The You Game!

[Jewish Candy]

So ^ really did have sexytimes? < wasn't sure before now!

[Snagglebee]

< never claimed that and < will never confirm that ; )

[MrBadGuy]

There is also the issue of corrective rape and other kinds of violence (particularly if you don't belong to the groups asexuals are most commonly portrayed as)... whether that's done by ignorant people or not, it's still done.

< doesn't see that as being a separate problem from rape in general, < thinks these people who commit these sorts of crimes are going to do it one way or another, this just happens to be an "excuse" in some cases

[Jewish Candy]

< didn't say it was a separate problem (all these issues intersect after all), and corrective rape is also used against other queer groups, but asexuality being an 'excuse' does not remove the fact that a) asexuality is therefore seen as something to be corrected and b) this view can negatively impact asexual people.

But < feels this is perhaps too raw a topic for the You Game

[MrBadGuy]

a) asexuality is therefore seen as something to be corrected and b) this view can negatively impact asexual people.

< is just saying that all people need to put up with shit from others at times, but when the critics exist in such a minority, people need to learn to put up with them.

There's also something to be said for developing thicker skin, without people attacking one another, all humans might turn into delicate, brittle things that can't handle criticism...

[Jewish Candy]

Oh dear, ^ is misreading < completely, but < expects that's due to <'s lack of eloquence. < will try to address some stuff

- Not a minority, as already discussed. This is society at large still having the generalised view that asexuals are broken in some way. Opinions have been shifting in the right direction over the last ten years, which is fantastic, but still, not a minority.
- Unless you're talking about the rapists, in which case, being raped is not something to 'grow a thicker skin' over. < is sure that wasn't the point ^ was trying to make
- People are just getting on with it and living with this stuff already. There's nothing new in that advice. < never understands why whenever these issues are brought up, this is the response certain people run to...

100 TINGS TO WHOEVER CAN GUESS WHAT < IS EATING

[Adsolution]

< can't believe there are still people who believe the A in LGBTQIA+ stands for 'Ally' and not 'Asexual'.

Wtf?

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/demisexuality/

< thinks that this is a fantastic article that highlights quite an observant stance towards terminology. Regarding this portion:

If the taxonomy seems loose and even confusing, it’s because the terms were created almost wholly online, arising on gaming-site forums and a nest of interrelated Tumblrs, blogs, and subreddits. They don’t necessarily describe fixed identities but serve more as beacons for people to locate each other online. While the rest of the world was using the web to invent and gratify new pervy thrills, these people used it as a wormhole out of a relentlessly sexual culture. It might be the only corner of the Internet that is not laced with porn.

So although labels are a big part of it, demisexuals and gray-aces don’t get too caught up in the lingo. They tend to be pretty comfortable with the idea they might change. A few months after that Friday at the outreach center, Genevieve realized she is more of an asexual than a gray-ace, and Sean now isn’t sure if he’s demi or ace. “Every single asexual I’ve met embraces fluidity—I might be gray or asexual or demisexual,” says Claudia, a 24-year-old student from Las Vegas. “Us aces are like: whatevs.”

In <'s opinion, the terminology, when it comes down to things, is largely unhelpful. It can be quite the opposite in some cases, as the concept of terminology, regardless of what can be said, is to provide designation. In the short-term, it can give people a sense of identity, it's a catchphrase that allows similar people to flock together. In the mid-term, it can make you unconsciously feel the need to conform to that designation. Two people are likely to label themselves as the same thing when the underlying causes are very different, which in the long-term, can create an even greater loss of identity, because their issues aren't being dealt with the right way. < thinks this is especially the case with younger people who only have online communities to interact with. Of course, there's very little scientific backing behind any of this, which is why < sees it as potentially harmful; science is the key, misnomers are not. One very good thing that can come out of this though is, due to the rising popularity of these terms, scientific research on it is probably going to increase a shitload.

< is asexual and actually very happy about that

< doesn't intend to offend, but the ratio of people who think they're asexual when 15/16/17 to the amount of people who truly are asexual is like looking at a pie chart of how long humans have existed in the Universe. < also thought < was asexual a few years ago, as did emshomar apparently. A friend of mine who thought she was asexual recently told < that she finally discovered who she was, and that it ended up just being an odd sort of kink. A lack of sexuality is incredibly rare and, to < at least, isn't something to toss around lightly as something to claim you have, because it leaves the few in the world who are genuine lost among a crowd of 'fakers', and that situation is a horribly depressing one to be in.

Ironically, this is where fuzzy terminology sounds like it could come in handy, but that's a cheap solution in <'s view. < thinks it's best to analyse who you are as a person and describe yourself in that way.

< made up a funny comparison to atheism, something much more common (as it's actually our default state of being, quite the opposite of sexuality, which in addition is something you can't change or be influenced to "believe in"), being born asexual is like being born religious, it would require an oddly specific wiring in your brain and is downright obscure, nigh impossible. It isn't the perfect comparison though, as taking away one thing in particular (sexuality) from a set number of possibilities (your DNA) is much more predictable than forming one out of a virtually infinite amount of possibilities, but you catch my drift.

< also isn't discrediting the possibility of ^ actually being asexual, but <, suffice to say, isn't fully convinced. There's nothing anyone can really do about that though except wait and see if ^'s mindset persists throughout adulthood.


-- When < uses the word "you" in this thread, it isn't referring to anyone in specific, otherwise < would use "^"

[Jewish Candy]

In <'s opinion, the terminology, when it comes down to things, is largely unhelpful. It can be quite the opposite in some cases, as the concept of terminology, regardless of what can be said, is to provide designation. In the short-term, it can give people a sense of identity, it's a catchphrase that allows similar people to flock together. In the mid-term, it can make you unconsciously feel the need to conform to that designation. Two people are likely to label themselves as the same thing when the underlying causes are very different, which in the long-term, can create an even greater loss of identity, because their issues aren't being dealt with the right way. < thinks this is especially the case with younger people who only have online communities to interact with. Of course, there's very little scientific backing behind any of this, which is why < sees it as potentially harmful; science is the key, misnomers are not. One very good thing that can come out of this though is, due to the rising popularity of these terms, scientific research on it is probably going to increase a shitload.

A similar thing has been prevalent in psychiatry, which is only now being addressed, and consider that that's a closed community. For its benefits the DSM can do, and has done, a hell of a lot of harm by squeezing people into those kinds of categories - sometimes with political motivation. But at the same time, < knows a lot of people who find things easier to manage simply from having a name to put to their 'thing'.

A friend of mine who thought she was asexual recently told < that she finally discovered who she was, and that it ended up just being an odd sort of kink.

This is quite similar to <, though for < is was to do with accepting a physical condition as not impacting <'s sexuality in the way that < had imagined.

[Snagglebee]

< believes that there is also a big factor with what type of people your hanging out with.
< would have probably never changed <'s mindset if < didn't gang up with classmates.

[Adsolution]

A similar thing has been prevalent in psychiatry, which is only now being addressed, and consider that that's a closed community. For its benefits the DSM can do, and has done, a hell of a lot of harm by squeezing people into those kinds of categories - sometimes with political motivation. But at the same time, < knows a lot of people who find things easier to manage simply from having a name to put to their 'thing'.

< is uber sorry, but < has no idea what ^ just said, not one bit of it, < thinks it's the wording and sentence structure. < is very curious though and will probably completely agree, can ^ rephrase?

[Fifo]

< wonders when will R2/PC arrive.

[MrBadGuy]

- Not a minority, as already discussed. This is society at large still having the generalised view that asexuals are broken in some way. Opinions have been shifting in the right direction over the last ten years, which is fantastic, but still, not a minority.

Ok, if you say so, but < isn't convinced that it's "society at large", just that people with negative reactions to things tend to be more vocal, especially online.

- Unless you're talking about the rapists, in which case, being raped is not something to 'grow a thicker skin' over. < is sure that wasn't the point ^ was trying to make

No of course < isn't talking about that, although < supposes an extraordinarily thick skin, physically, might be used to repel such an attack

- People are just getting on with it and living with this stuff already. There's nothing new in that advice. < never understands why whenever these issues are brought up, this is the response certain people run to...

Yeah, < knows, < isn't trying to bring any new advice, < just feels that sometimes people want to feel like they're being oppressed or whatever, when really they're not. < isn't saying that this is the case here, but < is offering it as a possibility. < doesn't know much about it except that < hasn't encountered any ill-will towards asexuality (calling it broken) in <'s circles

[Jewish Candy]

< is uber sorry, but < has no idea what ^ just said, not one bit of it, < thinks it's the wording and sentence structure. < is very curious though, can ^ rephrase?

Oh god, < can now see all the areas where commas would have been useful! Sorry!

But no matter. < was just noting that the unscientific labelling you discussed is a problem that the psychiatric community has grappled with since its inception, and that the problem is not limited to open communities like those found on the internet. The DSM is still a nightmare and still leads to incorrect or unhelpful diagnoses. But, at the same time, simply having a 'word' to use for a condition can be useful for people. So, basically just < nodding <'s head sagely.

< hopes that's more readable...?

[NyaNyaLily]

< thinks this is changing into the novel game

[Jewish Candy]

< thinks ^ is not wrong

[Imco]

< has to play Stamitz' concert in Es-dur on clarinet in April
It's so hard!!! :')
<'ll manage < presumes

[Jewish Candy]

There's still Lent to go, don't worry lil' zeldo frend < believes in you

Also, 8 shadow people

[Adsolution]

< just feels that sometimes people want to feel like they're being oppressed or whatever, when really they're not.

This is very true, < finds it most often coming from people who wish they had been through greater hardship in order to become stronger or whatever. < can actually sympathise with them to some degree though, because society really seems to care a fuckload more about people who've been through shit and simply lived to tell the tail more than people who haven't, when it isn't really something they achieved or had control over. Sure, it can give you thicker skin (or not, depends on who you are), but there's just as high a possibility it could make you an ignorant asshole as it could an open-minded Jesus. Or anything in between, though it has a tendency to push extremes a bit more.

But no matter. < was just noting that the unscientific labelling you discussed is a problem that the psychiatric community has grappled with since its inception, and that the problem is not limited to open communities like those found on the internet. The DSM is still a nightmare and still leads to incorrect or unhelpful diagnoses. But, at the same time, simply having a 'word' to use for a condition can be useful for people. So, basically just < nodding <'s head sagely.

< hopes that's more readable...?

Ah! < gets it now. < agrees, and is actually quite glad to hear that < isn't a huge minority in this thought process (< hadn't really considered its prevalence in the professional community, though it seems obvious now that ^ mentions it).

[NyaNyaLily]

< is going to make the novel/you game

[Jewish Candy]

< can't believe ^ actually did it...