Essay talk:The Perils of Asexuality
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Topic[edit]
Finally! A kindred spirit! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Aphrodisiacs?[edit]
A very well written essay! Good work. I wonder what would happen if you were to start taking aphrodisiacs? And by that I mean, only ones exhaustively proven to work in young healthy adults as a result of oral administration. Would you ever be interested in such an experiment (as aside from self-discovery, they possess unrelated health and cognitive benefits), I know where to start. Just a thought. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Right, the first thing on your mind when you come across an asexual should be "Hey, why don't we try and make you sexual!" >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Hahaha, good one - as if that's what I just said. I can't tell if you're constantly pulling my leg, or if you have some kind of pet peeve against me? Regardless, as you can quite plainly read, I have not even alluded to any opposition to asexuality, and I'm most certainly not attempting to "repair" anyone. I do, however, WONDER about things in the spirit of science. If you're waiting for the day I apologise for my curiosity, you could be a while. And I shared my inquisitiveness with the author of this essay, asking if he also wondered what the results might be, in the context of his brutally honest exposé on himself and his sexual function, of utilizing proven non-hormonal aphrodisiacs? Come now, anyone with even a fibre of science in them has to agree the question is fascinating. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Whew, defensive much? I'm not accusing you of opposition to anything, but has it ever occurred to you how an asexual would feel when this is the sort of thing you say as the very first thing to them? How would you feel if we lived in an asexual world and when someone met you, an anomalous sexual person, the first thing they said was "Hey, wanna experiment if any of these substances will turn you asexual?" 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- When a suggestion is made by you that I'm communicating something hurtful to a third party when I am not, anything I say in disagreement to that can be handwaved by you as me "being defensive". Though I am legitimately asking you, are you just meaning to be ironic and humorous, and the medium of text limits us both by failing to translate that? I would be partial to that scenario, no doubt. Worthy of some notice is that you've now constructed the sentences "the first thing on your mind" and "the very first thing [you say] to them", demonstrating how thin-skinned you must be in regards to this topic. And I don't blame you for that - I imagine any "kindred sprit" of the author (as you yourself put it) has if nothing else an emotionally powerful bond to this topic (which is not criticism, just a quantifier for your passion towards it). In fact, I can very much empathise with the theoretical example you just put forth. So I can thank you for allowing me, via that point, to take additonal time to reiterate that I'm not trying to be a bull in a china shop, and instead mean to purposefully continue being as respectful as I can and as inquisitive as I want. And regarding providing fair space for the personal stories of people involved, my own personal angle for bringing up aphrodesiacs is partially since I'm a pharmacology/drug/supplement/nutrition nerd, and partially since I myself use aphrodisiacs (the ones that have science behind them) to great success. In a discussion of personal experience, I threw my hat in the ring. That's the most human thing I think I could do. For the record, the very first thing to come across my mind and exit my proverbial mouth was "A very well written essay! Good job". Please don't condescend to that, as I meant it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you managed to write 7 words before going down the what-if-we-could-change-your-asexuality road. Not exactly impressive. "a suggestion is made by you that I'm communicating something hurtful to a third party when I am not" And of course you get to make the call whether what you say is hurtful to other people, hmm? And I'm not saying on Onychoprion's account whether it's hurtful to him (he probably has't read your comment yet either way), but personally I'd say your approach is certainly problematic. I'd like this not to devolve into excessive drama, but it'd be helpful if you owned up that the way you brought up the topic was far from ideal. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:17, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Well, I can now consider my question answered regarding if you're a misunderstood but well-meaning joker who gets lost in translation, or if you're just abrasive on purpose due to being a genuinely angsty person. I don't agree with you that the emphasis of intentions can be measured via relative wordcount, and I think that theory of yours in general demonstrates a lack of advanced reasoning skills. I don't get to make the call if people recieve my statements as hurtful. You very verbosely communicate how hurt you get by pretty much anything I say, and I don't doubt that you feel that way. The call I do get to make, however, is what I intend via any given communication. If people claim to be hurt by something I didn't intend as hurtful, I'm still waiting to hear their point. Now, I can generally take the information that someone was hurt and by that alone still issue an apology or a correction just to most humbly demonstrate that my intention never was to hurt anyone, yet without censoring myself or denying my own intent. That, however, is a privilige that I extend where I deem it well earned by showing reciprocal good faith towards me, as I always try to do towards anyone else. An honorable practice, and one that you most eagerly fail to participate in. The cost of being nice as opposed to being angsty is considered much too steep for you, no doubt. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- So now we're down to making cheap quips at each other? Sure. Let me end on this note then: "You very verbosely communicate" Nope, sorry, you're the verbose one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Me defending myself against your embarassingly obvious projections does not constitute "[us] making cheap quips at each other". And so, the last piece of the neurotic puzzle falls into place - the very person who dived in unprovoked and kicked up all the dust in the first place is also the one to walk away from it. Class act, bro. I still don't even know where you got the idea of some kind of "conversion" from (as you wrote, "make you sexual"). A person who is comfortable in their own skin doesn't react like you did, and it's not my job to pamper to your desperation. You still haven't explained how any of this makes sense. I mean, really now - do you honestly think that's how aphrodisiacs work, that they can "change people"? What was offensive in the first place? Why do you stick to the theme of converting people? Why do you seek to contextualise me as jumping the gun ("the first thought/the very first you say to them")? I haven't even alluded towards anything like that. My honest suggestion is that perhaps you should tend to your own emotional fragility before you enter into discussions on asexuality again - that is, if you care in the least about not risking to trample other people for no particular reason outside of your own angst. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that's rich. You're the one writing blocks of text to desperately justify your comments, but I'm the emotionally fragile one? And if you're gonna be so pedantic; "temporarily turn you sexual". Better? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Atleast I justify my comments (and actually, I'm quite comfortable). You've already pointed out that this issue is close to heart for you, and you've lifted examples with specifically high levels of expressed emotion. Calling me pedantic is not a permitted retreat for you, though it illustrates your lack of education in the logic of argumentative evaluation - which helps to explain why you fail so willingly to understand even these basics concepts put forth to you. If you decide you want something else than a quick wash of your hands and an escape from this therapy session of yours, you may begin by actually replying to the questions formulated, as these would provide your entire position with even the slightest cusp of air. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just wanted to mention that I find your patronizing tone absolutely hilarious. Really, please continue. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- A tone well earned by you! In all seriousness though, I'm pleased to hear that I'm able to entertain as well as stand up against bullying. I take great pride in my writing, and I do take care to express myself carefully. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but my intention is always to be clear. If I am to continue to entertain us both, not only do you need to actually provide me with something here, but you must also revert back to your original tone. A cheerful tone doesn't deserve patronizing in my book. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I could talk about some problematic things you said on other pages. I wouldn't want to completely derail this talkpage though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Are you literally so out of ammunition in this discussion that you openly suggest pulling material from other discussions? You must realise that you've not only taken the low road in this discussion, you've begun tunneling to the center of the earth. And of course, I can't prevent you from being fallacious (as is evident above), but I'd just like to ask - where are you going with all this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Where do you want me to go with this? I've already made all my points. I guess I could dissect your comments here bit by bit, but I honestly have better things to do with my time. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Wow, Danth's law in real life. Really now - if by that you mean you've made your non-existant point, I agree. But the fact remains that you've given absolutely no explanation to your conduct, nor have you considered any of my basic kindergarden questions. I'd say you haven't even begun using your time in a constructive manner here, so claiming you have better things to do with your time is false. I was under attack by you, I defended myself, and you decided that harassing me wasn't worth the effort. Let none say bullies cannot be averted by bravery, honesty and rational discourse. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- You keep getting more and more ridiculous. Don't let anything I say keep you from declaring your victory in this debate, though, since clearly that's all that concerns you when faced with criticisms *cough* I mean attacks, of course. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I've never declared victory, nor do I believe such a thing can be done, which is why I caught your conduct red-handed. I've asked repeatedly for you to actually provide me with answers and explanations, all of which you actively fail to do. The questions are long posed and the ball is in your court. Explain, please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Backpedaling eh? Sure, sure. What questions do you still want answered? Could you be so kind to spell them out? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Can we ... uh ... not bicker? I wrote the essay in an attempt to spread understanding about a rather rare experience, not to spark hostile feelings between fellow humans. While Reverend Black Percy's suggestion might be able to be taken the wrong way, I personally saw it for the nugget of scientific curiosity that it was. Tests such as what was proposed are integral to building a fuller and better understanding of life.
- I appreciate your defending the 'attacks', ... uh ... BoN, but in this case I'm not sure there were any attacks to defend. If we cry foul whenever anyone points out that we're different, or tries to better understand us, we're never going to get anywhere.Onychoprion (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- It was actually the good Reverend Black Percy that was making accusations of 'attacks'. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Wow, I honestly can't believe what I'm reading right now. Despite everyone's best intentions, you still proceed with the fingerpointing even after this manufactroversy of yours has been COMPLETELY defused and the author of the essay himself pleads with you to please stop being abusive towards random, well-meaning members of this community? How many of your punching bag hopefuls have to stand up united against you before you stop trying to constantly derail discussions by forcefully flushing your autism-fueled desperation into them? I'd like to openly apologize to Onychoprion for even allowing you to get this riled up over absolutely nothing. I don't evade my part in this, yet I don't expect you to even recognize yours. Now please, let this discussion settle down as per the intents of the author and myself. Stop trying to collect points, you're embarassing yourself. Just dedicate yourself to the higher purpose here and step down, man. I won't partake your vandalism of this talk page any longer. And for the record - the moment you start treating people better, I'll be first in line to bury the hatchet and give you a firm shake of the hand. But before that glorious day comes you have to understand that we - all of us - have a responsibility not only to ourselves, but to the community at large, and to the cause of reciprocal dignity and empathy not to allow ourselves to fall head-first into our own pretentious angst - I suggest you give shouldering that responsibility a try. Please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to let all this drama put to rest. I was just clearing up a few details. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I very much agree. In all sincerity - thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to let all this drama put to rest. I was just clearing up a few details. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Wow, I honestly can't believe what I'm reading right now. Despite everyone's best intentions, you still proceed with the fingerpointing even after this manufactroversy of yours has been COMPLETELY defused and the author of the essay himself pleads with you to please stop being abusive towards random, well-meaning members of this community? How many of your punching bag hopefuls have to stand up united against you before you stop trying to constantly derail discussions by forcefully flushing your autism-fueled desperation into them? I'd like to openly apologize to Onychoprion for even allowing you to get this riled up over absolutely nothing. I don't evade my part in this, yet I don't expect you to even recognize yours. Now please, let this discussion settle down as per the intents of the author and myself. Stop trying to collect points, you're embarassing yourself. Just dedicate yourself to the higher purpose here and step down, man. I won't partake your vandalism of this talk page any longer. And for the record - the moment you start treating people better, I'll be first in line to bury the hatchet and give you a firm shake of the hand. But before that glorious day comes you have to understand that we - all of us - have a responsibility not only to ourselves, but to the community at large, and to the cause of reciprocal dignity and empathy not to allow ourselves to fall head-first into our own pretentious angst - I suggest you give shouldering that responsibility a try. Please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- It was actually the good Reverend Black Percy that was making accusations of 'attacks'. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Backpedaling eh? Sure, sure. What questions do you still want answered? Could you be so kind to spell them out? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I've never declared victory, nor do I believe such a thing can be done, which is why I caught your conduct red-handed. I've asked repeatedly for you to actually provide me with answers and explanations, all of which you actively fail to do. The questions are long posed and the ball is in your court. Explain, please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- You keep getting more and more ridiculous. Don't let anything I say keep you from declaring your victory in this debate, though, since clearly that's all that concerns you when faced with criticisms *cough* I mean attacks, of course. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Wow, Danth's law in real life. Really now - if by that you mean you've made your non-existant point, I agree. But the fact remains that you've given absolutely no explanation to your conduct, nor have you considered any of my basic kindergarden questions. I'd say you haven't even begun using your time in a constructive manner here, so claiming you have better things to do with your time is false. I was under attack by you, I defended myself, and you decided that harassing me wasn't worth the effort. Let none say bullies cannot be averted by bravery, honesty and rational discourse. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Where do you want me to go with this? I've already made all my points. I guess I could dissect your comments here bit by bit, but I honestly have better things to do with my time. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Are you literally so out of ammunition in this discussion that you openly suggest pulling material from other discussions? You must realise that you've not only taken the low road in this discussion, you've begun tunneling to the center of the earth. And of course, I can't prevent you from being fallacious (as is evident above), but I'd just like to ask - where are you going with all this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I could talk about some problematic things you said on other pages. I wouldn't want to completely derail this talkpage though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- A tone well earned by you! In all seriousness though, I'm pleased to hear that I'm able to entertain as well as stand up against bullying. I take great pride in my writing, and I do take care to express myself carefully. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but my intention is always to be clear. If I am to continue to entertain us both, not only do you need to actually provide me with something here, but you must also revert back to your original tone. A cheerful tone doesn't deserve patronizing in my book. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just wanted to mention that I find your patronizing tone absolutely hilarious. Really, please continue. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Atleast I justify my comments (and actually, I'm quite comfortable). You've already pointed out that this issue is close to heart for you, and you've lifted examples with specifically high levels of expressed emotion. Calling me pedantic is not a permitted retreat for you, though it illustrates your lack of education in the logic of argumentative evaluation - which helps to explain why you fail so willingly to understand even these basics concepts put forth to you. If you decide you want something else than a quick wash of your hands and an escape from this therapy session of yours, you may begin by actually replying to the questions formulated, as these would provide your entire position with even the slightest cusp of air. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that's rich. You're the one writing blocks of text to desperately justify your comments, but I'm the emotionally fragile one? And if you're gonna be so pedantic; "temporarily turn you sexual". Better? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Me defending myself against your embarassingly obvious projections does not constitute "[us] making cheap quips at each other". And so, the last piece of the neurotic puzzle falls into place - the very person who dived in unprovoked and kicked up all the dust in the first place is also the one to walk away from it. Class act, bro. I still don't even know where you got the idea of some kind of "conversion" from (as you wrote, "make you sexual"). A person who is comfortable in their own skin doesn't react like you did, and it's not my job to pamper to your desperation. You still haven't explained how any of this makes sense. I mean, really now - do you honestly think that's how aphrodisiacs work, that they can "change people"? What was offensive in the first place? Why do you stick to the theme of converting people? Why do you seek to contextualise me as jumping the gun ("the first thought/the very first you say to them")? I haven't even alluded towards anything like that. My honest suggestion is that perhaps you should tend to your own emotional fragility before you enter into discussions on asexuality again - that is, if you care in the least about not risking to trample other people for no particular reason outside of your own angst. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- So now we're down to making cheap quips at each other? Sure. Let me end on this note then: "You very verbosely communicate" Nope, sorry, you're the verbose one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Well, I can now consider my question answered regarding if you're a misunderstood but well-meaning joker who gets lost in translation, or if you're just abrasive on purpose due to being a genuinely angsty person. I don't agree with you that the emphasis of intentions can be measured via relative wordcount, and I think that theory of yours in general demonstrates a lack of advanced reasoning skills. I don't get to make the call if people recieve my statements as hurtful. You very verbosely communicate how hurt you get by pretty much anything I say, and I don't doubt that you feel that way. The call I do get to make, however, is what I intend via any given communication. If people claim to be hurt by something I didn't intend as hurtful, I'm still waiting to hear their point. Now, I can generally take the information that someone was hurt and by that alone still issue an apology or a correction just to most humbly demonstrate that my intention never was to hurt anyone, yet without censoring myself or denying my own intent. That, however, is a privilige that I extend where I deem it well earned by showing reciprocal good faith towards me, as I always try to do towards anyone else. An honorable practice, and one that you most eagerly fail to participate in. The cost of being nice as opposed to being angsty is considered much too steep for you, no doubt. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you managed to write 7 words before going down the what-if-we-could-change-your-asexuality road. Not exactly impressive. "a suggestion is made by you that I'm communicating something hurtful to a third party when I am not" And of course you get to make the call whether what you say is hurtful to other people, hmm? And I'm not saying on Onychoprion's account whether it's hurtful to him (he probably has't read your comment yet either way), but personally I'd say your approach is certainly problematic. I'd like this not to devolve into excessive drama, but it'd be helpful if you owned up that the way you brought up the topic was far from ideal. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:17, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- When a suggestion is made by you that I'm communicating something hurtful to a third party when I am not, anything I say in disagreement to that can be handwaved by you as me "being defensive". Though I am legitimately asking you, are you just meaning to be ironic and humorous, and the medium of text limits us both by failing to translate that? I would be partial to that scenario, no doubt. Worthy of some notice is that you've now constructed the sentences "the first thing on your mind" and "the very first thing [you say] to them", demonstrating how thin-skinned you must be in regards to this topic. And I don't blame you for that - I imagine any "kindred sprit" of the author (as you yourself put it) has if nothing else an emotionally powerful bond to this topic (which is not criticism, just a quantifier for your passion towards it). In fact, I can very much empathise with the theoretical example you just put forth. So I can thank you for allowing me, via that point, to take additonal time to reiterate that I'm not trying to be a bull in a china shop, and instead mean to purposefully continue being as respectful as I can and as inquisitive as I want. And regarding providing fair space for the personal stories of people involved, my own personal angle for bringing up aphrodesiacs is partially since I'm a pharmacology/drug/supplement/nutrition nerd, and partially since I myself use aphrodisiacs (the ones that have science behind them) to great success. In a discussion of personal experience, I threw my hat in the ring. That's the most human thing I think I could do. For the record, the very first thing to come across my mind and exit my proverbial mouth was "A very well written essay! Good job". Please don't condescend to that, as I meant it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Whew, defensive much? I'm not accusing you of opposition to anything, but has it ever occurred to you how an asexual would feel when this is the sort of thing you say as the very first thing to them? How would you feel if we lived in an asexual world and when someone met you, an anomalous sexual person, the first thing they said was "Hey, wanna experiment if any of these substances will turn you asexual?" 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Hahaha, good one - as if that's what I just said. I can't tell if you're constantly pulling my leg, or if you have some kind of pet peeve against me? Regardless, as you can quite plainly read, I have not even alluded to any opposition to asexuality, and I'm most certainly not attempting to "repair" anyone. I do, however, WONDER about things in the spirit of science. If you're waiting for the day I apologise for my curiosity, you could be a while. And I shared my inquisitiveness with the author of this essay, asking if he also wondered what the results might be, in the context of his brutally honest exposé on himself and his sexual function, of utilizing proven non-hormonal aphrodisiacs? Come now, anyone with even a fibre of science in them has to agree the question is fascinating. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Goodness, that escalated quickly! O.O Well, Reverend Black Percy, I think that'd be interesting, actually. I'd never thought to try that, and I wouldn't be against doing so for science.
Standing where I am, I'd assume it would work on me, as it's a chemical thing. Like, when heterosexual men look at a woman their brain produces a chemical that gets them aroused. I doubt I'd be immune to that chemical---instead, I think my brain just doesn't produce it. I'd think introducing or inducing it artificially would have the same effect, though.
An interesting thought! Onychoprion (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've decided to reply to you on my talk page, in order that we may have a civil discussion. I hope you are fine with this, and if not, I'll respectfully conform to your wishes. Thank you in advance. Your friend, Reverend Black Percy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Translation[edit]
Hello. I'm asexual too. I translated this essay to Portuguese, and posted it on my blog, here: https://andersbateva.xyz/2018/01/22/o-perigo-da-assexualidad/ . Thank you for writing it. As Rational Wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons license, my translation is licensed as such too.--2001:1AF8:4700:A125:8:0:0:1 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)