"Purity" as a concept

When members here talk about "purity", what do you mean?

I ask this, because certain other groups talk about sexual purity and emphasize it, but might not mean what we mean, and they don't necessarily accept the possibility of never having sex. For example, I've heard some say the "pure" thing to do when married is to have sex whenever the spouse wants or demands. They may preach abstinence until marriage, but not abstinence for life.

Even amongst ourselves, we may have differing ideas of whether the concept of purity is one to value, or if it'd be harmful, and if there are other concepts we should be basing our rhetoric on instead. 

Is believing in the concept of purity one that has been helpful or harmful to you, and how did it influence your decision to be antisexual?

Purity is morality, morality is universal.

Antisexualism by its very definition is resistance, resistance is conflict, conflict is intolerance. Tolerating what one claims to be against is no different than inaction. Forced tolerance is much different. All groups essentially wish to wipe out all opposition in one-way or another. Fascist LGBT wish to eradicate intolerance to their lifestyle, which includes the people who do not practice their lifestyle, as refusal to practice is refusal to tolerate.

In the past, I took a survey while taking a course that implied individuals who are not attracted to a different colour of skin than their own are right-wing. You can find many posts online that claim if you find the image of man and man or woman and woman kissing repulsive, then you are intolerant. Similar words can be said for heterosexuals.

Genocide is only wrong when the other side does it. Death is considered the ultimate punishment, but only for those who are not familiar with torture. I am always confused by the idea that being executed is worse than being imprisoned for life - when death is a far more attractive state than a state that slowly and painfully transfers to it.

Communism is considered by many to be the cause of countless of millions of deaths, but the combined deaths of the oppressed working class fair outnumber the deaths under apparent "communist" states. Deaths caused by terrible work environments, homelessness, corporate police all go ignored and underrepresented by the right-wing media.

Then there is a large group in the human population that rides the wave, having no permanent values except for the values of the mob. They do not represent the majority of the population, but they do represent the largest group and therefore tend to have the most influence - especially when the wave is manipulated by sexualized capitalist sell-out media agencies.

The only solution is the oldest one in the history of man, the oppressed classes of the world must collectively let go of their chains and climb all walls that tell them a better life is impossible. The more we try to convince ourselves that unity and peace is impossible, the more we will suffer in the squalor of ignorance.

It's so frustrating that disliking sex is assumed to automatically be an attack on other people, and I've had that accusation thrown at me. I'm speaking more generally, since this mindset cuts across all orientations, but I've also heard of people disliking sex being accused of being bigoted against LGBT people specifically.

I've even seen this mindset of "If you have a negative attitude towards sex, then you must be an elitist attacking others and are a bad person!" among some asexuals, which I find especially troubling. What do they have to gain from that rhetoric, when many of them admit to not wanting sex under any circumstances? It's contradictory to say it's okay to not desire or not have sex, but turn around to say that disliking it is bad, or at least not being apologetic about it is bad. I don't know if I've been taking some things said by people in the asexual community the wrong way, or if they really are saying that kind of rhetoric to be accepted by mainstream society, but I feel like I've gotten mixed messages at times over this.

Maybe my, and our refusal to have sex is an attack, but an attack done in self-defense. That's how I saw it, having to defend my rights, and others' rights to say no to sex without any kind of stigma, in a world where there's so much pressure to have to "justify" it. To me, inaction or silence means enabling abuse, enabling others to cave into sex that they don't want in the name of being "progressive" or "open-minded".

You're right that deaths related to poverty and work environments are ignored and underrepresented, and it's sickening that it suggests that those kind of deaths are just the "price to pay" or something. I've heard people say why didn't those people get a job, or get a better job? It can be very difficult to get a job, let alone that pays enough.

How did you begin to break free from the ignorance that suggests consumerism and sex are required as keys to happiness, or that sex is inevitable?

I'm not very certain what purity means to me, but I don't like how this thread is starting to turn political. Isn't the point of this site to be open about antisexuality regardless of political leanings? I don't see the relevance between sexuality, economics, and other political issues because one can be pro or antisexual no matter what views. If I want to read about political issues, I'll visit a site that caters to that, not one where it's expected to be politics-free.

SCH0206 wrote:I'm not very certain what purity means to me, but I don't like how this thread is starting to turn political. Isn't the point of this site to be open about antisexuality regardless of political leanings? I don't see the relevance between sexuality, economics, and other political issues because one can be pro or antisexual no matter what views. If I want to read about political issues, I'll visit a site that caters to that, not one where it's expected to be politics-free.

You're right that the point of this site is to be open about antisexuality regardless of political leanings, as it isn't tied to any particular political ideology. I'm generally hesitant to talk about politics because of how messy discussions could get, especially as this community grows, and I don't want for those discussions to tear us apart. For some people, politics aren't relevant, but to others their antisexuality may be influenced in part by their political and economic views, such as disliking sex due to it being a commodity, and reducing peoples' worth to their ability to "sell themselves", or that more generally a human rights concern instead of just being a political view? Is it worth it to bring up politics just in that context, and even then, it'd have to be discussed carefully?

For me, my antisexual views are independent of my political leanings. I see it more as a human rights issue rather than a political one.

Everyone here is entitled to their political views, but I don't want them shoved down my throat as I refuse to indoctrinate others with mine.

.

SCH0206 wrote:For me, my antisexual views are independent of my political leanings. I see it more as a human rights issue rather than a political one.

Everyone here is entitled to their political views, but I don't want them shoved down my throat as I refuse to indoctrinate others with mine.

I agree that no one should be shoving their political views on others.

Back to the main topic, I've been trying to think about what I've meant by "purity". Personally, it's a concept that harmed me years ago, but I may have had a destructive interpretation on what it is. I believed in the rhetoric that any kind of sexual contact made someone impure, but I never condemned anyone else whom had anything forced on them, and I only condemned their perpetrator. I could also hardly comprehend how sexual contact could be mutual. The closest I understood to consent was someone agreeing to it out of a sense of duty to their partner, which still sounds very unpleasant; doing something one hates out of a sense of duty to their partner is bound to lead to resentment over time, but that point ties into another issue: I didn't know the difference between sincerely doing anything out of love for a partner vs. doing it because of a sense of duty/obligation/fear/guilt.

What made me turn against the concept of sexual purity as I originally perceived it wasn't the harm it did to me, but the harm it did to someone else I knew.

In light of all of my understanding about relationships, their dynamics, and the differences between violent and non-violent communication styles (some of which I learned here!), I've had to rethink what purity is.

I'm still rethinking it now, but is purity a state of being, or a series of actions, or both? I still consider someone impure for violating others' boundaries. There's a sense of purity in maintaining one's boundaries, but that person isn't impure if theirs are violated.

"I'm still rethinking it now, but is purity a state of being, or a series of actions, or both?"

Though the word "purity" is still a puzzle for me to figure out, I believe that purity, like practically anything else, is (and should be) a bit of both. If one is pure in mind and through actions, they are a genuine person. Anyone who says one thing and does another is hypocritical.

Admin wrote:Is believing in the concept of purity one that has been helpful or harmful to you

Um...so, having a concept of purity (In case a dictionary doesn't help, "pure" means something that is simply itself, with no outside thing altering/disrupting it. If one can't apply that to how sex is disruptive to our beings, what are you even doing on an antisexual board?) is potentially harmful, but living a life of impurity is not? Aha. I dislike this self-obsessed "What you just said made me feel muh feelings 10% too strongly to be contained within this fleshly vessel, and offended me on a fifth-dimensional level" tumblr generation.

Purity is an ideal to achieve a content existence, you either have the strength to live up to it, or you don't. If you don't, the only harm that's being done is the one you do upon yourself, by not living up to it. I hate it when people blame others for their own shortcomings. Do kleptomaniacs expect people to respect their "choice" to remove objects from every place that didn't staple said objects firmly onto the floor? Oh no, I shouldn't give people ideas, help us all.

"Waaa, I can't live a life of self-respect without harming myself constantly, how dare you have ideals and live up to them, you better come down to my level or else! Just saying this triggered my denial triggers and it's all YOUR fault! I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG MY PAID THERAPIST THINKS IM SPECUL SO ITS TRUUU WHERE ARE MY CHIPS oh and me being fat is your fault too you're literally stuffing these chips into my mouth right now omnomnomnomrage"

(Let me guess, this post will get deleted for "fat-shaming" now. Because wanting to help someone by pointing out their self-damaging habits makes you more dangerous than a lighter held up to a gas-leak.)

A message to people in this and any other (Because let's be honest, people never change until they do, and they haven't yet) generation in general: Stop feeling offended when you're not. If no one actually intends to offend, then you're simply offending yourself, and in order to erase the cognitive dissonance that causes you because you believe yourself to be a self-respecting sort of person, you blame your self-harm on someone else. That's all there is to it. Grow up, basically.

I'm not writing all of this because I'm "offended", by the way. I only wrote this to find like-minded individuals, but at this point I doubt I'll find any. I couldn't care less about people living in their own self-created hell, to be honest. I'm done with the pain caring about that causes. Which is exactly why I plan on making this my only post here. There are some interesting ideas offered, but this forum's general atmosphere is WAY too "tolerant" for me. It's like being in a forum against oppression where it's constantly mentioned that we shouldn't oppress oppressive people. Yes, I'm intolerant towards self-harmers (meaning broadly, in this context, people who have sex, in case that might not be clear), the same way I'm "intolerant" towards murderers. Deal with it. ForeverPure already said it really well, so bye.

Stars.of.Tears wrote:

Admin wrote:Is believing in the concept of purity one that has been helpful or harmful to you

Um...so, having a concept of purity (In case a dictionary doesn't help, "pure" means something that is simply itself, with no outside thing altering/disrupting it. If one can't apply that to how sex is disruptive to our beings, what are you even doing on an antisexual board?) is potentially harmful, but living a life of impurity is not? Aha. I dislike this self-obsessed "What you just said made me feel muh feelings 10% too strongly to be contained within this fleshly vessel, and offended me on a fifth-dimensional level" tumblr generation.

Purity is an ideal to achieve a content existence, you either have the strength to live up to it, or you don't. If you don't, the only harm that's being done is the one you do upon yourself, by not living up to it. I hate it when people blame others for their own shortcomings. Do kleptomaniacs expect people to respect their "choice" to remove objects from every place that didn't staple said objects firmly onto the floor? Oh no, I shouldn't give people ideas, help us all.

"Waaa, I can't live a life of self-respect without harming myself constantly, how dare you have ideals and live up to them, you better come down to my level or else! Just saying this triggered my denial triggers and it's all YOUR fault! I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG MY PAID THERAPIST THINKS IM SPECUL SO ITS TRUUU WHERE ARE MY CHIPS oh and me being fat is your fault too you're literally stuffing these chips into my mouth right now omnomnomnomrage"

(Let me guess, this post will get deleted for "fat-shaming" now. Because wanting to help someone by pointing out their self-damaging habits makes you more dangerous than a lighter held up to a gas-leak.)

A message to people in this and any other (Because let's be honest, people never change until they do, and they haven't yet) generation in general: Stop feeling offended when you're not. If no one actually intends to offend, then you're simply offending yourself, and in order to erase the cognitive dissonance that causes you because you believe yourself to be a self-respecting sort of person, you blame your self-harm on someone else. That's all there is to it. Grow up, basically.

I'm not writing all of this because I'm "offended", by the way. I only wrote this to find like-minded individuals, but at this point I doubt I'll find any. I couldn't care less about people living in their own self-created hell, to be honest. I'm done with the pain caring about that causes. Which is exactly why I plan on making this my only post here. There are some interesting ideas offered, but this forum's general atmosphere is WAY too "tolerant" for me. It's like being in a forum against oppression where it's constantly mentioned that we shouldn't oppress oppressive people. Yes, I'm intolerant towards self-harmers (meaning broadly, in this context, people who have sex, in case that might not be clear), the same way I'm "intolerant" towards murderers. Deal with it. ForeverPure already said it really well, so bye.

I've been struggling with how to word this topic, because this is the first time I've been able to talk about it. Are you asking what I'm doing here, or anyone else?

Anyways, I like your definition of purity and agree that it's important to be able to discuss how sex is disruptive to us. Otherwise, what's the point? I was asking that question about whether believing in the concept of purity in this case is harmful or not, because I've seen many different ideas of what purity is in this context, and how it's applied that I hadn't found a conclusive answer yet.

I hope you'll be willing to stay. Sorry, I misunderstood what other people here have said, but I agree that we shouldn't tolerate oppression nor oppressive people. I thought that was obvious.

If it wasn't obvious, then I'm still dealing with some brainwashing I haven't completely overcome, but I'm trying to break free from it. I created this board to find other antisexuals, other people who understand, so we can help each other.

EDIT again: I don't know if you'll be coming back or if you'll see this, but what you said reminded me of how I see the asexual community. I saw their potential to oppose the sexual norms and stand up against oppression, but the pressure to please sexual society led to them falling short of that potential. In turn, I've dealt with tremendous pressure to please the asexual community, thinking they'd understand, but it's devastating to think that they haven't, and that I've led this board to fall under the same trap.

Moving forward, whether you stay or not, I don't want falling into that trap to happen again. I was just so sick of them misrepresenting us, saying that we're terrible people for disliking sex, thinking it does more harm than good, and not wanting to supporting or encouraging others' choices no matter how destructive. I wanted to show them that we're not the monsters they think we are, but I have the habit of being overly cautious. But we can't be meek about something like this. I also don't want to repeat the same mistakes made with the other board I admin.

.

.

☆x Pure Life x☆ wrote:I remeber @Admin that you have wrote about horrible things that has happened to you in the past by your peers. And I think you wrote something about that it made you feel impure. So this feeling of impurity is something which is only in your mind and not in reality. It's something you maybe still feel, but it's not something which other people think of you.

I hate people who ruin other peoples life, such as wicked filthy rapists and other devils on this planet! >:c

Yes, I wrote about feeling impure by something that happened, and feared that other people would see me that same way and treat me worse for it, although what happened was something I didn't want. I felt impure because I didn't have enough strength to resist coercion, or I felt like I should have, despite the risks to me, therefore I went against my own ideals. I think now the concept of purity in this context wasn't harmful, it was the pain of being coerced into going against my ideals.

Would you consider it impure for someone to go against their ideals, or only if they intentionally go against their ideals?

I realized I've been trying to ask several questions at once with this thread. I was wanting to know when we talk about "purity" in this community, what do we mean? Some more responses helped me realize that I've been referring to different things at once, including:

• "sexual purity" as it is usually defined under traditional sexual morality.
  
• The idea of it meaning being able to live up to our own ideals, which as antisexuals, that entails for us never engaging in any sexual contact.
  
• Feeling like any sexual contact would be defiling to oneself, whether there is an ideological reason for this belief or not.
  

When I was asking if the concept was harmful or not, I was getting it mixed up with something else, especially since I was thinking about my own experiences, and this is a topic I hadn't been able to bring up with anyone in a long time.

Sorry, I guess I was a bit rash with my post. I only come here when I'm pissed off at something I read/saw/experienced somewhere. Thanks for answering so maturely despite my tone, Admin. I guess that's what admins are for, and why I personally could never really be one. As much as I dislike being neutral, maybe a neutral party is necessary sometimes. But always being neutral and "tolerant" doesn't help either. I just hope this community won't become like the asexual community, that's all. This place should stand for being strictly against the destructiveness of sex, and as long as that's its main objective, I'll keep visiting.

Admin wrote:Are you asking what I'm doing here, or anyone else?

I meant people in general.

Well, anyway, sorry for derailing this thread a bit.

Coming back to the main topic, it seems there may be a bit of a conflict as to what exactly counts as "purity" within the context of being antisexual? Like, trying to figure out if sex is still okay under certain circumstances, and if that would still be considered pure. Personally, I thinks that's exactly the question that heralded the downfall of the asexual community, since most of them basically think it's cool to have sex now. People always do things that are considered "okay" by their group's superiors, after all.

So, in that sense, no, sex will never be pure, as it has corruption of the senses and mind within its very nature. It is literally impossible to remain pure while having sex or even thinking sexual thoughts. It is, quite literally, like being drugged, like dirt pouring into a pure stream, to continue using the "purity" metaphor.

Now, if the question is rather that if someone who has had sex, either out of their own will, or by being raped, can ever be pure again...yes, that goes without question. Dirt can always be filtered out of the water again, and so can our thoughts become pure, at any time. We simply should never willingly make ourselves impure, as it is always, ALWAYS regrettable, that can't be stated often enough. Sex is, to me, the most vile and "impure" thing in the world. Like dirt masking itself as water. Self-hatred masking itself as love. Fear masking itself as intimacy. Loneliness masking as togetherness. The most evil things in the world are those we don't even recognize as evil.

Sorry for all the water metaphors. I'm done for now, can't think of anything else anyway, hope I didn't forget anything.

Well said comrade, and your reference to water is absolutely correct. I think antisexualism needs to stay very clear. We are against sexuality, there is simply no acceptance for any form of it, it is degeneracy, plain and simple.

No hard feelings, Stars. As an admin, I feel some obligation to be a neutral third party in the sense that I should be impartial to other members' viewpoints as long as how they're said don't break the rules, but it should be clear what this community stands for. When I created this forum, I set out to make it clear what we stand for, and what to expect. I'm not going to let it stray. I find it sad that a lot of asexuals who dislike sex don't even feel welcome in the asexual community, and wouldn't want something like that to happen here.

That's what I was asking about, because I've sensed some conflict over this. Usually, when I hear "sexual purity", the definition within traditional sexual morality (i.e: no sex before marriage, but expected to marry and sex is a duty in marriage) is what comes to mind, because proponents and opponents of traditional sexual morality are the ones discussing it the most. I've seen a few antisexual people talk about sexual purity, but in a different way, but it wasn't discussed much, and I don't think there was a consensus.

Your metaphors are good! I was also concerned about whether someone could get their purity back, because some people do believe that someone once "defiled" is defiled forever, but I think that is a very toxic mindset.