xeni at May 29th, 2014 17:42 — #1
anonkopimi at May 29th, 2014 17:49 — #2
Hands-in-lap is a popular pose.
skeptic at May 29th, 2014 17:54 — #3
Yes. Interesting subject matter, ho hum photography.
glitch at May 29th, 2014 18:03 — #4
I'm being extraordinarily pedantic, but it always bugs me that it really should be "asexualistic" or something similar, because these people don't lack a sex, they lack a "sexuality".
(Which is itself a stupid word, but hey.)
brainspore at May 29th, 2014 18:11 — #5
I don't think your suggestion would be consistent with the widely accepted nomenclature. The "-sexual" suffix is generally used to describe who you're attracted to, not who you are.
Heterosexual: Sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Homosexual: Sexually attracted to people of the same sex.
Bisexual: Sexually attracted to people of either sex.
Pansexual: Sexually attracted to people of all sexes and gender identities.
Asexual: Sexually attracted to no one.
glitch at May 29th, 2014 18:13 — #6
Well, I said I was being extraordinarily pedantic, and I'll prove it: the widely accepted nomenclature is wrong.
That said, if we're going to match the extant forms, why not something like "absexual"? Asexual is already a biological term, is my chief complaint.
skeptic at May 29th, 2014 18:14 — #7
I suppose so, but there are so many better targets for such pedantry, such as "homophobia" - or literally fear of sameness. And all of the variation on [name of vice]-holic, and on [name of scandal]-gate.
glitch at May 29th, 2014 18:17 — #8
I'm being pedantic but I'm hardly being serious about it. Relax, it's okay. This is just silliness.
Although mind the logical fallacies! The fact that other words are also worthy of pedantry doesn't devalue my critique of this particular one!
brainspore at May 29th, 2014 18:20 — #9
That would just confuse the issue even more.
phasmafelis at May 29th, 2014 18:20 — #10
A lot of people will immediately associate that with "abnormal."
tekna2007 at May 29th, 2014 18:23 — #11
Those abs are not normal.
phasmafelis at May 29th, 2014 18:27 — #12
I used to think that claims of asexual stigma were wildly exaggerated--you don't have sex, who cares? I don't eat broccoli, it's no big deal!--until I noticed that a lot of the people who agreed with me got really, really worked up about it. When my reaction was "eh, that's not a thing" but others were going straight to "HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT I'M OPPRESSING YOU," I started to realize that there really was a problem.
skeptic at May 29th, 2014 18:38 — #13
Well, not to be pedantic (by which I mean "to be pedantic"), yes, if there are worse offenses more deserving of your pedantry that does actually devalue your less deserving pedantry - at least on a relative scale.
glitch at May 29th, 2014 18:39 — #14
This is merely an exercise in linguistic accuracy, not an exercise in political correctness.
That said, it annoys me to no end that "abnormal" has become a dirty word. Normality is simply what is considered average. If you fall outside of the average, you are abnormal. Simple enough.
I say this as an immensely abnormal person. The difference is that instead of flinching away from the term, I embrace it. I take pride in the fact that I am different. Uniformity is bland and uninteresting. Variety is the spice of life. All that jazz.
I think treating "abnormal" as a negative epithet just gives power to those who are intolerant of differences. We allow their insult to hurt us when we should be subverting it to work against them.
When the British mocked the Colonial Americans by calling them Yankees, laughing at them for being less "refined" and "cultured", the Americans threw it in their face by turning it into a term of endearment, taking pride in their differences. If "normal" people mock others for being different, I for one would prefer to see their victims rally behind the label of "abnormal", defying their abusors and taking pride in who and what they are instead of being ashamed of it.
hmsgoose at May 29th, 2014 18:53 — #15
I hope CNN has some of their best moderators on that comments section. Comment #1 is a somewhat gentle version of what could easily become be a brutally ignorant conversation.
bananawater at May 29th, 2014 19:05 — #16
I'm asking this in the genuine spirit of "I don't quite get this, help me understand", but have you actually heard or seen any direct claims or evidence of asexual stigma, like beyond pressure from parents and friends? (which is not nothing!). it sounds like what you are describing is just general anti-PC or anti-SJW sentiment. Again, no horse in this race, but curious about it.
EDIT: Not trying to put PhasmaFelis on the spot, the question is for the room! I'm just thinking back to workplaces where some people kept their sexuality/domestic situation strictly off-limits and it didn't seem to be an issue to anyone. And also thinking back to late teen/early 20s droughts where I might have felt a bit asexual, and am glad there was no convenient label or identity to lock me into such a life. Genuinely interested to learn.
ladyfingers at May 29th, 2014 19:11 — #17
leicester at May 29th, 2014 19:37 — #18
They reproduce by budding?
glitch at May 29th, 2014 19:59 — #19
The ab- formation can mean "coming from", but it can also mean "distinct from", or "removed from", which both would be fitting.
ladyfingers at May 29th, 2014 20:13 — #20
I think it's kind of hard to understand how taxing being part of a minority can be. I'm South African and white and living in Australia, and there are a lot of stereotypes about us. Luckily my accent is very far from the stereotypical "pawk-yaw-caw-bah-the-baw" drawl meaning people don't know where I'm from, but dear Satan, the constant stream of little remarks and assumptions once it's out there can be quite taxing. It's not nice being reduced to "that X person", and until it happens it's hard to explain.
next page →