What is "repression"?

3 posters

Go down

What is "repression"? Empty What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Sat May 23, 2015 11:21 pm

I've seen a lot of people implicitly define it as someone deliberately not acting on their attractions, and one of the misconceptions we face are these accusations of being "repressed", under the incorrect assumption that no one can be happy without sex!

Who has dealt with this misconception, and did you try to counter it? How do you define it?

I think it's only repression if someone wants to act on their sexual attraction, but doesn't act on it due to shame and social coercion. The repressed under this definition want to act on their attractions, and feel like something is missing in their lives, because they can't.

This is in contrast with us who either don't experience sexual attraction, or sincerely don't want to act on it if we do, and are choosing to not act on it for that reason, and feel like it's the best choice for oneself.


Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Panache Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:11 pm

I would say that someone’s repressed when they’re under pressure from society to do something they don’t want to do, or to not do something they do want to do (if that was clear…). They feel “wrong” for what they want and conform to what society demands.
 
People who don’t want to have sex but do because they think society demands it of them are the repressed ones, not us. We’re about as counterculture as it gets.
 
Of course, someone who wanted to have sex and didn’t could be repressed as well, if the social pressure was on making them not have sex. However, except for a few religious subcultures, in general in the modern world the social pressure is very much on having sex, not on being abstinent.
 
Someone who’s repressed doesn’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing: they’re just obeying and doing as they’re told, and being controlled with shame, guilt, fear, and the pressures of conformity and authority. Someone is not repressed when they’re listening to their conscience, forming their own beliefs, and living according to their values, no matter what.
Panache
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:14 pm

Panache wrote:I would say that someone’s repressed when they’re under pressure from society to do something they don’t want to do, or to not do something they do want to do (if that was clear…). They feel “wrong” for what they want and conform to what society demands.
 
People who don’t want to have sex but do because they think society demands it of them are the repressed ones, not us. We’re about as counterculture as it gets.
 
Of course, someone who wanted to have sex and didn’t could be repressed as well, if the social pressure was on making them not have sex. However, except for a few religious subcultures, in general in the modern world the social pressure is very much on having sex, not on being abstinent.
 
Someone who’s repressed doesn’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing: they’re just obeying and doing as they’re told, and being controlled with shame, guilt, fear, and the pressures of conformity and authority. Someone is not repressed when they’re listening to their conscience, forming their own beliefs, and living according to their values, no matter what.
I like your definition! Very Happy On the main page, could I write something about it to challenge the misconception of repression?

The first definition of "repression" I've seen, the one that assumes that not acting on sexual desires must be it, regardless of the reason, is a definition made under the assumption that everyone wants sex. So, because we don't, others using this definition assume that we're repressing what is true to ourselves.

And that's scary, because those claims of repression have been used by some people to justify bullying or coercing someone into sex. I've dealt with people who claimed I was repressed, and tried to bully me into unwanted sex, claiming it would "liberate" me. Makes me sick thinking about it.

Someone who has sex due to the social pressure is repressing what is true to themselves. I've heard of many people in the asexual community, and some in the antisexual community too, say that they didn't know that not having sex was an option, and did it because they didn't know anything else. Even if they felt physically or psychologically disgusted by sex, they had to repress those feelings to endure it. Sad

Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Panache Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:58 pm

Admin wrote:On the main page, could I write something about it to challenge the misconception of repression?

Absolutely. Happy to be of service!

This is not entirely related, but this topic got thinking about what's the difference between oppression and repression, and this has been my conclusion: oppression is external - "Do what I tell you or I'll put you in the stocks/hit you with this stick/fine you $200." - while repression is internal. It's something we do to our ourselves, because of social pressure. That makes it not always easy to see. The whole society could be repressed in some way, and yet there might not be any overt sign of it. The only way a person can know whether they're repressed or not, is knowing themselves, and knowing why they're doing what they're doing.

Admin wrote:The first definition of "repression" I've seen, the one that assumes that not acting on sexual desires must be it, regardless of the reason, is a definition made under the assumption that everyone wants sex. So, because we don't, others using this definition assume that we're repressing what is true to ourselves.

I see two levels to this:

For someone who's sex-repulsed, they just straight-up don't want sex, so someone who made this argument would have to outright not believe them. (Which, judging from the "S### People Say to Asexuals" videos on youtube seems to be a not unusual occurrence.)

And then there are the sexual antisexuals, who do actually want sex on one level, but also don't, for philosophical reasons. However, they aren't repressed either, even though they're denying themselves what they "want." A child might be driving their parent batty, and the parent's first instinct might be to hit the child. But they don't, not because they're repressed, obviously, but because they want to live according to their values. What the parent truly wants is to not hit their child, even if the momentary desire was there. Same goes for antisexuals; what they truly want is to not engage in sexual activity, and as long as they're doing it for their own good reasons, they're not repressed.

As we were talking about a little, the same can not usually be said for people who are having sex, who are often unaware of the immense social pressures that might be influencing their behavior.

Admin wrote:And that's scary, because those claims of repression have been used by some people to justify bullying or coercing someone into sex. I've dealt with people who claimed I was repressed, and tried to bully me into unwanted sex, claiming it would "liberate" me. Makes me sick thinking about it.

People can justify forcing nearly anything on someone if it's "for their own good." It's such a widespread form of violence in our society: doctors do it to patients, governments do it to citizens, everybody does it to children, and it happens in all kinds of relationships. Once someone has themselves convinced that they know better than the other person, they feel entitled to control them. If there was already a power imbalance to begin with, then it can be intoxicating to the person making the decisions, and extremely destabilizing to the vulnerable person ("Do they know better than I do? But why do I feel so bad? ...Maybe I don't feel that bad? Maybe there's something wrong with me for feeling this way?"). It can be a challenge to even recognize it's going on, and it takes a very brave person to stand against it.

Admin wrote:Someone who has sex due to the social pressure is repressing what is true to themselves. I've heard of many people in the asexual community, and some in the antisexual community too, say that they didn't know that not having sex was an option, and did it because they didn't know anything else. Even if they felt physically or psychologically disgusted by sex, they had to repress those feelings to endure it. What is "repression"? Icon_sad


I want to cry too. It's a silent tragedy.

I want to do something about it. You're doing what you can about it, I bet, with this site and AVEN. Spreading awareness is probably the step in the right direction: if people even recognized it was a problem, and that there were options, that alone might stop it from happening.
Panache
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:37 pm

Panache wrote:
Admin wrote:On the main page, could I write something about it to challenge the misconception of repression?

Absolutely. Happy to be of service!

This is not entirely related, but this topic got thinking about what's the difference between oppression and repression, and this has been my conclusion: oppression is external - "Do what I tell you or I'll put you in the stocks/hit you with this stick/fine you $200." - while repression is internal. It's something we do to our ourselves, because of social pressure. That makes it not always easy to see. The whole society could be repressed in some way, and yet there might not be any overt sign of it. The only way a person can know whether they're repressed or not, is knowing themselves, and knowing why they're doing what they're doing.
Where do you think would be the best place to write about it? Would it be best to address it in the “misconceptions” page, or make it its own article, like I did with the topic of pathologization?

I also had in mind writing a page about counter-arguments, and countering each of them. One of the counter-arguments I wanted to write about, and respond to, is one dealing with “repression”.

The distinction between oppression vs. repression is also very important. Part of the way that society’s views about sex have such a hold over people is that they seem like they’re part of the natural order, and something that can’t be challenged. Someone might not have ever been outright shamed for not wanting sex, for example, but still pick up on all of the norms around them that suggest that it’s wrong.

The first step towards liberation is awareness that society's ideas about sex are arbitrary, and that it's not an inevitability.


Admin wrote:The first definition of "repression" I've seen, the one that assumes that not acting on sexual desires must be it, regardless of the reason, is a definition made under the assumption that everyone wants sex. So, because we don't, others using this definition assume that we're repressing what is true to ourselves.

I see two levels to this:

For someone who's sex-repulsed, they just straight-up don't want sex, so someone who made this argument would have to outright not believe them. (Which, judging from the "S### People Say to Asexuals" videos on youtube seems to be a not unusual occurrence.)

And then there are the sexual antisexuals, who do actually want sex on one level, but also don't, for philosophical reasons. However, they aren't repressed either, even though they're denying themselves what they "want." A child might be driving their parent batty, and the parent's first instinct might be to hit the child. But they don't, not because they're repressed, obviously, but because they want to live according to their values. What the parent truly wants is to not hit their child, even if the momentary desire was there. Same goes for antisexuals; what they truly want is to not engage in sexual activity, and as long as they're doing it for their own good reasons, they're not repressed.

I agree with this too, though I conceptualize it a little bit differently. I distinguish between desiring, and wanting sex. Someone who isn't asexual desires sex (i.e: experiences sexual attraction), but doesn't necessarily want it, nor want to act on it.


As we were talking about a little, the same can not usually be said for people who are having sex, who are often unaware of the immense social pressures that might be influencing their behavior.
True. They might not be aware, because all that pressure seems like it’s natural.


Admin wrote:And that's scary, because those claims of repression have been used by some people to justify bullying or coercing someone into sex. I've dealt with people who claimed I was repressed, and tried to bully me into unwanted sex, claiming it would "liberate" me. Makes me sick thinking about it.

People can justify forcing nearly anything on someone if it's "for their own good." It's such a widespread form of violence in our society: doctors do it to patients, governments do it to citizens, everybody does it to children, and it happens in all kinds of relationships. Once someone has themselves convinced that they know better than the other person, they feel entitled to control them. If there was already a power imbalance to begin with, then it can be intoxicating to the person making the decisions, and extremely destabilizing to the vulnerable person ("Do they know better than I do? But why do I feel so bad? ...Maybe I don't feel that bad? Maybe there's something wrong with me for feeling this way?"). It can be a challenge to even recognize it's going on, and it takes a very brave person to stand against it.
It is such a common dynamic, and one I've been through with those people who tried to push it on me. They thought they knew better than me, so controlling me felt justified to them. They claimed they wanted me to be happy, and thought they only way would be if I came to terms with my sexuality, claiming "we're all sexual beings". Since they thought I was in denial and motivated by self-loathing, they thought they had to take matters into their own hands. I nearly thought I was wrong about myself too, and almost caved in.

Even if their intentions were good, their actions were still harmful.

I've defended them, but also resented myself for it, because deep down, I still knew what they were doing wasn't right, even when I've felt helpless against them.


Admin wrote:Someone who has sex due to the social pressure is repressing what is true to themselves. I've heard of many people in the asexual community, and some in the antisexual community too, say that they didn't know that not having sex was an option, and did it because they didn't know anything else. Even if they felt physically or psychologically disgusted by sex, they had to repress those feelings to endure it. What is "repression"? Icon_sad


I want to cry too. It's a silent tragedy.

I want to do something about it. You're doing what you can about it, I bet, with this site and AVEN. Spreading awareness is probably the step in the right direction: if people even recognized it was a problem, and that there were options, that alone might stop it from happening.
Agreed. Awareness and recognition are the first step, and would save a lot of this from happening.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:58 pm

I'm trying to draft something for the misconceptions page about this, input is appreciated:


Misconception: We're sexually repressed or advocate for sexual repression.

The definition usually given when referring to sexual repression, is of someone seeking to not act on their sexual desires, either never, or until marriage. This definition is made under the assumption that everyone wants sex.

In some societies, there is a lot of social pressure to abstain, while in others, there is a lot of pressure to have sex nearly indiscriminately. These points aren't mutually exclusive.

An alternative definition of repression, is one of not being able to follow one's conscience due to social demands about sex, and are obeying those demands due to shame, guilt, fear, and pressure of conformity and authority. 

Someone who has sex out of conformity to social pressure, but is bored or disgusted by sex, is repressed, because they are repressing what is true to themselves. They know that they don't want sex, but are repressing how they feel due to societal expectations that suggest it's not okay to not want it, and not okay to feel negatively about it. For some, this has gone on for years: many asexuals and antisexuals have been in sexual relationships with prosexuals for years, not knowing that not having sex was an option.
 
A non-asexual person who sincerely doesn't want sex, isn't repressed, because they are following their conscience, and are following their values.

I've also wanted to write something about the harm that repression does, but would that be better suited to a separate article? One form of repression is that pushing oneself into sex they don't want, just to please another person means repressing negative feelings towards sex, which is mentally and emotionally taxing. It can cause resentment to build up over time between them and their partner, because eventually a breaking point is reached.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Panache Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:38 pm

Admin wrote:
Where do you think would be the best place to write about it? Would it be best to address it in the “misconceptions” page, or make it its own article, like I did with the topic of pathologization?
I don’t have an idea of the big picture, so I’m not sure I could offer a useful suggestion. I trust your judgment for how it will all fit together.
Admin wrote:I also had in mind writing a page about counter-arguments, and countering each of them. One of the counter-arguments I wanted to write about, and respond to, is one dealing with “repression”.
I like that idea, like a “S### People Say to Antisexuals” section, except with responses.
 
One such comment that’s stuck in my mind was on AVEN: “If you are antisexual, you are contradicting your own existence.”
 
To which I’d respond: So if someone were born of rape, you’d tell them they have to be pro-rape?

Rolling Eyes

Admin wrote:
I'm trying to draft something for the misconceptions page about this, input is appreciated.

I like the response to the misconception. However, perhaps more emphasis on the possibility of the circumstance of some people who are antisexual, where a person might desire sex and choose not to have it? Being sex-repulsed is not the only reason a person might not have sex, without being repressed. Given that we’re antisexual, that might be something worth putting an emphasis on.
Panache
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:40 pm

Panache wrote:
Admin wrote:
Where do you think would be the best place to write about it? Would it be best to address it in the “misconceptions” page, or make it its own article, like I did with the topic of pathologization?
I don’t have an idea of the big picture, so I’m not sure I could offer a useful suggestion. I trust your judgment for how it will all fit together.
I updated the misconceptions page already, and it's the last one on the page. I hope you like how it turned out. Smile


Admin wrote:I also had in mind writing a page about counter-arguments, and countering each of them. One of the counter-arguments I wanted to write about, and respond to, is one dealing with “repression”.
I like that idea, like a “S### People Say to Antisexuals” section, except with responses.
 
One such comment that’s stuck in my mind was on AVEN: “If you are antisexual, you are contradicting your own existence.”
 
To which I’d respond: So if someone were born of rape, you’d tell them they have to be pro-rape?

Rolling Eyes


Someone on AVEN said that? That's hypocritical. Would they say the same thing about the sex-repulsed just for being repulsed? Rolling Eyes


Admin wrote:
I'm trying to draft something for the misconceptions page about this, input is appreciated.

I like the response to the misconception. However, perhaps more emphasis on the possibility of the circumstance of some people who are antisexual, where a person might desire sex and choose not to have it? Being sex-repulsed is not the only reason a person might not have sex, without being repressed. Given that we’re antisexual, that might be something worth putting an emphasis on.

I was also trying to write a page about the reasons why someone may be antisexual. Being repulsed by sex is just one possible reason. I started a thread about it here: https://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t32-reasons-and-challenges-part-of-the-main-page-project

Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Darkthrone Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:36 am

The repression accusation thing will continue, because by far the biggest example of people who don't like their sexual orientation are homosexuals who want to be heterosexual because of societal pressure and/or religious belief. 

In fact, I think that's a good thing to consider. What's the difference between allosexuals who reject sex for secular ideological reasons and homosexuals who reject homosexuality for religious ideological reasons? Would you consider those homosexuals to be "repressed?" If they are repressed, then why aren't we? Is it because we came the the decision without being raised in an environment that promoted that decision, as it often is with homosexuals born in a religious household and community? What if the homosexual in question came to believe in that strain of christianity on his own and he truly believes it?  Is his religious belief not as valid as our antisexual beliefs? If so, why? What if the gay person isn't religious but just feels out of place and doesn't like it, and wishes he was straight because of it? 

I think it is important for us to consider these things so we can differentiate antisexuality from other reasons why someone would hate their sexuality and that we need to develop a unique antisexual perspective and worldview so we have logical, solid answers to the many questions that will certainly be asked.

Darkthrone

Posts : 38
Join date : 2015-05-08

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Panache Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:55 pm

As we were talking about earlier in the thread, it seems to me that the difference between somebody who's repressed or not repressed is their internal reasons for doing what they do.

It seems to me that religious people's reasons for not wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex are generally violent/coercive/repressive:
Blind obedience, or desire for reward/fear of punishment (either mundane or divine)
Internal judgments - "I am wrong." "I am bad." "I am broken." "I hate myself." "I shouldn't do that."
Other people's judgments and criticism, or fear of them - "You're sick!" "That's so wrong!" You don't get much more judgmental than "abomination."
Social pressure to conform

Whereas we are antisexual because we're listening to our consciences and living by our values. Our motivations are internal, and in spite of all these other violent factors:
We sure as heck aren't antisexual out of blind obedience to anyone or anything
We're antisexual in spite of fear of punishment/social ostracism and reprisal (and in Pure Life's case, even in the face of fear of divine punishment)
For people who are sex-repulsed, by not having sex they're listening to what they're being told internally, even sometimes in spite of believing that there must be something wrong with them for not wanting to have sex
We're antisexual in spite of society's criticism and judgment
We're antisexual in spite of immense social pressure to be otherwise

Could someone not want to have sex with someone of the same sex for reasons that were both religious and nonviolent? I'm having a bit of a hard time picturing it. I suppose if it went something like this, "I'm convinced that God exists. I'm convinced that the Bible is God telling me what He would like me to do. I want to do what God wants me to do, because I love Him and He loves me, and we live doing mutual acts of service for each other. I'm convinced that in the Bible God says He does not want me to have sex with people who are the same sex as I am, so I choose not to."

Darkthrone wrote:We need to develop a unique antisexual perspective and worldview so we have logical, solid answers to the many questions that will certainly be asked.
I completely agree! We seem to be working on it. Are there subjects you particularly have in mind that might be important for addressing at some point?
Panache
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:12 pm

Panache wrote:As we were talking about earlier in the thread, it seems to me that the difference between somebody who's repressed or not repressed is their internal reasons for doing what they do.

It seems to me that religious people's reasons for not wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex are generally violent/coercive/repressive:
Blind obedience, or desire for reward/fear of punishment (either mundane or divine)
Internal judgments - "I am wrong." "I am bad." "I am broken." "I hate myself." "I shouldn't do that."
Other people's judgments and criticism, or fear of them - "You're sick!" "That's so wrong!" You don't get much more judgmental than "abomination."
Social pressure to conform

Whereas we are antisexual because we're listening to our consciences and living by our values. Our motivations are internal, and in spite of all these other violent factors:
We sure as heck aren't antisexual out of blind obedience to anyone or anything
We're antisexual in spite of fear of punishment/social ostracism and reprisal (and in Pure Life's case, even in the face of fear of divine punishment)
For people who are sex-repulsed, by not having sex they're listening to what they're being told internally, even sometimes in spite of believing that there must be something wrong with them for not wanting to have sex
We're antisexual in spite of society's criticism and judgment
We're antisexual in spite of immense social pressure to be otherwise

Could someone not want to have sex with someone of the same sex for reasons that were both religious and nonviolent? I'm having a bit of a hard time picturing it. I suppose if it went something like this, "I'm convinced that God exists. I'm convinced that the Bible is God telling me what He would like me to do. I want to do what God wants me to do, because I love Him and He loves me, and we live doing mutual acts of service for each other. I'm convinced that in the Bible God says He does not want me to have sex with people who are the same sex as I am, so I choose not to."

Darkthrone wrote:We need to develop a unique antisexual perspective and worldview so we have logical, solid answers to the many questions that will certainly be asked.
I completely agree! We seem to be working on it. Are there subjects you particularly have in mind that might be important for addressing at some point?

Awesomely said! That is all spot-on! Very Happy

Just one thing to mention is that there are LGBTQ people who are religious, and are celibate. I've heard of some say that they believe that their religion doesn't allow acting on their attractions, but they weren't motivated by fear or shame into celibacy. Other people in the LGBTQ community may accuse them of repression and internalized homophobia though, because they probably had the same kind of rhetoric forced on them growing up. What do you think of this?:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/04/celibate_lgbtq_christians_the_mainstream_gay_community_should_be_more_welcoming.html

This group of people, known as "Side B" (as opposed to "Side A", the part of the LGBTQ community that dates and marries) are isolated within both Christianity and the LGBTQ community. They believe they shouldn't date or have sex due to their religious beliefs, but don't feel like they're motivated by shame, and seek to still serve the Church, and other ways of finding fulfillment, and connection with others.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Panache Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:55 pm

Thank you for that article. I see now that there are actually two parts to this issue:
"It's bad to have sex with people of the same sex."
"It's good to have sex with people of the opposite sex (under the correct conditions)."

It sounds from that article like Side B only embraces the first component, and concludes celibacy is the solution. I'm glad of that. If those are their beliefs, celibacy seems by far the less violent solution, rather than trying to force themselves to have sex they don't want to have.

I see now also that people who reject having sex with people of the same sex are not antisexual, even for religious reasons, because they probably are still pro-sexual about other people having sex with people of the opposite sex (under the correct circumstances).
Panache
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:23 pm

Panache wrote:Thank you for that article. I see now that there are actually two parts to this issue:
"It's bad to have sex with people of the same sex."
"It's good to have sex with people of the opposite sex (under the correct conditions)."

It sounds from that article like Side B only embraces the first component, and concludes celibacy is the solution. I'm glad of that. If those are their beliefs, celibacy seems by far the less violent solution, rather than trying to force themselves to have sex they don't want to have.

I see now also that people who reject having sex with people of the same sex are not antisexual, even for religious reasons, because they probably are still pro-sexual about other people having sex with people of the opposite sex (under the correct circumstances).

It took me a while to understand their viewpoints, and how they can reconcile their orientation with their religious beliefs, but it's good that they chose the far less violent solution.

I know they're not antisexual due to having religious reasons, and because they may see not having sex as a sacrifice they made. Do you think because they may see not having sex as a sacrifice, that they could still be considered prosexual? That's what I think is possible, or they may be simply celibate.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Panache Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:55 pm

Admin wrote:I know they're not antisexual due to having religious reasons, and because they may see not having sex as a sacrifice they made. Do you think because they may see not having sex as a sacrifice, that they could still be considered prosexual?
I had it sort of nebulously in my mind that religious celibates were the non-secular equivalent of antisexuals, and that article helped me realize that's not the case: that they remain sex-positive, at least in part.

That's an interesting distinction I hadn't thought of before. I definitely consider continence and celibacy advantageous and desirable, physically and mentally, for what they innately are. (I imagine most antisexuals feel this way?) The only disadvantages are dealing with our current societal defaults, which is hardly a problem with celibacy itself. Whereas perhaps most religious celibates are motivated by extrinsic considerations and don't consider the state of celibacy itself preferable to engaging in sexual behaviors. For them celibacy is perhaps more a means to an end than a desirable end in and of itself.
Panache
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Admin Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:07 pm

Panache wrote:
Admin wrote:I know they're not antisexual due to having religious reasons, and because they may see not having sex as a sacrifice they made. Do you think because they may see not having sex as a sacrifice, that they could still be considered prosexual?
I had it sort of nebulously in my mind that religious celibates were the non-secular equivalent of antisexuals, and that article helped me realize that's not the case: that they remain sex-positive, at least in part.

That's an interesting distinction I hadn't thought of before. I definitely consider continence and celibacy advantageous and desirable, physically and mentally, for what they innately are. (I imagine most antisexuals feel this way?) The only disadvantages are dealing with our current societal defaults, which is hardly a problem with celibacy itself. Whereas perhaps most religious celibates are motivated by extrinsic considerations and don't consider the state of celibacy itself preferable to engaging in sexual behaviors. For them celibacy is perhaps more a means to an end than a desirable end in and of itself.
That's a distinction I've seen too and one that I use, with religious celibacy being a means to an end, while we're antisexual because we find not having sex to be desirable as an end in and of itself.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07

Back to top Go down

What is "repression"? Empty Re: What is "repression"?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum