Re: Asexuals dating
I have to disagree, not everyone has the desire to get married, have a family, find that 'special someone'. We're all culturally programmed to think that way. Personally, I have no desire to ever get married and have a family. It may go against millions of years of natural selection, but I think that my genes don't need to be passed on. What good does that do me? And the whole 'special person' thing, why do we need to confide our deepest thoughts, our strongest emotions for one person? Do they even have to be confided in a real person? Maybe I'm just young and naive. Maybe I have a different outlook on life. However, I do see agree with you that asexual dating is a good thing.
I believe it is a mixture of vestigial instinct, with a cultural manifestation of the family prototype. Both are very old, but the former is the oldest, and I believe they are both dying. Modern thought is leaving the family prototype. Less people are staying together for a lifetime, less families are "families" in the oldest sense of the word. Modern technology has had a lot to play in how that has waned. It used to be that the instinct was still strong, and men would marry multiple women to increase their number of children. All for one simple reason, most of them would die before they even reached an old enough age to start their own families. Brute force. Technology increased how many people survived. Survival of the fittest became something else, and slowly the family ideology has become less important. For the past thousand years or so, survival of the fittest has become a much more metaphysical construct, and humans are not alone in adapting this new model. Animals have become domesticated to the point of complete inadequacy in the wild. Most modern dogs wouldn't stand a chance. Their species has chosen to adapt to the fact that the human species cannot be conquered with fangs alone. Now they survive by getting our slippers and keeping our children happy. The same goes for most other domesticated species.
As for humans, survival of the fittest is merging towards a thought-based conquest. It is no longer the genes that are important, but the Impact on society. This transition is far from complete (as all evolutionary shifts are), but the signs of its progression are all around, and have been around for as far back as history can probe. Who knows when homosexuality first became a dominant factor. The ancient Greeks are on obvious mention. Even more difficult is figuring out how far back asexuality goes. Especially when you consider that if its roots are in the sex drive motivation, that its earliest stages would simply be nearly impossible to detect using history alone. We do know of a few notary figures: Socrates was quite content with being removed from sex in the latter part of his life.
I believe that both the destruction of the family desire/need and the rise of alternative non-reproductive sexual orientations are certainly linked, and thus those who find themselves within these other orientations are likely going to be less prone to the propagation desire. There are always exceptions of course, but on this board it seems we lean towards being less anxious to have families. While not scientific, it stands to reason that this percentage is pretty accurate throughout the rest of the asexual world that either has no access, or has not found this place on the Internet.
I have a question for Liz (And if this sounds a bit rude, pardon me, it is just that I think you are the first asexual I've met that is verbal about being even mildly anxious to have a family and children): Are you considering adoption for your future family, or would the process of intercourse be a "necessary means?"
Thought
I believe it is a mixture of vestigial instinct, with a cultural manifestation of the family prototype. Both are very old, but the former is the oldest, and I believe they are both dying. Modern thought is leaving the family prototype. Less people are staying together for a lifetime, less families are "families" in the oldest sense of the word. Modern technology has had a lot to play in how that has waned. It used to be that the instinct was still strong, and men would marry multiple women to increase their number of children. All for one simple reason, most of them would die before they even reached an old enough age to start their own families. Brute force. Technology increased how many people survived. Survival of the fittest became something else, and slowly the family ideology has become less important. For the past thousand years or so, survival of the fittest has become a much more metaphysical construct, and humans are not alone in adapting this new model. Animals have become domesticated to the point of complete inadequacy in the wild. Most modern dogs wouldn't stand a chance. Their species has chosen to adapt to the fact that the human species cannot be conquered with fangs alone. Now they survive by getting our slippers and keeping our children happy. The same goes for most other domesticated species.
As for humans, survival of the fittest is merging towards a thought-based conquest. It is no longer the genes that are important, but the Impact on society. This transition is far from complete (as all evolutionary shifts are), but the signs of its progression are all around, and have been around for as far back as history can probe. Who knows when homosexuality first became a dominant factor. The ancient Greeks are on obvious mention. Even more difficult is figuring out how far back asexuality goes. Especially when you consider that if its roots are in the sex drive motivation, that its earliest stages would simply be nearly impossible to detect using history alone. We do know of a few notary figures: Socrates was quite content with being removed from sex in the latter part of his life.
I believe that both the destruction of the family desire/need and the rise of alternative non-reproductive sexual orientations are certainly linked, and thus those who find themselves within these other orientations are likely going to be less prone to the propagation desire. There are always exceptions of course, but on this board it seems we lean towards being less anxious to have families. While not scientific, it stands to reason that this percentage is pretty accurate throughout the rest of the asexual world that either has no access, or has not found this place on the Internet.
I have a question for Liz (And if this sounds a bit rude, pardon me, it is just that I think you are the first asexual I've met that is verbal about being even mildly anxious to have a family and children): Are you considering adoption for your future family, or would the process of intercourse be a "necessary means?"
"As for humans, survival of the fittest is merging towards a thought-based conquest."
Ever read a little book called "As a Man Thinketh", by James Allen?
X.
Re: Asexuals dating
I believe it is a mixture of vestigial instinct, with a cultural manifestation of the family prototype. Both are very old, but the former is the oldest, and I believe they are both dying. Modern thought is leaving the family prototype. Less people are staying together for a lifetime, less families are "families" in the oldest sense of the word. Modern technology has had a lot to play in how that has waned. It used to be that the instinct was still strong, and men would marry multiple women to increase their number of children. All for one simple reason, most of them would die before they even reached an old enough age to start their own families. Brute force. Technology increased how many people survived. Survival of the fittest became something else, and slowly the family ideology has become less important. For the past thousand years or so, survival of the fittest has become a much more metaphysical construct, and humans are not alone in adapting this new model. Animals have become domesticated to the point of complete inadequacy in the wild. Most modern dogs wouldn't stand a chance. Their species has chosen to adapt to the fact that the human species cannot be conquered with fangs alone. Now they survive by getting our slippers and keeping our children happy. The same goes for most other domesticated species.
As for humans, survival of the fittest is merging towards a thought-based conquest. It is no longer the genes that are important, but the Impact on society. This transition is far from complete (as all evolutionary shifts are), but the signs of its progression are all around, and have been around for as far back as history can probe. Who knows when homosexuality first became a dominant factor. The ancient Greeks are on obvious mention. Even more difficult is figuring out how far back asexuality goes. Especially when you consider that if its roots are in the sex drive motivation, that its earliest stages would simply be nearly impossible to detect using history alone. We do know of a few notary figures: Socrates was quite content with being removed from sex in the latter part of his life.
I believe that both the destruction of the family desire/need and the rise of alternative non-reproductive sexual orientations are certainly linked, and thus those who find themselves within these other orientations are likely going to be less prone to the propagation desire. There are always exceptions of course, but on this board it seems we lean towards being less anxious to have families. While not scientific, it stands to reason that this percentage is pretty accurate throughout the rest of the asexual world that either has no access, or has not found this place on the Internet.
I have a question for Liz (And if this sounds a bit rude, pardon me, it is just that I think you are the first asexual I've met that is verbal about being even mildly anxious to have a family and children): Are you considering adoption for your future family, or would the process of intercourse be a "necessary means?"
Traka- I think that there's alot to what you're saying, but just to point some things out:
Homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality have been around for (about) as long as heterosexuality has. All four are visible in just about every sexually active species on the planet, humans are no acception. I'd say that what's going on isn't less of a focus on raising families, but a different sort of focus. The change in focus hasn't created homo and bisexuality, it's just made room for it to culturally manifest.
I don't think that children are becoming less important in society. After all, if you exert your influence by passing on ideas and personality traits, not genes, then what better way to do it than a child? What's becoming less important (which is great for us) is sex. With the advent of birth control, international adoption programs and in vetro fertalization sex just doesn't matter to the process of raising a family like it used to. Abstinance before marraige is all but dead, heterosexual sex is no longer a requirement, and we're seeing the cultural changes (like female sexual and political empowerment) that indirectly result. Not that having a family is a requirement, by any means, but its still a great thing to do (sexual or otherwise.)
Traka, I've always been outspoken about wanting to raise a family. The mechanics of how that would be accomplished I consider pretty irrelivant right now, adoption, in-vetro, having someone else carry the baby; depending on the sex of my partner and what they are comfortable with there are a wide variety of options. The difficulty, as I see it (for sexual people and for us), is forming the sort of relationship capable of raising a child. I definitely wouldn't call myself a propenent of dating, especially of asexual dating (not that I have a problem with those who do, I just have issues with the institution as a whole.)
Some psychology, but how much is the disinterest in families (and occassionally in intimate relationships) in this club a result of simply being told that we can't. There is definitely a strong cultural message that extremely intimate relationships and families are both sexual things, have we just accepted that?
Poem
For Valentine's Day, I plan to love myself just as I do every day. I wrote a very simple poem/song for the main character of my non-traditional fairy tale. You can put it in your article if you'd like (you too, Platonicpimp):
"Minda's Song"
Look at me
Single and free
I'm as happy
As can be
Please don't tie
Knots on me
I just want
To be free
Free to do this
Free to do that
Free to wear
A silly hat
Look at me
Single and free
I'm as happy
As can be
(c)2001 by Gabby C.
This poem pretty much sums up how I feel about being myself. I posted it on another Yahoo forum a while ago (my apologies to those who are reading it again). This poem still reflects my mindset about how I feel. When I started to question my sexuality, I thought that I just became a voluntary celibate. Now I know that I have always been an asexual. For me, Valentine's Day is another day to love myself for being true to myself. Right now, I have no plans to go out and do anything in particular on that day. (I'll wait until a few days later to buy myself some chocolate since it usually goes on sale afterwards!) Other than that, I'm just floating through each day knowing that I'm free to do what I please. Nowadays, I wake up and smile at myself in the mirror every morning for being true to myself and resisting social pressures to conform to the "norm". :o)
I loved your poem, it was great. I also agree with the rest of your post. I am going to spend Valentine's Day the same i spend all my other days, happy, hanging out with my friends, and listening to good music. These are the things i cherish!!
Re: Thought
"As for humans, survival of the fittest is merging towards a thought-based conquest."
Ever read a little book called "As a Man Thinketh", by James Allen?
X.
This brings to mind the concept of genes versus memes discussed by Richard Dawkins and others. Like other life forms, human beings are carriers of genes that they can perpetuate through reproduction. Yet humans can also produce cultural artifacts (Dawkins gave this the silly name "memes" to denote that artifacts are primarily mental), and thus a person can strive for immortality (or at least great longevity) by perpetuating his cultural contributions rather than his genes.
In a sense, the ability to live for and contribute memes rather than genes to the next generation is what separates humans from lower life forms. Who is a truer representative of what the human condition should be striving towards, Isaac Newton, who revolutionized science and mathematics and lives on through his work for as long as modern science exists (and who remained celibate his entire life), or somebody in a ghetto who has produced two dozen illegitimate offspring?
Re: Poem
I loved your poem, it was great. I also agree with the rest of your post. I am going to spend Valentine's Day the same i spend all my other days, happy, hanging out with my friends, and listening to good music. These are the things i cherish!!
Thank you!
Asexuality Article
Here's the rough draft of the article I wrote, please give me any comments/critiques before the deadline on sunday.
Every species on the planet has members who, for whatever reason, never get it on. Humans are no exception, weve been not having sex for about as long as weve been having it, but it has only recently been acknowledged that some people simply do not experience sexual attraction. How recently? As little as a year ago the local campus militant flaming asexual (yours truly) had, after about 4 years of looking, failed to find so much as one other asexual out there. Over the past year the number has jumped to around 100, 5 in the past week. This may not be impressive to those of you accustomed to running into droves of your sexual brethren on a daily basis, but take into account that all of these people are independently building their sexual identities from the ground up. Due to some odd combination of social factors it seems that a new sexual orientation is emerging not from the closet but from the woodwork.
The emerging group of asexual people is extremely diverse, coming from a wide variety of backgrounds with an even wider set of opinions on what exactly asexuality is. Everyone seems to agree that asexual people do not experience sexual attraction and dont feel compelled to form sexual relationships, but outside of that its open territory. Some asexual people experience sex drive, some dont, some date, some dont. Some identify with queer communities, some say they are oriented to like a specific gender, some kiss, some have sexual experience (which they havent enjoyed), some want to have children. Some dont. Most asexual people agree that asexuality is a matter of degree. That is to say that there is a full spectrum of sexual intensity, of how sexual people are, and asexual people just happen to be towards the bottom of it.
So what will asexual people be up to this Valentines day? Probably the same things as most of the single people here at Wes, in fact in micro chasms around the world asexual people may be starting to change what Valentines day means. All of the anxiety and euphoria of love and romance are being freshly examined from an asexual perspective, working to loosen the conceptual barriers between sexual and nonsexual relationships. Asexuality implies that sex is not necessary, a simple idea which could radically alter the way that we think about love.
Flower Rant
Here's the rough draft of the article I wrote, please give me any comments/critiques before the deadline on sunday.
Every species on the planet has members who, for whatever reason, never get it on. Humans are no exception, weve been not having sex for about as long as weve been having it, but it has only recently been acknowledged that some people simply do not experience sexual attraction. How recently? As little as a year ago the local campus militant flaming asexual (yours truly) had, after about 4 years of looking, failed to find so much as one other asexual out there. Over the past year the number has jumped to around 100, 5 in the past week. This may not be impressive to those of you accustomed to running into droves of your sexual brethren on a daily basis, but take into account that all of these people are independently building their sexual identities from the ground up. Due to some odd combination of social factors it seems that a new sexual orientation is emerging not from the closet but from the woodwork.
The emerging group of asexual people is extremely diverse, coming from a wide variety of backgrounds with an even wider set of opinions on what exactly asexuality is. Everyone seems to agree that asexual people do not experience sexual attraction and dont feel compelled to form sexual relationships, but outside of that its open territory. Some asexual people experience sex drive, some dont, some date, some dont. Some identify with queer communities, some say they are oriented to like a specific gender, some kiss, some have sexual experience (which they havent enjoyed), some want to have children. Some dont. Most asexual people agree that asexuality is a matter of degree. That is to say that there is a full spectrum of sexual intensity, of how sexual people are, and asexual people just happen to be towards the bottom of it.
So what will asexual people be up to this Valentines day? Probably the same things as most of the single people here at Wes, in fact in micro chasms around the world asexual people may be starting to change what Valentines day means. All of the anxiety and euphoria of love and romance are being freshly examined from an asexual perspective, working to loosen the conceptual barriers between sexual and nonsexual relationships. Asexuality implies that sex is not necessary, a simple idea which could radically alter the way that we think about love.
Here's another one I just wrote that I thought you'd all enjoy, a general subversive rant on flowers and valentines day..
Vivre les Fleures
As Valentines day rolls around for this year the expectations are going up, the chocolates are being bought, and all across the country blossoms of every imaginable shape, scent and color are being destined for the chopping block. Now Im not some flower-rights activist out to combat the destruction, Im mostly just out to overanalyze and ruin everyone elses good time. But still the roll of flowers in this most prestigiously (Hall)marked occasion deserves at least a little scrutiny. Ill start off by saying that flowers are an excellent choice for the season. They combine the generally-animalistic need to be attractive with the plantish patience required to do the job right (anyone who doubts this should run an aesthetic comparison on their OWN genitalia). Flowers do the job so well that they have a long and proud history of serving as a metaphor for beauty, delicacy and grace. Unfortunately, as any good martyr will tell you, the job aint easy. Our metaphors are ok in dirt with natural sunlight when thats convenient, but decapitated or castrated they seem to get the point across just as well. Some water on their bleeding stems, maybe, if theyre lucky. If were trying to communicate love and beauty then what is implied by our utter lack of concern for the method of communication?
The kicker is, of course, that flowers remain a simply metaphor, they dont actually add anything. Long before a kitchen table is laced with bouquets there is a complex and very real beauty in the craft of its legs, the glean of its surface, the intricacies of the fibers and knots of the wood. Its just that, in our day-to-day lives we dont have the time to stop and notice. We require something flashier to be reminded that there is beauty in the world, the way that we expect to find something on Valentines day that we cant the other 364 days of the year. Have our lives really become so hectic that we need to kill, wrap, and sell roses just so we can stop and smell them? If so, if we see beauty only in the few appropriately priced things which are labeled as such, then we allow the rest of our world to become suffocatingly bland. Maybe, just once, it might be a worthwhile exercise to let the flowers rest soundly in their beds and see how we can get by with whats in front of us.
Valentine=sweetheart
well, i was checking the "formal definition" pf valentine, that was what i found.
since i have so affectionate about everyone, everything(that i dont hate), i dont see a problem celebration valentine's day with my friends around.
valentine never implies "one and only one" or "singular" or does it?
if i do love every friends that i have, cant they all be my sweetheart/valentine?
or the sexologists in teh 60s-70s had changed all the words to sex related?
Re: Valentine=sweetheart
well, i was checking the "formal definition" pf valentine, that was what i found.
since i have so affectionate about everyone, everything(that i dont hate), i dont see a problem celebration valentine's day with my friends around.
valentine never implies "one and only one" or "singular" or does it?
if i do love every friends that i have, cant they all be my sweetheart/valentine?
or the sexologists in teh 60s-70s had changed all the words to sex related?
In grade school, we used to give out Valentines to everyone in class. To be honest, I can not remember if it was officially stated the boys were not allowed to give Valentines to boys and vice versa. Anyhow, as I recall, I did not love any of my class mates and furthermore, I definitely don't remember having sex with any of them.
So, I see no reason why one cannot celebrate Valentine's Day with their friends.
From personal stand point, I don't celebrate Valentine's Day because of the blatant commercialism offered by Hallmark and company. I suppose that even if I were sexual, I would still ignore the holiday for the same reason.
Re: Asexuality Article
Here's the rough draft of the article I wrote, please give me any comments/critiques before the deadline on sunday.
Every species on the planet has members who, for whatever reason, never get it on. Humans are no exception, weve been not having sex for about as long as weve been having it, but it has only recently been acknowledged that some people simply do not experience sexual attraction. How recently? As little as a year ago the local campus militant flaming asexual (yours truly) had, after about 4 years of looking, failed to find so much as one other asexual out there. Over the past year the number has jumped to around 100, 5 in the past week. This may not be impressive to those of you accustomed to running into droves of your sexual brethren on a daily basis, but take into account that all of these people are independently building their sexual identities from the ground up. Due to some odd combination of social factors it seems that a new sexual orientation is emerging not from the closet but from the woodwork.
The emerging group of asexual people is extremely diverse, coming from a wide variety of backgrounds with an even wider set of opinions on what exactly asexuality is. Everyone seems to agree that asexual people do not experience sexual attraction and dont feel compelled to form sexual relationships, but outside of that its open territory. Some asexual people experience sex drive, some dont, some date, some dont. Some identify with queer communities, some say they are oriented to like a specific gender, some kiss, some have sexual experience (which they havent enjoyed), some want to have children. Some dont. Most asexual people agree that asexuality is a matter of degree. That is to say that there is a full spectrum of sexual intensity, of how sexual people are, and asexual people just happen to be towards the bottom of it.
So what will asexual people be up to this Valentines day? Probably the same things as most of the single people here at Wes, in fact in micro chasms around the world asexual people may be starting to change what Valentines day means. All of the anxiety and euphoria of love and romance are being freshly examined from an asexual perspective, working to loosen the conceptual barriers between sexual and nonsexual relationships. Asexuality implies that sex is not necessary, a simple idea which could radically alter the way that we think about love.
"people are independently building their sexual identities from the ground up"
This statement could imply that asexuals were sexual before and we decided to start a new "sexual" class as opposed to writing that our asexuality has always been there and it is just beginning to be recognized.
"Everyone seems to agree that asexual people do not experience sexual attraction and dont feel compelled to form sexual relationships, but outside of that its open territory"
Good statement. Let's not alienate anyone based on thier different view of asexuality. Not yet anyhow. Lets not kill the drive before it gets started.
"Probably the same things as most of the single people here"
Another good point. We are just like you except we don't need sex.
Re: Valentines Day
For Valentine's Day, I plan to love myself just as I do every day. I wrote a very simple poem/song for the main character of my non-traditional fairy tale. You can put it in your article if you'd like (you too, Platonicpimp):
"Minda's Song"
Look at me
Single and free
I'm as happy
As can be
Please don't tie
Knots on me
I just want
To be free
Free to do this
Free to do that
Free to wear
A silly hat
Look at me
Single and free
I'm as happy
As can be
(c)2001 by Gabby C.
This poem pretty much sums up how I feel about being myself. I posted it on another Yahoo forum a while ago (my apologies to those who are reading it again). This poem still reflects my mindset about how I feel. When I started to question my sexuality, I thought that I just became a voluntary celibate. Now I know that I have always been an asexual. For me, Valentine's Day is another day to love myself for being true to myself. Right now, I have no plans to go out and do anything in particular on that day. (I'll wait until a few days later to buy myself some chocolate since it usually goes on sale afterwards!) Other than that, I'm just floating through each day knowing that I'm free to do what I please. Nowadays, I wake up and smile at myself in the mirror every morning for being true to myself and resisting social pressures to conform to the "norm". :o)
I will sick to last reply. I will boycot Valentine's Day because the blatant commercialism brought on by Hallmark and company. Those companies won't get any of my money even though chocolate is a personal vice.
Then again, you are going against the system by buying candy on sale as opposed to the overly inflated holiday price. I can appreciate that as well.
Re: Asexuals dating
Someone wrote me to ask why I was looking to date even though I wasn't interested in the sexual stuff. Here is what I wrote him as an answer. Let me know what you all think.
You asked me why I feel the need to "date" people if I am not interested in the sexual stuff? Well the same could be asked about our mainstream sexual society. People who like to go out and have sex, they could easily just go around to different clubs, get their hormonal fix, and then go to sleep for another day. (Many actually do). However, most people tend to want to date, find one special person. Technically there is no need for them to do this either.
So why would I want to? For the same reason that anyone does. And that would be a future family. No one wants to grow old alone, and while friends are good, they get their own significant others and their own families to worry about. Eventually, as the sad fact is, if you don't find that "one" special person to marry you live a lonely life. I do want to find that person or at least keep my options open. And I do want a family.
I think asexuals dating is a great idea. Looking for someone you click with and could build up a friendship to the point of considering spending the rest of your life together and starting a family. This has to do with love, and not sex. I fully believe you can love someone in the same way sexuals do without having any sexual relationship. You can still cuddle, share deep thoughts, and experience life and grow and learn together.
I hope that answered your question as to why I feel the need to date :)
Liz
Ok. I am semi convinced that asexuals can "date". Although, I would still classify myself as part of the asexual faction which does not need "special person to marry" or date and a children. I can always make friends even when I am old as long as I can talk and not insane.
I had posed this question before. How do you know if your asexual partner in your asexual marriage is cheating on you? From your post, I guess if I see my spouse holding hands and cuddling with someone else then they are cheating. Or maybe, is it feeling that one has that an affair is going on?
Honestly, I am not being a smart ass. I am just interested in knowing how these asexual marriage/dating relationships work. Who knows I might become interested in of these if I knew how they worked.
Re: Thought
This brings to mind the concept of genes versus memes discussed by Richard Dawkins and others. Like other life forms, human beings are carriers of genes that they can perpetuate through reproduction. Yet humans can also produce cultural artifacts (Dawkins gave this the silly name "memes" to denote that artifacts are primarily mental), and thus a person can strive for immortality (or at least great longevity) by perpetuating his cultural contributions rather than his genes.
In a sense, the ability to live for and contribute memes rather than genes to the next generation is what separates humans from lower life forms. Who is a truer representative of what the human condition should be striving towards, Isaac Newton, who revolutionized science and mathematics and lives on through his work for as long as modern science exists (and who remained celibate his entire life), or somebody in a ghetto who has produced two dozen illegitimate offspring?
Wow. All of asexuals must be very inteligent. I think I have picked up on more knowledge in this club than I have ever picked up with conversations with my friends which usually involve a discussion of the latest and meaning less sports news and oh yeah sex.
I like Dawkins theory. I suppose that is what I have always strived for and not yet achieved, make a difference in the world. I simply want to remembered as making the world a better place.
By the way, I know several individuals in the suburbs who also produced two dozen illegitimate offspring. So, this trait can cover all social classes, professions, and life styles.
Re: Asexuals dating
Traka- I think that there's alot to what you're saying, but just to point some things out:
Homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality have been around for (about) as long as heterosexuality has. All four are visible in just about every sexually active species on the planet, humans are no acception. I'd say that what's going on isn't less of a focus on raising families, but a different sort of focus. The change in focus hasn't created homo and bisexuality, it's just made room for it to culturally manifest.
I don't think that children are becoming less important in society. After all, if you exert your influence by passing on ideas and personality traits, not genes, then what better way to do it than a child? What's becoming less important (which is great for us) is sex. With the advent of birth control, international adoption programs and in vetro fertalization sex just doesn't matter to the process of raising a family like it used to. Abstinance before marraige is all but dead, heterosexual sex is no longer a requirement, and we're seeing the cultural changes (like female sexual and political empowerment) that indirectly result. Not that having a family is a requirement, by any means, but its still a great thing to do (sexual or otherwise.)
Traka, I've always been outspoken about wanting to raise a family. The mechanics of how that would be accomplished I consider pretty irrelivant right now, adoption, in-vetro, having someone else carry the baby; depending on the sex of my partner and what they are comfortable with there are a wide variety of options. The difficulty, as I see it (for sexual people and for us), is forming the sort of relationship capable of raising a child. I definitely wouldn't call myself a propenent of dating, especially of asexual dating (not that I have a problem with those who do, I just have issues with the institution as a whole.)
Some psychology, but how much is the disinterest in families (and occassionally in intimate relationships) in this club a result of simply being told that we can't. There is definitely a strong cultural message that extremely intimate relationships and families are both sexual things, have we just accepted that?
We are skipping a few steps here.
Society tells us that we asexuals don't exist at all let alone that we cannot possibly have families or "normal" dating relationships.
It is possible that the "no dating, no family asexual" could be influenced by normal society standards, and simply assume that we are supposed to lead asexual lives that don't have the above.
However, I would submit that are some of us out there that are not influenced by society and are not seeking families and dating relationships on purpose.
To be honest, I am not a huge fan of single parent homes. So, I would respectfully disagreee with your proposal of creating a single parent home on purpose. I still believe that a child needs a male and female figure to rasie them. Yes, I know I could raise a big stink with homosexuals with that last statement.
Allan
Re: Asexuals dating
I believe it is a mixture of vestigial instinct, with a cultural manifestation of the family prototype. Both are very old, but the former is the oldest, and I believe they are both dying. Modern thought is leaving the family prototype. Less people are staying together for a lifetime, less families are "families" in the oldest sense of the word. Modern technology has had a lot to play in how that has waned. It used to be that the instinct was still strong, and men would marry multiple women to increase their number of children. All for one simple reason, most of them would die before they even reached an old enough age to start their own families. Brute force. Technology increased how many people survived. Survival of the fittest became something else, and slowly the family ideology has become less important. For the past thousand years or so, survival of the fittest has become a much more metaphysical construct, and humans are not alone in adapting this new model. Animals have become domesticated to the point of complete inadequacy in the wild. Most modern dogs wouldn't stand a chance. Their species has chosen to adapt to the fact that the human species cannot be conquered with fangs alone. Now they survive by getting our slippers and keeping our children happy. The same goes for most other domesticated species.
As for humans, survival of the fittest is merging towards a thought-based conquest. It is no longer the genes that are important, but the Impact on society. This transition is far from complete (as all evolutionary shifts are), but the signs of its progression are all around, and have been around for as far back as history can probe. Who knows when homosexuality first became a dominant factor. The ancient Greeks are on obvious mention. Even more difficult is figuring out how far back asexuality goes. Especially when you consider that if its roots are in the sex drive motivation, that its earliest stages would simply be nearly impossible to detect using history alone. We do know of a few notary figures: Socrates was quite content with being removed from sex in the latter part of his life.
I believe that both the destruction of the family desire/need and the rise of alternative non-reproductive sexual orientations are certainly linked, and thus those who find themselves within these other orientations are likely going to be less prone to the propagation desire. There are always exceptions of course, but on this board it seems we lean towards being less anxious to have families. While not scientific, it stands to reason that this percentage is pretty accurate throughout the rest of the asexual world that either has no access, or has not found this place on the Internet.
I have a question for Liz (And if this sounds a bit rude, pardon me, it is just that I think you are the first asexual I've met that is verbal about being even mildly anxious to have a family and children): Are you considering adoption for your future family, or would the process of intercourse be a "necessary means?"
ioapetraka.
" have a question for Liz (And if this sounds a bit rude, pardon me, it is just that I think you are the first asexual I've met that is verbal about being even mildly anxious to have a family and children): Are you considering adoption for your future family, or would the process of intercourse be a "necessary means?""
Good question. I am curious to know that as well. Invitro is certainly expensive. Adoption is tricky matter when comes to waiting lists and problem children. Sex seems like the most efficient and inexpensive alternative.
Like ioapetraka. I don't want to come off as smart ass. I am just curious to know.
Allan
Re: Female looking to date asexual male
Looking for an asexual male aged 21-26 in NY area to "date". I really am looking for a boyfriend...just one that isn't really all that into the sexual stuff. (I know that I am attracted to guys, but when it comes down to the actual sexual stuff I am just not into it, I never enjoyed kissing etc, and it frustrates me). Looking for a guy who can become a great friend and then labelled a boyfriend. When everyone else has significant others its hard... I'm not really sure how this message thing works, but if you get this message and are interested email me at kidz2alabama55@... and put amoeba in the subject line. (It is not my real email address but the one I'll use for this purpose). I'm 21/F/long island/ attractive...I have a pic if u'd like it.
"Looking for an asexual male aged 21-26 in NY area to "date". I really am looking for a boyfriend"
Be careful out there. I am certain there sexual predators who would date you just for your asexual beliefs because you represent a challenge to them. I am not suggesting there are "spies" in this club however we had several "sexually provactive posts" come throught on occassion. So, caution is certainly advisable.
Allan
Re: Asexual Organizing Listserve
I encourage everyone to try and write something for platonicpimp, I'm working on something but my semester is off the wall. Sorry, bostongirl. My life's been a bit e-mail saturated lately.
Wagonboy:it looks like most people don't use their yahoo e-mail. Most have their e-mail listed as "private."
In terms of organizing, I think that some sort of a collaborative website would be a really great idea, if we could pull it off. I feel like right now all the websites/organizing are sort of disjointedly connected through this forum, I think it would be ideal to have some sort of an "organizing wing" of the amoebas that collaborates to do things. The problem, of course, is communicating, because E-mail sucks for stuff like this. I've set up a seperate listserve, asexuality@..., that's devoted to asexual organizing but its been pretty inactive recently. What would people say to having a general brainstorming session in the club chat room at some prearranged time? It's difficult to plan, but you can't really do brainwashing/consensus over e-mail. How many people could make 8-9PM EST next monday, the 11th? E-mail me yes, no, or alternative times at djay@... so we don't flood the forum.
"most people don't use their yahoo e-mail"
Oh well. The club Email addresses was a thought. I am glad you had a jump on the idea.
"club chat room...8-9PM EST next monday, the 11th" Is this still on?
Re: Oh, and before I forget...
Allan, I looked at your profile and found the station wagon site...it's great! I'm a woody fan myself.
X.
"found the station wagon site...it's great!"
Not to get off the main subject, but wagons rule.
Ok. X and myself maybe in the minority.
I guess that fits my profile as asexual. I like being in the minority. I don't just like movie, car, or idea just because it is in the main stream society.
Allan
Re: Asexual Organizing Listserve
"most people don't use their yahoo e-mail"
Oh well. The club Email addresses was a thought. I am glad you had a jump on the idea.
"club chat room...8-9PM EST next monday, the 11th" Is this still on?
I hope we're still planning to chat from 8-9 pm EST on Monday the 11th. Will we push it back an hour for Ioapetraka? I think he mentioned that 9 would be better for him.
Love without sex is better than sex
Someone queried whither cheating in an asexual relationship. (I cannot remember who, and I cannot locate the message; is there a search engine in this list?) Cheating, is by definition, dishonest conduct. Oh, cheating, as adultery, is a criminal offense---but that is another matter entirely. Cheating exists only where my mate's activity meets my disapproval. If a relationship is open and communicative and each partner is frank with the other, and neither partner does anything that hurts the other, then there is no cheating. Cheating can only occur if one of us does something that is considered dishonest or unfaithful.
Many of us in this list agree that sex and love---you can have one without the other. If my girlfriend or wife has sex with another person, it is not cheating to me. Indeed I would be happy if it fulfilled a need for her. I don't do intercourse, so I am not jealous of another who has intercourse with my significant other. Since I don't find anything loving with regard to intercourse, I don't feel that a third party indulgence would even begin to betray my love. Of course, if she spent all of her time with the other person, then that would be a problem, but that is another matter.
jay, a single man
chat on monday 11
If my guess is right (is EST = GMT ?), then I think 9 pm is in the middle of the night for me, so I won't be present (which I regret).
I hope the brainstorming brings up a lot of good ideas and I would like it if the most important ideas could be shared afterwards on this forum.
Re: theory 2
I like this system of 'classifying' your sexual or non sexual orientation a lot more. I'm gonna have to check this book out.
I regret that I can't give the title of the "book". I read this in a little book, made by someone as a guide for a workshop on bisexuality. You won't find this book in a bookstore.