Haven for the Human Amoeba

I'm interested in your anti-marriage and anti-procreation stance. I'm in full agreement with these tenets but maybe we arrived at them via different reasons. My own view of marriage is that it was artificially created to limit freedom, enable control and legalise human ownership. As an institution that in itself is justification for its abolition. Well this is in my humble opinion anyway.<<

This is precisely my view of the institution also. Add to this the fact that I believe that most of the things that people are actually looking for in a marriage (e.g. affection, fidelity, trust, etc.) are not the sort of things that can be stipulated in a legal contract.

>>With regards to anti-procreation well I think if we cannot look after the 30,000 children that die each day needlessly from famine and poverty are we really responsible enough to create more? Children are also brought forth for many irresponsible and selfish reasons.<<

Exactly, there are more than enough children brought forth on this earth by parents who are ill-equipped to care for them. If I really feel the urge to become a parent myself, I'll simply adopt one of those children rather than add to the population crisis by having my own. I don't have a desperate need to see my own genome replicated. I'm not that narcissistic. I don't think that my personality is well-suited to parenting anyway: somewhat short temper, not emotionally effusive, tendency to try to reason with persons to get a point across. These are not traits that are amenable to the rearing of a child.

Judy

I would have to agree with Judy here. I do not see why we need to throw out our capacity for feeling emotional intensity just because we are asexual and have no interest in sex. In fact I would say the more emotionally intensive the better.

Shelomoph

This is precisely my view of the institution also. Add to this the fact that I believe that most of the things that people are actually looking for in a marriage (e.g. affection, fidelity, trust, etc.) are not the sort of things that can be stipulated in a legal contract.

Agreed.

Yes adoption occurd to me also. I have certain genes that I would not like to pass on for instance my fair skin that burns easily in the Sun I got this from my a grand mother (bless her) not very desirable. :-)

If you would permit me to say I think you are a little hard on yourself with regard to your potential parenting abilities. I am not really qualified to say so but I think children can be reasoned with and can respond well to reason. You get your point across very well I would think any child who could learn that from you would be at a great advantage in their adult lives.

When you say 'short temper' I could not help thinking of my younger sister who is also like this. This has a big plus side in her case anyway in that she does not take any crap and I imagine that you are the same, by virtue of the fact you have made a stance on issues so many people give in to. Again if you can impart that into the children in your care this type of attitude would enable them to challenge the status quo as adults in the same way as you have. I can see only advantages in these two traits that you have, at least in my oh so humble opinion. :-)

Sascha

Thank you for your words of encouragement. And wise words at that. I look forward to your future participation. Perhaps we shall be able to raise some issues about the possible connection between astrology and the asexuality? :-) We shall see.

Shelomoph

Hmmm, yes I think we do agree the these points you mention.

I'm thinking that if only heterosexual men would listen to some of the points we have raised in his discussion they would find it mind expansive. It would do a lot to enrich heterosexual people's lives. Particular men who have such a warped idea of relationships but I guess they'll learn their bad habits from the fathers and their father's father's. But then I'm sure there are good fathers out there to teach sons. But at the same time the responsibility rests with each individual generation, but I digress. . .

Shelomoph

Here I am, the forum's pet heterosexual male. I've been away for a while, so I may ramble a bit with the things I try to respond too.

Shelo- welcome to the club.

I'd like to take this oppourtunity to plug Platonicism- my own contribution to asexual theory. This is how I define myself. Basically, I still have a sex drive. But I do not form relationships for the purpose of induldging it. I view relationships in a similar light to BRC, and other asexual. but I also am a heterosexual male.

I plug this because of the posts that have been trashing heterosexual males as the bane of asexuality. I am a little insulted by this, not because some of you are bashing a group I belong too, but because it shows some of you aren't internalizing the experiences of others here. Asexulity is about more than not having sex. Its about a way of viewing relationships as ends in themselves, not as tools to get sex. its about seeing other people as people, not as sex objects. Some celibates I know don't have sex, but still view the world in sexual terms all the time. I have sex but rarely view the world in sexual terms.

try not to think of just how asexuality works for you. we have a good amout of evidence to create a comprehensive theory of asexuality, and how it relates to other sexualities. Some of you seem to be trying to do this and I can;t wait to see the results. Only by doing this can we really be able to make Asexuality a common understanding in society.

ps. I don't have time to proofread to make sure I wasn't offensive. oh well.

It seems like a closer analasys of the term romance is warrented here. I agree that romantic relationships are possible for asexual people, but what exactly does that look like? What is the differnce, say, between being in a romantic relationship with someone and being "just friends" for an asexual person? I don't think its just a matter of degree (some arbitrary point at which platonic relationships become declared romantic), you can have platonic friendships which are much closer than romantic relationships.

So, you're probably wondering, why all the wierd questions and theory about relationships? Why doesn't BRC just shut up?

I suppose it's because this stuff around relationships is the part about asexuality that I'm thinking about right now, and also the part which makes asexuality confusing for sexual people.

I agree that romantic relationships are possible for asexual people, but what exactly does that look like? What is the differnce, say, between being in a romantic relationship with someone and being "just friends" for an asexual person?<<

I'm not sure that there is a concrete difference between just being friends and being in a romantic asexual relationship. I suppose that it is does differ simply by degree and not by nature. For instance, one may enjoy the affection of a friend, but may desire a more constant and intense stream of affection from a romantic partner. One doesn't usually become upset if one's friends don't constantly reinforce their love for you, while this may indeed be the case in a romantic relationship. We expect friends to have their own lives, concerns etc., that exist separate and distinct from our own, but we expect our partners to have lives that are in some way intrinsically entwined with our own. By this definition, it would seem that many friendships actually have some rather strong romantic overtones. That's the best I can come up with right now.

Judy

What I'm getting from you (and I agree entirely), is that intimate relationships for asexual people, whether defined as romantic or platonic, are going to have to be structured differently than those for sexual people. Its debatable how well the whole "dating" model of romantic relationships works for sexual people, but it definitely does not work for asexuals. Dating works off of the idea that when you walk into a room one person will stand our above everyone else as The Person you want to form a relationship with. Without sexual attraction this happens pretty rarely, though I experience some nonsexual attraction to people, one person won't usually "stand out" as the person I want to be in a relationship with until I'm already in a good friendship with them. And if I'm already in a good friendship at what arbitrary point do I declare our relationship romantic, start acting like we are dating, start expecting them to have a life intrinsically tied to my own? Is it even necessary to think about? Can't I just look back after being friends with them for 5 years and say "wow, our lives have become really intertwined" without ever expecting or needing it to happen?

I think this is the point, how can any one walk-in to a room of perfect strangers and within a few seconds say oh yes I would like to be in a relationship with that person.

I know for myself that I would identify characteristics of the persons present that would attract me perhaps physically or mentally. For instance if a women there had aquamarine coloured hair I would definitely find that very attractive. :-) but I couldn't imagine saying to myself well she's got aquamarine hair I would love to be in a relationship with her, relationships are far more complex and involved than that. I believe you do tend to drift into a relationship they cannot be rigidly planned out.

Sorry I don't think there is any arbitrary within the romance thank goodness. It is something you do and feel on a intuitive level but not necessarily on a rational level it.

With romance you cannot make any expectations or be needy in any way, but the amazing thing is you know the moment it strikes you and you are very much aware of the journey he takes you.

Shelomoph

I know you're thinking what a strange subject and what has it got to do with asexuality. It seems one of the problems with identifying your sexual well is that we try to put it in a specific box or category. You are either heterosexual or are homosexual but even these two distinctions did not last long as society came up with the term bisexual indicating people with a preference for relationships with either sex.

From the first couple of posts I made to this discussion board it was identified that some of my terminology was regarded as heterosexual or gender specific although you have all been very accepting of me :-) it is something that still concerns me as to why I use the words I do as a symptom of how I might really feel. So I wondered about how we deal with the complicated systems in other situations and I have capitalised on my rather limited knowledge and background in mathematics and computer systems.

For a long time computer scientists have realised if they want to model complex systems that exist in the real world within a computer we could not simply rely on binary, representing something as being true or false, zero or one, left or right, etc. For they needed something that could account for the less than black and white nature of life. This is where fuzzy logic comes in, we are able to represent things as probabilities rather than definites.

So by example we could say that a bisexual is 50 per cent heterosexual and 50 per cent homosexual in other words they would consider a relationship with either sex. Perhaps and please excuse my ignorance as I do not know any bisexuals and have not been able to ask them, some may prefer males over females but would not rule out either. Therefore we might get a person who is 70 per cent heterosexual and 30 per cent homosexual.

I think maybe we can apply the same to asexuality. As I cannot say I have never had a heterosexual thought perhaps it would be more appropriate to class myself as 10 per cent heterosexual and 90 per cent asexual. This does not mean that sexual intercourse is something I would ever want to-do but it would go some way to explaining why some of the words I use sound heterosexual in nature.

With this in mind we view sexuality as being degrees of grey rather than black and white which I think is a more realistic and accurate way to view our world.

Just a thought .

Shelomoph

I've been taking this as a base assumption about sexuality. It's pretty broaldy accepted that the (Kinsey?) sliding scale of sexuality is the only accurate way to describe sexual orientation, people just don't work in binaries (gender is also a sliding scale, etc.) I've always assumed, I guess, that talking about asexuality really meant talking about a scale of sexual intensity.

I also don't want to attach a negative stigma to straight maleness, I just want to point out that straight men have a different experience around sexuality, and a different understanding of sexual oppression, than anyone else. This is important to recognize because us asexual males have (probably) been treated like straight men for most of our lives.

<how can any one walk-in to a room of perfect strangers and within a few seconds say oh yes I would like to be in a relationship with that person.

Sexual attraction, that's how. This may be a bit of an extreme example, but stuff like this happens all the time. Maybe its not people in a room you just walked in to, maybe its people that you've known for a week or so, but sexual attraction leads to the same thing. THAT'S WHAT DATING IS!!! Taking one relationship and giving it preference over all of your other relationships. Say I have alot of friends, some I've just met, some I'm closer to than others. Which do I decide to "date"? (I realize that I'm talking about dating and not romantic relationships right now, and while they are not the same thing they are fundamentally linked. In every culture I know of romantic feelings are strongly associated with sexuality and a process of courtship.)

I agree that making too many expectations or becoming too greedy can ruin romance, but I would say that a certain amount of both are necessary for a healthy romantic relationship. What romantic couple doesn't, in some way, expect to be together forever? What two people in (romantic) love don't need each other?

I'm not sure. One of my best friends is a guy who walked up to me on the street about 5 years ago. Our first conversation went like this:

Him: "Who are you?"

Me: (I said my name), "Who are you?"

Him: "Make something up."

And that was it. He was my friend and I knew it from then on.

I think it's fully possible to get a "vibe" from someone when you first meet them, sexual or otherwise. I got a vibe before he uttered "Who are you?" It happens.

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying in terms of fuzzy logic. I've known many "bisexuals" and I have quite a problem with that label. I find it difficult to believe that anyone is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual. Unless you're a heterosexual who hates your own sex, surely you must see something attractive within it. The bisexuals I've known have lacked the ability to discuss anything but their sex lives. It's trendy to be bisexual, and the ones I've known have used it so that they can brag at parties. I don't have problems with people dating both sexes or being attracted to both sexes. That seems perfectly normal, I think everyone is at least 1% homosexual or 1% heterosexual, therefore, I think we're all "bisexual" in some context. It just seems that the people who use the label are just....doing it to use a label. I find it silly. I realize that I'm being judgemental, I've just met loads of bisexual people and they all have the exact same problem. They've all discussed the oppression of their bisexuality to provide a segue into discussion of how many people they've had sex with. Sexual labels are there to indicate *preference* and nothing more. By definition, you cannot have a preference for 2 equal and opposite things.

But enough of that rant.

We're all shades of grey, as has been proven on this board. I've been attracted to loads of people. I'm not quite sure what I was hoping to get out of that. I see it as kind of a juvenile romance. A 10 year old may have a crush on another 10 year old, with absolutely no intention of having sex. They don't know what it is they want, or why it is they want it. That's sort of how I am.

Ok this is interesting the Kinsey Scale as you mentioned BRC. I had not come across this before.

>>This is important to recognize because us asexual males have (probably) been treated like straight men for most of our lives.

For the most part I would agree with you, and it is miserable being treated like a heterosexual male when you're not and it can be either sex who misinterprets you like this. At least now I have a vocabulary to describe the difference.

What romantic couple doesn't, in some way, expect to be together forever?

I don't think I can relate to this. I don't expect a relationship to have any particular duration. To say we are going to be together forever would be just foolish, it would be an illusion as sadly so few relationships stay together for any real length of time. I know that most heterosexual relationships have a notoriously short lifespan, but a survey was done here in the UK of lesbian and gay relationships and surprisingly the average length of a lesbian relationship is just under four years and for a gay relationship its six years. I'm sure at some stage these couples say yes you are my soul mate we shall be together forever but it is still an illusion. I think in a relationship you have to remain in the 'now', the present, you make no expectations of them for the future you just experience and enjoy the 'now', the moments you have on a daily basis free from pressure of expectation. All else can only be an illusion.

>> What two people in (romantic) love don't need each other?

I don't know that I understand the ' need ' aspect in a relationship you mention. How can I say I need someone before I ever knew them. I was not born like that . But I do feel 'want' sometimes. But I do not 'need' them, needs to me mean food, water, or sleep else death ensues. Relationships are the enrichments of life perhaps like the icing on the cake. At least in my humble opinion.

What a great experience to have. I guess it just has not happened to me.

We're all shades of grey, as has been proven on this board. I've been attracted to loads of people. I'm not quite sure what I was hoping to get out of that. I see it as kind of a juvenile romance. A 10 year old may have a crush on another 10 year old, with absolutely no intention of having sex. They don't know what it is they want, or why it is they want it. That's sort of how I am.

At that age children don't spoil what they're feeling with adult concerns because they are not adult. They will not rant on to each other about: this relationship is getting serious we will have to move in together, or we have to buy a place together, in a years time we can get married, well I'm relocating to another place for my job you will have to come with me. They have the freedom just to experience the attractions that they have between each other, the conversation about nothing in particular, they are what I call experiencing the 'now' without fear of what will happen in the future and when the future happens what has happened in the past. Also we in the West tend to be focused on a relationship somehow having to take us to a particular destination, we must get something out of it for it to have purpose. Perhaps if we forget the purpose and just focus on experience. Not sure if I'm really make sense to anyone.

Dating works off of the idea that when you walk into a room one person will stand our above everyone else as The Person you want to form a relationship with. Without sexual attraction this happens pretty rarely.<<

Is that how dating works? No wonder I'm not interested. Seriously though, I don't think most relationships are based on the love at first sight phenomenon. I think that most people flesh intimate relationships out of previous acquaintances. For instance, you may see someone every day at work or at school, but only after meeting them in a different setting that allows you to have an extended conversation with that person do you realize how fascinating he/she really is, and how much you would enjoy being with that person on a regular basis.

>>And if I'm already in a good friendship at what arbitrary point do I declare our relationship romantic, start acting like we are dating, start expecting them to have a life intrinsically tied to my own?<<

You seem to think that formal dating is a necessary part of developing a romantic relationship. I don't believe that it is. There's a line between platonic and romantic that's difficult to explain it's just something that you have to know and feel I suppose.

>>Can't I just look back after being friends with them for 5 years and say "wow, our lives have become really intertwined" without ever expecting or needing it to happen?<<

Well, yes, this connection is supposed to happen naturally whether the relationship is platonic or romantic, but for the latter such a connection is necessary in order to define the relationship as romantic. You can have friends whose lives exist almost completely separate from your own but that cannot be the case in romance.

Judy

To say we are going to be together forever would be just foolish, it would be an illusion as sadly so few relationships stay together for any real length of time.<<

I simply can't agree with this. I think that romance is founded to some extent on the notion of fidelity and fidelity implies a long-term committment. I think that modern relationships fail because partners' expectations are outrageously unrealistic due to a culture that demands instant gratification and which abhors self-sacrifice. Romance is all about self-sacrifice, not to the point of self-effacement, but the willingness to sometimes delay or forego personal gratification in order to promote a happier whole. People are too hedonistic nowadays, or rather, they've been given too many ways to indulge their hedonism, and don't want to work at achieving and maintaining happy relationships. They want partners dropped in their laps and will discard them like old toys when they cease to be interesting.

>>I don't know that I understand the ' need ' aspect in a relationship you mention. How can I say I need someone before I ever knew them. I was not born like that . But I do feel 'want' sometimes. But I do not 'need' them, needs to me mean food, water, or sleep else death ensues. Relationships are the enrichments of life perhaps like the icing on the cake. At least in my humble opinion. <<

While I generally do agree with this, I don't think that we're talking in terms of a physical "need" here, and it's hard to deny the emotional need that partners in a couple have for one another. That isn't to say that either one can't function without the other, but that their lives are so connected that a significant void is felt when they are not in each other's company.

Judy

I simply can't agree with this. I think that romance is founded to some extent on the notion .........interesting.

I so agree with you Judy. My grandparents were together for 60 years until death. I would so like to have what they had. Boy if I find a lady like that I shall hold onto her for many life times. But I just can't see how someone could put up with me for a life time no matter how hard I try. I get fed up with myself let alone someone else putting up with me. I think what I was saying in my last post is I would not expect them to stay with me always, the 'forever' is also dependent on them. I so want to believe Judy but my faith is lacking. :-(

On your second point I would say that because we are growing all the time as human beings and if you are in a long term relationship you will grow together and once you become so entwined I think you could no longer function as a single individual. This is why couples who have been together for many decades, when one dies the other soon follows of a broken heart. Could there be any worthier way to go!

Sascha

I noticed in a post a mention of the fact of how many of us lean toward "romantic" relationships of the opposite sex. It would be harder for me to have a "romantic" relationship with a girl because I am a girl. First off it would be hard to find a girl that wasn't a lesbian who was interested in a "romantic" relationship with another girl . I mean come on, how many non-lesbians would be comfortable showing affection toward another woman. And just think, men are even worse about that stuff. Matters would only be complicated further by society because we would be preceived as lesbians. I guess this is why many of our members lean toward the opposite sex (not to mention we are conditioned that way). Even many gays go through the period where they try desperately to be hetro! It is complicated enough for an asexual to have a "romantic" relationship with a sexual (I actually feel that it is impossible to be honest)but it is only compounded when you break even further out of the social norm. I am not even looking for a "romantic" relationship. I could be close to either a male or female and it would make me no nevermind. I just had this little thought on why several of our members are hetro-affectionate or whatever you want to coin the term. I don't think it makes you less asexual at all.

--GT

Yes I agree with you we are subject to a lot of social proofing.

It's interesting what you say about the impossibility of an asexual relationship with a sexual. Sexuality is not a comfortable thing to bring up in polite conversation. Therefore should a sexual person be attracted to you it can be confusing for them.

I wonder if anybody here is actually in an asexual relationship? I'm curious as to how successful they are.

Shelomoph

Well at the weekend I was an usher at a friends wedding. The whole day was full of contradictions. I was sat within easy earshot to of the happy couple announcing their vowels of commitment to each other, indeed I know the couple very well and they have already been together a long time. But as the day rolled on and I got into conversation with many of the attendees that the contradictions began to appear.

I did rather get caught up in the moment, and for a wee while there even thought that perhaps marriage is a good thing. This was soon dispelled by what I heard from others and of their experiences. Apparently even the best man was paranoid about ever leaving his wife alone with the groom. Another friend of mine who had been married for 10 years, his wife finally got fed up with him and left him. That was over 12 months ago and he's no where near getting over it. At the reception there was a lot of dancing as you might expect, people relaxed with a few drinks they are then quite interesting to watch. You see couples often eyeing up any one who is not their own partner. This activity was even more revealing when we watched the video tape the next day.

I would expect that couples who attended the wedding would somehow renew their desire for one another and their commitment for each other and yet there seemed so much discontentment. Also a complete lack of affection between couples.

Several people even remarked that I seem to be the happiest person there constantly laughing but that was probably the alcohol.:-) But seriously why should that be?

I know in this discussion group I do dribble on about a how wonderful 'romance' could be but I don't have any real concrete experience to base it on. I class a concrete experience to be an asexual romantic relationship that turned into a long lasting one. I can only observe the relationships of those around me and judge on a subjective level the amount of happiness people experience and my own conclusion is that nine times out of 10 people are not happy. I'm beginning to think that notions of romance should stay inside my dreamy head and I should never try to make it a reality as chances are I'll end up one of those nine out of the 10.

Yes I could argue with myself well maybe I would do this and may be I would do that which would make me the 'one' out of 10 who get it right but no it's not good to think that way . I am beginning to see asexuality to be part of the journey to realising the peace and happiness of being unattached and friendship focused.

Well that's me thinking out loud again when I really should keep quiet. :-)

Shelomoph