Turn on thread page Beta

Why don't people try to understand asexuality? watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    "On the romantic side of things". Again, this is contradictory. Romance is a feature of sexual relationships, it does not exist without sexuality. "romantic feelings" is another way of saying "sexual feelings".
    I'm not certain that there is a sufficient consensus within psychology for you to be so certain in ruling that out. While some theorise that physical passion is a prerequisite for romantic love, others do not. Generally, the field of social science isn't one that lends itself to iron-clad statements of certainty like that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    I'm not certain that there is a sufficient consensus within psychology for you to be so certain in ruling that out. While some theorise that physical passion is a prerequisite for romantic love, others do not. Generally, the field of social science isn't one that lends itself to iron-clad statements of certainty like that.
    You're talking about romance as if it exists independently our understanding of it like its some kind of natural phenomenon rather than a social construct.

    We have a world for non-sexual relationships, that word is "platonic".

    Someone you have a platonic relationship with is called a friend. You can take your friend out to dinner and buy them flowers and even cuddle them, but unless there is some kind of sexual motivation there, they're still just a friend.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mankytoes)
    I get asexuality generally, but I don't understand this. You say you get aroused because "your body" is ready for sex. But it isn't your body that causes arousal, it's your mind. So you are saying your mind gets sexually aroused, but doesn't want sex, which seems contradictory.

    Also, you say you are demisexual, which means you would have sexual desire in a loving relationship (I assume you've had one, or how would you know?). Surely that's really a type of heterosexuality (assuming you only would be with a woman), not asexuality? There's nothing about heterosexuality that says you have to be attracted to random women before you get to know them. Just because the stereotypical straight guy is always looking to get laid, I don't think it's actually true for all of us. Just wanting sex in a loving relationship isn't a separate sexuality, a lot of straight women are like this.
    This, sorry OP.

    As for self-described asexuals you hear a million different descriptions from a million different "asexuals".

    Asexuality at it's basic level is quite simple: You aren't particularly attracted to anyone and have no desire for sex.

    Sexuality is a spectrum however so it fuzzes the line between uninterested heterosexuals and fairly interested asexuals. Or whatever.

    Anyway "I don't want to have sex" suits my needs for understanding it.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    You guys are making a poor effort.
    "I feel the need to masturbate"=/=" I want sex"
    A gay guy doesn't want to put his penis in a vagina, and you accept that. We don't want to put anything in anywhere or have anything in anywhere, but you don't understand that. I don't see why it's so hard to understand. We (probably) feel about everyone the same way a straight guy feels about other guys. We don't get off on them having sex, and we'd rather not partake in it either.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    You're talking about romance as if it exists independently our understanding of it like its some kind of natural phenomenon rather than a social construct.

    We have a world for non-sexual relationships, that word is "platonic".

    Someone you have a platonic relationship with is called a friend. You can take your friend out to dinner and buy them flowers and even cuddle them, but unless there is some kind of sexual motivation there, they're still just a friend.
    Well, considering you didn't actually respond to what I said, it's hardly a surprise that you'd continue to labour under your previous error.

    To reiterate; the "definition" of romance, and the delineation between platonic and romantic relationships isn't nearly so certain as you seem to think. It's easy for you to assert to the contrary, but that makes you more blinkered than it does correct.

    Your apparent tendency to disregard the flexibility with what these words can imply doesn't do you credit- it doesn't show you taking a hard and confident line, it only serves to demonstrate your fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the discipline of the social sciences.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    Well, considering you didn't actually respond to what I said, it's hardly a surprise that you'd continue to labour under your previous error.

    To reiterate; the "definition" of romance, and the delineation between platonic and romantic relationships isn't nearly so certain as you seem to think. It's easy for you to assert to the contrary, but that makes you more blinkered than it does correct.

    Your apparent tendency to disregard the flexibility with what these words can imply doesn't do you credit- it doesn't show you taking a hard and confident line, it only serves to demonstrate your fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the discipline of the social sciences.
    Maybe I have a bad idea of friendship, but if you were dating someone then bought someone else flowers, took them for dinner and cuddled them a lot without a good reason, your partner would probably think you were cheating on them. Which basically means you are dating.

    Secondly, are you saying the only reason to actually date somebody is for the sexual side of things?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    Well, considering you didn't actually respond to what I said, it's hardly a surprise that you'd continue to labour under your previous error.

    To reiterate; the "definition" of romance, and the delineation between platonic and romantic relationships isn't nearly so certain as you seem to think. It's easy for you to assert to the contrary, but that makes you more blinkered than it does correct.

    Your apparent tendency to disregard the flexibility with what these words can imply doesn't do you credit- it doesn't show you taking a hard and confident line, it only serves to demonstrate your fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the discipline of the social sciences.
    Sorry, but that is nonsense.

    You are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of science - social science or otherwise - which is that before attempting to debate or discuss anything, we must first come to an agreement on the definition of the words we are using.

    Words with multiple, shifting meanings are completely useless meaningless gibberish. You might as well be speaking in tongues for all the insight you will gain.

    My argument holds for the common scientifically defined definition of the words I am using. If you have a different definition, then spell it out explicitly and I will rephrase my argument accordingly.

    If you don't have a different, concrete definition you wish to propose, then you are no longer debating, you are obfuscating.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    Maybe I have a bad idea of friendship, but if you were dating someone then bought someone else flowers, took them for dinner and cuddled them a lot without a good reason, your partner would probably think you were cheating on them. Which basically means you are dating.

    Secondly, are you saying the only reason to actually date somebody is for the sexual side of things?
    What I'm saying is that it is not a reasonable position to rule out romantic feelings in the absence of sexual attraction, based on existing theories of romance as a cultural and psychological phenomenon, nor is it fair (or supportable) to necessarily define romance as having an inherent sexual element.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    Maybe I have a bad idea of friendship, but if you were dating someone then bought someone else flowers, took them for dinner and cuddled them a lot without a good reason, your partner would probably think you were cheating on them. Which basically means you are dating.

    Secondly, are you saying the only reason to actually date somebody is for the sexual side of things?
    They would get mad because they'd think you were doing those things as a precursor to sex.

    However, lets say your sister was ill, so you bought her flowers, cuddled her and took her out for dinner. Does that mean you're dating your sister?

    Oh and by definition, yes.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    What I'm saying is that it is not a reasonable position to rule out romantic feelings in the absence of sexual attraction, based on existing theories of romance as a cultural and psychological phenomenon, nor is it fair (or supportable) to necessarily define romance as having an inherent sexual element.
    So you accept that for some people there is romantic attraction without sexual desire?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Sorry, but that is nonsense.

    You are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of science - social science or otherwise - which is that before attempting to debate or discuss anything, we must first come to an agreement on the definition of the words we are using.

    Words with multiple, shifting meanings are completely useless meaningless gibberish. You might as well be speaking in tongues for all the insight you will gain.

    My argument holds for the common scientifically defined definition of the words I am using. If you have a different definition, then spell it out explicitly and I will rephrase my argument accordingly.

    If you don't have a different, concrete definition you wish to propose, then you are no longer debating, you are obfuscating.
    Romance is a cultural and psychological phenomenon with many mechanistic explanations, some of which require sexual elements, and some not. Your error is simply to define romance as having a necessary sexual element, and then to assert that anyone disagreeing is wrong.

    That is obfuscation. You are deliberately ignoring the inherent flexibility of these terms, as they progress with understanding. There is no "concrete" definition of such a feature of the social sciences, as there is no "concrete" explanation. So long as things have different psychological models, you won't be able to use these words with the certainty you endow them with, it's simply inappropriate.

    Hence my conclusion; you couch things with an iron-cladding they do not deserve. You can stop, or you may continue to make the same mistake.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    So you accept that for some people there is romantic attraction without sexual desire?
    I don't ever recall having denied that.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    They would get mad because they'd think you were doing those things as a precursor to sex.

    However, lets say your sister was ill, so you bought her flowers, cuddled her and took her out for dinner. Does that mean you're dating your sister?

    Oh and by definition, yes.
    I did say "without good reason". Being ill is a good reason. Going on a romantic date is something that I think is reserved for couples.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    I don't ever recall having denied that.
    Ah, I think in the first place I quoted your post instead of somebody else's.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    Romance is a cultural and psychological phenomenon with many mechanistic explanations, some of which require sexual elements, and some not. Your error is simply to define romance as having a necessary sexual element, and then to assert that anyone disagreeing is wrong.

    That is obfuscation. You are deliberately ignoring the inherent flexibility of these terms, as they progress with understanding. There is no "concrete" definition of such a feature of the social sciences, as there is no "concrete" explanation. So long as things have different psychological models, you won't be able to use these words with the certainty you endow them with, it's simply inappropriate.

    Hence my conclusion; you couch things with an iron-cladding they do not deserve. You can stop, or you may continue to make the same mistake.
    I am not making any mistake, don't be so patronising. You're only a second year, and you don't even study social science. Wind your neck in, please.

    If you can't give me a better definition, I'm going to assume you don't have one and are just trolling.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    I did say "without good reason". Being ill is a good reason. Going on a romantic date is something that I think is reserved for couples.
    yes, sexual couples.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    yes, sexual couples.
    My grandparents no longer have sex, but they still go on dates occasionally.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    I am not making any mistake, don't be so patronising. You're only a second year, and you don't even study social science. Wind your neck in, please.

    If you can't give me a better definition, I'm going to assume you don't have one and are just trolling.
    I'd have thought the persona you were trying to cultivate would be above ad hominem attacks.

    Having described your mistake on at least two occasions now, I'll refer you back to one of those posts until you understand it. I don't need to provide an alternative definition for you to be wrong; your mistake is fundamental in your approach. As previously described, and unaddressed by your part.

    As for being patronising, I find it hard to avoid when the person I'm speaking to is clearly a moron.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    My grandparents no longer have sex, but they still go on dates occasionally.
    They're still a sexual couple, because sex is the reason they are together.

    2 people currently having sex = sexual couple
    2 people who have had sex in the past and have stayed together = sexual couple
    2 people who have come together with the intention of having sex in the future = sexual couple

    2 people who have never had sex, never intend to have sex, and have no interest in having sex with each other at all = friends.


    This is all pretty basic stuff, none of it is in the slightest bit controversial.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    I'd have thought the persona you were trying to cultivate would be above ad hominem attacks.

    Having described your mistake on at least two occasions now, I'll refer you back to one of those posts until you understand it. I don't need to provide an alternative definition for you to be wrong; your mistake is fundamental in your approach. As previously described, and unaddressed by your part.

    As for being patronising, I find it hard to avoid when the person I'm speaking to is clearly a moron.
    Be careful, you are straying away from the debate and into insults. Such behaviour will get your post removed and you will be warned.

    You appear to think you know about this subject better than me, I am merely pointing out that you actually probably don't, since I have studied sociology and you have not. So perhaps a little more deference might be in order.

    I assure you, I have not made any mistakes. If you think I have, it is because you yourself are mistaken.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 25, 2015
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.