Haven for the Human Amoeba

Jim, great so if I do not happen to chose a "hard to adopt" child I can adopt inexpensively? Gee, that's just my point. The "hard to adopt" is not considered valuable so they don't sell at high prices. The children who are not difficult go for very high prices. So your response is exactly in-line with what I had expressed.

Jen

On 18 Dec 2004, J Noble said:

I do want children and I think it is wrong to create a situation where adoption really boils down to purchasing by the highest bidder.

It doesn't, if you're willing to accept "hard to place" children, including those with disabilities. I'd like to adopt some autistic children.

J8

Justina, I love honesty. You made me chuckle a lot.

I am under the same umbrella as an Autistic so I was not greatly impressed. I have Asperger Syndrome. Simply put, it's a high functioning autistic. We can really bug people without meaning intention too. We can really obsess on things for a while or a long time too. Then we often want to share all about it and the other person is just plain sick of that topic while the AS person is still enthralled. ROFL

That's wonderful Jim but you are still agreeing with me cuz society doesn't find much value in Autistics so what you are saying is the price tag is a low one verses a high one for a "not hard to place" child.

Jen

REALLY??? Coz I live with one every day and quite frankly I'd like to murder him. But then again he's not severely autistic and he's smarter than social services and his mother give him credit for. he gets away with everything and I get bugger all even though I have mental problems too. AARGH!

Jim Sinclair said:

On 18 Dec 2004, J Noble said:

I do want children and I think it is wrong to create a situation where adoption really boils down to purchasing by the highest bidder.

It doesn't, if you're willing to accept "hard to place" children, including those with disabilities. I'd like to adopt some autistic children.

J8

Yahoo! Groups Links

while with adoption, all of a sudden there is this child, with no genetic link to you, and you are supposed to raise it, or atleast give it back within 30 days.

I can see what you mean. That's probably why I wouldn't do it by myself, and I also want teenagers, who I already feel some sympathy for. And deaf teens, because I'm hard of hearing and know sign language, so I feel that I'd be a good foster parent for them. I don't know about adopting, usually I think of foster parenting as a better way for me, and you can sometimes adopt foster children. "Try before you buy"?

(-;

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi [email protected] / http://tlshell.cnc.net/

Hi, I don't normally send out this kind of data but it seemed important.

Jen

CBS Report (Warning)> CBS Report>

Keep a watch out for people standing near you in the checkout line at retail stores, restaurants, grocery stores, etc who have a camera cell. Phone in hand. With the camera cell phones, they can take a picture of your credit card, which gives them your name, number, and expiration date. CBS reported this type of identification theft is one of the fastest growing scams today. Be aware of your surroundings, forward to all your friends and family.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am under the same umbrella as an Autistic so I was not greatly impressed. I have Asperger Syndrome. Simply put, it's a high functioning autistic. We can really bug people without meaning intention too. We can really obsess on things for a while or a long time too. Then we often want to share all about it and the other person is just plain sick of that topic while the AS person is still enthralled. ROFL

Wow, that sounds a lot like what my neurotypical mother does to me! I'll be minding my own autistic business, taking my own autistic time focusing on something I'm interested in, either solitarily or with someone(s) who share(s) my interest, and my mother keeps interrupting me to talk on and on and on at great length about something she's enthralled about that I have absolutely NO interest in. :-/

That's wonderful Jim but you are still agreeing with me cuz society doesn't find much value in Autistics so what you are saying is the price tag is a low one verses a high one for a "not hard to place" child.

Maybe "society" doesn't find much value in disabled children, or in older ones, or non-white ones, and so that's why those children are considered "hard to place." But who's to say what the prospective adoptive parent values more?

For me, given a choice between getting a newborn infant and facing months of sleepless nights, years of dirty diapers, and years of *intensive* schedule-juggling and day care worries before the kid is old enough to go to school; vs. getting a six-year-old who's toilet trained, sleeps through the night, can self-feed so I don't have to bottle or spoon-feed, and spends several hours a day in school so I can have that time to take care of my own business without having to worry about a babysitter--well, I'll take the six-year-old! I don't *want* the "expensive," in-demand newborn. I *prefer* an older child.

And given a choice between a white child vs. a non-white one, I sincerely couldn't care less. Other characteristics (such as age and personality and any behavior issues) would matter to me. But given a choice between two children similar in all respects except race, I'd have no preference. So adopting the "hard to place" non-white child instead of the in-demand white one would *not* be compromising anything *I* value. I'd be just as happy with the "hard to place" one.

And as for disabled children, particularly autistic ones--again, those are the ones *I* would *want*. Not just *any* autistic child (I wouldn't want one that was dangerous to my animals, for example), but then, people adopting non-disabled children also have their preferences, things they're willing to deal with and things they aren't.

Most parents find it easier, pleasanter, and therefore preferable to raise children who are "like them." Well, I am autistic. Not only that, but most of my friends are autistic--not because I deliberately set out to befriend autistic people and reject non-autistic ones, but just because I happen to like and understand and enjoy the company of more autistic than non-autistic people. And not only that, but in 30 years (starting at age 12 as a classroom assistant, right up to now as a counselor) of working with children--and *liking* children-in-general, and being *good* with children-in-general, and not having any *aversion* to neurotypical children--I have found that it's noticeably easier for me to understand, relate to, communicate with, and just generally "click" with autistic kids than with non-autistic ones. So, if I were going to bring a child into my life full-time, and enter into a lifetime relationship with that child, I would want the child to be someone I could more easily understand, relate to, communicate with, and "click" with. Most likely that would be an autistic one.

I remember saying to one parent whose autistic child I was mentoring, "When I get ready to adopt a child, can I take yours to the agency and tell them, 'I want one just like this'?" :-)

The fact that there aren't too many other adoptive parents clamoring for autistic children, so it would be easier for me to be able to adopt them--the fact that I even might be able to get *paid* to adopt them, in the form of adoption subsidies for hard-to-place children--well, that's just icing on the cake. The reason *I* would want to adopt autistic children (assuming I were in a position to adopt at all) isn't because I'm willing to "settle for less." It's because that's the kind of child I *prefer*.

J8

Jim, great so if I do not happen to chose a "hard to adopt" child I can adopt inexpensively? Gee, that's just my point. The "hard to adopt" is not considered valuable so they don't sell at high prices. The children who are not difficult go for very high prices. So your response is exactly in-line with what I had expressed.

Wouldn't it be great if *all* children were valued and wanted? Mabye a concerted movement to "demand" older or disabled or minority children, or sibling groups of children, is a step in that direction.

The concept of "selling" children is mostly off, though. It does happen, but it's illegal and absolutely not approved practice in the U.S. What does happen is that private adoption agencies charge *for their services* (not for the child itself) to help people find and adopt the kind of child they want. And state governments are taxpayer-funded, and do not provide the same level of matchmaking services, and do not pay their workers as much, so it does not cost as much to adopt a child through them.

If I went to a private adoption agency and told them I wanted to adopt a group of three or four siblings so they could stay together in the same family, and that I want them all to be at least four years old, and I'd really prefer if most or all of them were autistic or "cousins," the agency would probably be willing to take my money too. In fact they might even charge me *more* money to find those kids for me than they charge people looking for nondisabled infants, if they had to spend more time looking for the exact children I want.

And if a nondisabled white infant becomes adoptable through a state child welfare system, the state doesn't charge any more to place that child than to place "hard to place" children. It's the private agencies that are expensive, not the children.

The societal values and supply-and-demand factor comes into play in the fact that there are fewer people looking for certain kinds of children. That's why they're hard to place. Not many people pay expensive fees to private adoption agencies to help them get those children. And as there are a lot more people looking for nondisabled white infants, it can take a very long time to get one through the state. So people *do* pay private adoption agencies to find adoptable babies *other* than through the state (like by making private arrangements directly with the birth parents).

Seems to me the problem is really with the adoptive parents themselves. So many of them are only willing to adopt such a small subset of the children needing homes that they're willing to buy expensive private services to get them.

What if a huge number of adoptive parents were happy to welcome the children who are now hard to place? Instead of paying private agencies for arranging placements of nondisabled infants, or paying international airfare and attorney fees to adopt nondisabled infants from other countries, what if all those adopters became eager to adopt the older kids, the disabled kids, the sibling groups, and the kids who don't look like them? Nondisabled white infants would suddenly be in no more demand than any other child needing a home. State agencies would have fewer children still waiting for adoption, and could provide better services to both children and families. Private agencies would have fewer customers willing to pay their exorbitant fees.

The whole adoption system would change if prospective parents would learn to value *all* children!

J8

On 20 Dec 2003, 03:56 +00:00, iolanthe_fairy said:

while with adoption, all of a sudden there is this child, with no genetic link to you, and you are supposed to raise it, or atleast give it >back within 30 days.

I can see what you mean. That's probably why I wouldn't do it by myself, and I also want teenagers, who I already feel some sympathy for. And deaf teens, because I'm hard of hearing and know sign language, so I feel that I'd be a good foster parent for them. I don't know about adopting, usually I think of foster parenting as a better way for me, and you can sometimes adopt foster children. "Try before you buy"?

I wish you all the best. There are many wonderful kids out there who need loving homes. I hope things work out for you and any teens you welcome into your home.

(-;

---

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi tlshell@...         /    http://tlshell.cnc.net/

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[email protected]  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Well this may be what your NT mother does but it is real common with Asperger Syndrome aka High functioning Autistics too.

I know you prefer the hard to adopt. I don't mind an older child but if the child can't bond as a family then I am not interested or if the child has a rage issue this is dangerous.

You're perception of hard to adopt may be different than mine. I do prefer not to have an infant but rather a toddler i.e. 2 or 3 years old. I don't mind adopting and older child i.e. 7 or 8 as long as I am not adopting a disaster. I am not into creating a total psych unit in my home. There is a difference between an adaptable 7 to 10 year old child vs a destructive young monster. You may think these are unkind words but this is also reality.

My entire family is mixed. All of my in-laws are from a different racial background. I have Chinese, Philipino, Mexican and black brothers and sisters in-laws. The only white sister in-law is a lesbian. That should make you laugh. I am not married and therefore would prefer to have a white child because it is easier in society for both me and the child. You may not agree. It's hard on kids when neither of their parents look anything like them and they must explain themselves as adopted for their entire lives. Well, I think kids should be able to just be kids and have a mother or a father or both. If they happen to decide to share they are adopted that's fine too but I don't like the idea of this always being in the forefront of their lives. I think just being a kid with a parent and fitting in is what I would like to offer a child.

You said you prefer Autistic kids because you are autistic and work with autistics because they match better with who you are. That's great. My needs are to just get a lot with regular society as much as possible in an ordinary way. If my child happened to become handicapped, no biggy but I am not seeking this situation.

You also talked about agency costs and that it's not purchasing a child. I fully disagree. Adoptive parents end up paying $10 thousand or more dollars and that is not paper work and so on. This is a legal way to SELL children.

Jen

On 19 Dec 2004, J Noble said:

I am under the same umbrella as an Autistic so I was not greatly impressed. I have Asperger Syndrome. Simply put, it's a high functioning autistic. We can really bug people without meaning intention too. We can really obsess on things for a while or a long time too. Then we often want to share all about it and the other person is just plain sick of that topic while the AS person is still enthralled. ROFL

Wow, that sounds a lot like what my neurotypical mother does to me! I'll be minding my own autistic business, taking my own autistic time focusing on something I'm interested in, either solitarily or with someone(s) who share(s) my interest, and my mother keeps interrupting me to talk on and on and on at great length about something she's enthralled about that I have absolutely NO interest in. :-/

That's wonderful Jim but you are still agreeing with me cuz society doesn't find much value in Autistics so what you are saying is the price tag is a low one verses a high one for a "not hard to place" child.

Maybe "society" doesn't find much value in disabled children, or in older ones, or non-white ones, and so that's why those children are considered "hard to place." But who's to say what the prospective adoptive parent values more?

For me, given a choice between getting a newborn infant and facing months of sleepless nights, years of dirty diapers, and years of *intensive* schedule-juggling and day care worries before the kid is old enough to go to school; vs. getting a six-year-old who's toilet trained, sleeps through the night, can self-feed so I don't have to bottle or spoon-feed, and spends several hours a day in school so I can have that time to take care of my own business without having to worry about a babysitter--well, I'll take the six-year-old! I don't *want* the "expensive," in-demand newborn. I *prefer* an older child.

And given a choice between a white child vs. a non-white one, I sincerely couldn't care less. Other characteristics (such as age and personality and any behavior issues) would matter to me. But given a choice between two children similar in all respects except race, I'd have no preference. So adopting the "hard to place" non-white child instead of the in-demand white one would *not* be compromising anything *I* value. I'd be just as happy with the "hard to place" one.

And as for disabled children, particularly autistic ones--again, those are the ones *I* would *want*. Not just *any* autistic child (I wouldn't want one that was dangerous to my animals, for example), but then, people adopting non-disabled children also have their preferences, things they're willing to deal with and things they aren't.

Most parents find it easier, pleasanter, and therefore preferable to raise children who are "like them." Well, I am autistic. Not only that, but most of my friends are autistic--not because I deliberately set out to befriend autistic people and reject non-autistic ones, but just because I happen to like and understand and enjoy the company of more autistic than non-autistic people. And not only that, but in 30 years (starting at age 12 as a classroom assistant, right up to now as a counselor) of working with children--and *liking* children-in-general, and being *good* with children-in-general, and not having any *aversion* to neurotypical children--I have found that it's noticeably easier for me to understand, relate to, communicate with, and just generally "click" with autistic kids than with non-autistic ones. So, if I were going to bring a child into my life full-time, and enter into a lifetime relationship with that child, I would want the child to be someone I could more easily understand, relate to, communicate with, and "click" with. Most likely that would be an autistic one.

I remember saying to one parent whose autistic child I was mentoring, "When I get ready to adopt a child, can I take yours to the agency and tell them, 'I want one just like this'?" :-)

The fact that there aren't too many other adoptive parents clamoring for autistic children, so it would be easier for me to be able to adopt them--the fact that I even might be able to get *paid* to adopt them, in the form of adoption subsidies for hard-to-place children--well, that's just icing on the cake. The reason *I* would want to adopt autistic children (assuming I were in a position to adopt at all) isn't because I'm willing to "settle for less." It's because that's the kind of child I *prefer*.

J8

Yahoo! Groups Links

I honestly first feel intrigue, then I wonder what sex really is. a seemingly pointless activity. then i think about why do so many people covet such pointless activities such as this. how can a simple emotion, a sensation in ones brain, cause so much madness in an individual's life? the countless amount of things people are willing to subject themselves to for the pleasures of sex. the now empty pleasures of sex which bring along no benefit but a seven minute sensation in one's groin.

i was just wondering how others thought of it as well.

nik 20/f

I agree. I often think about how people value sex as the most important part of the relationship, and that the only reason a relationship even exists is because of sex. To me it is rediculous! How long does it last? Maybe an hour, maybe less? Then what about the rest of the 23 hours that you have to live with that person?

I think that this is the reason that there are so many divorces and miserable marriages out there. Not enough importance was placed on friendship, and commonalities to begin with. My idea of what a relationship should be is that it should be a friendship between two people that enjoy each others company, and enjoying a variety of activities together. It should also be sort of a spiritual journey where the two people help each other to learn and grow together. I think that these should come first. Even for a sexual couple. No way should sex be the focal point, and most important part of someone's life. It is just plain warped, I think the world would be a much happier place if so much importance wasn't placed on sex. People seem to think that sex is nirvanna or something! There is much more to life than sex. This should be an obvious fact that doesn't need to be stated, but obviously people just don't think that way.

And speaking of 'other things', Happy holidays!

Sue

I honestly first feel intrigue, then I wonder what sex really is. a seemingly pointless activity. then i think about why do so many people covet such pointless activities such as this. how can a simple emotion, a sensation in ones brain, cause so much madness in an individual's life? the countless amount of things people are willing to subject themselves to for the pleasures of sex. the now empty pleasures of sex which bring along no benefit but a seven minute sensation in one's groin.

i was just wondering how others thought of it as well.

nik 20/f

Keith, I don't believe you when you say you are not attempting to fuel the fire. That's okay, I'm sure you are bored again.

I did read and remember your entire post. Participating in kind acts, putting in hard labor to help others is wonderful and something I also do in my life. This has no bearing on what you stated you did on this train in NYC. Now you are claiming it was fictitious. Well if it were fictitious then all of the comments of you being troll and me stating the entertainment you gave me with your insane rants was still very much correct. You may be telling the truth that it was fictitious but truly I believe the story you gave out the first time. I do believe you did these offensive behaviors on the subway in NYC.

By the way you don't know what I am about which doesn't truly matter anyway. I am definitely Asexual and to some degree anti-sexual but I am not foolish enough to believe others should live as I do nor do I have a need to insult those who choose to create a family with their own DNA. I am against provocative posters on the road, provocative commercials via the radio or TV or in any other fashion. If people want to "bump uglies" aka "do the act of physical intercourse" then that is their option. I simply do not want it in my face via all of these different medias.

It would not matter to me whether I was in the majority or not. This is how I feel about sexuality in general. It's more than being Asexual for me, it's also quite repugnant to me, yet I still do not have any right to suggest to others they don't have the right to bang on one another's genitals. I don't get the impression that others on this list feel the same way I do concerning those who want to engage in sex. I'm not offended and I do not have any need to convert people to feel the way I feel either.

My opinion of your behavior or said behavior on the subway has not changed nor my opinion of your inappropriate emails on this list.

Jen

Jen, You seem to ignore the majority of what I write in my posts. And I'm not trying to fuel the fire anymore because you don't listen to what I say anyway. You just come up with lazy, smug, presumptious remarks because it's easy for you, being in the majority (what?) Well, at least on here the majority of people are "A" sexuals and not "Antisexuals" so that leaves me in the minority. I am making major attempts not to lower myself to your condescending level because it doesn't get anybody anywhere. If you were to go back and read some of my posts you'd find that I've done extensive volunteer work helping the less fortunate and that I am and always have been for the underdog. And right now, Antisexuals are the ultimate underdog. It saddens me that I have do defend myself like this. I only do it because I am a public persona and I don't want anything I say to be misconstrued to the point where it has a negative effect on my movement , which I work very hard on. I think you've had e! nough of a comeback. And just so you know, the incident with the woman on the train was fictious. I used it to spark debate. I find the results very interesting and it only confirms my belief that we Antisexuals are in serious need of a voice. Maybe we have to separate from the asexuals and start our own yahoogroup. But right now, I fear there are too few of us. So for the time being I guess we're stuck with each other, so let's attempt to be civil to each other. I would appreciate in the future having my posts read in their entirety and in context and not taking little snippets to use in personal attacks.

And to all of those who are saying sex is fun for some people. How would you really know?

J Noble said:

Nik, thanks for your lovely support.

Thank you for possessing a good sense of humor. Yes, Keith is entertaining with all of his insanity related rants. Quite comical. It seems he is tuckered out but I am sure he will return if allowed. He just needs to find his new twist because he has become oh um moldy so to speak.

Jen with a smile

From

"iolanthe_fairy" <[email protected]>

To

<[email protected]>

Sent

Saturday, December 18, 2004 5:16 PM

Subject

[Haven for the Human Amoeba] keith i think i am in love with your blind ignorance

keith you said, "I'd say it would be more "classist" than racist."

in today's society, being a classist, is a glorified term for racist. although earlier, i did not want to call you a racist, because i believe it is hard not to stereotype people by race, and that most people are in fact racist, but few are intentional malicious.

because most hispanics are of lower income, being a classist is just saying that you find no pity in most hispanics.

i agreed with jen on everything, and i enjoyed all your comments. i thought keith was hilarious, and i hope the moderator didn't block him from discussions. i told all my friends about keith, and they all laughed hysterically. i wonder how people interact with him on a daily basis.

nik 20/f

nice comments, sue.

nik

I agree. I often think about how people value sex as the most important part of the relationship, and that the only reason a relationship even exists is because of sex. To me it is rediculous! How long does it last? Maybe an hour, maybe less? Then what about the rest of the 23 hours that you have to live with that person?

I think that this is the reason that there are so many divorces and miserable marriages out there. Not enough importance was placed on friendship, and commonalities to begin with. My idea of what a relationship should be is that it should be a friendship between two people that enjoy each others company, and enjoying a variety of activities together. It should also be sort of a spiritual journey where the two people help each other to learn and grow together. I think that these should come first. Even for a sexual couple. No way should sex be the focal point, and most important part of someone's life. It is just plain warped, I think the world would be a much happier place if so much importance wasn't placed on sex. People seem to think that sex is nirvanna or something! There is much more to life than sex. This should be an obvious fact that doesn't need to be stated, but obviously people just don't think that way.

And speaking of 'other things', Happy holidays!

Sue

iolanthe_fairy said:

I honestly first feel intrigue, then I wonder what sex really is. a seemingly pointless activity. then i think about why do so many people covet such pointless activities such as this. how can a simple emotion, a sensation in ones brain, cause so much madness in an individual's life? the countless amount of things people are willing to subject themselves to for the pleasures of sex. the now empty pleasures of sex which bring along no benefit but a seven minute sensation in one's groin.

i was just wondering how others thought of it as well.

nik 20/f

I whole-heartedly agree too much focus is placed on such a repetitive and physically awkward act. Then there is the danger of STDs, unplanned pregnancy, shotgun weddings, and not to mention the mess and the odor.

Then again I think back to one of Dennis Leary's early stand ups. What is happiness? "Happiness comes in small doses, it's a cigarette, or a cheeseburger, or a five second orgasim." I understand that most people will suffer through the daily indignities of life for a few short minutes of pleasure so yes its a raw deal to suffer hours of disappointment for a few moments of happiness.

So I guess that is one answer to why people covet sex? Its a temporary escapism.

-William

I agree. I often think about how people value sex as the most important part of the relationship, and that the only reason a relationship even exists is because of sex. To me it is rediculous! How long does it last? Maybe an hour, maybe less? Then what about the rest of the 23 hours that you have to live with that person?

I think that this is the reason that there are so many divorces and miserable marriages out there. Not enough importance was placed on friendship, and commonalities to begin with. My idea of what a relationship should be is that it should be a friendship between two people that enjoy each others company, and enjoying a variety of activities together. It should also be sort of a spiritual journey where the two people help each other to learn and grow together. I think that these should come first. Even for a sexual couple. No way should sex be the focal point, and most important part of someone's life. It is just plain warped, I think the world would be a much happier place if so much importance wasn't placed on sex. People seem to think that sex is nirvanna or something! There is much more to life than sex. This should be an obvious fact that doesn't need to be stated, but obviously people just don't think that way.

And speaking of 'other things', Happy holidays!

Sue

I honestly first feel intrigue, then I wonder what sex really is. a seemingly pointless activity. then i think about why do so many people covet such pointless activities such as this. how can a simple emotion, a sensation in ones brain, cause so much madness in an individual's life? the countless amount of things people are willing to subject themselves to for the pleasures of sex. the now empty pleasures of sex which bring along no benefit but a seven minute sensation in one's groin.

i was just wondering how others thought of it as well.

nik 20/f

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor [input] [input] [input] I'm a ManWoman seeking a WomanMan Enter city or ZIP [input] Age: [input] to [input] [input]

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am definitely Asexual and to some degree anti-sexual but I am not foolish enough to believe others should live as I do nor do I have a need to insult those who choose to create a family with their own DNA. I am against provocative posters on the road, provocative commercials via the radio or TV or in any other fashion. If people want to "bump uglies" aka "do the act of physical intercourse" then that is their option. I simply do not want it in my face via all of these different medias.

I pretty much agree that there is too much sex in advertising, but I deal with it by ignoring ads. What bothers me is when people smooch repeatedly in public. I see people on the bus sometimes, they are just wrapped up in each other. I feel like telling them to "get a room already!!!" I became more sensitive to it when I realized that straight people get away with this, while gay people can get lynched.

BTW, I think for some people, sex is their way of connecting with their spiritual nature.

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi tlshell@... / http://tlshell.cnc.net/

Hi Therese, I do my best to ignore the sexual media but gee it is just everywhere and I'm sick of it. I agree with you concerning the public display of sexual affection i.e. kissing, rapping themselves up together like a blanket in public, grinding their groins together and so on. Personally, I don't want to see straight, gay, transgender or anything else doing this behavior. You are right gays would be beaten to death for doing this same behavior.

I don't think it is a spiritual connection for them though. I think they get high from all of the hormones and chemical changes in their bodies and brains. It's a cheap way for them to have fun and not very creative. They don't have to think or communicate if the chemical high is enough to have a good time.

Jen

On 22 Dec 2003, 05:57 +00:00, J Noble said:

I am definitely Asexual and to some degree anti-sexual but I am not foolish enough to believe others should live as I do nor do I have a need to insult those who choose to create a family with their own DNA. I am against provocative posters on the road, provocative commercials via the radio or TV or in any other fashion. If people want to "bump uglies" aka "do the act of physical intercourse" then that is their option. I simply do not want it in my face via all of these different medias.

I pretty much agree that there is too much sex in advertising, but I deal with it by ignoring ads. What bothers me is when people smooch repeatedly in public. I see people on the bus sometimes, they are just wrapped up in each other. I feel like telling them to "get a room already!!!" I became more sensitive to it when I realized that straight people get away with this, while gay people can get lynched.

BTW, I think for some people, sex is their way of connecting with their spiritual nature.

---

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi tlshell@... / http://tlshell.cnc.net/

Yahoo! Groups Links

If you are board or just like to do something a little different then read the following. If not then delete this email. LOL

Jen

1. Where is your energy naturally directed? Extroverts' energy is directed primarily outward, towards people and things outside of themselves. Introvertes' energy is primarily directed inward, towards their own thoughts, perceptions, and reactions. Therefore, Extraverts tend to be more naturally active, expressive, social, and interested in many things, whereas Introverts tend to be more reserved, private, cautious, and interested in fewer interactions, but with greater depth and focus. Extroverts (Expressive) often: * Have high energy * Talk more than listen * Think out loud * Act, then think * Like to be around people a lot * Are easy to get to know * Can sometimes be easily distracted * Prefer to do lots of things at once * Are outgoing & enthusiastic

Introverts (Reserved) often: * Have quiet energy * Listen more than talk * Think quietly inside their head * Think, then act * Feel comfortable being alone * Are considered pretty private people * Have good powers of concentration * Prefer to focus on one thing at a time * Are self-contained and reserved

2. What kind of information do you naturally notice and remember? Sensors notice the facts, details, and realities of the world around them whereas Intuitives are more interested in connections and relationships between facts as well as the meaning, or possibilities of the information. Sensors tend to be practical and literal people, who trust past experience and often have good common sense. Intuitives tend to be imaginative, theoretical people who trust their hunches and pride themselves on their creativity. Sensors (Observant) often: * Focus on facts & specifics * Admire practical solutions * Notice details & remember facts * Are realistic - see what is * Live in the here-and-now * Trust actual experience * Like to use established skills * Like step-by-step instructions * Work at a steady pace Intuitives (Introspective) often: * Focus on ideas & the big picture * Admire creative ideas * Notice anything new or different * Are imaginative - see what could be * Think about future implications * Trust their gut instincts * Prefer to learn new skills * Like to figure things out for themselves * Work in bursts of energy

3. How do you decide or come to conclusions? Thinkers make decisions based primarily on objective and impersonal criteria-what makes the most sense and what is logical. Feelers make decisions based primarily on their personal values and how they feel about the choices. So, Thinkers tend to be cool, analytical, and are convinced by logical reasoning. Feelers tend to be sensitive, empathetic, and are compelled by extenuating circumstances and a constant search for harmony. Thinkers (Tough-minded) often: * Make decisions objectively * Appear cool and reserved * Are most convinced by logic * Are honest and direct * Value honesty and fairness * Take few things personally * Tend to see flaws * Are motivated by achievement * Argue or debate issues for fun

Feelers (Friendly) often: * Decide based on their values & feelings * Appear warm and friendly * Are most convinced by how they feel * Are diplomatic and tactful * Value harmony and compassion * Take many things personally * Are quick to compliment others * Are motivated by appreciation * Avoid arguments and conflicts

4. What kind of environment makes you the most comfortable? Judgers prefer a structured, ordered, and fairly predictable environment, where they can make decisions and have things settled. Perceivers prefer to experience as much of the world as possible, so they like to keep their options open and are most comfortable adapting. So, Judgers tend to be organized and productive while Perceivers tend to be flexible, curious, and nonconforming. Judgers (Scheduling) often: * Like to make decisions * Are serious & conventional * Pay attention to time & are prompt * Prefer to finish projects * Work first, play later * Want things decided * See the need for most rules * Like to make & stick with plans * Find comfort in schedules Perceivers (Probing) often: * Postpone some decisions, if they can * Are playful & unconventional * Are less aware of time & run late * Prefer to start projects * Play first, work later * Want to keep their options open * Question the need for many rules * Like to keep plans flexible * Want the freedom to be spontaneous

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.haleonline.com/psychtest/

You're an INTP INTP You're on a quest for logical purity...you're motivated to examine universal truths and principles...always asking "Why?" and "Why not?"...can focus with great intensity on your interests...you appreciate elegance and efficiency in thought processes and demand it in your communication...

You might appear low key in appearance and approach, you're hard as nails when challenging a truth...you don't like to deal with the obvious...at your best when developing unusual or complex ideas...you can be an under- achieving but very capable student...if you don't like a rule, you're quick to challenge it and find flaws in it -- this could make you somewhat of a rebel...if you like the rule, though, you have a respect for it and go along with it...

A relentless learner in areas that hold your interest...you might seem "lost in thought" to others...you tend to connect unrelated thoughts...you would rather be the architect of a plan than the implementer of it...you need a private, quiet workplace that allows for flexible independence... would rather organize ideas than people....

You tend to stay away from traditional leadership roles, and would rather lead with your ideas...you don't get emotionally involved, but rather tend to follow logical reasoning.....leisure has two dimensions to you: first, you like to concentrate and reflect on conceptual matters -- second, you like to take risks in the external world (like skydiving?)...

You like to read, think, watch TV, play with computers..(and post on the Storm Palace message bases).. sometimes you'd rather do these types of things than hang around other people...you don't necessarily like "best sellers" or "must see" movies because you don't trust people's opinion on what's "popular" and would rather make a value judgment for yourself....

Love, for you, has three distinct phases: falling in, staying in, and getting out. falling in love is a loss of rationality for you, and you fall HARD...an all or nothing phenomenon....

The "staying in love" phase is where you start to evaluate the relation- ship's structure and form. You may withdraw at this point because you're moving toward your most customary inward style and nature. A lot of the open affection stops....the giddy state changes... The "falling out of love" part (which doesn't always happen) results from an analysis of the real expectations of the realationship and needs of the relationship. Often an undefined line is crossed that neither of you knew about in advance. However, if you end it, you'll keep the relationship going as a friend in some capacity if you have a reason....

Pitfalls: don't focus too much on the inconsistencies of others...try being friendly and showing appreciation of others...being competent is very important to you, and you could be too hard on yourself....don't let your emotions take control -- you could have outbursts or appear hypersensitive...

INTP: "It's Not Theoretically Possible"

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.typefocus.com/s_complimentaryform.html

I ended up with 2 different results. At the end of the first one it asked me if I agreed, disagreed or was not sure. I said I was not sure so it gave me another test and therefore a different result.

Jen

First results: Based on the answers you submitted, the program has determined your personality type. It is important to confirm these results using the buttons below the picture.

INTJ.

I - Introversion

N - Intuition

T - Thinking

J - Judgement

Weak Moderate Strong

If you are an Introvert, you prefer your energy to flow inwards, and your attention is naturally drawn to the inner world of understanding. Because you focus inwards, you tend to become more thoughtful, and your interests are deeper.

Introverts tend to keep their thoughts to themselves.

Picture of Introvert: thinking about something; making sure it "fits" before sharing with others.

Analogy: rock tossed into a pond - hitting once and sinking deeply.

Common Qualities of Introverts: · Attracted to in-depth analysis · Like to think, sometimes without talking · Like to understand

Keyword: Inner-directed

Second Results:

ENFJ December 22nd, 2004

Common Qualities of Extraverts:

Attracted to many different things Like to talk, sometimes without thinking Like to get involved, make it happen Keyword: Outgoing

Common Qualities of Intuitives:

Notice the whole picture Theoretical - interested in WHY things work Creative - like to experiment Keyword: Imaginative

Common Qualities of Feelers:

Appreciate sensitivity Quick to give support Merciful - individual circumstances noted Keyword: Compassionate

Common Qualities of Judgers:

Are comfortable when everything is organized Like to have a time-framed schedule Decide quickly - sometimes bossy Keyword: Organized

General Description: ENFJs glow with warmth and sympathy. They are creative and organized and enjoy helping others achieve their personal goals. ENFJs want to understand people, so they are interested in theories of human behaviour. Since ENFJs bring out the best in others, they make popular leaders and faithful supporters. They are gifted communicators.

Career Insights: ENFJs value harmony and personal growth as ideals so they prefer to work in settings that promote these ideals. Since they are outgoing and organized, ENFJs adapt easily to organizational policies and procedures - as long as the procedures are in line with their idealized goals. ENFJs will enjoy work that helps people get along better and improve themselves. Careers often chosen by ENFJs include the religious professions, health care, psychology, writing, fine arts, teaching (art, drama, music) and counselling.

TO PRINT: click the browser 'print' button at the top of the screen.

To take the FULL interactive program that will help you decide what careers are best for you and create your unique career reports.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with you concerning the public display of sexual affection i.e. kissing, rapping themselves up together like a blanket in public, grinding their groins together and so on. Personally, I don't want to see straight, gay, transgender or anything else doing this behavior. You are right gays would be beaten to death for doing this same behavior.

I don't think it is a spiritual connection for them though. I think they get high from all of the hormones and chemical changes in their bodies and brains.

That wouldn't explain things like the Kama Sutra though. There's a lot of interest in using sex to make a connection to God, and even the Catholic Church IIRC has some language that compares the relationship between man and wife to a covenant with God. I don't think most people study this stuff, but for some the moment of orgasm is a moment of transcendental experience.

But I think you're right about most people being rather earthbound...

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi [email protected] / http://tlshell.cnc.net/

It all has to do with intent. The tool is only as good as the user. It's the same thing as a hammer. You can use it to build housing for the poor, and it can also be used to kill someone. It seems that there are a lot of vehicles, and tools that can be used to gain spiritual awareness. A lot of those methods and tools are worthless, and even detrimental if used with the wrong intent. Sex is one of them. I would probably be correct in stating that about 99% of the population here in the states is NOT using sex as a means of getting closer to God. I wonder how many people actually perform it to even gain a soulful connection to their partner?

Sue

of interest in using sex to make a connection to God, and even the Catholic Church IIRC has some language that compares the relationship between man and wife to a covenant with God. I don't think most people study this stuff, but for some the moment of orgasm is a moment of transcendental experience.

But I think you're right about most people being rather earthbound...

---

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi tlshell@c... / http://tlshell.cnc.net/

"So I guess that is one answer to why people covet sex? Its a temporary escapism. "

-William

interesting theory. but still ten minutes of pleasure will not save a rocky relationship. because when something as superficial as an orgasm can come from your wife, your lover, or that porn vid you picked up.

i think sex is just not neccessary in a relationship because their is nothing unique about it, nothing specail that holds you close to that person.

-nik

sparkwielder said:

I agree. I often think about how people value sex as the most important part of the relationship, and that the only reason a relationship even exists is because of sex. To me it is rediculous! How long does it last? Maybe an hour, maybe less? Then what about the rest of the 23 hours that you have to live with that person?

I think that this is the reason that there are so many divorces and miserable marriages out there. Not enough importance was placed on friendship, and commonalities to begin with. My idea of what a relationship should be is that it should be a friendship between two people that enjoy each others company, and enjoying a variety of activities together. It should also be sort of a spiritual journey where the two people help each other to learn and grow together. I think that these should come first. Even for a sexual couple. No way should sex be the focal point, and most important part of someone's life. It is just plain warped, I think the world would be a much happier place if so much importance wasn't placed on sex. People seem to think that sex is nirvanna or something! There is much more to life than sex. This should be an obvious fact that doesn't need to be stated, but obviously people just don't think that way.

And speaking of 'other things', Happy holidays!

Sue

iolanthe_fairy said:

I honestly first feel intrigue, then I wonder what sex really is. a seemingly pointless activity. then i think about why do so many people covet such pointless activities such as this. how can a simple emotion, a sensation in ones brain, cause so much madness in an individual's life? the countless amount of things people are willing to subject themselves to for the pleasures of sex. the now empty pleasures of sex which bring along no benefit but a seven minute sensation in one's groin.

i was just wondering how others thought of it as well.

nik 20/f

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor [input] [input] [input] I'm a ManWoman seeking a WomanMan Enter city or ZIP [input] Age: [input] to [input] [input]

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would probably be correct in stating that about 99% of the population here in the states is NOT using sex as a means of getting closer to God. I wonder how many people actually perform it to even gain a soulful connection to their partner?

You could be right. I tried to find statistics and found this instead: http://www.letterneversent.com/index.php/archives/2004/06/07/interesting-find/

The type of person who would use sex in a spiritual manner can be defined as a mystic; according to the above, apparently that's only 1 percent of the population.

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi tlshell@... / http://tlshell.cnc.net/

I wanted to reply earlier, but forgot. Hope I'm not stirring up coals... (-:

And to all of those who are saying sex is fun for some people. How would you really know?

Not all of us are virgins; in my case, I have simply been voluntarily inactive for several decades and lost interest. And besides, if someone says that sex is fun and/or acts like they enjoy it, I tend to believe it's true for them.

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi tlshell@... / http://tlshell.cnc.net/

I don't recall writing that sex is the glue that holds a relationship together but if I did or implied it then scratch that. The original question seemed to ask what our thoughts on sex were and as everyone knows you don't have to be in a relationship to have sex. People have sex with strangers all the time at bars, parties, clubs, prostitution, etc. and usually nothing comes from a one-night stand other than meaningless sex. Sex gives people release, connects them with another human being (albeit just physical), and is a momentary carnal pleasure. Of course like all other pleasures it is unnessary (except for reproduction obviously), over-rated, and many people can go without it.

"How long does it last? Maybe an hour", "ten minutes of pleasure" - Ok this just confuses me as a man. I've been sexually aroused for much longer than 10 minutes but have never had a 10 minute orgasm which sounds really draining and dangerous to my health. Sorry its just that all the other emails had measures of time involved with their description of sex and I thought I would try and point that out.

"So I guess that is one answer to why people covet sex? Its a temporary escapism. "

-William

interesting theory. but still ten minutes of pleasure will not save a rocky relationship. because when something as superficial as an orgasm can come from your wife, your lover, or that porn vid you picked up.

i think sex is just not neccessary in a relationship because their is nothing unique about it, nothing specail that holds you close to that person.

-nik

sparkwielder said:

I agree. I often think about how people value sex as the most important part of the relationship, and that the only reason a relationship even exists is because of sex. To me it is rediculous! How long does it last? Maybe an hour, maybe less? Then what about the rest of the 23 hours that you have to live with that person?

I think that this is the reason that there are so many divorces and miserable marriages out there. Not enough importance was placed on friendship, and commonalities to begin with. My idea of what a relationship should be is that it should be a friendship between two people that enjoy each others company, and enjoying a variety of activities together. It should also be sort of a spiritual journey where the two people help each other to learn and grow together. I think that these should come first. Even for a sexual couple. No way should sex be the focal point, and most important part of someone's life. It is just plain warped, I think the world would be a much happier place if so much importance wasn't placed on sex. People seem to think that sex is nirvanna or something! There is much more to life than sex. This should be an obvious fact that doesn't need to be stated, but obviously people just don't think that way.

And speaking of 'other things', Happy holidays!

Sue

iolanthe_fairy said:

I honestly first feel intrigue, then I wonder what sex really is. a seemingly pointless activity. then i think about why do so many people covet such pointless activities such as this. how can a simple emotion, a sensation in ones brain, cause so much madness in an individual's life? the countless amount of things people are willing to subject themselves to for the pleasures of sex. the now empty pleasures of sex which bring along no benefit but a seven minute sensation in one's groin.

i was just wondering how others thought of it as well.

nik 20/f

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor [input] [input] [input] I'm a ManWoman seeking a WomanMan Enter city or ZIP [input] Age: [input] to [input] [input]

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor [input] [input] [input] I'm a ManWoman seeking a WomanMan Enter city or ZIP [input] Age: [input] to [input] [input]

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

interesting theory. but still ten minutes of pleasure will not save a rocky relationship. because when something as superficial as an orgasm can come from your wife, your lover, or that porn vid you picked up.

i think sex is just not neccessary in a relationship because their is nothing unique about it, nothing specail that holds you close to that person.

True, sex won't save a relationship. I think of a relationship as sort of like a cake in which sex is the frosting. There's a lot of other ingredients that are more important in terms of holding the relationship together, but over time, the frosting is one of the things that really gives it a luxurious touch that you won't find in a "quickie." It takes a long time for people to learn each other's individual ways...people who don't bother to do this in a relationship will eventually separate unless there are other forces keeping them together. (That's why the debate about Gay marriage totally misses the point about marriage as an institution.)

Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi tlshell@... / http://tlshell.cnc.net/