swankivy (swankivy) wrote in asexuality,

  • Mood:

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.

My response:
Before "asexual" was widely used, I called it "nonsexual," but that aside, it's kind of ridiculous for you to refuse to recognize the existence of a group of people unless their naming conventions make sense to you. Your phrasing is chosen very poorly here when you say we don't deserve recognition "just because" we "misappropriate" a word; we're not looking for recognition FOR using a word, are we? As for Oprah and calling it a fad, that's unnecessarily hateful and dismissive.

Him again:
It's a very old fad, yes. I am not hateful but am dismissive.

You do realize that I am of the opinion that you and others like you are 'carrying the torch' by maintaining genetic integrity? I think that, in the face of such a barrage of sexuality from media, it is only healthy that a population rejects the extreme mainstream to maintain a balanced environment (to maintain diversity) and for that y'all do deserve recognition.

But biologically you are just as special as I am.

As for this nonsense, I'm glad you're accepting of the *concept* of people like us, but 1. calling it a fad demeans it; 2. saying we're "maintaining genetic integrity" makes no sense since being asexual doesn't mean a person doesn't want to have children; 3. in case you haven't noticed, people calling themselves asexual are not making any claims about biological "specialness." If you want to argue about something, address points the other person MADE, not stuff you made up.

I should also mention that if you truly had only a "linguistic" objection to this, you shouldn't have any reason to attack the entire concept and belittle it by sticking it on par with a sensationalistic fad. Does its existence threaten you? I'm aware that the biological definition of "asexual" refers to reproduction. However, since "a" as a prefix = "not" or "without," it's accurate when describing our sexual orientation, and we're not less legitimate due to what we call it.

Right. You don't see a problem with using 'Asexual' because the media uses it and you are in good company with 'Bisexuals'.

When it comes to being threatened, yes, I am. Science is constantly under attack from both populism politics and religions.

Do you recognize me as a Monosexual? You shouldn't. It sounds stupid, doesn't it? Why? Because it is! You are not a Eukaryotic cell. They reproduce asexually. They are asexual. Totally asexual.

'Nonsexual' is a better word for your lack of activity.

The integrity of science is not "under attack" because people chose a word to describe themselves which also has meaning in a scientific context. "We" are not challenging or attacking science or language by using the prefix "a" (meaning "not") along with "sexual" to describe our orientation. No one is suggesting that the word's use in science is to be taken away; we, however, are not describing our reproduction but our orientation, and calling that an "attack" is alarmist.

So then he posted three comments all at once. Raise your hand if you find it amusing that the first one ends with him "bidding me adieu" citing having better things to do, but then posted two more bitchy comments before I responded. . . . Anyway, so you can better understand what I'm addressing, I will post my responses to each of his individual comments, even though they arrived all at once.

Comment #1:
Obiously you are not talking about reproduction. You are trying to not talk about reproduction. You have nothing to do with reproduction. Your video here is displaying all of the behavioural qualities of asexual non-reproduction. So funny! If you really think you have "No Sexuality", then we're at an impasse and I know that I have better things to do that to argue about your "special" brand of whatever-it-is-that-you-and-yo­urs-are-not-doing.

So I'll bid you adieu.

You appear to be objecting to our use of the word "asexual" because it has a context already in describing reproduction. That was your initial statement. I'm saying that we're using the term "asexual" to describe not experiencing sexual attraction to others. It's a state that needed a name, and the community has settled on this one. It's not misleading, since no one thinks we're using it to describe reproduction. I don't know why you keep harping on us thinking we're "special."

The fact that you keep dragging out weird statements about us wanting to be special and unique through using this term are a little troublesome. Nobody's trying to say we have different biology (most of us don't, though some intersex people feel uninterested in sex as well), and none of us are looking for special treatment. I'm not clear on what your argument actually IS since you started by saying it was "linguistic" and now you're spewing about how we're NOT SPECIAL. . . .

Comment #2:
It is alarming.

It's seems a kind of population control and also likely a very responsible choice that respects not just human quality-of-life. What really worries me is that one would find themself in a world where they'd have to be vigilant against a veritable onslaught of "Market Sexuality".

POP SEX is force fed to us from before we learn to read and it's more than a little bit frightening even for a breeder like me.

I think you should change your tone and keep up the good message!

No, asexuality isn't "population control." That would be a side effect of celibacy. Though many asexuals do not procreate, it's not like it's against the "rules," so to speak. Many of us choose to have children. And there's no statement of "vigilance" or being anti-sex. Many of us are sex-positive, as long as the sex doesn't involve us. My message about awareness for asexuality doesn't need its tone changed--you appear to think my message is something other than what it is.

Comment #3:
Isn't everyone sexual from the moment of conception? Yea?

XX / XY? I think your head is where the sun doesn't shine, forgive me for being blunt. Just because a person is not sexually active does not mean that they are 'Asexual' or have 'No Sex'. Quite the contrary, I'd think. They would most likely fluff up their feathers even more to attract potential mates or adopt predominantly sexual roles in their communities-at-large and route their sexuality into society.

It's Sexual Behavior!

We're talking about sexual attraction, not the capacity to have intercourse. No one is claiming that asexual people have non-human, asexual biology.  As for XX / XY, no, not everyone has one of those two (and if you're rambling about the integrity of science, I'd think you'd know that), but again, no one's saying we have different chromosomes either, just like gay people don't. Perhaps you should WATCH this video you're commenting on. It explains what we're saying asexuality is.

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.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →