Uchi no Musuko wa Tabun Gay - Vol. 2 Ch. 37 - My Big Brother
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,193
@gum_rummy
That's not an argument.
While I'm not a doctor, I am familiar with primary literature regarding the topics I discussed, and have had acquaintances through whom I have seen it play out. I also have my own experiences to draw from, regarding mental health in particular.
I give advice where I see fit, and I see nothing questionable about imploring people who may be trying to cope with mental illness or endocrine problems to seek medical advice from a professional.
That's not an argument.
While I'm not a doctor, I am familiar with primary literature regarding the topics I discussed, and have had acquaintances through whom I have seen it play out. I also have my own experiences to draw from, regarding mental health in particular.
I give advice where I see fit, and I see nothing questionable about imploring people who may be trying to cope with mental illness or endocrine problems to seek medical advice from a professional.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2018
- Messages
- 4,897
Jesus christ the comments.
He's a kid. And to top it off, relationships are not even on his radar so all those "signals" are going to be lost on him.
That isn't a sexuality. This is just a personality trait he has at the moment.
Take your tumblr shit out of here.
He's a kid. And to top it off, relationships are not even on his radar so all those "signals" are going to be lost on him.
That isn't a sexuality. This is just a personality trait he has at the moment.
Take your tumblr shit out of here.
What's up with this people coming here just to be aro/ace phobics. I'm not saying he is any of this tho, it's more complicated than that. But sometimes people just don't are sexually attracted by other people or not attracted romantically by other people. It just happens and isn't a problem, just a inconvenience sometimes. If it affects your life badly, you should try and see a doctor or two, but either way, you are not broken or anything. I'm ace, I don't care about sex at all, and I'm not a late bloomer and don't feel like I should go to a doctor, and I'm fine with it.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 77
@gronkle You're confusing sexuality and sex drive. Asexual people can still have a sex drive - and can choose to engage in sexual activities or not - they just don't have any attraction to anyone; nothing to guide them towards a certain person in this regard, or they may choose to just get things done themselves. If they choose to, or decide not to. Celibacy and asexuality is not the same thing. I've written my bachelor and master thesis on this subject. Could you kindly do some actual research; for example, start with "Understanding Asexuality" by Anthony F. Bogaert, or maybe "Asexuality: Sexual Orientation, Paraphilia, Sexual Dysfunction, or None of the Above?" by Lori A. Brotto and Morag Yule.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 77
On that note, while I'd be happy to see some aro/ace representation, Yuuri is just a kid. He still has time to figure things out; he may be aro, but not ace, or he may be an entirely different things. The kid has plenty of time.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,193
@IrskUlvehund While I disagree that I am confusing sexuality and sex drive, I'll definitely take on board your further reading recommendations, thanks.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2018
- Messages
- 4,897
Jesus christ the comments.
He's a kid. And to top it off, relationships are not even on his radar so all those "signals" are going to be lost on him.
That isn't a sexuality. This is just a personality trait he has at the moment.
Take your tumblr shit out of here.
And take your "pHoBiC" shit out of here as well.
ANYTHING tumblr related deserves to be disregarded.
ANY statement as a "armchair psychologist" deserves to be disregarded.
He's a kid. And to top it off, relationships are not even on his radar so all those "signals" are going to be lost on him.
That isn't a sexuality. This is just a personality trait he has at the moment.
Take your tumblr shit out of here.
And take your "pHoBiC" shit out of here as well.
ANYTHING tumblr related deserves to be disregarded.
ANY statement as a "armchair psychologist" deserves to be disregarded.
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2019
- Messages
- 332
Come on, y’all. How many of you had crushes when you were a little kid? Yuuri's brother has had crushes on boys for years. He has been gay all of his life. Just because the word "asexual" has the word sex in it doesn't mean that we're sexualizing Yuuri. It's just a name for what his orientation might be. The reason why it's so hard to talk about stuff like this, is because as soon as a kid might not be straight, people get all up in arms saying stuff like, "he's just a kid, he can't know if he's gay/bi/pan/ace," meanwhile, people are dressing their baby boys in Ladies Man onesies and speculating if their toddlers have crushes on each other. Also, if Yuuri isn't ace or queer, that's completely fine. I think people are excited because it's so hard to find good representation of queer children.
And for all of you mad at the people talking about this...the queer people you can't stand are here because the comic is a good, non stereotypical portrayal of a gay teen who has a positive relationship with most of his family. AND, it might have representation for an ace kid, which is super rare, especially in manga. I genuinely don't know why you're reading this if queer people, and the words we use to describe ourselves and our experiences, bother you.
And for all of you mad at the people talking about this...the queer people you can't stand are here because the comic is a good, non stereotypical portrayal of a gay teen who has a positive relationship with most of his family. AND, it might have representation for an ace kid, which is super rare, especially in manga. I genuinely don't know why you're reading this if queer people, and the words we use to describe ourselves and our experiences, bother you.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2020
- Messages
- 7
Yuuri is the aroace rep we need but don’t deserve.
Going for an asexual perspective now? At least it would be more interesting than Hiroki, even if poorly done and the author doesn't seem to understand it all and doing a lot of projection. Seems he's sticking it in not for any real reason other than it gets grouped in with other LGBT shit.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 126
@gronkle I'd looove to see this primary literature on all ace/aro people being the result of sexual abnormalities because try as I might I can't seem to find any unless I'm actually looking for it. Which is never a good sign when dealing with the literature like this. I mean, there's nothing wrong with a particular paper being difficult to find, of course, but when all the results are dealing with the very opposite thing of what you're saying, it's not really a good look is it? Here's a mix of some primary literature and a review paper. Note: all I had to do was search "asexuality" in a database. Although these are only links to the abstracts, I can get the PDFs through my academic institution if you'd like to read the whole things.
I really want you to have a think about why you might want to deny that it exists when there doesn't seem to be much evidence against aro/ace people. There is an intersectionality between disabilities and asexuality, sure. But recent literature seems to conclude that simply labeling any lack of sexual desire as due to asexuality is unfair to both disabled people and asexual people. Anyway. I don't know if this will change your mind, but if you're denying the science that's already out there I don't think I have much hope on changing your mind in the first place.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460711406463
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.241
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460711406463
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.241
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460711406463
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,193
@kirbee Not to put too fine a point on it, but I fundamentally disagree with the epistemology that leads to that conclusion on the basis that it is unsupported by empirical evidence, and is highly associated with certain sociopolitical beliefs and as such is prone to bias. Far from denying science, I am affirming scientific process and rigour.
It must be no coincidence that as sociopolitical movements in sexuality and gender have changed discourse that the discourse in other areas of academia have changed. I am not interested in politics, but empirical objectivity. From the position of biology, explaining asexuality and aromanticism in terms of depleted or avoidant sexual drive or desire is far more parsimonious than going to great lengths to justify the subjective musings of those affected. Not that I am invalidating their feelings, I am simply just not interested in them as a means of determining anything useful (other than their feelings, of course).
Being as we are, at a time where social and political capital can be easily accrued by identification with a sexual minority, I find the lack of emphasis on identifying and isolating inherent biases when investigating them embarrassing. I also find it a dereliction of public duty, because far from elucidating anything in an objective manner that may help people, it devolves into myopic navel-gazing and validation circles. Anecdotally too, I have seen people miss early signs of depressive episodes, because they put their sudden change in sexual behaviour down to perhaps being asexual after all. They are then validated by their peer group because scrutiny is dead. One became an alcoholic, another was treated for severe anxiety and lo and behold their sexual drive came back.
Please excuse me if I come across as bitter, I am indeed bitter towards unfalsifiable politicised theory becoming a priori in academia.
It must be no coincidence that as sociopolitical movements in sexuality and gender have changed discourse that the discourse in other areas of academia have changed. I am not interested in politics, but empirical objectivity. From the position of biology, explaining asexuality and aromanticism in terms of depleted or avoidant sexual drive or desire is far more parsimonious than going to great lengths to justify the subjective musings of those affected. Not that I am invalidating their feelings, I am simply just not interested in them as a means of determining anything useful (other than their feelings, of course).
Being as we are, at a time where social and political capital can be easily accrued by identification with a sexual minority, I find the lack of emphasis on identifying and isolating inherent biases when investigating them embarrassing. I also find it a dereliction of public duty, because far from elucidating anything in an objective manner that may help people, it devolves into myopic navel-gazing and validation circles. Anecdotally too, I have seen people miss early signs of depressive episodes, because they put their sudden change in sexual behaviour down to perhaps being asexual after all. They are then validated by their peer group because scrutiny is dead. One became an alcoholic, another was treated for severe anxiety and lo and behold their sexual drive came back.
Please excuse me if I come across as bitter, I am indeed bitter towards unfalsifiable politicised theory becoming a priori in academia.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 126
@gronkle yall writing a lot of bullshit for someone that doesn't have any sources. Either show me the sources that prove your point or shut the fuck up. Part of the reason asexual people have higher rates of suicide is because of people like you saying that the only reason they're like that because of a mental disability, but I'm getting sidetracked.
Meanwhile- you're using the word parsimonious entirely wrong here. I'm assuming you meant to link it to parsimony but parsimonious means frugal. And parsimony wouldn't apply here either because assuming that every single behaviour is adaptive in nature instead of acknowledging that most often than not, behaviour is mostly a byproduct of genetic drift so of course it's going to be varied. Just because it doesn't serve an adaptive function doesn't mean that it's not real.
Finally- stop fucking bringing biology into this- Nothing that you're saying has any basis in actual biology- I'm literally an animal behaviourologist. Admittedly, not really my specialisation, but misinformation like the shit that you're spewing is shit that I see all the time. Science itself doesn't have politics- you can have political scientists but even in journals which study human behaviour, shit's still peer-reviewed and won't be published unless it's actually significant. So no- just because you're wrong all the time doesn't mean science is political. It just means you're fucking wrong Meanwhile- you keep claiming that you're just really concerned about the numbers but you have yet to post a single thing despite my urgings, which really indicates that you haven't really read any primary literature. And all you've done is use anecdotes to prove your point. You're literally complaining about people saying things without any evidence but that's all you've been doing this entire time.
tldr; post your fucking sources or shut the fuck up instead of spreading misinformation.
Meanwhile- you're using the word parsimonious entirely wrong here. I'm assuming you meant to link it to parsimony but parsimonious means frugal. And parsimony wouldn't apply here either because assuming that every single behaviour is adaptive in nature instead of acknowledging that most often than not, behaviour is mostly a byproduct of genetic drift so of course it's going to be varied. Just because it doesn't serve an adaptive function doesn't mean that it's not real.
Finally- stop fucking bringing biology into this- Nothing that you're saying has any basis in actual biology- I'm literally an animal behaviourologist. Admittedly, not really my specialisation, but misinformation like the shit that you're spewing is shit that I see all the time. Science itself doesn't have politics- you can have political scientists but even in journals which study human behaviour, shit's still peer-reviewed and won't be published unless it's actually significant. So no- just because you're wrong all the time doesn't mean science is political. It just means you're fucking wrong Meanwhile- you keep claiming that you're just really concerned about the numbers but you have yet to post a single thing despite my urgings, which really indicates that you haven't really read any primary literature. And all you've done is use anecdotes to prove your point. You're literally complaining about people saying things without any evidence but that's all you've been doing this entire time.
tldr; post your fucking sources or shut the fuck up instead of spreading misinformation.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,193
@kirbee
"Part of the reason asexual people have higher rates of suicide is because of people like you saying that the only reason they're like that because of a mental disability"
Conjecture; more easily explained by asexuality being a symptom of depression.
"assuming that every single behaviour is adaptive in nature"
Not what I was doing.
"most often than not, behaviour is mostly a byproduct of genetic drift"
Nonsense. Genetic drift has nothing to do with behaviour except way upstream and at a population level affecting single alleles. Complex behaviours are polygenic and epigenetic.
"Just because it doesn't serve an adaptive function doesn't mean that it's not real"
Again, putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that asexuality is a symptom that can and should be investigated and treated rather than validated.
"Science itself doesn't have politics"
Scientific method does not, but science is absolutely affected by politics and you are naive to think otherwise. Social science and psychology all the moreso.
"shit's still peer-reviewed and won't be published unless it's actually significant"
A wholly naive position. We are speaking about psychology journals here too, widely known for bunk science and politicised consensus. Think back to the controversies regarding the DSM-5.
"post your fucking sources or shut the fuck up instead of spreading misinformation."
My complaint is with the epistemology, erring on validation rather than interrogation. However, depressed affect and sexual desire is a common symptom of depression, if you want sources pick up any basic text on depressive disorders.
"Part of the reason asexual people have higher rates of suicide is because of people like you saying that the only reason they're like that because of a mental disability"
Conjecture; more easily explained by asexuality being a symptom of depression.
"assuming that every single behaviour is adaptive in nature"
Not what I was doing.
"most often than not, behaviour is mostly a byproduct of genetic drift"
Nonsense. Genetic drift has nothing to do with behaviour except way upstream and at a population level affecting single alleles. Complex behaviours are polygenic and epigenetic.
"Just because it doesn't serve an adaptive function doesn't mean that it's not real"
Again, putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that asexuality is a symptom that can and should be investigated and treated rather than validated.
"Science itself doesn't have politics"
Scientific method does not, but science is absolutely affected by politics and you are naive to think otherwise. Social science and psychology all the moreso.
"shit's still peer-reviewed and won't be published unless it's actually significant"
A wholly naive position. We are speaking about psychology journals here too, widely known for bunk science and politicised consensus. Think back to the controversies regarding the DSM-5.
"post your fucking sources or shut the fuck up instead of spreading misinformation."
My complaint is with the epistemology, erring on validation rather than interrogation. However, depressed affect and sexual desire is a common symptom of depression, if you want sources pick up any basic text on depressive disorders.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 126
@gronkle Burden of proof is on you, dude. You're the one that made the claim that ace is a symptom/disorder, I've already given sources that claim that what you said just isn't true. Also! My OP also has sources about the suicidality thing so, you're welcome? You can't whine about how the sources aren't good enough for you and then pull some other shit out your ass without sources of your own.
If there's so much out there it should be easy enough for you to find- either show me or stop talking about shit you don't understand.
PS
PPS-
tldr- burden of proof is on you. if you're going to bring biology into sexual orientations be prepped to actually act like a scientist.
If there's so much out there it should be easy enough for you to find- either show me or stop talking about shit you don't understand.
PS
You seem to have some gripe about me pointing out your incorrect usage or parsimonious- I brought in adaptive function because you used the word parsimonious wrong, you dolt. You either meant frugal, or related it to parsimony- neither of which fucking apply here. Also- stop detracting from the focus of the discussion asshole. Nitpicking just makes you look desperate.
PPS-
I'm not engaging in this anymore if you clearly would rather dig your own grave than admit that you're wrong. Unless you can give me the same respect I've shown you and actually find your own evidence, kindly save your efforts because I ain't replying otherwise.
tldr- burden of proof is on you. if you're going to bring biology into sexual orientations be prepped to actually act like a scientist.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,193
@kirbee
I'm not hunting for sources in a comment thread for a gay manga to prove a point about epistemology to a kirby avatar.
PS:
PPS:
I have no burden to prove anything to you, because I am calling into question validity of the proofs of the original claim; ie: that asexuality is an orientation. I am doing so by giving a simpler alternative explanation that does not require any subjective analysis, and can be tested for. I also do so out of concern that validation is not going to help someone who is affected by any number of alternative causes for "asexuality".
I'm not hunting for sources in a comment thread for a gay manga to prove a point about epistemology to a kirby avatar.
PS:
of course I was referring to parsimony in the scientific sense; Occam's razor in other words. I assumed you were just being disingenuous and didn't address it any further. How that relates to adaptive function I don't understand nor at this point care.
I'm not going to engage on your terms, in your terms, or with your assumptions met. My problem is with your epistemology, or more broadly, the epistemology that leads one to conclude that lack of sexual desire is an orientation (ie: the epistemology rampant in certain areas of study masquerading as science).
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 84
Comment section... is so filled with text and science, and I'm over here being like, "Yo??? Is Yuuri Ace????"
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2020
- Messages
- 15
Yuuri gives me big asexual vibes
Similar threads
