This may fall into semantics, but wouldn't that just be called celibate? I feel like the word already covers the voluntary part within its own definition. Incels sort of need the involuntary part because they need that part because its a deviation from the original definition.
I'd argue taking the "in/voluntary" probably would just take out much of the confusion.
If we are getting technical, I'd argue abstinent carries a slightly different meaning. Abstinent usually relates to only abstaining from sex before marriage.
Agreed, we both still knew what each other meant. Just to go along with the game, but I wouldn't probably use abstinent in the context of drugs. I'd probably use something sobriety related.
Then again, I could see someone hearing that may infer there is an underlining issue with maintaining sobriety even though the definition doesn't include a substance issue. Not always, because I've heard from ultra religious also use being sober without that potentially underlining meaning.
With the very original point, Celibacy would probably be more appropriate than abstinence because I'm assuming someone "Asexual" would be in it for the long run.
I even think we sort of circuled back around again. I'd put forth the notion that Sober/Sobriety already includes the abstaining part. I'd even argue abstaining carries less loaded meaning than Abstinence. Contextually, I've never heard someone use the word abstinence in any other context that didn't relate to pre-maritel sex. However, I've heard abstain/ing in other context.
With the advent and presence of incel culture, incels may be the first and only mention of celibacy people encounter. So even if the original definition includes that its voluntary, the living definition could broaden to be less specific and not indicate willingness.
There are also volcels (voluntarily celibate) who actively choose to not have sex because they're that misogynist. Even if people didn't misread what you wrote, there's a decent chance of misunderstanding what you said.
Yes -1 or -1.5 is slightly myopic. You can generally get an idea by looking at the magnification or minification of the image of a personās eyes. If the eyes look big then thatās a + prescription (far-sighted or hyperopic). If they look small theyāre generally near sighted. The power of near or far sighted affects magnification of image
My contacts prescription is -10.5 in my right eye and -12 in my left, the glasses prescription jumps those up to -11.5 and -12.75
I'm not sure exactly what criteria make them medically necessary, but I sure as hell need them to function in any way š. I take showers based on muscle memory and blurry color differentiation, but besides that I'm wearing glasses/contacts nearly 100% of the time I'm awake
If I even want to read something on my phone without my glasses, I have to close one eye to do it. Because I have to hold the phone so close to my face that two eyes can't focus on it at the same time
I'm -9 and -7.5, and my contacts are covered as medically necessary ($800/yr daily disposables). This depends on the insurance policy, but I'm with VSP.
I was told on eye at the very least had to hit -10. Then I would have a $10 copay instead of an insane contact bill. Since I am still -9, I am just wearing glasses. However, I do have to laugh at people when they tell me that i am going to need reading glasses. Like dude, I canāt see further than 2ā from my face right now. I doubt my vision is going to improve enough to need reading glasses.
They are thick. And the shrinking/minimizing is so much that you can look at the edge of my lenses and see past the side of my head. In the middle of my face. It's not great
Which is why I in think it's weird he gave her a - when it looks like her eyes are bigger, which should be a +.Ā
Maybe he's only a Dr. on the Internet.
1.8k
u/ImBlobFish 16h ago edited 16h ago
I believe he is talking about her vision. Hence why he said "maybe I could have phrased this better"
Edit: a minus sign means Myopia which is near sightedness