So what do women want ???? Women are the ones hating chastity and purity the most yet simultaneously complain about rampant sexualization. What does "sexual independence" even mean ? Almost 60 years the sexual revolution, we have seen the aftereffects of this "independence" and where did that lead us ? Naked females are everywhere, everything is sexualized, porn is more and more degrading and criminal, kinks are now considered normal, objectification can't hardly be escaped. What is so wrong with wanting to be (or become) chaste or even having "never being touched" ? I genuinely want to understand. Why is this something that must be so heavily criticized ? Women's "liberation" will never come through sexual independence, it can only come through independence from sex and lust altogether.

It is not an unwritten Twitter rule but an unwritten societal rule. And it is true.

Women will criticize males for being "porn addicts" and perverts yet when THEY do the same, it suddenly becomes "empowering" and "healthy". For instance, video vixens were criticized because they embodied a degrading image of women. Yet, now Sabrina Carpenter and Cardi B are doing the exact same thing, but since the objectification comes from themselves and not directly from males, it is lauded.

Sex, porn, lust and objectification are bad whether it comes from women or men. Period.

Antisexuals describe themselves as people who have consciously chosen a life without sexuality. Some have never had sexual relations, but most adherents of the movement once had an active sex life before becoming disillusioned. “Don’t confuse us with the impotent. We can, but we don’t want to,” states a manifesto published online.

Some antisexuals are repelled by the sight of a naked male (or female) body, the sensation of another person’s saliva in their mouth during a kiss, and other physiological characteristics of carnal love. Others base their position on a philosophical approach, arguing that sex masks individuality. Russia’s most famous anti-sex activist, Yuri Nesterenko, claims that sex is a drug, characterized by addiction, withdrawal symptoms, and uncontrollable behavior.

"You only think the way you do about X because you're a personal victim of X/you've witnessed so much harm caused by X, and your thoughts on X are therefore invalid" is the most blatantly unempathetic and moronic take possible on anything, but this is the exact "argument" I get from people whenever the X in question is suffering itself. It's the same "argument" that is used to shut down criticism of ideologies ("you only hate religion because it harmed you and/or other people"), political beliefs ("you only disagree with X policy because it harms you and/or other people"), and unjust systems of all kinds ("you only want things to be different because the status quo harms you and/or other people"). Like, yeah, you're right, I do only have the perspective I do because harm is being caused and harm is wrong and bad. That's called having empathy. If I can go through something so awful that it makes my life not worth living, then I don't even need to see firsthand how others might suffer, I just know already that other people can suffer that much, because I am human and other people are human, too, and that knowledge would be enough to go off of on its own. But I'm not just relying on my personal experience, I'm also taking into account the suffering I have seen others endure, both firsthand and indirectly, and again it's called having empathy. I understand that other people's pain is just as significant as, and is equally as unjust as, my own pain. Every person who endures decades of torment is just as much a victim as I would be if I went through the same thing. They are just as underserving of their fates as I would be if I were them.

- it's very hard to overcome the survival instinct, even if you want to die

- chances are you have been told at some point by someone religious you'll go to hell if you end your own life, and even if you don't believe any more it doesn't mean it doesn't still affect you

- someone is likely to be traumatised by your death e.g you may have been told the worst thing a parent can ever go through is the loss of a child - especially by suicide

- access to peaceful, reliable methods is very difficult for many people - you could go through a lot of pain, fail and end up permanently damaged

- euthanasia / assisted suicide is expensive

- you're unlikely to be accepted by euthanasia / assisted suicide clinics for "mental illness" - they will want you to have gone through many treatments before they will consider you

(i understand there are some previously suicidal people who are glad they got professional support and are glad they didn't end their lives. some people have suffered intensely for a long time, and don't want to have to gamble on countless treatments on the offchance something might help. increased access to effective mental health treatment is a good thing, but the point is there are people suffering deeply right now who don't want to wait on the offchance in the distant future something may possibly help. i don't think anyone should be pressured into ending their life, and i appreciate there is a risk of this happening and measures need taking to help reduce that risk)

as someone with "mental illness" (a term i don't really like, as it tends to be associated with having a lack of capacity or logical thinking, which I don't think is true in my case) I WISH my parents had not had me, or at least had knowledge of mental health conditions / neurodiversity before doing so. I don't know if it had been "caught early" if things might have been different, but the longer you've suffered with something the more difficult recovery becomes, and not everyone wants to be forced to try every treatment under the sun whilst suffering deeply in the meantime.

Women who can easily decide to risk death in exchange for something as cheap and shallow as male attention, never had any self esteem or inner sense of dignity to begin with.

Valesians and Skoptists looked hard at what sexuality is and realized it is a filthy disgusting thing that their lord would never allow even within marriage and thus saw all the claims that marriage is good as hogwash.

The Christian scripture does say that Jesus would prefer if His followers stayed celibate till death and only prescribed marriage for those too weak to actually do it. Thus Jesus sees antisexual people like us as great people and those sticking to their manipulative monogamous relationships as the weaker ones that need to repent and go through all these hoops to even taste the glory of mind and soul we enjoy.

For an antisexual person who just leaves sexuality behind, they already won the battle between good and evil. Its the suckers who try dating and marrying that have to walk some tightrope like an idiot to not look like total filthy swine (they still are probably) and still mess it up with more problems like porn addiction and infidelity within the marriage that still sours their so called holy union and hurts the children as well, which is totally selfish.

Islam is a fine example of a religion that will definitely be needing a change to fit antisexual ideals since least the ones I talk to would bully and insult me for being on my own making it sound like marriage is a requirement to stay out of their hell. And they don't even value monastic chastity as a virtue like Christianity does at least (don't get me started about the whole marry 3-4+ wives thing)."

For those practicing Abrahamic religions like Christianity, I would go to far as saying Sexuality is the main vehicle of Satan (as early as Genesis & Adam + Eve as Skoptism points out) and shall play a huge role in revelations with the majority of the pop taking the mark of the beast in part or completely due to a sexual related urge.

This profound paradox, often attributed to a translation of the Tao Te Ching, speaks to the idea that letting go of rigid thoughts and desires allows for unlimited potential. Like an empty bowl or an open field, "nothingness" creates the necessary space for all possibilities to emerge and thrive.

Taoism: The Tao is described as an empty vessel that is never drained, serving as the endless source of all creation.

Buddhism: The concept of Śūnyatā (emptiness) teaches that forms and phenomena are not separate from emptiness, meaning a lack of inherent, fixed identity is what allows the universe to constantly change and manifest.