@DonLonG: Since reality doesn't care what you believe, you'll only end up split this way if the Christian afterlife's actually a thing.
And... come to think of it, you might not end up split at all. If I were the betting type, I'd bet that either the blood of Christ'll cover the sins of your atheist half, or the imperfect faith resulting from only believing with one half of your brain'll send you to hell. Flip a coin and take your chances.
My dad would probably say it's what you believe consciously that counts, though.
Edit: Also, happy birthday! This is a great conversation to be having on your birthday.
@DarrenWalker I was brought up Mormon, and in that religion theres 3 levels of heaven. I had a dream couple of months ago that I died and went to heaven. God was giving me a tour of the 3 levels and explained why he put people where they did.
The lowest level is where he put good people that were only good because they feared the punishment of hell.
The middle level is where Christians went that were good only because they expected to be rewarded in the afterlife.
Then God showed me the highest level of heaven where he was putting me. This must be a mistake, because I was an Atheist. But God told me that his top kingdom was filled with Atheists, because this was the place for people that did good without fear of punishment, without expectations of rewards. People who did good because they were truly good people.
@DonLonG: So wait—pursuing pleasure is more virtuous than avoiding pain?
At a slight tangent to the current topic, I reasoned out something similar myself a few years back. "If doing good only really counts when you're not doing it for a reward (or to avoid punishment), then doesn't have a conscience handicap you? Whatever you do, your conscience will either reward or punish you, and you know it—so how're you supposed to do good just because it's good?"
The end conclusion was that only psychopaths are capable of true virtue, though, so I dropped that line of reasoning. Clearly morality didn't make sense as I'd been taught it.
How did this thread go from asexuality to bunk neuroscience and theology?
Edit: added snark.
Well, if we’re here:
The left side of my brain prefers Pepsi, while the right side prefers Coke. The former is also demisexual, while the latter is otherkin. There’s a nook, somewhere on the bottom left side of my spongy thought-sack, that is masochistic. Of the 10% of my brain that I use, 0.0003% is very sexually attracted to people garbed in latex.
As someone with tenuous ties to Judaism, I’ve a fascination with the Tetragrammaton, and sometimes wonder why He slept during the Holocaust. I also sometimes dream of Nazi women clad in latex screaming at me. After waking from such dreams, I’ll often yell “ZUCKENDES FLEISCH” until the strange feelings go away.
@hogboblin: Conversational evolution. It's like watching a train wreck from inside the train—great fun when you can't get hurt. (I am not speaking from experience; I have never been on a train as it went off the rails, and I definitely did not instigate the wreck. I am not an immortal.)
@DarrenWalker
I’ve known you for too long. I am not convinced.
What exactly is sexuality? What does it mean to be sexual? If sexuality is viewed on a broad spectrum of orientation ( mental, emotional, physical), attraction, desire, drive etc., then do you define it as an experience,a behavior, a condition or just a state of mind or being? Do you define it using the same criteria as you would a medical condition ? If a means without or lack thereof, would you define being asexual or asexuality on the same spectrum or continuum? That is,can I be sexual because I have a desire but asexual because I feel no attraction to anyone? Can Ifeel no desire or drive but feel some attraction to some one and no specific preference for any gender and still be asexual? Can I have a specific preference for a particular gender but no sexual desire,no drive and no attraction to anyone and still be asexual? If we're considering the spectrum principle, then can someone be intermittently asexual, sexual or permanently anything? Is there a length of time anyone has to be in anyone of these states to be considered one or the other? I'm only probing thoughts not asking for a lecture or insult though I'd welcome it as another thing to intellectualize and probe deeper on my own.
Labels are only useful as long as they help you frame your own identity and help you explain to others, it is perfectly valid to change labels over time as you learn about yourself and change as a human being.
Labels are more useful to those who would tear you down rather than build you up. Those who really care about you could not care less about any labels attached to you. I could care less what someone labels themself as it does not change my world.
I also find people who spend an exorbitant amount of time on labels, spectrums or railing against the former are wasting time on idealizations and beliefs which as a couple of people have noted, are very fluid and are the mental equivalent of placing yourself within a box within a box within a box. Just be you and to hell with anyone who doesn’t like it because they are not living your life.
With that said, enjoy your week Aces.
Every word is a label that points toward a hemisphere of understanding. So rhetorically, words are all we have. After trust is established I find the use of words, symbols, spectrums and any learning tool that might bring me closer to another person helpful, especially because I am naturally motivated by closeness with others.
However @FunCartel - I know what you mean. If you want to push someone away, just label or worse, mislabel them.
I have spent considerable time trying to expand my understanding of asexuality and at times mislabeling myself into a corner, only to find the people whose trust I have gained patiently pointing me in a new direction.
Without the help of asexuals on this site, my understanding of the label would be nothing more than a fable, rhetorically speaking.
Happy Birthday 🎁🎉 @DonLonG
You're a stellar human, @DonLonG . I admire your writing, eloquence, and bravery in putting it all out there.
Shout out to @Catloaf for her "Oh Hell No" thoughts and contributions. Sexuality as a connected web, instead of a strict Kinsey spectrum or "orbit" is one of the best metaphors I've experienced in quite some time.
Happy Week to all the aces out there! I appreciate you, and you’ve been some of the safest and most enjoyable cuddlers ive has the pleasure of experiencing here and in my off-site life. 💜
Thank you! 😍🤗
being asexual is beautiful imho.
I hit Bingo numerous times! Smh @DonLonG sooo where's my prize!? Lol
@notcuddledyet: [nod, nod] Just as beautiful as every other sexual orientation.
There are joys to being asocial (and mostly not coming out of the closet online). I've heard lots of those things, but not enough to line up for a bingo! Multiples of the same square, you bet... comes of hanging out with mostly the same people.
@DarrenWalker Sad yet true. 🤷🏾😩😔
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but thank you for posting this! My husband just figured out that he's something called a "grey asexual", which means that he has a sex drive, just a very low sex drive. (His testosterone results come back fine, so it's not that). He's always felt really weird and ashamed about the not always wanting sex like men are "supposed to". When he told me, he was so worried that I would feel hurt, or think that he doesn't find me beautiful. When he worked up the courage to come out to me as Ace, I just thought about it for a second and told him "yeah, that makes sense! It doesn't make me love you any less!" He started laughing because he realized that I would never reject him for being who he is. I've had several Ace friends over the years and always appreciate people who spread more information about asexuality, as it's nothing to be ashamed about!
@CuddlebugSam I think I was like that. I'm more than happy to have E.D. so I don't need sex. I'm glad I'm not alone
@CuddlebugSam I'm left wondering if hubby is happier now that he has a label? Is it the new identity or simply that you two had n honest talk?
@notcuddledyet That's false information about ED. Your conflating issues.
ED does not result in no longer needing sex. It's simply the inability to have or maintain an erection. If one needed it before, the need is still there only the ability is impaired. Need proof? Check out Viagra sales figures.
What's most likely is the operation of a defense mechanism, a denial. Basically, it goes, "I can't therefore, I don't really want".
@VN6056 He already stated the meds do not work for him. He has now become conditioned to no sex. So it is not a defense mechanism, just an acceptance of his condition and a realization of the positive thing that came out of it.
@FunCartel you missed the central point point
@VN6056 No you missed the point when you failed to read early on in the thread that meds do not work for him. He did not conflate E.D. and sex as you state. He simply said that since he has ED he is happy because he no longer needs sex to be happy. He never said ED erases the sex drive. He just can’t do the act so he is happy for that.
Happy Ace awareness week! -Asexual Samantha here :-)
Why does society love it's catchy labels lol.