Kevin's Watch

Right. Just watched a very smug, cutesy newsprogram about asexuals, and I'm pissed.

The bias of the program was The Outsiders -- fair enough -- but the very narrative of the programe was snotty in the extreme. To counterpoint people who honestly spoke about not having sexual desire and living full lives without it, they showed a lipglossed psych expert who intoned: "if you've been blind all you're life, how do you know what color is?"

Sorry. I'm quite "sighted" and have been celibate by choice for twelve years, and that's a SUCK analogy. It's offensive to the blind and it's offensive to people who simply don't experience the same erotic drive as the ovewhelming majority. God. Grr.

As impossible as it is for people who follow the sexual imperative (which is okay) to fathom, it's quite possible to have sight, hearing, heart, intuition, ambition, joy, taste, compassion, humor, blah de frigging blah even if one is not sexually active, nor desiring to be (which is totally okay). Damn.

Sorry, but wow. I know that the impulse to couple is central, central, ferocious, and abiding for most of the human race, but to compare those who aren't so driven to the blind? I feel like joining ljcom_asexual from mere solidarity. Sheesh.

And yes, I'm celibate for spiritual/political reasons, as you may have infered. I'm still quite able to appreciate Joshy beauty. I'm celibate, not dead (or blind).

Jwaneeta...

Choosing celibacy for whatever reason is a reason to celibrate! You ultimately choose when, and if, to couple with another person.

There is probably more will power in your little pinky than I have! (No boys, you are not getting my number!)

YOU GO GIRL!!

Choosing celibacy for whatever reason is a reason to celibrate!

Was that intentional? If so it was very funny! If not, then it's even funnier!

Ok, sorry folks. I agree that a comparison to blindness is over-generalized and shallow, but I also agree, that the concept of "don't knock it till you try it" is fair. After all, the blind can't choose to see, but a celibate individual can choose to forgo celibacy, unless of course they are physiologically unable. However, those who remain celibate for spiritual reasons deserve the respect due to them, and certainly should have been mentioned as well. What show was this on again? Sounds like a British show... J/K!!!


-B

Not really a joke, but a choice I wish I had made during some points of my life.

*content edit* I'm probably the antithesis of celibacy, I just wish I had the mindset sometimes.

Excellent post, jwaneeta. My thoughts are the same. And yes, I'm annoyed by all the smug reporting out there, too.

I think the general mindset is that "you would have it if you could get it". Celibacy as a choice has become an anathma (sp?) and I don't think it should be. Sexuality is a personal choice as much as a biological urge...some folks just don't have the urge....it's ok

well many see abstinence as some sort of weakness. they tell us it is not a realistic option. and yes I find those folks to be very smug.

Freedom of choice as far as I'm concerned. It's like telling somebody that they can't hate broccolli because it tastes so good.

How the hell do you know what tastes good to them?

--A

I don't wish to head/desk here, because that would be condescending and uncool, but my point is merely this: the pleasure of sexual union isn't a patch on the ecstasy of higher unions/experiences.

And that's only addressing the notion that ecstatic peaks, rather than service, is a person's only aim in life. Does anyone see where I'm going with this? Ahhhhhhh

A different issue altogether I think, and one that I'm not qualified to debate, not having experienced religious (or equivalent) ecstacy.

--A

Lorelei wrote:... I'm probably the antithesis of celibacy....

Celibacy can certainly be noble, but it's not for me. Quite frankly, I don't understand why someone would choose to be celibate (or how they wouldn't feel the urge to merge), but I accept that some people do feel that way.

some people are celibate because modern love has become nothing more than an emotional investment, and they have no equivalent relationship available to them that reflects their differing ideals, and some others also are this way due to a strict desire to conserve precious energy for perceptual manuevers of awareness, to garner and increase knowledge. Then there are the "others".

I'd just like to chime in and say that people who place a high value on sex and like to have a lot of it *ahem * are often tarnished with a similar brush. I think to attach a stigma to anyone's sexual preference, as long as it's legal is unfounded and unfair.

Cail wrote:Celibacy can certainly be noble, but it's not for me. Quite frankly, I don't understand why someone would choose to be celibate (or how they wouldn't feel the urge to merge), but I accept that some people do feel that way.

Don't mind me -- what waxed my skiis about that program was that it was portrayed as not merely different, but incomprehensible. Literally crazy, like those little twin blond girls who sing songs for White Supremacy.

Mind, this isn't about doing something. It's not about burning crosses or hosting a hate-speech site or anything remotely like that. It's about not doing something: not doing one single thing out of the nearly infinite number of acts that comprise human life. Yet it's considered so bizarre as to be likened to the loss of sight. I just... I dunno.

If I were going to wax all blue sky about it, I'd just say: I think there are a certain number of folk out there who would be much happier on their own, at least for a while. But they never get the chance to find out because the norm is to couple, and the pressure to be normal is so intense as to be gravitational. So you see people going from relationship to relationship, ill prepared and with no clue who they are or how to make anyone else happy, and then babies are in it and homes are broken and oceans of tears are shed, and the cycle just goes on and on.

I've had relationships, and I admit frankly (now) that I was in them because it was what I considered Normal. It was just the face of reality -- who doesn't have a relationship, after all? It took me a long time to free my mind and realize that normal isn't what everyone else is doing, it's what makes you, as an individual, happy, peaceful, productive and joyous.

Oh, and just in case I haven't brought enough wearisome TMI in this thread , I'll reclarify: celibacy and asexuality are two entirely different creatures. The asexual, as I understand it, truly don't experience desire. Celibate people have a standard libido but choose not to act on it for a wide range of reasons, from religious belief to artistic passion to simply having economic autonomy and an aversion to drama.

I still feel like wandering over to that LJ com and giving those folks a shout out, though. They were practically lumped in with Appalachian snake handlers. Unjust, I say! But I guess it's very hard to prove a negative.

Marvin wrote:I'd just like to chime in and say that people who place a high value on sex and like to have a lot of it *ahem * are often tarnished with a similar brush. I think to attach a stigma to anyone's sexual preference, as long as it's legal is unfounded and unfair.

Edited for the sole purpose of saying: Yes. Abso-freaking-lutely. This Othering jazz is pointless and a stupid refutation of human potential. I say we chuck it.

Jwaneeta wrote:Literally crazy, like those little twin blond girls who sing songs for White Supremacy.

Hey! Watch it! They're not crazy! I happen to own all their CDs. Dammit!

jwaneeta wrote:
....I think there are a certain number of folk out there who would be much happier on their own .....

... celibacy and asexuality are two entirely different creatures....

...

It seems to me that being 'on ones own' is different than being celibate or asexual. I would personally find it difficult not to have someone I could 'connect' with and share. Someone (or more than one) I can be close to and share an intimacy that is ... sounds cliche'ish but -- transcendent. While I feel that physical relationships can intensify the intimacy, they are not necessarily a pre-requisite. And with certain close friendships, not relevant.

Do you eschew intimacy as well?

[BTW, I agree with you - regardless of someones choice they should not be treated as pariah's. People who treat people as such are ... well ... a**holes!!]

Creator wrote:
It seems to me that being 'on ones own' is different than being celibate or asexual. I would personally find it difficult not to have someone I could 'connect' with and share. Someone (or more than one) I can be close to and share an intimacy that is ... sounds cliche'ish but -- transcendent. While I feel that physical relationships can intensify the intimacy, they are not necessarily a pre-requisite. And with certain close friendships, not relevant.

Do you eschew intimacy as well?

Wait, there's something I'm not following here. How do you define intimacy? My second boyfriend defined intimacy, quite sincerely, as leaving the bathroom door open. That's vebatim: he told me that was what he needed in a relationship. Clearly it was symbolic - he needed a person in his life in front of whom he could let it all hang out. Which, okay.

I wasn't quite able to oblige him, for reasons having to do with the particular doomed dynamics of the relationship and his unnerving infantilism. Yet interestingly, my first boyfriend and I remained pals for years after the acute phase ended and were even roomies for a while. We'd walk in on each other bathing or showering and think nothing of it. We also liked all the same stuff - we had jokes only we understood, we could finish each other's thoughts, we had banter. So that was pretty intimate - yet sex wasn't in the equation during our most comfortable, I-know-you-like-I-know-me period.

But as for the now: is intimacy defined as having somebody you can tell any secret to? Is it having someone in your life who absolutely has your back? Is it a matter of trust? If it is, I have intimacy.

If intimacy is defined as having someone at my side 24/7, then no, I don't have intimacy. And I couldn't stand it if I did.

Do I feel that anything is lacking at all? Emphatically no. (*koff* okay, except for when I have to reset the doggone TV ) Being single is preferable to being part of a couple, for me. And it's preferable, it's a choice, it's optimum for some people. It's not a lack of anything. It's not a lost sense or a black hole - it's a great life. That's all I'm trying to say.

Creator wrote: Someone (or more than one) I can be close to and share an intimacy

More than one at a time aye? Legend.

jwaneeta wrote:

Creator wrote:
It seems to me that being 'on ones own' is different than being celibate or asexual. I would personally find it difficult not to have someone I could 'connect' with and share. Someone (or more than one) I can be close to and share an intimacy that is ... sounds cliche'ish but -- transcendent. While I feel that physical relationships can intensify the intimacy, they are not necessarily a pre-requisite. And with certain close friendships, not relevant.

Do you eschew intimacy as well?

Wait, there's something I'm not following here. How do you define intimacy? My second boyfriend defined intimacy, quite sincerely, as leaving the bathroom door open. That's vebatim: he told me that was what he needed in a relationship. Clearly it was symbolic - he needed a person in his life in front of whom he could let it all hang out. Which, okay.

I wasn't quite able to oblige him, for reasons having to do with the particular doomed dynamics of the relationship and his unnerving infantilism. Yet interestingly, my first boyfriend and I remained pals for years after the acute phase ended and were even roomies for a while. We'd walk in on each other bathing or showering and think nothing of it. We also liked all the same stuff - we had jokes only we understood, we could finish each other's thoughts, we had banter. So that was pretty intimate - yet sex wasn't in the equation during our most comfortable, I-know-you-like-I-know-me period.

But as for the now: is intimacy defined as having somebody you can tell any secret to? Is it having someone in your life who absolutely has your back? Is it a matter of trust? If it is, I have intimacy.

If intimacy is defined as having someone at my side 24/7, then no, I don't have intimacy. And I couldn't stand it if I did.

Do I feel that anything is lacking at all? Emphatically no. (*koff* okay, except for when I have to reset the doggone TV ) Being single is preferable to being part of a couple, for me. And it's preferable, it's a choice, it's optimum for some people. It's not a lack of anything. It's not a lost sense or a black hole - it's a great life. That's all I'm trying to say.

well hell...if we're lettin it all hang out...sheesh.

my husband and i are intimate. we don't have sex but we're intimate.
(going on seven years, wooo hooo)
there. big damn deal. man. people are so hell bent on conformity. just drives me insane. you can't imagine how long i've had to argue to my girlfriends that know this little tid bit about me and mine that we are JUST FINE. we are, after all is said and done, a most unconventional couple, but a couple we are. its not what mommy and daddy are, it's not what my girlfriends and their sig others are, it's not what they said in books and movies nor what is prolifigated by any number of INSTITUTIONS...but it's MINE.

sex therefore, to ME, does NOT define intimacy, only enhances it (when it's good, when it's not i can live without it, easily).