's help. I think accepting these people will have the opposite effect. I mean... the last thing teenagers need is somebody telling them that abstinence is the answer. That's just asking for teen pregnancy. This is the same but opposite. Sometimes telling people that they're fine the way they are, isn't actually helping them.
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
I think it's doubly inappropriate at a Pride parade since gays have in all ages been asked to "can't you just not have sex?". I think it's anathema to what Pride is IMHO. Not that anybody asked me.
Just by the look of them I think all the asexuals I've seen at Pride parades are all clinically depressed. I base this on nothing but superficial judgement. I am not a professional and really shouldn't make judgements like it. But if I had to put money on a diagnosis... that's where I'd put my money.[/quote]
So, you're spouting bigoted, innaccurate opinions, and medicalizing people's preferences as some kind of mental disorder... to prove that advocacy and education about asexuality isn't needed? A bit self-defeating, that line of argument. You could swap out "asexual" for "sodomy" in the above paragraphs, you'd practically be quoting the consensus of 1960's social constructionist psychology on homosexuality. They didn't hate gays, oh no, they just didn't want to encourage them to indulge in their anti-social and damaging behaviors. They wanted to help them - by pressuring them to have sex with people they did not desire, and putting them in "therapy" to "cure" them of their deviance.
So yeah, they can march with whoever they like imo. If they're perpetually unhappy, it's probably because jerks like yourself are trying to convince them that they're brain-damaged all the time. It takes a special kind of nasty to bully and exclude someone, and then criticize them for being sad.
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
I think it's doubly inappropriate at a Pride parade since gays have in all ages been asked to "can't you just not have sex?". I think it's anathema to what Pride is IMHO. Not that anybody asked me.
Just by the look of them I think all the asexuals I've seen at Pride parades are all clinically depressed. I base this on nothing but superficial judgement. I am not a professional and really shouldn't make judgements like it. But if I had to put money on a diagnosis... that's where I'd put my money.[/quote]
So, you're spouting bigoted, innaccurate opinions, and medicalizing people's preferences as some kind of mental disorder... to prove that advocacy and education about asexuality isn't needed? A bit self-defeating, that line of argument. You could swap out "asexual" for "sodomy" in the above paragraphs, you'd practically be quoting the consensus of 1960's social constructionist psychology on homosexuality. They didn't hate gays, oh no, they just didn't want to encourage them to indulge in their anti-social and damaging behaviors. They wanted to help them - by pressuring them to have sex with people they did not desire, and putting them in "therapy" to "cure" them of their deviance.
So yeah, they can march with whoever they like imo. If they're perpetually unhappy, it's probably because jerks like yourself are trying to convince them that they're brain-damaged all the time. It takes a special kind of nasty to bully and exclude someone, and then criticize them for being sad.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Politesse""]
[/QUOTE]
WTF are you on about? It's not the same thing. For the reason that atheism isn't another religion. Not playing tennis isn't a sport. Asexuality isn't a sexual preference.
Swaping out asexual for sodomy makes no fucking sense. "Arnold took out his magnificent man meat, gently separated Rogers ass cheeks and did not ram it in. Instead they played Ticket to Ride. Much to Roger's dismay Arnold got all the best tickets".
[quote=""Politesse""]
So yeah, they can march with whoever they like imo. If they're perpetually unhappy, it's probably because jerks like yourself are trying to convince them that they're brain-damaged all the time. It takes a special kind of nasty to bully and exclude someone, and then criticize them for being sad.[/quote]
Yeah, well. I think Pride is about celebrating people living the life they want. Not about celebrating people not having a life. It's about encouraging people to go for it. Not about encouraging them to NOT go for it.
I think asexuals at Pride parades are just being dicks. I'm all for people doing whatever. But nobody has ever tried preventing people from not having sex. In our sex phobic culture asexuality couldn't be less of a problem. I think they're problematising something that isn't. I've got lots of friends I don't have sex with. I think that's fairly normal. No? Or do you compulsively fuck everybody you are friends with?
People today don't even have to fuck to have children. Artificial insemination! It's NOT a problem!
But I'm also against preventing people from joining the Pride parade. I'm for radical inclusivity. But I will make judgements in my head. This is one of them.
So, you're spouting bigoted, innaccurate opinions, and medicalizing people's preferences as some kind of mental disorder... to prove that advocacy and education about asexuality isn't needed? A bit self-defeating, that line of argument. You could swap out "asexual" for "sodomy" in the above paragraphs, you'd practically be quoting the consensus of 1960's social constructionist psychology on homosexuality. They didn't hate gays, oh no, they just didn't want to encourage them to indulge in their anti-social and damaging behaviors. They wanted to help them - by pressuring them to have sex with people they did not desire, and putting them in "therapy" to "cure" them of their deviance.DrZoidberg;679318 wrote:Nice theory. But we've got plenty of them in atheistic Sweden. I think asexuality is a symptom of something. Could be all manner of things. But for whatever reason, psychological or physical, they're turned off sex. What they need isn't acceptance, it's help. I think accepting these people will have the opposite effect. I mean... the last thing teenagers need is somebody telling them that abstinence is the answer. That's just asking for teen pregnancy. This is the same but opposite. Sometimes telling people that they're fine the way they are, isn't actually helping them.
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
I think it's doubly inappropriate at a Pride parade since gays have in all ages been asked to "can't you just not have sex?". I think it's anathema to what Pride is IMHO. Not that anybody asked me.
Just by the look of them I think all the asexuals I've seen at Pride parades are all clinically depressed. I base this on nothing but superficial judgement. I am not a professional and really shouldn't make judgements like it. But if I had to put money on a diagnosis... that's where I'd put my money.
[/QUOTE]
WTF are you on about? It's not the same thing. For the reason that atheism isn't another religion. Not playing tennis isn't a sport. Asexuality isn't a sexual preference.
Swaping out asexual for sodomy makes no fucking sense. "Arnold took out his magnificent man meat, gently separated Rogers ass cheeks and did not ram it in. Instead they played Ticket to Ride. Much to Roger's dismay Arnold got all the best tickets".
[quote=""Politesse""]
So yeah, they can march with whoever they like imo. If they're perpetually unhappy, it's probably because jerks like yourself are trying to convince them that they're brain-damaged all the time. It takes a special kind of nasty to bully and exclude someone, and then criticize them for being sad.[/quote]
Yeah, well. I think Pride is about celebrating people living the life they want. Not about celebrating people not having a life. It's about encouraging people to go for it. Not about encouraging them to NOT go for it.
I think asexuals at Pride parades are just being dicks. I'm all for people doing whatever. But nobody has ever tried preventing people from not having sex. In our sex phobic culture asexuality couldn't be less of a problem. I think they're problematising something that isn't. I've got lots of friends I don't have sex with. I think that's fairly normal. No? Or do you compulsively fuck everybody you are friends with?
People today don't even have to fuck to have children. Artificial insemination! It's NOT a problem!
But I'm also against preventing people from joining the Pride parade. I'm for radical inclusivity. But I will make judgements in my head. This is one of them.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]I think asexuals at Pride parades are just being dicks. I'm all for people doing whatever. But nobody has ever tried preventing people from not having sex.[/quote]
You say, as you rail incoherently at people for doing exactly that.
And this is bullshit anyway. Are you aware that in many parts of the world, wives can be legally raped by their husbands if they try to deny them sex?
It's only been illegal for the last twenty years in my otherwise-liberal state, and this crime is still considered different from raping a stranger in terms of prosecution and consequences. Religions only prohibit "deviant" sex; you're not looking at the whole picture if you are imagining that the young aren't pressured to marry and procreate, with varying degrees of force.
You say, as you rail incoherently at people for doing exactly that.
And this is bullshit anyway. Are you aware that in many parts of the world, wives can be legally raped by their husbands if they try to deny them sex?
It's only been illegal for the last twenty years in my otherwise-liberal state, and this crime is still considered different from raping a stranger in terms of prosecution and consequences. Religions only prohibit "deviant" sex; you're not looking at the whole picture if you are imagining that the young aren't pressured to marry and procreate, with varying degrees of force.
Last edited by Politesse on Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Politesse""]
You say, as you rail incoherently at people for doing exactly that.
And this is bullshit anyway. Are you aware that in many parts of the world, wives can be legally raped by their husbands if they try to deny them sex?
It's only been illegal for the last twenty years in my otherwise-liberal state, and this crime is still considered different from raping a stranger in terms of prosecution and consequences. Religions only prohibit "deviant" sex; you're not looking at the whole picture if you are imagining that the young aren't pressured to marry and procreate, with varying degrees of force.[/QUOTE]
You must be desperate making your point when grasping for these straws? I don't recall reading an asexual sign reading "marching for all the asexuals who can't". I don't think these people give a flying fuck about anybody but their own imagined victimhood. I base this on the vibe they give off.
Yes, I can understand that it can be annoying for an asexual when being pressured into marrying and procreating. But we're all pressured into that. More or less subtly. I've never had kids. I don't want them. Much to my parents dismay. I still don't feel like a victim. Besides, if it's such an issue why don't asexuals just marry each other? Problem solved. Beats paying for the whole rent yourself. I just don't see the issue here.
Allowing whiny depressed people get away with pointless victimhood is just enabling IMHO.
DrZoidberg;679324 wrote:I think asexuals at Pride parades are just being dicks. I'm all for people doing whatever. But nobody has ever tried preventing people from not having sex.
You say, as you rail incoherently at people for doing exactly that.
And this is bullshit anyway. Are you aware that in many parts of the world, wives can be legally raped by their husbands if they try to deny them sex?
It's only been illegal for the last twenty years in my otherwise-liberal state, and this crime is still considered different from raping a stranger in terms of prosecution and consequences. Religions only prohibit "deviant" sex; you're not looking at the whole picture if you are imagining that the young aren't pressured to marry and procreate, with varying degrees of force.[/QUOTE]
You must be desperate making your point when grasping for these straws? I don't recall reading an asexual sign reading "marching for all the asexuals who can't". I don't think these people give a flying fuck about anybody but their own imagined victimhood. I base this on the vibe they give off.
Yes, I can understand that it can be annoying for an asexual when being pressured into marrying and procreating. But we're all pressured into that. More or less subtly. I've never had kids. I don't want them. Much to my parents dismay. I still don't feel like a victim. Besides, if it's such an issue why don't asexuals just marry each other? Problem solved. Beats paying for the whole rent yourself. I just don't see the issue here.
Allowing whiny depressed people get away with pointless victimhood is just enabling IMHO.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
-
Ozymandias
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:11 pm
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
[/quote]
This is really the biggest problem with what you are saying. You are claiming that asexuals are "emotionally shut down" and rejecting a part of themselves, but you have absolutley no evidence for this. Are gay men rejecting their attraction for women, which is obviously a natural part of all men?
Being asexual is a perfectly normal way to be, and I am quite sure that the numbers of asexuals in our society is much higher than everyone thinks. They just pretend not to be asexual because of all the stigma and bigotry they get from people like you.
I personally have confided in "friends" that I don't like sex, and the response I always get is "well, you're just not doing it right". Have you any idea how insulting that is? You may as well tell a lesbian that they just haven't been fucked by a real man yet.
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
[/quote]
This is really the biggest problem with what you are saying. You are claiming that asexuals are "emotionally shut down" and rejecting a part of themselves, but you have absolutley no evidence for this. Are gay men rejecting their attraction for women, which is obviously a natural part of all men?
Being asexual is a perfectly normal way to be, and I am quite sure that the numbers of asexuals in our society is much higher than everyone thinks. They just pretend not to be asexual because of all the stigma and bigotry they get from people like you.
I personally have confided in "friends" that I don't like sex, and the response I always get is "well, you're just not doing it right". Have you any idea how insulting that is? You may as well tell a lesbian that they just haven't been fucked by a real man yet.
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Ozymandias""]
We do know that there is a correlation between asexuality and a number of problems. A common problem is testosterone deficiency. That's straight up a medical problem. People with shitty diets will sometimes have chrome deficiency. So there's a whole bunch of reasons to suspect that there's something wrong with asexuals. Low libido is also linked to depressions. Could be hormone issues as well. All fixable. Not to mention all the psychological issues that can lead to asexuality. One of these is shut down of certain feelings.
I'd say yes, not having sex is to miss out on a pretty large part of what it means to be human. After all, fundamentally we're just a bunch of naked apes. Tacit communication is way more important than verbal communication. You've got to fuck a lot with different people before you fully learn to master tacit communication. At least that was my experience.
I don't know how many middle-aged women who've told me that I taught them to cum properly for the first time in their lives. Learning how to do sex is easy if the people fucking do it openly in full view. And others can watch. But we don't do that anymore. We lock ourselves away in rooms. So we make it super hard to figure this shit out.
In our society it's normal to be a neurotic fucked up basket case about sex. Having healthy relation to your body and your libido is exceptionally rare in this world. 2000 years of Christianity didn't help. So I'm sorry if I'm not particularly sympathetic to people trying to normalise the damage Christianity has done.
[quote=""Ozymandias""]
Are gay men rejecting their attraction for women, which is obviously a natural part of all men? [/quote]
What the actual fuck are you talking about? We've got strong scientific evidence for that homosexuality is natural. Science is struggling with figuring out what it's for. But that doesn't make it unnatural, nor functional for the species as a whole.
There is no species capable of sexual acts that aren't natural for it. There's no reason to think that this rule somehow doesn't apply to humans. I'd say the burden of proof is on you. So please provide it, or stfu.
[quote=""Ozymandias""]
Being asexual is a perfectly normal way to be, and I am quite sure that the numbers of asexuals in our society is much higher than everyone thinks. They just pretend not to be asexual because of all the stigma and bigotry they get from people like you.
I personally have confided in "friends" that I don't like sex, and the response I always get is "well, you're just not doing it right". Have you any idea how insulting that is? You may as well tell a lesbian that they just haven't been fucked by a real man yet.[/quote]
I didn't say it wasn't a normal way to be. Nor am I condemning it. What I'm questioning is why they're marching in a gay Pride parade? The whole point of gay Pride is to celebrate the one thing, they're not doing.
This is really the biggest problem with what you are saying. You are claiming that asexuals are "emotionally shut down" and rejecting a part of themselves, but you have absolutley no evidence for this.[/QUOTE]DrZoidberg;679324 wrote: My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
We do know that there is a correlation between asexuality and a number of problems. A common problem is testosterone deficiency. That's straight up a medical problem. People with shitty diets will sometimes have chrome deficiency. So there's a whole bunch of reasons to suspect that there's something wrong with asexuals. Low libido is also linked to depressions. Could be hormone issues as well. All fixable. Not to mention all the psychological issues that can lead to asexuality. One of these is shut down of certain feelings.
I'd say yes, not having sex is to miss out on a pretty large part of what it means to be human. After all, fundamentally we're just a bunch of naked apes. Tacit communication is way more important than verbal communication. You've got to fuck a lot with different people before you fully learn to master tacit communication. At least that was my experience.
I don't know how many middle-aged women who've told me that I taught them to cum properly for the first time in their lives. Learning how to do sex is easy if the people fucking do it openly in full view. And others can watch. But we don't do that anymore. We lock ourselves away in rooms. So we make it super hard to figure this shit out.
In our society it's normal to be a neurotic fucked up basket case about sex. Having healthy relation to your body and your libido is exceptionally rare in this world. 2000 years of Christianity didn't help. So I'm sorry if I'm not particularly sympathetic to people trying to normalise the damage Christianity has done.
[quote=""Ozymandias""]
Are gay men rejecting their attraction for women, which is obviously a natural part of all men? [/quote]
What the actual fuck are you talking about? We've got strong scientific evidence for that homosexuality is natural. Science is struggling with figuring out what it's for. But that doesn't make it unnatural, nor functional for the species as a whole.
There is no species capable of sexual acts that aren't natural for it. There's no reason to think that this rule somehow doesn't apply to humans. I'd say the burden of proof is on you. So please provide it, or stfu.
[quote=""Ozymandias""]
Being asexual is a perfectly normal way to be, and I am quite sure that the numbers of asexuals in our society is much higher than everyone thinks. They just pretend not to be asexual because of all the stigma and bigotry they get from people like you.
I personally have confided in "friends" that I don't like sex, and the response I always get is "well, you're just not doing it right". Have you any idea how insulting that is? You may as well tell a lesbian that they just haven't been fucked by a real man yet.[/quote]
I didn't say it wasn't a normal way to be. Nor am I condemning it. What I'm questioning is why they're marching in a gay Pride parade? The whole point of gay Pride is to celebrate the one thing, they're not doing.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
-
BWE
- Posts: 9653
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:54 pm
- Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
Swaping out asexual for sodomy makes no fucking sense. "Arnold took out his magnificent man meat, gently separated Rogers ass cheeks and did not ram it in. Instead they played Ticket to Ride. Much to Roger's dismay Arnold got all the best tickets".
[quote=""Politesse""]
So yeah, they can march with whoever they like imo. If they're perpetually unhappy, it's probably because jerks like yourself are trying to convince them that they're brain-damaged all the time. It takes a special kind of nasty to bully and exclude someone, and then criticize them for being sad.[/quote]
Yeah, well. I think Pride is about celebrating people living the life they want. Not about celebrating people not having a life. It's about encouraging people to go for it. Not about encouraging them to NOT go for it.
I think asexuals at Pride parades are just being dicks. I'm all for people doing whatever. But nobody has ever tried preventing people from not having sex. In our sex phobic culture asexuality couldn't be less of a problem. I think they're problematising something that isn't. I've got lots of friends I don't have sex with. I think that's fairly normal. No? Or do you compulsively fuck everybody you are friends with?
People today don't even have to fuck to have children. Artificial insemination! It's NOT a problem!
But I'm also against preventing people from joining the Pride parade. I'm for radical inclusivity. But I will make judgements in my head. This is one of them.[/QUOTE]
Atheism can be equivalent to a religion.
WTF are you on about? It's not the same thing. For the reason that atheism isn't another religion. Not playing tennis isn't a sport. Asexuality isn't a sexual preference.Politesse;679323 wrote:So, you're spouting bigoted, innaccurate opinions, and medicalizing people's preferences as some kind of mental disorder... to prove that advocacy and education about asexuality isn't needed? A bit self-defeating, that line of argument. You could swap out "asexual" for "sodomy" in the above paragraphs, you'd practically be quoting the consensus of 1960's social constructionist psychology on homosexuality. They didn't hate gays, oh no, they just didn't want to encourage them to indulge in their anti-social and damaging behaviors. They wanted to help them - by pressuring them to have sex with people they did not desire, and putting them in "therapy" to "cure" them of their deviance.DrZoidberg;679318 wrote:Nice theory. But we've got plenty of them in atheistic Sweden. I think asexuality is a symptom of something. Could be all manner of things. But for whatever reason, psychological or physical, they're turned off sex. What they need isn't acceptance, it's help. I think accepting these people will have the opposite effect. I mean... the last thing teenagers need is somebody telling them that abstinence is the answer. That's just asking for teen pregnancy. This is the same but opposite. Sometimes telling people that they're fine the way they are, isn't actually helping them.
My problem with it isn't that they're asexual. It's the fact that they want to be respected as if it's one of the wonderful expressions of life affirmation in the great tapestry of life. Ehe... no. Affirming emotional shut-down and rejection of what is a part of you isn't really affirmation.
I think it's doubly inappropriate at a Pride parade since gays have in all ages been asked to "can't you just not have sex?". I think it's anathema to what Pride is IMHO. Not that anybody asked me.
Just by the look of them I think all the asexuals I've seen at Pride parades are all clinically depressed. I base this on nothing but superficial judgement. I am not a professional and really shouldn't make judgements like it. But if I had to put money on a diagnosis... that's where I'd put my money.
Swaping out asexual for sodomy makes no fucking sense. "Arnold took out his magnificent man meat, gently separated Rogers ass cheeks and did not ram it in. Instead they played Ticket to Ride. Much to Roger's dismay Arnold got all the best tickets".
[quote=""Politesse""]
So yeah, they can march with whoever they like imo. If they're perpetually unhappy, it's probably because jerks like yourself are trying to convince them that they're brain-damaged all the time. It takes a special kind of nasty to bully and exclude someone, and then criticize them for being sad.[/quote]
Yeah, well. I think Pride is about celebrating people living the life they want. Not about celebrating people not having a life. It's about encouraging people to go for it. Not about encouraging them to NOT go for it.
I think asexuals at Pride parades are just being dicks. I'm all for people doing whatever. But nobody has ever tried preventing people from not having sex. In our sex phobic culture asexuality couldn't be less of a problem. I think they're problematising something that isn't. I've got lots of friends I don't have sex with. I think that's fairly normal. No? Or do you compulsively fuck everybody you are friends with?
People today don't even have to fuck to have children. Artificial insemination! It's NOT a problem!
But I'm also against preventing people from joining the Pride parade. I'm for radical inclusivity. But I will make judgements in my head. This is one of them.[/QUOTE]
Atheism can be equivalent to a religion.