If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   A small but growing movement believes that asexuality is an orientation as valid as straight or gay. Next up: Atheism is a religion, black is a color and spit is a flavor   (alternet.org) divider line 907
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

12374 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2006 at 5:19 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



907 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-25 08:47:32 AM
Lace Valentine

Farking militant atheists have hijacked this thread. I wanted to read comments about an interesting new topic: asexuality.



You know, you could've bucked the trend and actually posted a comment about an interesting new topic: asexuality, but instead you posted a biatchy whiny comment in bold font that most people will probably ignore. Better luck next time.
 
2006-04-25 08:47:38 AM
LegacyDL: Well if they're all poor then they have nothing better to do then take care of themselves. It's kinda like when hobos make a fire and huddle around it for warmth.

It probably has nothing to do with religion or hospitality, right?

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It's not in their values to let the poor and downtrodden of their societies hung out to dry. Money has nothing to do with this

BrotherAlpha: No, I think you missed the point, and I mean that will all due respect.

I really think you're missing what I'm saying, because I agree with everything that you said.
 
2006-04-25 08:47:59 AM
BrotherAlpha: In other words, while smart people are just as likely to be religious as non-religious, not so smart people are more likely to be religious and that lowers the average intelligence. But that doesn't mean all religious people are dumb or all non-religious people are smart.


There are millions upon millions of Chinese peasants that are dumb and atheists, so that kinda blows your strawman arguement out of the water.
 
2006-04-25 08:48:02 AM
Yup. Want somebody to tell you how you should be living your life, find an athiest. (S)he'll be more than happy to tell you what you should be doing if you weren't so stupid.
 
2006-04-25 08:48:25 AM
BrotherAlpha: ....there's no reason to invoke god at all.

"Invoking god without reason" sounds like an album title.
If REM or one of those other asexual bands havent used it already,
I call 'dibs.'
 
2006-04-25 08:48:38 AM
The Billdozer:
If you believe in a higher power, you know that your actions now will have an affect on how the rest of existance plays out for you.

If you don't believe in a higher power, you still know that your actions will have an effect on how life plays out for others.
I don't need a god, promises of rewards or threats of damnation to care about them.
 
2006-04-25 08:50:20 AM
xria

I'm not sure that a majority of people would be able to see the difference between asexuality and celibacy, as many people don't see the difference between sex and sexuality.
 
2006-04-25 08:50:27 AM
We don't have a massive religious presence in this country as you do in the States. Yes sure, people go to church and I'm sure there are very strongly religious groups, but they keep themselves to themselves and don't really attempt to influence others. Similarly, non-believers don't go around shouting their mouths off as a lot of you seem to insinuate happens in America. I only get to see attempts to influence on Fark, and imo there are more *undeservedly aggressive* posts towards atheists than there are towards religious people.

G2V is a good example.
 
2006-04-25 08:50:34 AM
Ditto
Fark off troll. Does that qualify as telling you how to live?
 
2006-04-25 08:50:41 AM
Shut........UP:
for a group that claims its not a religion they sure do spend a lot of time trying to convert people...

So political parties are religions too? Because they also spend a lot of time trying to convert people.
 
2006-04-25 08:51:07 AM
I thought atheism was the lack of elief in god and that antitheism was beliving there is no god ? Can anyone clarify ?
 
2006-04-25 08:51:08 AM
Another attempt at being on topic:

I am a practising asexual. Yes, by choice.

What I mean is that I do feel physically attracted to people, but I choose not to act on it because although I do desire sex, it's not worth it to me if I have to be dishonest or misleading in order to get it. I also don't feel like putting up with the social stigma of seeing prostitutes.

I don't have less sexual desire than normal people, I just don't think the gratification I'd recieve from a sexual encounter justifies hurting someone else.
 
2006-04-25 08:51:32 AM
The Billdozer: under the mass-dilusion that there is no afterlife.

I am not sure if there is an afterlife or not but if you firmly believe either way you are invoking a certain amount of faith (read delusion).
 
2006-04-25 08:52:36 AM
Tatsuma

Sorry if you misunderstood my hobo analogy, I was suggesting that hobos don't mind the comapany of others, not about their financial situation.
 
2006-04-25 08:53:24 AM
who was it who said that religions were the training wheels of civilization, were useful in that regard, but are no longer needed?
 
2006-04-25 08:53:30 AM
Drasancas

I think we just need to disagree. I understand what you are saying. And we may be disagreeing on semantics. I don't think the Tooth Fairy is a Tooth Fairy if I radically change its definition. You can try to make the same arguement for a God, but God(s) are traditionally all-encompassing which means infinite possibilities, which means untestable. If you elevate the Tooth Fairy to this level, it also becomes untestable.

I have no issues with those of differing religious views. I think a group of mature people can have a conversation without resorting to ad hominem attacks. It brightens my day that a Jew, a group of Atheists, some Agnostics, and a Deist can have intelligent, meaningful conversation.
 
2006-04-25 08:53:41 AM
Captain Fashion

So sexual encounters necessarily involve hurting someone else?
I'm basically celibate at the moment myself, about 90% through choice, but that's because I currently don't want an emotional entanglement and I know from experience that for me all sex involves emotional entanglement.

Sounds like your almost as screwed up as I am there though buddy :)
 
2006-04-25 08:53:43 AM
sayke
xria

I'm not sure that a majority of people would be able to see the difference between asexuality and celibacy, as many people don't see the difference between sex and sexuality.



It does confuse me slightly - do asexual people wank? I would guess that they don't.
 
2006-04-25 08:53:52 AM
Spanky McLapdance

I thought atheism was the lack of elief in god and that antitheism was beliving there is no god ? Can anyone clarify ?

You'd think.

It's a good thing that dictionaries aren't the end-all authority on the english language. They're constantly behind the times since the english language keeps changing.
 
2006-04-25 08:53:53 AM
whatshisname

Because someone has come up with the idea of God, is everyone else is required to pass judgement on that idea and render an opinion? Of course not.

Rejecting the proposition itself as nonsense is called noncognitivism (which is almost the same as ignosticism, which is that the proposition is pointless).

So, being an atheist does not require faith, it just requires someone to not spend a lot of time thinking about someone else's idea.

In metaphysical terms, if you assert an unprovable perspective is true beyond all doubt, that's a matter of faith. That's the definition of faith. Asserting that God does not exist, an unprovable perspective, is true, is a matter of faith. Now, you can go ahead and believe it is true as a matter of faith, and have good arguments and reasons to back you up, but it is still faith.

Now, if you want to go the whole "absence of belief" route (and that always gets on my nerves, since it barely makes sense on its own, and you can only figure it out from the context--see the evilbible link I posted somewhere above) , well that's just the same as saying "I do not hold that unprovable perspectives are true/false" You don't assert one way or the other, and so you're agnostic, or a little more correctly I think, unknowing (since agnosticism proper is the belief, as faith, that the existence of God cannot be known. Most people just use it to mean "I don't know, but, hey maybe it can be known".)
 
2006-04-25 08:53:58 AM
BrotherAlpha: So political parties are religions too? Because they also spend a lot of time trying to convert people.


Pepsi Co and Bayre asparine try to convert people too.
Are yu using a swiffer brand sweeper? No?
If not, the ladies at the tupperware party will point and laugh at you.
 
2006-04-25 08:54:21 AM
S-h-i-t is already a flavor.

/Just sayin'
 
2006-04-25 08:54:39 AM
Next thing you know, these perverted asexuals will want to marry.
 
2006-04-25 08:55:30 AM
jpbreon

I think we just need to disagree.

I don't think we disagree that much, just on what we're trying to talk about.
 
2006-04-25 08:55:48 AM
BrotherAlpha:
In other words, while smart people are just as likely to be religious as non-religious, not so smart people are more likely to be religious and that lowers the average intelligence. But that doesn't mean all religious people are dumb or all non-religious people are smart.

The Billdozer:
There are millions upon millions of Chinese peasants that are dumb and atheists, so that kinda blows your strawman arguement out of the water.

Really? Because I bet most Chinese peasants believe in a wide variety of ancient religions. In fact, I know that beliefs in spirits and ghosts are very common in China. Just because it is not an organized religion, doesn't mean it is not a religion.
 
2006-04-25 08:56:08 AM
"So political parties are religions too? Because they also spend a lot of time trying to convert people."

religion has more to do with the what lies beyond death - which both atheism and theism deal with -, political parties have more to do with secular matters like who should be taxed to death...
 
2006-04-25 08:56:14 AM
I think there's a serious issues of social stigma here. If people believe the only way to attain sex is through collusion and deception, well then there's a serious with our culture.
 
2006-04-25 08:56:16 AM
Stupid tags.

I swear fark is designed to screw up your tags for you if you unckeck "Preview before post"
 
2006-04-25 08:57:09 AM
Drasancas

Then you have a different definition of the word as the commonly used definition. I suppose if you wanted to call an apple an orange, that is what you'll do, even if everyone else says it is an apple.
 
2006-04-25 08:57:44 AM
begin attempt to save thread

FriarTuck: Valid: a meaningless word, PC crap. They are equally valid as human beings of course, and platonic relationships have been held up as a virtue since...Plato. So no argument here that an asexual relationship is as valid as any other on the emotional level.

This is a good point. What exactly do they want us to do about it? It's not as if there's anything stopping people from having an asexual marriage (Quite a few people seem to be having them anyway, if these threads are any indication.) I guess they could claim that immigration and workplace benefits laws discriminate against asexual couples, but if they're sharing a bed and everything I'm not sure anyone would be able to deny status or benefits just because the toad doesn't go in the hole.

So what does "validate" mean? They want us to agree that they're not weird? To stop assuming they're in some kind of denial, or else damaged goods? I'm not really sure what concrete social or legislative issue "asexuals" have to hang their abstinent little hats on.

I can understand any groups desire for acceptance, I guess. But for them to normalize their lifestyle without banner rights or freedoms to raise and fight for, all they can do is keep up the vague PR until we get used to the idea.

/end attempt to save thread
 
2006-04-25 08:57:46 AM
sayke: I'm not sure that a majority of people would be able to see the difference between asexuality and celibacy, as many people don't see the difference between sex and sexuality.

I'd say the difference is whether or not you have a sexual drive which is to be resisted, as celibates still "feel" it. Sadly, it does seem to be a bit of a missing component in my case.

/derailed fetishist though
 
2006-04-25 08:58:49 AM
BrotherAlpha:
No, I think you missed the point, and I mean that will all due respect.

Tatsuma:
I really think you're missing what I'm saying, because I agree with everything that you said.

No, no, no. You're completely wrong. You are not agreeing with what I said, because I'm argreeing with everything you said.

/really trying to keep the argument going because it was acutally intellectually stimulating.
//too tired to go on.
///must sleep.
 
2006-04-25 08:58:53 AM
re: TFA.

Sure. why not. for some people it will work; the main difference appears to be those that are troubled by lack of desire (and want to change it) and those that have the lack of desire and are ok with it (even though they might be troubled about their difficulties talking about it).

\flame on!!!
\\kidding. this statment is about as flammable as mashed potatoes and gravy
 
2006-04-25 08:59:18 AM
Ditto:
Yup. Want somebody to tell you how you should be living your life, find an athiest. (S)he'll be more than happy to tell you what you should be doing if you weren't so stupid.

As long as your beliefs in the metaphysical and supernatural doesn't prevent you from being kind, decent and generous here and now, I frankly don't care what you do in your spare time.

The only problem I see with religion is that it sometimes distract people from what I believe to be true: That humans have to care for each other, because there is no one else to do it.
 
2006-04-25 08:59:43 AM
rush

In metaphysical terms, if you assert an unprovable perspective is true beyond all doubt, that's a matter of faith. That's the definition of faith. Asserting that God does not exist, an unprovable perspective, is true, is a matter of faith. Now, you can go ahead and believe it is true as a matter of faith, and have good arguments and reasons to back you up, but it is still faith.

It's a good thing then that most atheists(logical) don't make such claims.

Now, if you want to go the whole "absence of belief" route (and that always gets on my nerves, since it barely makes sense on its own, and you can only figure it out from the context--see the evilbible link I posted somewhere above) , well that's just the same as saying "I do not hold that unprovable perspectives are true/false" You don't assert one way or the other, and so you're agnostic, or a little more correctly I think, unknowing (since agnosticism proper is the belief, as faith, that the existence of God cannot be known. Most people just use it to mean "I don't know, but, hey maybe it can be known".)

How does it barely make sense?

There's infinite possibilities of things to belief in.
I don't believe in infinity possibilities since there's no evidence of those possibilities.
If I had faith because I didn't belief, that'd mean I had infinite faith.

That doesn't make sense.
 
2006-04-25 09:00:16 AM
Captain Fashion and Gothnet

Ever heard of 1-night stands? Even women are allowed to enjoy sex just for the sake of it these days. I think you are making life unecessarily difficult for yourself.
 
2006-04-25 09:00:46 AM
All I can say is, every day I get down on my knees and thank almighty god that I'm an atheist.
 
2006-04-25 09:01:25 AM
Gothnet: So sexual encounters necessarily involve hurting someone else?
I'm basically celibate at the moment myself, about 90% through choice, but that's because I currently don't want an emotional entanglement and I know from experience that for me all sex involves emotional entanglement.

Sounds like your almost as screwed up as I am there though buddy :)


This is the kind of stuff I came here hoping to discuss.

I don't know if all sexual encounters involve hurting someone else, but it sure seems like they do in practice. A few years ago I had a friends-with-benefits (or fark-buddy, if you will) relationship with a girl that lasted about 4 months. Even though I told her exactly what I wanted from the relationship and she said she was ok with that, in the end I think she really did want something more, and she only went along with what I said because she thought she could change my mind.

So even when you think you can pat yourself on the back for being totally honest, you can still end up hurting someone.
 
2006-04-25 09:01:31 AM
BrotherAlpha: No, no, no. You're completely wrong. You are not agreeing with what I said, because I'm argreeing with everything you said.

How can you even think that I'm being completely wrong when I agree with what you said and implying you were wrong because you said what you said because you thought I disagreed with you, when I agreed with you on the first place about what you said whhen you thought I was saying that you were wrong for saying what you said in the first place?
 
2006-04-25 09:02:04 AM
jpbreon

Then you have a different definition of the word as the commonly used definition. I suppose if you wanted to call an apple an orange, that is what you'll do, even if everyone else says it is an apple.

It's ironic you should say that.

The only people to use the dictionary version of atheism, are the dictionary and rabit theists.

Have you been reading the thread? Most everyone here is stating what I have been. The comonly used definition of atheism is lack of belief about god.

It's unfortunate that some people follow what the fallacious dictionary has to say blindly.
 
2006-04-25 09:02:11 AM
Binnster


"You know, you could've bucked the trend and actually posted a comment about an interesting new topic: asexuality, but instead you posted a biatchy whiny comment in bold font that most people will probably ignore. Better luck next time."


Good try, but commenting about a comment which you find not subject to the topic is even weaker than my comment.

But you have shed new light upon the subject: asexual folk do wank.

/Don't try to school me
 
2006-04-25 09:02:38 AM
"So political parties are religions too? Because they also spend a lot of time trying to convert people."

Shut........UP:
religion has more to do with the what lies beyond death - which both atheism and theism deal with -, political parties have more to do with secular matters like who should be taxed to death...

If you are going to split hairs like that, I'm going to counter with, "There's a difference between converting and convincing."

/really off to bed now.
 
2006-04-25 09:02:44 AM
The Billdozer
You're trying to bait me! That's so cute! Keep trying, I think it's HAWT.
 
2006-04-25 09:03:01 AM
I am a practising asexual. Yes, by choice.

What I mean is that I do feel physically attracted to people, but I choose not to act on it because although I do desire sex, it's not worth it to me if I have to be dishonest or misleading in order to get it. I also don't feel like putting up with the social stigma of seeing prostitutes.

I don't have less sexual desire than normal people, I just don't think the gratification I'd recieve from a sexual encounter justifies hurting someone else.



I don't think you're asexual, I think you're celibate.

And, with the greatest respect, I think you need therapy to figure out why you think this:

I just don't think the gratification I'd recieve from a sexual encounter justifies hurting someone else.


Because one question immediately comes to mind - why do you have to hurt someone else in order to have sex....? Can't you just find someone who is a willing partner? I'm sure the reasons why not are complex, but whatever they are, you're celibate, not asexual, IMHO.
 
2006-04-25 09:03:02 AM
My Grandmother told me that there was a passage in the bible that says, "It is better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore, than to spill it on the ground." So, I tried both. And the bible's right! It's way better. That's one of the reasons they call it the good book.

A. Whitney Brown
 
2006-04-25 09:03:44 AM
img281.imageshack.us

Work it.
 
2006-04-25 09:03:46 AM
Atheism is as much of a religion as any other theistic system is. Not that it's wrong, it's not an absence of faith, it's the faith that there is no God.

Is you want to make a woman asexual though, all you have to do is give them a ring and promise to marry them.
 
2006-04-25 09:03:49 AM
Lace Valentine: Good try, but commenting about a comment which you find not subject to the topic is even weaker than my comment.

now watch as I comment about your comment which is not the subject of the topic.
 
2006-04-25 09:04:28 AM
Captain fashion

I don't know if all sexual encounters involve hurting someone else, but it sure seems like they do in practice. A few years ago I had a friends-with-benefits (or fark-buddy, if you will) relationship with a girl that lasted about 4 months. Even though I told her exactly what I wanted from the relationship and she said she was ok with that, in the end I think she really did want something more, and she only went along with what I said because she thought she could change my mind.

Life is about being hurt! You need to relax a bit. Having that fun with you and maybe being a bit regretful that it didn't go any further was better for her than saving herself that small hurt, and having no fun at all. It is better to have loved and lost etc.
 
2006-04-25 09:04:35 AM
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.



Def'n of "asexual".
 
Displayed 50 of 907 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report