Turn on thread page Beta

Why don't people try to understand asexuality? watch

    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    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.
    But you don't date somebody just to have sex with them. And if you do, you may as well get a prostitute.

    You don't kiss your friends. You don't tell your friends how beautiful each other are and how much you love them. You don't hold hands with your friends unless it's ironically and you're a 14 year old girl. You wouldn't go out on a romantic date with a friend.

    There's more things you do with partners that you wouldn't do with your friends that aren't just sex.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    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.
    "I'm right, you'll just have to trust me because I have more education than you, even if I have failed to demonstrate a whit of it so far".

    You'll understand that I don't find that overly convincing. I find deference and demonstration to go hand in hand.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I understand asexuality very well. I've been in a relationship with an asexual for four years. I am not asexual though.

    The thing is I am bitter towards it all. I know my boyfriend and I have sort of asked for problems but meh we love each other so we tried to make it work. What I disliked is how the onus was always on me to not have sex, not the other way around. Why should I give up my sexuality? Why couldn't we meet in the middle?

    I say it in past tense because it is more in the middle now, but the first three years were difficult.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airfairy)
    I understand asexuality very well. I've been in a relationship with an asexual for four years. I am not asexual though.

    The thing is I am bitter towards it all. I know my boyfriend and I have sort of asked for problems but meh we love each other so we tried to make it work. What I disliked is how the onus was always on me to not have sex, not the other way around. Why should I give up my sexuality? Why couldn't we meet in the middle?

    I say it in past tense because it is more in the middle now, but the first three years were difficult.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's good to see that you worked things out! It does take effort or compromise on both sides. I hope it carries on well for you!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    But you don't date somebody just to have sex with them. And if you do, you may as well get a prostitute.
    sorry to break it to you, but yes you do. This is elementary psychology.

    /quote]

    You don't kiss your friends. You don't tell your friends how beautiful each other are and how much you love them. You don't hold hands with your friends unless it's ironically and you're a 14 year old girl. You wouldn't go out on a romantic date with a friend.

    There's more things you do with partners that you wouldn't do with your friends that aren't just sex.[/QUOTE]


    There are two types of kissing: sexual kissing, and platonic kissing. Platonic kissing is how you kiss your friends and family, sexual kissing is how you kiss your sexual partner.

    Indian men walk around holding hands.

    "You wouldn't go out on a romantic date with a friend."

    Well no, because the word "romantic" and the word "friend" are mutually contradictory.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    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.
    What a coincidence because I too have studied sociology and seeing that I'm asexual that must mean that by your logic that I am smarter than you. I think it's clear to many people that you have made a plethora of mistakes and your unwillingness to learn just makes you look ignorant. Can you be any more self-righteous and arrogant?

    Part of learning is to put aside what you think you know in order to take in the fact but for some reason you're as stubborn as you are ignorant.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    sorry to break it to you, but yes you do.
    You are an emotionally void character.

    Why are romance books and movies separate to erotic books and movies? Why do some romance movies not even suggest that sex will happen? And why do romance movies have motives other than "that girl is hot" to try to get together with them?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    "I'm right, you'll just have to trust me because I have more education than you, even if I have failed to demonstrate a whit of it so far".

    You'll understand that I don't find that overly convincing. I find deference and demonstration to go hand in hand.
    We've reached an impasse. You don't think its important to define terminology accurately and rigorously, I understand that it is paramount to any technical discussion. I'm surprised that as a chemist, you have never been taught this. Maybe it will be covered in your 3rd year.

    That's it, debate over.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    You are an emotionally void character.

    Why are romance books and movies separate to erotic books and movies? Why do some romance movies not even suggest that sex will happen? And why do romance movies have motives other than "that girl is hot" to try to get together with them?
    They're not, they always do, people have more complicated motives for having sex than mere physical attraction.

    Any other questions?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    We've reached an impasse. You don't think its important to define terminology accurately and rigorously, I understand that it is paramount to any technical discussion. I'm surprised that as a chemist, you have never been taught this. Maybe it will be covered in your 3rd year.

    That's it, debate over.
    Well of course you needn't reply further, but it's less an impasse than it is you covering your ears and humming loudly so that your straw man looks more like a real boy.

    The offer for you to reread my posts and to better yourself remains open. You can even PM me if you desire to fix your worldview; I'm always happy to help. Or just in general really; disagreement aside, you strike me as a thoroughly likeable individual.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    Well of course you needn't reply further, but it's less an impasse than it is you covering your ears and humming loudly so that your straw man looks more like a real boy.

    The offer for you to reread my posts and to better yourself remains open. You can even PM me if you desire to fix your worldview; I'm always happy to help. Or just in general really; disagreement aside, you strike me as a thoroughly likeable individual.
    Thanks. I don't do PMs so I'll see you on some other thread.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    They're not, they always do, people have more complicated motives for having sex than mere physical attraction.

    Any other questions?
    Well... Not very often.

    I haven't noticed sex being suggested in all of the romance things I've seen. Unless you mean just dating in itself suggests sex, because I still disagree with that.

    So using myself as an example, I would like a partner but would not like to have sex. I would like to go out on a romantic date, but I would not like to have sex. I'd say that the fact many people actually feel this way is evidence that romance without sex is a thing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    Well... Not very often.

    I haven't noticed sex being suggested in all of the romance things I've seen. Unless you mean just dating in itself suggests sex, because I still disagree with that.

    So using myself as an example, I would like a partner but would not like to have sex. I would like to go out on a romantic date, but I would not like to have sex. I'd say that the fact many people actually feel this way is evidence that romance without sex is a thing.
    So what specifically would you like to do with a partner that you would never do with a close friend or family member?


    PS, please don't use the word "romantic" in the reply, that would become a circular argument.
    • #2
    #2

    Romance can exist without sex, I think people trying to argue that it doesn't are grasping at straws. It's clear that the point of this thread has not been discussed but ironically been proven that people are not willing understand asexuality, if you're not going to then you should probably just leave the thread
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Romance can exist without sex, I think people trying to argue that it doesn't are grasping at straws. It's clear that the point of this thread has not been discussed but ironically been proven that people are not willing understand asexuality, if you're not going to then you should probably just leave the thread
    No it can't, and saying "yes it can" proves nothing.
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    No it can't, and saying "yes it can" proves nothing.
    Enlighten me with your profound knowledge of individual relationships if you're so sure.

    Sex doesn't have to define everyone's relationship and it doesn't define everyone's relationship
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    So what specifically would you like to do with a partner that you would never do with a close friend or family member?


    PS, please don't use the word "romantic" in the reply, that would become a circular argument.
    I'm sure you remember my previous post. But I'll expand it a little. And also explain why I believe they're romantic.

    Holding hands: I know you said Indian men do this, and I'm aware that it's something that is done by parents and children but actions have different meanings in different contexts and cultures. I wouldn't hold my friend's hand, but if I had a partner, I would hold their hand.

    Kissing: I don't know of any friends who kiss each other on the lips.

    Having meals with each other: would you make something fancy and put candles on the table for your friend? I think the only time this isn't considered romantic is Christmas dinner with the family.

    Complimenting: also includes name calling, I'm not into having this too much but calling each other beautiful and saying how much you love each other is definitely something some asexuals like.

    PDAs are also not something I'm a fan of. But it's an example of something you wouldn't do with your friends.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Interest and want is not the same thing. I may want a large house but I have no interest in buying one. But I understand that you simply used the wrong word and we'll move on.

    So you're saying an asexual has no sexual "want".

    Another word for sexual want is "sexual desire". A synonym of sexual desire is libido.

    So you are agreeing with me that an asexual person has no libido.
    Not necessarily. Haven't we covered this already?

    Some asexuals may have absolutely no libido, that is correct. Others, such as myself, have sexual desire/want/libido/whatever for some sexual activites but not for others. The quote the Wikipedia article once again:

    ''Some asexual people engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to pleasure themselves or romantic partners, or a desire to have children.''

    You should read the entire Wikipedia article about asexuality, or at least the first half of it. It gives a general understanding of what asexuality, which is a spectrum, can involve.

    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Logically incoherent. "Attracted to both men and women" implies a sexual attraction.

    "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".
    Well, by romance I'm talking about things like cuddling, holding hands, spending time with each other, etc. I wouldn't consider this sexual.

    I think the problem you may be having is that you're taking some of my words too literally whereas I've used a lot of words here rather colloquially. I understand the importance of definitions, as you've later explained, though I feel that for a topic like this which rather informal (or at least it was) you need not go all Nazi linguist on everything.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jedijupiter)
    But you don't date somebody just to have sex with them. And if you do, you may as well get a prostitute.
    Does that make economic sense for you though? If we assume the average which I believe is around £80 a pop. I probably saved my self around £87,600 in my last relationship.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Does that make economic sense for you though? If we assume the average which I believe is around £80 a pop. I probably saved my self around £87,600 in my last relationship.
    You're right, buuut the other guy said that the only reason to go for a meal is to have sex later. If there's really no other reason to do it, and you're spending maybe £40 for a nice meal, it implies that you have to buy the meal in order to have sex. Also, for a prostitute you just have sex, with a girlfriend you have to have friendship as well, and since he's after a purely sexual relationship, perhaps for him the prostitute is the better deal. That is assuming he can even get a girlfriend.
 
 
 
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.