Logic of the Epocia

"You may see the glass half full, or half empty, but what most people do not see is that it is just a..."

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:26:00 -0400

“You may see the glass half full, or half empty, but what most people do not see is that it is just a glass of water.”

- Logic of the Epocia

You just broke my irony meter.

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:46:00 -0400

The logic of Epocia notes your statement.

Where there is irony there is truth.

Word of Eopcia

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:41:00 -0400

The logic of Epocia can be read as logic or theory. Whether you believe it or see it as ignorance it is the word of Eopcia.

If you look at something with a open mind you are more willing to learn. What the logic of Epocia teaches is tolerance. Today these words were for you of the asexual community.

It showed the intolerance of a few despite those wanting tolerance from the many, while some suggested criticism others belittle.

The logic of Epocia wanted to show you this and it has succeeded.

Correlation is not the same thing as causation. For example, in my country, 81% of primary school teachers are female, 19% male, and therefore at least one in three teachers has been sexually abused. Can we therefore conclude that sexual abuse causes people to become teachers? Obviously not! So how can you say sexual abuse causes asexuality simply because more women than men identify as asexual?

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:12:26 -0400

Epocia’s logic sees your question.

By that logic it would be wrong for a sexually abuse person to become a teacher. There is always a cause and affect to that of someones behavior.

"We are not heterosexual, homosexual, nor nonsexual. We are simply sexual"

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:20:03 -0400

“We are not heterosexual, homosexual, nor nonsexual. We are simply sexual”

- Amy Birdsong

Yes. Asexuality is a broad term. Yes, there is some disconnect about what it encompasses. I do fail to see, however, why this makes it so that what it minimally details, a lack of sexual attraction, is to be passed off as a mere phobia. Bisexuals and pansexuals have a similar disconnect as to what their sexuality is to be defined as. While some asexuals identifying as asexual might have phobia that makes them feel as if they lack the attraction entirely, this is not the whole, so what are they?

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:06:00 -0400

Epocia’s logic sees your question.

Epocia’s logic does acknowledge that there is a lack of sexual attraction with these individuals and within the community as a whole.

The logic of matching some but not all non-sexual individuals with a phobia results in the fact by with association of those sexual abused. Taking a recent poll from asexuality.org concluded that out of 181 members 72% where female while 28% where male. Then comparing these numbers to the Sexual Abuse in a National Survey of Adult Men
and Women, where 1 out of every 4 females and 1 out of every 6 males are sexually abused before they are 18.

Merging these numbers it is logical that 32% of the female members of that poll have been sexually abused while 13% of the males have been sexually abused. In fact these percents could be much larger if accounting another study where 1 in every 100 adults have described themselves as a asexual or non-sexual.

Eopcia’s logic suggests that one in three asexual or non-sexual individuals have been sexually abused. Therefore there is a majority chance of those who are sexually abuse have genophobia. If they do indeed have the fear they are Genophobic. This does not stop the fact that Genophobic people do not have chance that they will be in a relationship at one point. This also doesn’t just extend to sexual abuse.

About your asexuality post: Asexuality, as defined by people who use it to describe themselves, indicates a lack of sexual attraction, not a lack of sex organs. Some aces prefer the term nonsexual(ity) because it doesn't have the same linguistic issues that asexual(ity) does. Also, if you could, please keep your doubts and hate out of the asexual/asexuality tags. We go there for ace-positive stuff, not ace-bashing/doubting.

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:49:37 -0400

The Epocia’s logic sees your question as a statement and will respond as such.

As said in the Epocia’s previous statement; asexuality is a broad based term used throughout the asexual community with many meanings therefore not one meanings and definitions where none can be right or wrong because of the complexity of the human psyche.

The linguistic issues of asexuality are indeed troubling. If the asexual community more often used nonsexual or non-sexuality as a term to describe themselves the logic of the Epocia would not have spoken out.

Just as the world needs to have tolerance for homosexuals and other religions one must have tolerance for logic. Epocia’s logic holds tolerance for the non-sexual and nonsexual community. If you can not take a undesirable situation and withstand it, that is intolerance.

If you are offended by the logic of Epocia there is a block option on this social network.

Excuse me. I just want to note that there are many asexuals who have reported that they have had sex, they have seen genitals, and are perfectly comfortable with it. The only thing being an asexual implies is that a person just simply does not want to have sex. It does not imply the lack or wanting of a lack of genitals, asexual merely shares a word with the definition. Although it is entirely possible that an asexual merely identifies as one because of fear, they are the exception, not the rule

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:23:57 -0400

The Epocia’s logic sees your question as a statement and will respond as such.

As the Epocia has retorted in a previous statement, there are many different types of asexuality as proclaimed by the asexual community. There is also a disconnect by the asexual community by how asexuality can be defined and labeled. For instance your statement included, ” I just want to note that there are many asexuals who have reported that they have had sex, they have seen genitals, and are perfectly comfortable with it.” this can be counter productive in mislabeling part of your group as it can be defined as a heterosexual or homosexual action therefore can not be asexual at that given time. That then can expand on various outcomes on whether you are born or able to choose your sexuality.

Even remote association with a word or definition has impact on its meaning and relation to the date and time of the period in history it is being used.

Asexuality is a legitimate sexuality defined by the lack of sexual attraction. To say that asexuality doesn't exist but it simply mislabeled as a fear of sex is both ignorant and insulting. Some asexuals have, and even enjoy, sex. Some don't. Please educate yourself before you post hurtful things in the asexual tag. Scientific definitions aren't the only ones out there.

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:08:30 -0400

The Epocia’s logic sees your question as a statement and will respond as such.

Asexuality is defined by the person using the term to describe themselves. Hence there many types of “asexuality” but neither should asexuality be mislabeled as a term to remove ones self from the aspect of societies sexual orientation because by moving on to this new recognition of self puts them right back into another social orientation.

If you are offended by the logic of Epocia there is a block option on this social network.

Asexuality... or is it?

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:13:16 -0400

If I’ve ever seen one I’d say asexuality is a trend, not a problem or issue to the general public. This may be closed minded to some but to the world homosexuality is in the spotlight and while homosexuality gets more and more media coverage it leads to the creation of groups and organizations striving to stand out as well.

Asexuality is by local description a disconnect from the regular social behavior of human nature. While where it originated from is the word asexual; The lack of sex or sexual organs. Unless your budding or multiplying yourself through duplication I would not consider asexuality your behavior as a person.

Seeing as I have friends who describe themselves as a asexual. It bothers me mainly on opinion of the fact they do have sexual organs. The outcome of this brings me to conclude that;

1. Something either traumatic had happened in their youth.
2. Experience intense anxiety — even panic — at the thought of any sexual interaction.
3. Feel fear, terror, or disgust about a specific kind of activity, such as sexual intercourse or contact with genitals.
4. Insecurity over their psychical appearance.

While some of these people enjoy hugging, kissing, and similar touching, others find that their feelings of revulsion or anxiety extend to all physically intimate contact.

This brings me to the conclusion; Genophobia or the fear of sex. A person can be subjected to genophobia by trauma in their past such as rape, molestation, incest, insecurities, and as a result of preexisting fears (nosophobia, gymnophobia, etc). The extreme fear can lead to trouble in romantic relationships. Those afflicted by genophobia may stay away from getting involved in relationships to avoid the possibility of intimacy. This can lead to feelings of loneliness. Genophobic people may also feel lonely because they may feel embarrassed or ashamed of their personal fears. Not to mention erotophobia(fear of sex or negative attitudes about sex) can also be described with genophobia.

So is asexuality really the correct term or is genophobia the real issue?