Attacks on my boyfriend

This was cross-posted on The Asexual Agenda.

I'm openly asexual, and I also pay attention to media mentions of asexuality.  So I've heard all the standard attacks and denials.  I can handle them.

But here's what I think is particularly nasty: attacks on my boyfriend.

This happened a few times in my boyfriend's circle of friends.  It's a fairly typical circle of friends in that it consists of people who are mostly the same age, race, and social class.  This particular circle consists mostly of gay white educated young men.  They're my friends too, of course, and I have nothing against them.

A year ago, one of these men, named J, found out that my boyfriend and I were going to an asexual meetup that weekend.  Meetups are something we do on occasion.  We go to a cafe and have casual conversations about whatever people like.  More often than not, what we discuss has nothing to do with asexuality.  J seemed to have a different image in mind though.  J accused my boyfriend, over instant messages, of getting into a sexless relationship for me.  He said I was trying to convert him to asexuality.

On a more recent occasion, my boyfriend went to a movie night.  This is something we do every few weeks, but this particular week I was out of town so he was there without me.  The host of the movie night says to my boyfriend, "So, I heard you were asexual.  What's that about?"  My boyfriend had to explain that I was asexual, but he wasn't.  This led to a situation where all his friends were quizzing him on asexuality.

My boyfriend felt very uncomfortable, because he felt put on the spot to defend the legitimacy of our relationship to his friends.  He felt like he was in a double-bind.  First they assumed that we're in a sexless relationship, and then they questioned the legitimacy of sexless relationships.  My boyfriend wanted to inform them that our relationship is sexually active, but also didn't want to imply that sexless relationships were somehow less legitimate.

That's what bothered my boyfriend the most, but I was more bothered by the larger pattern of behavior.  They pounced on him when I wasn't there.  It felt like they were using underhanded tactics to hit me at my weak spot.  And they've never mentioned any of it to me, even though my boyfriend said they should redirect questions to me.

It's true that I'm not as close of a friend to them, and that may explain their behavior.  But if they were really interested in learning about asexuality, they should have asked the more knowledgeable person.  My boyfriend is not asexual.  He gets all his information about asexuality secondhand through me.  He doesn't necessarily know how to respond to all the standard attacks.  And why should he have to?  Asexuality isn't his own lived experience.

On another occasion, a different friend said to me in front of my boyfriend, "You're the most sexually active asexual I know."  That was awkward, and assumed knowledge about our sex lives.  But you know, that wasn't as bad, because at least he said it to my face.

The burden of proof and God

One of the more tedious arguments concerning gods is the argument over who has the burden of proof.  Whereas many atheists argue that the theist must first make the argument for the existence of gods, their opponents argue that this is a cop out.  For example, on NY Times:

Contemporary atheists often assert that there is no need for them to provide arguments showing that religious claims are false. Rather, they say, the very lack of good arguments for religious claims provides a solid basis for rejecting them. The case against God is, as they frequently put it, the same as the case against Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. This is what we might call the “no-arguments” argument for atheism.

I take the side of atheists; I think theists have the burden of proof.  This is not about giving atheists an unfair advantage in the debate, nor is it about making a "no-arguments" argument.  In fact, I do not believe it is an advantage, fair or otherwise, at all.  It's simply about who takes which role.

I'm somewhat influenced by the role of burden of proof in law, though law does not necessarily provide a paragon of debate format.  In a court of law, attorneys set out to prove certain facts.  But producing the arguments and evidence costs money, so the law must specify whose role it is to prove the facts, and to what extent they must be proven.  In most criminal cases, the plaintiff must prove "beyond reasonable doubt", and in most civil cases, the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence".  If you're wondering how to interpret that, it depends whether you ask the defendant's or plaintiff's attorney.

(Please correct me if I made any error with regard to law.)

In the case of proving God, it is only sensible that the theist has the burden of proof.  The atheist doesn't know beforehand what particular god or gods the theist believes in, and doesn't know what arguments to use.  Theists keep on telling us that not all religious people believe the same things, and I wholeheartedly agree.  That's why it's the theist's role to explain what they believe and why.

But this does not confer an advantage to atheists, any more than it confers an advantage to the defendant in a court of law.  It just means that the theist makes the first argument.  If the argument, taken at face value, meets the burden of proof, then it is up to the atheist to counter it.  In other words, the burden of proof shifts to the atheists.  The burden of proof shifts back and forth indefinitely, and does not give an advantage to either side.

By saying theists have the burden of proof, I only mean that they have the initial burden of proof.  It is not meant as a "get out of an argument free" card.