Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nonlibidoism"
(info about the nonlibidoist site and alternative suggestion.) |
(Why are we using Jung's definition of libido?) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Hey. The Nonlibidoist Society has been down for a while, but I found a page that I think was written by the same person that made the Nonlibidoist site. [http://www.geraldin.nl/lavendernews/about2.html http://www.geraldin.nl/lavendernews/about2.html] | Hey. The Nonlibidoist Society has been down for a while, but I found a page that I think was written by the same person that made the Nonlibidoist site. [http://www.geraldin.nl/lavendernews/about2.html http://www.geraldin.nl/lavendernews/about2.html] | ||
She also writes, ''We are working on a new website: www.geraldin.nl/NoSex/'' - I went here but there's nothing there right now. | She also writes, ''We are working on a new website: www.geraldin.nl/NoSex/'' - I went here but there's nothing there right now. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ''"A large percentage of asexuals do have sex drives, but still lack any sexual attraction, and on a more abstract level many believe the libido to be an innate and indivisible part of the creative subconscious, as defined by Jung[1]. "'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Um, do asexuals actually believe that? The phrasing implies that nonlibidoists have no creative subconscious, whatever that is. I think what this sentence is trying to do is define "libido", but it's doing it in a really awkward way. I know Wikipedia talks about Jung's definition, but I think the following line from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libido&oldid=400851784 Wikipedia] would be more appropriate: "Defined more narrowly, libido also refers to an individual's urge to engage in sexual activity." Agree/disagree? If there are no objections, I'll come back and change it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Siggy|Siggy]] 8 Dec 2010 | ||
Revision as of 23:30, 8 December 2010
"Nonlibidoists would not consider the large majority of self-defined asexuals to be 'truly' asexual, and have thus dropped the use of the term, which they believe has 'by now become almost synonymous for solo-sexual [or] masturbator.' "
This simply isn't true. Nonlibidoist is just the term that refers to people who aren't aroused, etc. That doesn't mean they don't consider everyone else under the term '"asexual," that's like saying blonds don't think everyone else have hair. Nonlibidoist is just a label for a specific form of asexuality. Just because the "Official Nonlibidoist Society" says such thing by NO means implies that the whole population of the people thinks that at all. I identify as nonlibidoist and I certainly wouldn't exclude my fellow AVENites from the definition of "asexual." (posted, unsigned, by Mr. Spock)
- Good point, Mr. Spock. I'll change the article to be more clear about that. --Wikimaster 12:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Hey. The Nonlibidoist Society has been down for a while, but I found a page that I think was written by the same person that made the Nonlibidoist site. http://www.geraldin.nl/lavendernews/about2.html She also writes, We are working on a new website: www.geraldin.nl/NoSex/ - I went here but there's nothing there right now.
"A large percentage of asexuals do have sex drives, but still lack any sexual attraction, and on a more abstract level many believe the libido to be an innate and indivisible part of the creative subconscious, as defined by Jung[1]. "
Um, do asexuals actually believe that? The phrasing implies that nonlibidoists have no creative subconscious, whatever that is. I think what this sentence is trying to do is define "libido", but it's doing it in a really awkward way. I know Wikipedia talks about Jung's definition, but I think the following line from Wikipedia would be more appropriate: "Defined more narrowly, libido also refers to an individual's urge to engage in sexual activity." Agree/disagree? If there are no objections, I'll come back and change it.
--Siggy 8 Dec 2010
