Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I used to be less-than-feeling-bothered about how a lot of people feel about my asexuality, I always thought it was just a simple hiccup in the science community, but over time let's just say the revelations have sunk in as disheartening. I've been a pariah because of it, it's the most common talking point when I see people jab at me, and even amongst acquaintances I'm told they're dismissive of anyone saying they're asexual.
Psychiatrists have told me it's a flaw of mine, family members would think of me suspicious for it, and when I later found out the acquaintances of mine (who I still consider friends to an extent) are into Jordan Peterson (you probably know where this is going), I though "maybe I can paraphrase this great genius in their presence to help my case", only to realize he is no genius and actually champions the idea of asexual dismissal. Pardon my French, but how hard is it to effing say "intimacy is NOT a given?"
Up until recently, asexuality hasn't had any widespread slurs, but the label "worthless" really does it when you want a deep connection just like everyone else. Recently however, some slurs have developed, though for obvious reasons you'll have to look them up, as this is Lemmy.
Weird how sex is simultaneously taboo and expected of people.
I think a lot of people believe reproduction is a living being's only purpose.
It's more like anything that deviates from how it normally works is considered contrary to the point of it all and thus that becomes taboo, i.e. the details of how you might like dressing up as authority figures to get the ball rolling.
Make no mistake, people in ancient times were fine starting the very first chapters of their scriptures with "and then the first man and first woman hit it off" which they no doubt relayed to people early in their upbringing.
How does exactly Jordan Peterson dismiss asexuality there?
He is asked by someone self defining as asexual: how can I do to have kids, I have not felt sexual connections but want to create children with my wife.
Then he answers the questions, like "hey, if you really wanna do this, you can try this steps. Also, you can explore if you are really asexual (see, he acknowledges there asexual exists) or if maybe it has roots on something else, and you should explore that as well"
How is that dismissing, did I miss something?
If it is because something in the lines of "well, you cannot tell people they maybe arent what they identify as" then Ok i guess. I don't agree, I think a professional should explore all possibilities, especially when it is generaring discomfort to someone (as is the case with the person asking), but that's just my opinion.
If it's not in that line, I may have missed something.
That's not quite what it is. She (the person who sent the letter) said that as an off-detail, she was asking how they might grow a family without physical connection, which is entirely possible. You don't need that in your family if you choose someone likeminded to you. Of course, though, Peterson doesn't read the whole letter, it's normal to do highlights with those.
There's also a bit of context. Sexuality is a large part of Peterson's teachings, though he takes an exclusively popular political approach to it. To give the most relevant example, in one of his most famous teachings, he put forward the notion that incels are a result of society casting them aside, with this in turn owing its context to the incel movement, which consists of people expressing angst over disproportionate relationship statistics. He has said this a few times, it arises out of ideals stemming from the sexual revolution and culminates today in seizing the means of reproduction, to use a double entendre. For this reason, incels and asexuals are diametrically adjacent on the "who do I please" spectrum.
So then this guy comes along, who many wonder if he's there just there to please, and then this woman asks the question in the letter. She never says "how do I be physical", she's asking "how do I find peace", and with the context in mind, his mindset becomes a real awakening (not in a good way). Unlike being an incel, asexuality is not only a way we're born as opposed to just some random identity, but it's also the natural state of things, to have a drive is not necessary for life to exist. Side note, adoption is never mentioned.