Haven for the Human Amoeba

Here goes..

1. Do people assume you are homosexual. Certainly in my case many people who I have come across assume I am gay.

In my case it's always been part of the whole sexually-repressed line. I MUST be either sexually repressed, or repressing my homosexuality, or have had a traumatic exerience, or SOMETHING. God forbid asexuality be healthy. That being said, queers tend to be my favorite people. Esp lesbians, for reasons that make some amount of sense (don't have to worry about them being attracted to me, and they don't expect me to be attracted to other people.) Though that distinction's breaking down as I get more out and empowered.

2. Have you become asexual due to factors such as poor looks.

Nope, like most other people it's something I've known since puberty (I was before that, it just wasn't noticable. My friends actualy tell me I'm somewhat good looking, and could get ass if I wanted it. (Which is a weird thing to hear. I try not to care one way or the other whether I'm sexually attractive, though it's usually something to avoid.)

3. Has you asexuality lead to any adverse experiences especially from women.

I'm gonna echo Ioa on this. The problem comes when other people want to be sexual, men or women. I've usually been out pretty early on in my close relationships, and now I'm completely out, so expectations from other people were less of a problem. I can also pick up on whether or not people are attracted to me, after considerable practice, which is a useful skill to have. There are ways to interact with people that are very subtle that are both interesting and exclude prevent sexual expectations from forming, interesting but unattractive. My problems (especially recently), have been more on the flipside. Everyone gets that I'm not sexual, but most people are looking for certain types of intimacy only in sexual relationships (and the other asexual people on my campus don't really talk to me, at least not openly.)

Well I'm still not sure I qualify as actually asexual, but it sounds close enough. I'm straight, sure of that. So I always figured that if I could identify myself as straight, then how could I be asexual? How could I have a problem with sex at all? Its not anything physical, and its not from abuse or anything like that. It's possible I analyze too much, and that kind of attitude doesn't mix too well with impulse and what people generally expect of love, sex and romance. But, really, in the end, sex is just *yawn*. What's the big deal? I could imagine myself in a long term relationship, maybe even married if I cloedked well enough. But the sex is just... extra. It was said in a previous post I believe - this obsession with sex, and falsely connecting wit with love and relationships is false. Even a loving marriage need not be sexual. Attraction, emotion, and affection, all that I can express other ways. I'm not non-sensual or non-affection. I have a feeling there's no real reason for it though. Just the way I do things without worrying about society's way of doing it.

I can definitely relate. It's not that I have any particular problem with sex, it's just that I don't feel driven to do it. I'm sex-neutral. It might even be something that I'd try if it weren't for all the bullshit around it.I want to get to being ok without sexuality before I worry about experimenting with it.

Well I'm still not sure I qualify as actually asexual, but it sounds close enough. I'm straight, sure of that. So I always figured that if I could identify myself as straight, then how could I be asexual? How could I have a problem with sex at all? Its not anything physical, and its not from abuse or anything like that. It's possible I analyze too much, and that kind of attitude doesn't mix too well with impulse and what people generally expect of love, sex and romance. But, really, in the end, sex is just *yawn*. What's the big deal? I could imagine myself in a long term relationship, maybe even married if I cloedked well enough. But the sex is just... extra. It was said in a previous post I believe - this obsession with sex, and falsely connecting wit with love and relationships is false. Even a loving marriage need not be sexual. Attraction, emotion, and affection, all that I can express other ways. I'm not non-sensual or non-affection. I have a feeling there! 's no real reason for it though. Just the way I do things without worrying about society's way of doing it.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: havenforthehumanamoeba-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Yeah, that's the idea. It is something I just might try, someday, under perfect conditions, as an experiment. But as you said, not unless I was sure that the relationship could do just fine without it. Its that "no sex, no marriage" concept that society seems to have that bugs me most, much more than the sex itself. For me, its just about paving my own path without being dictated to by society. Ironically, anyway, I think perhaps there's something sexy about a couple that doesn't have sex - married virgins, that sort of thing. For me, there are things that are sexier than sex.

I can definitely relate. It's not that I have any particular problem with sex, it's just that I don't feel driven to do it. I'm sex-neutral. It might even be something that I'd try if it weren't for all the bullshit around it.I want to get to being ok without sexuality before I worry about experimenting with it.

Well I'm still not sure I qualify as actually asexual, but it sounds close enough. I'm straight, sure of that. So I always figured that if I could identify myself as straight, then how could I be asexual? How could I have a problem with sex at all? Its not anything physical, and its not from abuse or anything like that. It's possible I analyze too much, and that kind of attitude doesn't mix too well with impulse and what people generally expect of love, sex and romance. But, really, in the end, sex is just *yawn*. What's the big deal? I could imagine myself in a long term relationship, maybe even married if I cloedked well enough. But the sex is just... extra. It was said in a previous post I believe - this obsession with sex, and falsely connecting wit with love and relationships is false. Even a loving marriage need not be sexual. Attraction, emotion, and affection, all that I can express other ways. I'm not non-sensual or non-affection. I have a feeling there! 's no real reason for it though. Just the way I do things without worrying about society's way of doing it.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: havenforthehumanamoeba-unsubscribe@y...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Steven, I agree with you about the ridiculousness of necessarily thinking that marriage is a sex fest. First of all, many (maybe even most, although there's no proof, of course) couples after a certain number of years of marriage don't do "it" any more and yet get along just fine. In fact they seem to have a kind of union or affinity that you never see in people are are obsessed with doing "it".

I just remembered something that happened to me when I was in my early 20s and had been married for a short time (and this makes me believe that I may have had non-sexual or asexual tendencies early on without realizing it). I went on an experimental birth control pill program and had to have an interview with the one of the doctors who was running it. He asked me how often my husband and I had sex. I told him the truth: around twice a month. He was incredulous. He asked me how long I had been married, and I told him about a year. At that point he just stared at me as though I was some kind of freak of nature and told me I would be of no use to the study because I didn't have sex often enough.

X.

http://augie.z3z.net my free webcam is up guys. I'll be posting pics in yahoo club tonight.

._..¬-¬._.----¬-¬---¨¨.---..¸¸..

There are a few more thoughts on my mind... don't mind hearing what others think. Does it seem appropriate, er, rather, possible, that a straight, asexual male and a asexual lesbian... or a gay asexual man and a straight asexual woman might be able to have a one-on-one committed asexual relationship? Or is that imbalanced somehow? I could do it, but then I'm only able to look at it from my point of view and not the theoretical asexual lesbian.

Also does anyone here believe that polyamory (such as a three person relationship, where they are committed to each other and no one else) is more possible or more likely in asexuality than when sex is involved? I read a post a while back about all the trouble sex causes. I do believe it can seriously confuse and screw up some, if not most relationships. But I don't know about this one.

who every started this group thank you i couldn't ever find a web site about asexuality and my friends were starting to joke and tell me im the only one...it helps to know thier are others out thier.

For the first, I haven't the faintest idea... I would suggest asking the theoretical asexual lesbian if you were to ever happen upon her.

As for polyamory, I can't picture myself in a situation like that at all... as a gut instinct, I would suggest that polyamory would be difficult in every case, because jealousy doesn't necessarily need to spring from the knowledge that one's partner is having sex with someone else, just the notion of not being unique (not the only one (s)he loves, but the only one (s)he loves in that particular manner) is quite capable of causing problems. I might be able to understand polyamory working for a few people, but I doubt most would deal well with it, and I don't think asexuality would affect it much.

There are a few more thoughts on my mind... don't mind hearing what others think. Does it seem appropriate, er, rather, possible, that a straight, asexual male and a asexual lesbian... or a gay asexual man and a straight asexual woman might be able to have a one-on-one committed asexual relationship? Or is that imbalanced somehow? I could do it, but then I'm only able to look at it from my point of view and not the theoretical asexual lesbian.

Also does anyone here believe that polyamory (such as a three person relationship, where they are committed to each other and no one else) is more possible or more likely in asexuality than when sex is involved? I read a post a while back about all the trouble sex causes. I do believe it can seriously confuse and screw up some, if not most relationships. But I don't know about this one.

Check out

http://www.asexuality.net http://djay.web.wesleyan.edu

who every started this group thank you i couldn't ever find a web site about asexuality and my friends were starting to joke and tell me im the only one...it helps to know thier are others out thier.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: havenforthehumanamoeba-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1. Do people assume you are homosexual. Certainly in my case many people who I have come across assume I am gay. Not really, all my friends have always assumed I was straight, I guess becasue I have always 'acted straight' whatever that is.

2. Have you become asexual due to factors such as poor looks. Sort of. I went to an all guy school and had to work all the time so I really had no time to socialize, check out girls or whatever, then I went straight to college and I was like whoah!! what now? I guess its been easier to stay asexual than talk and try to pick up girls, so that's what has happened.

3. Has you asexuality lead to any adverse experiences especially from women. Totally, I can't form relationships with women. I don't know why. I guess because I'm what people consider a 'man's man'. I've always hung out with my buddies, and I just never made an effort to be friends with someone from the opposite sex. It goes back to the whole not talking to girls thing. happy tax day everyone~

hullo there...

i noticed during a previous convo on here that someone mentioned they have a meyers-briggs personality type of INTJ. this is interesting, as i do as well. in the 'general populus' this is quite rare type, falling below 1% or so. does anyone else here know their MB type? perhaps interesting correlations can be made between personality type and asexual tendencies.

something to mull over,

byron

===== +--------------------------------------------------------+ | RIP Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Her Majesty the Queen Mother | | Go LEEDS UNITED - Down With the Poncy Scum Gits | | ~littera scripta manet ~ the written word abides~ | | ~~B. Elliott Walker ~ b_elliott_walker@... ~~ | +--------------------------------------------------------+

Find, Connect Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca

INFP here... another of those less than 1% personality types, evidently. The description doesn't seem quite accurate, though I took the test recently; parts of it would have fit better in the past, others fit better now.

hullo there...

i noticed during a previous convo on here that someone mentioned they have a meyers-briggs personality type of INTJ. this is interesting, as i do as well. in the 'general populus' this is quite rare type, falling below 1% or so. does anyone else here know their MB type? perhaps interesting correlations can be made between personality type and asexual tendencies.

something to mull over,

byron

===== +--------------------------------------------------------+ | RIP Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Her Majesty the Queen Mother | | Go LEEDS UNITED - Down With the Poncy Scum Gits | | ~littera scripta manet ~ the written word abides~ | | ~~B. Elliott Walker ~ b_elliott_walker@y... ~~ | +--------------------------------------------------------+

---

Find, Connect Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Hello again, Everyone!

Well, this one sounded intriguing. Here's my two-cents...

There are a few more thoughts on my mind... don't mind hearing what others think. Does it seem appropriate, er, rather, possible, that a straight, asexual male and a asexual lesbian... or a gay asexual man and a straight asexual woman might be able to have a one-on-one committed asexual relationship? Or is that imbalanced somehow? I could do it, but then I'm only able to look at it from my point of view and not the theoretical asexual lesbian.

You're asking if a HETERO-ASEXUAL and a HOMO-ASEXUAL could forge a serious relationship with each other. Any two people can start a relationship and call it what they want to call it, but will it stand the test of time? In this case...I don't think so because they wouldn't give each other "butterflies". I can see them being best of friends forever (if that's what they want to call it), but I don't see them being romantically compatible.

Also does anyone here believe that polyamory (such as a three person relationship, where they are committed to each other and no one else) is more possible or more likely in asexuality than when sex is involved? I read a post a while back about all the trouble sex causes. I do believe it can seriously confuse and screw up some, if not most relationships. But I don't know about this one.

Now this question, reminds me of an earlier discussion we had about romantic asexual relationships. I wondered if Asexuals were less prone to jealousy if they were in a "committed relationship" with a sexual person who happens to have sex with someone else. Again, my reply here is that emotions supersede sexual intimacy. Like someone else here has stated already, the Green-Eyed Monster will likely rear it's ugly head even if sex is not involved. People do get jealous if their mate flirts with someone else, spends too much time with someone else, holds private conversations with someone else, and a host of other petty reasons to get jealous. In a perfect world, I suppose, this would never happen, but in the world we live in, this happens all the time and it's not just about being sexually unfaithful.

Okay what do all of those letters mean? Can you take that test online? What's the address? Thanks.

The letters (in my case at least): I: Introverted N: iNtuitive F: Feeling P: Percieving

The Jung Typology Test will give you a four-letter code and can be taken online (the Myers-Briggs evidently has to be administered by a professional in order to be accurate. My translation: The Myers-Briggs people want to keep a monopoly over what would quickly become de facto public property if not for their "special administrators".). The addres is http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Okay what do all of those letters mean? Can you take that test online? What's the address? Thanks.

Quoting absofsteel: "Okay what do all of those letters mean? Can you take that test online? What's the address? Thanks."

I just went to yahoo.com and typed 'Briggs-Meyers Test' in the search engine. Some of them cost a lot of money to take, but I took the freebee rip-off test. I came up ENFP, which doesn't seem to fit into the asexual stereotype. As I've mentioned before, I really like to spend time with other people. I feel like the extroverted asexuals are a rare breed. I feel a little guilty about being so social, but that's part of what makes everyone special and different. I'm not completely dependent upon having friends, though. I like to be alone sometimes, and in fact, spent most of my childhood alone. I was an only child for many years and never had many (if any) friends until college. Has anyone else taken the test?

I took the Jung Typology Test online, and apparently I'm a ISTJ, an Inspector Guardian. Most of it seemed correct, but I think I'm more creative or more likely to be "different" than the test seemed to think. But the introverted part, highly expressed, was correct.

I'm also extremely extroverted (though I haven't taken the test), and I don't think that its something that needs to be apologized for. I personally think its great, I have alot of fun. I think alot of the correlation comes because its hard for asexual people to be very social in a world where many social groups and codes are very sexual. It took me becoming comfortable with my asexuality (and other people's sexuality) to be able to really make many friends.

Quoting absofsteel: "Okay what do all of those letters mean? Can you take that test online? What's the address? Thanks."

I just went to yahoo.com and typed 'Briggs-Meyers Test' in the search engine. Some of them cost a lot of money to take, but I took the freebee rip-off test. I came up ENFP, which doesn't seem to fit into the asexual stereotype. As I've mentioned before, I really like to spend time with other people. I feel like the extroverted asexuals are a rare breed. I feel a little guilty about being so social, but that's part of what makes everyone special and different. I'm not completely dependent upon having friends, though. I like to be alone sometimes, and in fact, spent most of my childhood alone. I was an only child for many years and never had many (if any) friends until college. Has anyone else taken the test?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: havenforthehumanamoeba-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I came out INFP too.

X.

On the Myers-Briggs bit that has sprung up around my idle comment (which is interesting, no doubt): I think it would be prudent to note that even if we did find a tending towards one type of pattern (for instance I am seeing a lot of IN** so far,) that this could very easily be caused by other factors as well. For instance, the fact that we are all online in a discussion mailing list will statistically slant the MB types a bit more towards introversion in most cases. It could also just be, as empfindsamer pointed out, that most asexuals tend to be introverted. I haven't really come to a conclusion on that yet, because the only asexuals I know are online, and in general, most people that have a presence in online communities are more introverted, while the more extroverted types post less becaues they are on less (a neat ironic twist to how the world works out there.)

Additionally, I haven't really come to a firm conclusion on whether or not the Myers-Briggs tests are full of it or not. I will admit that out of all the personality tests I've taken, this one is by far the most intelligent, mainstream example. I knew from the moment that I started reading the questions that it would be more interesting than prior ones I'd taken, as the questions were very multi-facetted and designed to not completely exclude you without requiring several dozen possible choices.

I'll admit that the INTJ description is very close to how I operate on a daily basis. The section on how I relate to people in an almost mathematical manner was very salient! I've always felt as if there was a "buffer" between me and humanity. A buffer in which I was simply choosing to emulate certain characteristics with different people, because it was expected, but by nature shunning this buffer and refusing to play what seems to me nothing more than a game.

Granted, even my above observations fall into the INTJ type. Ha. Maybe it is just my innate defiance to be quantified that causes me to hesitate.

I think the test result, ESTP fits me well http://socionics.com/prof/estp.htm

i don't think most of the asexual are anti social, rather thinking, instead of feeling.

affectionated, partier can be asexual (like there was a few kids said about their spring break trip)

anyway, i think this test is good

and there should not be stereotype here. we know we are all different.

francis

On the Myers-Briggs bit that has sprung up around my idle comment (which is interesting, no doubt): I think it would be prudent to note that even if we did find a tending towards one type of pattern (for instance I am seeing a lot of IN** so far,) that this could very easily be caused by other factors as well. For instance, the fact that we are all online in a discussion mailing list will statistically slant the MB types a bit more towards introversion in most cases. It could also just be, as empfindsamer pointed out, that most asexuals tend to be introverted. I haven't really come to a conclusion on that yet, because the only asexuals I know are online, and in general, most people that have a presence in online communities are more introverted, while the more extroverted types post less becaues they are on less (a neat ironic twist to how the world works out there.)

Additionally, I haven't really come to a firm conclusion on whether or not the Myers-Briggs tests are full of it or not. I will admit that out of all the personality tests I've taken, this one is by far the most intelligent, mainstream example. I knew from the moment that I started reading the questions that it would be more interesting than prior ones I'd taken, as the questions were very multi-facetted and designed to not completely exclude you without requiring several dozen possible choices.

I'll admit that the INTJ description is very close to how I operate on a daily basis. The section on how I relate to people in an almost mathematical manner was very salient! I've always felt as if there was a "buffer" between me and humanity. A buffer in which I was simply choosing to emulate certain characteristics with different people, because it was expected, but by nature shunning this buffer and refusing to play what seems to me nothing more than a game.

Granted, even my above observations fall into the INTJ type. Ha. Maybe it is just my innate defiance to be quantified that causes me to hesitate.

Of course I know I'm NOT iSTJ, as that sounded way too conservative. Tried taking it again, results still unsatisfactory. So I just went and read all of the introvert-related ones. They were all wrong in one or more areas. Hmm, I must be hard to classify. Its almost as if the test seems to assume that an obsessively logical mind can't think abstractly or artfully.

I took the Jung Typology Test online, and apparently I'm a ISTJ, an Inspector Guardian. Most of it seemed correct, but I think I'm more creative or more likely to be "different" than the test seemed to think. But the introverted part, highly expressed, was correct.

For instance, the fact that we are all online in a discussion mailing list will statistically slant the MB types a bit more towards introversion in most cases. It could also just be, as empfindsamer pointed out, that most asexuals tend to be introverted. I haven't really come to a conclusion on that yet, because the only asexuals I know are online, and in general, most people that have a presence in online communities are more introverted, while the more extroverted types post less becaues they are on less (a neat ironic twist to how the world works out there.) Another interesting thing is that most people view themselves as introverts but generally have more extroverted actions. (I am both. Most of the time I am too shy to give my order to the person at Subway and attempt to convince a family member or acquaintance to speak on my behalf but will serenade complete strangers with "Closer".) I'd taken, as the questions were very multi-facetted and designed to not completely exclude you without requiring several dozen possible choices. A lot of the questions I picked randomly since they had no answer for me. Maybe I should pretend I'm unique instead of acknowledging that it allows people to view themselves in an ideal light. The section on how I relate to people in an almost mathematical manner was very salient! I've always felt as if there was a "buffer" between me and humanity. A buffer in which I was simply choosing to emulate certain characteristics with different people, because it was expected, but by nature shunning this buffer and refusing to play what seems to me nothing more than a game. Someone who isn't simply feigning stoicism...I'm envious. --Nothing

Another interesting thing is that most people view themselves as introverts but generally have more extroverted actions. (I am both. Most of the time I am too shy to give my order to the person at Subway and attempt to convince a family member or acquaintance to speak on my behalf but will serenade complete strangers with "Closer".)

This and no person is one way or the other. That is where the four letter combination fails to completely address your personality (and in reference to an earlier remark on "official" vs. "unofficial" test scores, there is your difference.) I had an official test done once, as it was required, and the results not only include the letter results, but a lot of graphs and such that are essentially where you sit on a scale of 1 - 10 in relation to all of the other people that have been tested in the history of the program.

So it is interesting, with the INT part, I am almost completely "hardcore" those letters. I think the closest one to the center was T out of that batch. Between J and S, I was much more centered with the J hovering between 7 and 8 (where 10 is full J.) The parts of the INTJ description that address Sensing vs. Judging where the shakiest for me. I could go either way on how it was described and anti-described.

Despite that, I am still not the Towering Marker of all things INT*, even though I tested so pegged on them. I still demonstrate qualities of the opposites. In fact, few people would probably guess that I am introverted until they knew me well (all two of them). My form of introversion for many years was to appear quite extroverted, overtly so. It was my way of hiding.

I look at the letter sets in this manner. Being an E* or I* doesn't mean you cannot express yourself in any other form, all it means is that your natural state of "rest" would be at that point. If I am at an informal dinner meeting with a group of clients and peers, I can be quite social. I know how to make people laugh, and put them at ease. However, that is hardly a state of rest for me, and to remain that way for long drains my energy quickly. Allowed to drift on my own, and I'll just stay at home all weekend without a thought of doing anything other than that. My I-10 score means that I am at a state of rest, in a social climate that would drain most people. The same goes for all of the other combinations. Despite falling into the "Rational" sector of the charts, I am also an artist -- by career. I'll admit that how I go about art is probably a bit more "scientific" than a pure artisan might go about it, but I can still 'feel' where lines should lay; where colors should shift ... ect. Again, naturally I rest at a state of precision and observation instead of fluidity and such. If you happened to test in such a way that you only barely swung one way or another, you are quite centered and would be able to swing either way without too much energy drain, until you hit the extremes of course.

A lot of the questions I picked randomly since they had no answer for me. Maybe I should pretend I'm unique instead of acknowledging that it allows people to view themselves in an ideal light.

I had that problem the first time around, and then I noticed you are supposed to choose the *most* likely, not the one that perfectly describes your actions. My problem the second time around is that I'd already caught on to all of the tricks, and had a difficult time "forgetting" what the question was referencing, and counter-referencing so as to make it more accurate.

Someone who isn't simply feigning stoicism...I'm envious.

Hah. I feign animation. :)

Disclaimer: I am in no way sure about much of what I said here. These are just observations I've made from looking at the tests and the results. I've never read the books or anything, I could be completely wrong.