Haven for the Human Amoeba

Since we're all discussing personality tests, I thought I'd add one more to the bunch. It's supposed to help you discover your "aura". I don't know how much faith one needs to put into the results of such tests. I just take them for fun sometimes, like the quizzes in a Cosmo magazine. Anyway, here's the web address if any of you are interested: http://www.auracolors.com

According to this test, I'm an "Indigo". Have fun!

I did have fun with the auracolours test - and turned out to be a "Blue which is perfectly correct and I am a teacher od emotionally disturbed teenage boys - so that was true too!! Amazing!

Really, neat. I'm an INTJ. Humanmetric's strength of the preferences says I am extremely introvert, slightly expressed intuitive personality, moderately expressed thinking personality, and moderately expressed judging personality. I wonder how many other introverts are here.

Quiet 1 (o:D

---

You cannot reply to this message via email because you have chosen not to disclose your email address to the group.

To reply: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/post?act=reply&messageNum=1125

---

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.

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

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

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

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.

That is something I would have guessed!

Likewise, I don't feel my extreme introversion is something I need to apologize for either. Sure, in some situations it has caused misunderstandings -- and I've apologized for the misunderstanding, but not who I am.

I don't think we'll ever find any "prototypes" for asexuality. If we did, then we would have to re-examine our beliefs in it. Just as you'll never find any non-artificial prototypes in any other sexual orientation.

It is only natural for people to try and find similarities. Age old instinct, grouping mechanisms. Perhaps there is more to it than just that though. I'd been thinking about it as well, since it is a recurring theme on this mailing list. I believe it could stem from the very point you brought up. With the exception of this list, most of us are very isolated because of the lack of any identifiable "traits." I wouldn't be surprised if there were actually quite a few people out there who would consider themselves asexual, but because either they've never considered it (because they didn't know it was an option,) or because they simply hadn't thought about it -- as with all sex related things, we tend to not know about each other. Thus, most of us have grown up to be who we are in this world, questioning our validity, even if we didn't have words to question it with. I'm speaking from personal experience, I know that not all of you questioned yourselves, and I doubt that many have questioned themselves as much as I have. I went through all manner of identity and gender "crisis" during my growing years, and so I've become accustomed to looking for "excuses" as to why I am the way I am.

Perhaps our inclination to find some common Reason for why we all got here stems from that habit of looking for a reason in our personal lives.

I think that in time, once this movement becomes more well known and more people become aware of themselves as asexuals, identifiers will become available. In a sense, our collective stage in society is much like homosexuality was before it became something more acceptable to the public, but for different reasons. In their world it was fear for their well being, or even lives in some parts of the world. Granted that fear remains because the whole world hasn't grown at the same rate in acceptance. Before it was even remotely accepted though, I imagine it was pretty difficult for homosexuals to find each other. I also suspect that in their position, at that time, they really couldn't come up with any good "safe" identifiers either. As culture grew, they found a way. I feel the same thing will happen with us, it just might take a decade or several. It might be sooner, since the acceptance mechanism in society has already begun.

I 've been wondering why we are very concerned with looking for more similarities amongst ourselves besides just the fact that we don't like to "do it". The last post was sort of an eye opener for me and it answered the question. True indeed, there is no exact prototype for the other sexual preferences/orientations, but they can usually spot each other.

Most of us asexuals (in this group) are scattered across the globe. Unless we get online, we may feel isolated in our individual locations. It would be nice to talk face to face with another asexual or two (or ten, etc.) sometimes, but (for most of us) that is not an available option right now.

It would be nice to have some sort of signal or way to spot other asexuals who just don't know that they're asexual yet. We can't walk up to strangers and say, "Hey, do you like to have sex?...No? Great! Let's be friends...". If we knew of some other secret link, some radar-like connection that asexuals had, then we could go to a party (or other social gathering) and pick out the asexuals to hang with. You know, like the guy who's head does not turn when a miniskirt walks by him. Or the girl who decided to wear comfortable shoes to dance in instead of those toe-crushing "sexy" high heels. Are they asexual? Maybe, maybe not. The world may never know! :o)

(These are just my rambling thoughts. Any other thoughts about this? Why do we want to find other similarities among asexuals?)

I think this is a very interesting concept you've brought up. I've wondered the same thing myself lately with all the personality tests. The truth is, we can't peg our personality into four neat little boxes. I'm sure most people here would agree with me because when someone defines themself as out of the ordinary, they tend to abhor any sort of categorization. (Defensiveness, perhaps?) So, why the need for categories? I think that humans have a very logical way of thinking as a species, particularly in this age of science in which we live. Logic tends to preside over spirituality for the most part. We understand our world by grouping seemingly random occurances or behaviors into categories when we observe patterns. Remember when there were only four elements and four humors? In the nineteenth century, they tried to put all humans into three racial categories (Caucasian, African and Asian). We know now that there are 109(maybe more) elements (I'm no good at chemistry), all sorts of glands emitting secretions in the body and a colorful myriad of different ethnic groups. Why, then, must we use categories? Does the thought of infinity really cause our brains to become over-taxed and give up on trying to understand our environment? Anyone else have any theories on this one?

Back to SPOTTING ASEXUALS: Sorry, I digress. In short, I think that asexuals feel a need to find others like them because they are like oasies in the desert of sexuality. There are specific sets of behaviors that are socially acceptable for straight and gay men and women. These behaviors, that came about from a loose aggregate of patterns, become stereotypes. (If a guy dresses too well, he must be gay) Then, the communities embrace these stereotypes as a means to "find" their own kind. I had a gay friend that dressed sloppily and eventually got so lonely because he hadn't had a date in years. He started paying closer attention to his physical appearance in order to conform to the stereotype so that he would be "in the loop" of the gay man network. No gay man would suspect he was available when he was dressing "straight," (i.e. a slob). I think it's a bit nuts, but I guess people have to find a way to subtley (sp?) attract the people they are seeking.

Are there any other high school-aged folk on this list? Or am I the first one?

I'm a 16 year-old girl, turning 17 in May; and I have a sneaking suspicion that I may be asexual. I entered puberty around 12, so I would think that some of the whole sex thing would have penetrated into my consciousness by now, but it hasn't. I am a virgin and very inexperienced with sexual matters--which is the major reason that I'm trying not to stick any particular label on myself just yet--but the thought or picturing of sexual acts generally disgusts me, and I have absolutely no understanding of the concepts of sexual attraction and the like; I don't think I have ever felt that way in my life. I realized a couple years ago that I was not really attracted to males; for a while I thought I might be a lesbian... except for the fact that, I realized, I wasn't really attracted to females either. I have the capacity to appreciate both genders in an aesthetic sense, but that's about it, same as it has been for as long as I can remember. This has frustrated me for a long time...I don't have very many close relationships in my life and that, coupled with my complete non-comprehension of the whole sex thing, has led me often to wonder if there's something wrong with me that keeps me from forming connections with other people. The possibility of my asexuality is comforting in that regard; it makes me feel like less of a "freak". I'd wondered before if such an orientation could exist, and went looking for resources on the Internet; at that time, I found nothing. This time, however, I tried again a couple days ago; and I was led to AVEN and this group. Needless to say, I'm very glad I tried again. Reading the archives of posts here has been extremely interesting and thought-provoking.

Okay, so I got that off my chest. It's nice to meet everyone, congratulations on what a wonderful resource you've got here, and I think I'll just go back to lurking now. :)

Are there any other high school-aged folk on this list? Or am I the first one? I've been curious about that as well. I'm a freshman in high school. I have a sneaking suspicion that I may be asexual. People obsess about this far too much. If currently your behavior is asexual, you are asexual. This may change. The interesting thing about asexuals is that at some point in time everyone is one. which is the major reason that I'm but the thought or picturing of sexual acts generally disgusts me, Consensual exchange of body fluid! I have the capacity to appreciate both genders in an aesthetic sense Do any of you ever wonder if finding beauty in another individual is sexual attraction and you simply don't recognize it?

Are there any other high school-aged folk on this list? Or am I the first one? I've been curious about that as well. I'm a freshman in high school. I'm 17 and a senior (until June, that is... *happydance*)

I have the capacity to appreciate both genders in an aesthetic sense Do any of you ever wonder if finding beauty in another individual is sexual attraction and you simply don't recognize it? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's sexual attraction in my case. The first person I learned to love (yes, family included) I met over the internet and haven't yet met in person; while I see beauty in people around me, it simply seems to be an appreciation of their humanity with all its potential rather than a sexual thing.

I must have done something wrong, I took the test three times at threee different times and came out ENTJ. Well I guess there's no way to classify us. Of course how much cn one read from a series of written questions? I took the gay test and came up straight, took the straight test and came up gay, and got a 0 on straightacting.com. The only thing I have yet to do is take a penile volume test!!

I came out INFP too.

X.

I would guess that we generally look for other asexuals even if we're not looking for an exclusive relationship because we've had mixed to bad luck in being accepted with this as part of our personality. Another asexual would have to understand where others fail to. In the event that this is the reason, I think we're going about it the wrong way... all my best friends are sexual people, but the ones who aren't squeamish about discussing sex have no problem accepting me as asexual even if we completely can't understand each others' sexual motivations. They understand because they're like me in other ways: inquisitive, looking for truth rather than comfort, wanting to grow and understand more of themselves and the world, and they don't have the insecurity that drives some people to believe that everyone should be like them (if other people are different, they figure they might be wrong). While it's as hard to find those qualities in people as it is to find asexuals, I think that they're easier to spot once you've known people for a little while.

(These are just my rambling thoughts. Any other thoughts about this? Why do we want to find other similarities among asexuals?)

I would guess that we generally look for other asexuals even if we're not looking for an exclusive relationship because we've had mixed to bad luck in being accepted with this as part of our personality. Another asexual would have to understand where others fail to. In the event that this is the reason, I think we're going about it the wrong way... all my best friends are sexual people, but the ones who aren't squeamish about discussing sex have no problem accepting me as asexual even if we completely can't understand each others' sexual motivations. They understand because they're like me in other ways: inquisitive, looking for truth rather than comfort, wanting to grow and understand more of themselves and the world, and they don't have the insecurity that drives some people to believe that everyone should be like them (if other people are different, they figure they might be wrong). While it's as hard to find those qualities in people as it is to find asexuals, I think that they're easier to spot once you've known people for a little while.

(These are just my rambling thoughts. Any other thoughts about this? Why do we want to find other similarities among asexuals?)

I think there will never be any specific way to 'spot an Asexual'. Like someone mentioned before its human nature to group yourself with people that are similiar to you. That doesn't necessarily mean race, interest, sexuality, personality, income braket, or anything else. I think its much deeper than that. I think its a lot like Kurt Vonnegut's idea of a Karass. If straight men have trouble reading straight women, and gay men have troubles finding gay men outside of gay bars, how can we possibly 'spot an Asexual' without actually speaking to the person? Its impossible. If you're an introverted person that hates contact with people its even harder. I guess the only solution is to start wearing stickers like the gays and lesbians do. Either that or start talking to more people. The truth is out there, so are asexuals.

Hi everyone! I just found this group and it's what I've been looking for all my life! Unbelievable! *does a dance* I'm almost 27 and I've been out on one date in my life. It cost me a lot of money (I paid for it all because I didn't want to be obligated to him, so I think I just wasn't cut out for dating and romance!) and it bored me to tears and ever since then I have had no desire to get into the whole dating scene because I much preferred to keep my free time to myself. So that's what I do. :) I went out on that date because I had lost a lot of weight and felt that dates were something that I was stupid to pass up after having been ridiculed, ignored, and insulted for so long. Like an idiot, the fact that someone was interested in me turned my head. Luckily the warning bells saying "Don't be stupid" went off before I made a bigger fool of myself.

But I actually want to thank those idiots and morons who got their kicks trampling on my self-esteem (which is now very much restored, thank you!) because by shutting me out of their pathetic little cliques, I discovered so many things that I would not have otherwise, had I shaped my social life and interests around theirs. :) Plus I turned my attention to my pets and lavished all the love and affection on them that I would have given to a boyfriend. And over time as I have grown more social and had more contact with people, I've decided that I'd much rather stick to pets! You get love and loyalty without someone who says, "What about me? Don't you love me?" Dogs KNOW you love them.

So I have a reputation as an introverted oddball. No doubt some people think I'm a lesbian. Since I have no boyfriend and say I don't want one, I MUST be a lesbian. *big roll of the eyes* Does anyone else hear, "Well, you're young. You'll change your mind?" (I dislike children, too, so some people think I really need psychiatric help.) I do all the time and I say, "Well, no doubt you'll change YOUR mind about wanting to have a man around."

Seeing the various problems in my family that stemmed from sex and the constant search for the "right one,", the hassle of relationships and sex is just not for me. I have reaffirmed this belief in the past several months as I've seen my sister fall in love for the first time and discard her former personality to assume the interests and attitudes of her boyfriend. How can someone do that???? It's just foolishness to me. Not only that, but when they're together it's all touchy feely and jumping into bed. After having been vulnerable for so many years due to my excessive weight, once I lost it I didn't want to be vulnerable ever again. I had been hurt too many times by "friends" and even more by complete strangers. And to me, the sex act is about as vulnerable as you can get and I will not subject myself to it. I have a few very close friends and I am quite content with platonic relationships. I don't see what sex can give you that a solid friendship can't. I am convinced I would be less happy if I had a boyfriend underfoot, even though others (my sister included) think that having one and the consequent unabated orgy is what everyone should aspire to. Spare me. "Sex is beautiful," she says. Uh huh. Then again, maybe I'm just lazy and don't want to have to work at something to keep it alive and harmonious. I'd rather be off doing my own thing.

Sorry this is so long, folks. I'm just amazed that there are others like me out there, or even just a little bit. :) Love ya all!

Hi, hi, and welcome! Loved your story...I really agree, especially with this:

"I don't see what sex can give you that a solid friendship can't."

I am embarrassed to admit that I spent many years doing what your sister is doing, and finally chalked it up to low self-esteem.

X.

Hey, welcome!

There actually seems to be a split opinion here on the idea of exclusive relationships not involving sex.... I'm not sure how evenly split. Personally, I'm all for it; I have a few very close friendships, but comprehension between my friends and I isn't quite as complete as understanding could be (just because we're very different). I've actually never been on a date (happiness! I don't think I want that strange, awkward dating thing....) but do know someone over the internet who is much more comprehensible to me than the rest of the human race, and who I accidentally came to think of a bit too fondly, despite a previous mantra of "you will not be stupid like that." Of course, just like in the idiotically romantic fairy tales, I fail to regret it. :-P

Then again, I don't suppose this soulmate idea applies to everyone (I realized with a little insane inward giggle today in psychology that I could explain the abnormal psychology that my teacher couldn't describe to the class' satisfaction, because I've felt a majority of it... and even avoided becoming dysfunctional while doing so! Woohoo! In any case, I seem to have cured myself of all of them, though one still needs to be tested, and all is well.)

Where did you find a gay and a straight test at? I did the straightacting quize and got a # 4 feminist 14 points.

I am greatful for finding this list last week. It is the only affirmation that I have. I have a "front". I don't remember what they're called when a gay guy has a female friend that poses for straight image. I used to try to reassure others that my male friend and I where plutonic but to no avail. Now that I have met others here I feel a smidgen better about not being normal. Maybe it's not a bad/dishonest thing to have my male conversationalist. Gay people do it without guilt so I can too. I'm still not brave enough to tell others though. They would laugh in my face for making it up and tell me I just need to get layed by a one nighter.

Sign up for FREE email from Potosi Online at http://www.potosionline.com/ Daily News, Weather, Business Links, and so much more.....

Run a small business? Then you need professional email like you@... from Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net?tag

There actually seems to be a split opinion here on the idea of exclusive relationships not involving sex.... I'm not sure how evenly split. Personally, I'm all for it; I have a few very close friendships, but comprehension between my friends and I isn't quite as complete as understanding could be (just because we're very different).

Just to give my opinion/start discussion:

I don't like the idea of exclusive nonsexual relationships just because I think the idea of ANY exclusive relationship is utter tripe. I'm all for closeness, emotion and intimacy, but the idea that it can somehow be "exclusively" regulated to one relationship is highly problematic. Sexual people try and fake this exclusivity by saying that sexual relationships are on a different emotional level than other relationships, and then by being exclusively sexual, but this gets highly problematic in practice (I have examples if you want them.) It's not that asexuals shouldn't or can't be exclusive, it's that no one really can. We're just more directly poised to realize it. After all, what would asexual exclusivity consist of? How would one relationship be defined as fundamentally different than all others?

More discussion-starting stuff that I've mined out of asexuality theory. Enjoy..

Is Asexuality the Missing Link Between Queer/LGBT Rights and Religion? You Decide!! (This is written for a sexual audience, so bear with me)

Let's talk about intimacy. It is something that everyone needs, in some form or another, something that people find in relationships, friendships, family, and any number of other places. Intimacy has alot to do with comfort. We are intimate with people that we know well, people who we feel we understand well enough that we know they will not hurt us. This is essentialy because we cannot expect to get anything done without being at least somewhat vulnerable. If we want to do anything, from building a career to raising a family, we need some sort of an intimate "safe space" to keep us focused and psychologically healthy. The less limited we are in how we think about achieving intimacy the more of it we can have and the better off we will be, so it is to our benefit to examine it in all of its forms. It comes (as mentioned before) in all shapes and sizes, but we'll start our discussion with one reasonably well understood and accepted model, that of heterosexual marraige, and work our way out. Heterosexual marraige is often viewed as the social standard for intimacy, and new "experimental" forms of intimacy, such as same-gender marraige and polyamory, must live up by comparison. Heterosexual marraige is based on the idea that a man and a woman form an exclusive sexual relationship which allows them to become familiar with one another and, eventually, become intimate enough to do such complicated (and vulnerable) things as raising a family. Each partner in a heterosexual marraige performs a specific emotional, familial, and economic role in the relationship, allowing for a stable environment in which intimacy can form. This model of intimacy is generally accepted and understood, but can it be expanded? The femenist movement was one of the first to expand the definition. Despite threats that they would "never find a man" they asserted that intimacy was still possible if the specific roles assigned to each gender were not adhered to. Everyone gritted their teeth, waiting for marriages where men cooked and women worked to fall apart at the seams, and the marraiges only became less limited and stronger. This begs the question: Exactly what in the model of heterosexual marraige IS necessary to maintain an intimate relationship? We can look at an active culture of dating and romantic love to see that marraige vows are not necessary in order to form a close emotional relationship. Successfull same-sex relationships show us what the femenist movement already hinted at: intimacy is not hingent on some combination of "male" and "female," in fact upon analysis these gender distinctions seem somewhat artificially constructed and limiting. It seems safe to say that initimacy is equally possible in ANY monogomous sexual relationship, regardless of who is involved or how it is structured (the obvious exceptions being abusive relationships, where vulnerability is not understood or respected.) But wait, there's more. Is sexual exclusivity a necessary factor? It certainly seems to make things easier by providing a protected area in which intimacy can develope, but with sufficient communication and work it is possible to imagine intimate relationships involving more than two people (in fact the added communication and work requred could only make this relationship stronger.) We see this in played out in the successful polyamorous relationships which have existed throughout human history. Intimacy, it seems, is not a status limited to two people. This idea is also commonly played out. After all, most people are intimate not only with their lovers, but also (to some extent) with their friends and family. EVERYONE spreads their intimacy out over a group of people, and thus we can make the distinction that intimacy is not inherintly sexual. Neither sexual attraction nor sex itself are at the core of two people getting to know each other, and we can become comfortable and vulnerable with a person (or with multiple people) without ever being sexual with them. Asexuals are, of course, quick to point this out, and it is accepted grugingly by a society which needs to maintain the illusion that sexual exclusivity somehow means emotional and intimate exclusivity. We've gone from needing to be intimate in a structured sexual relationship with someone of the opposite gender to finding intimacy spread throughout a wide range or relationships, sexual and otherwise. If that doesn't feel liberating it should. But why stop here? If we can be intimate with a group of people then why not be intimate with an entire community? With a society? After all, can't we get to know a community and find spaces where it lets us be vulnerable? Let's make one big, final leap. Why do we have to limit our intimate relationships to people? Can we form broad, intimate relationships with "stuff", with everything around us. Like all of our other relationships these are subject to conditions. When we are intimate with another person we know that our safety is hingent on their safety, they will not hurt us provided that we do not hurt them. The same follows through to relationships with communities. We can remain safe members of a community provided that we do not threaten the community or its established rules. Would it be possible to form a similar relationship with "stuff." Can we come to understand it well enough that we can avoid being hurt, or can we alternately provide it what it wants in exchange for safety. The idea is certainly tempting and powerful, as we are a good deal more vulnerable to the universe as a whole than we are to any one person. It is this sort of a relationship with "stuff" which constitutes the backbone of spirituality. Anyone who is spiritual or religious can attest that their spirituality is formed around some sort of relationship; with Allah, with God, with Torah or with Dharma. Spirituality provides an extremely powerful sort of intimacy, a (literally) universal understanding of how not to get hurt, and an equally universal means of safety. Religious intimacy is often further hightened by a strong intimate relationship with a religious community, making for an even deeper level or intimacy. So what does this mean? It is relevant to see traditionally understood sexual relationships, radical queer politics and religion on something of the same spectrum. This means that all three are, on some level, trying to accomplish the same thing. It also provides an interesting perspective on historical interactions between different areas of the spectrum. It makes sense that nonsexual people have historically been encouraged to seek intimacy through spiritual means, and that religious people have been likewise encouraged to be celibate. Often times sexual relationships are extremely limited in order to maintain intimate relationships with family, community and "stuff." This happens for a good reason, communal and spiritual intimacy are often subject to a tight sets of conditions. If we want to fully expand our possibilities for possibilities for intimacy we must do in our communal and spiritual relationships what we do in our personal ones: communicate. No relationship stays constant over time, conditions and vulnerabilities change, and any good relationship must constantly restructure itself in order to remain truly intimate. Communication, whether personal, social or spiritual, is a way to keep relationships working, to distinguish between changing rules and breaking them. And the more we can communicate, the more we can find intimacy in all forms, the less vulnerable and the more empowered we are.

tell me I just need to get layed by a one nighter.

I'm a very tense person, mainly because I have lots on my mind. Practical things, like getting the house fixed up, paying the bills, etc., and in my former job the answer to tension and stress was, "You need to get laid." Like that would solve anything! I worked with a woman who got married 4 times in 12 years. Looks like sex did wonders for her life. *eyebrow cynically arched*

I think I understand what you mean by "exclusive nonsexual relationships" being problematic. Since asexuals don't have that sexual factor, and all friendships are on the same level, then there are no distinguishing characteristics to differentiate them? Does that make sense?

I don't know if this would qualify as an exclusive nonsexual relationship. Perhaps it could, in part. I have many friends around the world, through the internet and/or snail mail. But there is one above all others who I connect with the most and she has become my best friend. When her letters come, I answer those first. She takes precedence. But I think that this qualifies as more of a best friend thing rather than soul mate -- altho we are so alike it's eerie. :)

I'm all for closeness, emotion and intimacy, but the idea that it can somehow be "exclusively" regulated to one relationship is highly problematic>

This is interesting. I wish you would expand a bit on how a relationship can have closeness, emotion and intimacy without getting exclusive...it seems like a good idea!

X.

I am embarrassed to admit that I spent many years doing what your sister is doing, and finally chalked it up to low self-esteem.

X.

I still had low self-esteem when I went out on that date and I probably would have ended up doing the same thing and endured years of self-loathing afterwards when it didn't work out. I'm a perfectionist/realist and I don't like to see things that I invest time and money in to fall apart. And sexual relationships are a dime a dozen, it seems. People get together, break up, and then find someone else. Just pick up the pieces and move on. I'd rather have something more permanent and practical to show for my efforts. Maybe I'm just an unimaginative and overly practical New Englander, I don't know.... And having witnessed my parent's divorce, even after 29 years of marriage, Mom said that she felt she had nothing to show for what she'd been through all those years. That's sad. So whether a relationship is short or long, the chances that you are unfulfilled or disillusioned at the end of it can be the same.

Hi all,

I joined this group several months back but have never posted yet. It's just nice to know that there is a group like this out there. I was wondering if anyone here agrees with me that there should be a third gender classification aside from just male and female?? Male and Female are such rigid categories and personally I do not identify myself with either one. I think there should be a third gender labelled "neuter" for those who would prefer to remain separate from either category.