October 3rd, 2010


Anti-asexual rage under pretenses of intelligent discourse

Ha. Well, gay folks have been getting this for ages, so it's not surprising that we get it too.

Have you ever had someone "object" to asexuality . . . giving one "reason" when their REAL objection is clearly something else?

For gay folks, the REAL motivations for people to object to their orientation are based on religious and societal prejudices. But all too often, they get to hear concerns about their CHILDREN or how NATURE obviously hadn't DESIGNED people to be gay or a bunch of other ridiculous reasons . . . and the people who voice these "concerns" actually try to make a case for these being the real reasons for their refusal to support equal rights for homosexuals. I'm not prejudiced! Really! I just DON'T THINK IT'S RIIIIIIGHT!

I got one such fail-tastic example in my YouTube account recently. Over the last few days, this person has been posting comments to my introductory asexuality video, and he's trying to make it seem like he has legitimate reasons against asexuality being recognized (emphasis on TRYING). The problem is, there is so much obvious vitriol even in the first message that it's clear we don't just have a semantics problem. You'll see what I mean if I show you this first comment:

My main objection to this is linguistic. Homo- and Hetero- are prefixes. A- is also a prefix. The history of the meanings of these prefixes in the scientific community has a history that goes WAY back. Like long before the IDENTITY of "asexuality" arrived. This new identity has very little to do with traditional definitions of asexuality. I'm talking about centuries of science here, not a fad for Oprah's show.

Just because you misappropriate a word does not mean you deserve recognition.

Well well well! Clearly, when your "main objection" to something just has to do with the language we use to describe it, you should also be dismissive and tell someone their orientation is a fad! Oh, and invoke "science." Because that's relevant.

Collapse )

He hasn't written back to my last response yet. He usually only pops in once a day to fart on me, so I'm sure I can expect more messages tomorrow unless I block him. It's really tempting, but . . . number one, I asked some questions and it would be sort of crappy to block his ability to comment if I actually expect to get answers. And number two, I'm actually really curious what his argument IS. He doesn't appear to have one yet. He has a decent command of language, but my thought is that because his REAL objection would sound narrow-minded and prejudicial, he can't actually voice it. Better to accuse us of attacking the integrity of science with our asexualness, surely. While ranting about how NOT SPECIAL we are. That really cracks me up.
  • Current Mood
    cheerful cheerful
:(, boyd, teen wolf

Hippolytus as Asexual?

We've had a couple of discussion of potential historical/famous asexuals, and when our class covered Hippolytus in my Classical Myth it occurred to me that he could possibly be asexual as well.
Collapse )

But to me personally I think he may have been asexual because he abstains from sex, not just sex with women, and he honors the goddess Artemis so I kind of wonder how misogynistic he can be if he honors a female deity.That last part isn't sound logic lol. I wanted to focus on the abstaining from all sex part more. Hippolytus could still definitely be a misogynist, I guess my question is if he was an asexual one xD.

Anyway, I was just thinking on that in class and wanted to know what you all thought :).

The Asexy Place- new forum