Haven for the Human Amoeba

See wild X RATED Sex Dares!

Ever wondered what people will do on a dare? You would be surprised! CUM Check it out! THIS IS BETTER THAN JERRY SPRINGER Obscene, erotic, dirty, insestuous, gross, wicked, indecent, sleazy, impure, wild, erotic, pornographic, smutty, risque, sensual, sexy...You name it: - we got it!

All hard core and *real* people!

http://www.xrateddares.com

Beyond the xxx fantasy of high school!!!

Indecent acts, people misbehaving, all in bad taste, obscene and disgraceful!

This is the real thing: Crazy people doingcrazy sexy, smutty, slimy things for the hell of it! Just like a car wreck... you gotta look!

All in bad taste and totally blood boiling! Its provocative and gross at the same time! You know you want to look!

PORNOGRAPHIC SEX GAMES Better than Jerry Springer and all REAL xxx Sex stunts and XRATED DAREs xxx How far will people go with their sexual conduct?

http://www.xrateddares.com

ISO Guy for fun times (No Strings). See my home page for details. http://www.female-personals.com/mandy

ASEXUAL means people who is not interested in sex, do not desire to have sex. if you are one of the unemploys, please get a rea; job and stop posting these disturbing advertising messages.

yo, fellow members! i think we need a new venue, cause this site is being contaminated by these sexual people any suggestions?

While I have basically no interest in sex, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to personally having sex; does anyone else feel the same way? (For example, if I wanted my own biological children, used sex as a way to gain money, etc...)

--Nothing

We could always move to ezboard.com. It's easy to sign up, and as long as registration is required to post people can be banned for posing sex ads where we don't want them... if no one else wants to create one, I can do that and post the address here.

ASEXUAL means people who is not interested in sex, do not desire to have sex. if you are one of the unemploys, please get a rea; job and stop posting these disturbing advertising messages.

yo, fellow members! i think we need a new venue, cause this site is being contaminated by these sexual people any suggestions?

Hmm.. Hard to say. I'm pretty much nuetral on the activity, I might try it (like I'd try borsche) if there weren't so much crap built up around it. At this rate the relationship of whoever I try it with would probably get all befuddled, and I don't think I'm up for trying it with a perfect stranger, so it is a tad too inconvenient. I still don't know about kids, personally I'm more comfortable with adopting or in vetro fertilization of some sort...

-DJ

While I have basically no interest in sex, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to personally having sex; does anyone else feel the same way? (For example, if I wanted my own biological children, used sex as a way to gain money, etc...)

--Nothing

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/

People aren't posting these messages more than once though, I imagine they are blanketing them to any group with the word "sex" buried in it. There's no telling if ezboard would have the same problem.

We could always move to ezboard.com. It's easy to sign up, and as long as registration is required to post people can be banned for posing sex ads where we don't want them... if no one else wants to create one, I can do that and post the address here.

opelchan said:

ASEXUAL means people who is not interested in sex, do not desire to have sex. if you are one of the unemploys, please get a rea; job and stop posting these disturbing advertising messages.

yo, fellow members! i think we need a new venue, cause this site is being contaminated by these sexual people any suggestions?

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/

We could always move to ezboard.com. It's easy to sign up, and as long as registration is required to post people can be banned for posing sex ads where we don't want them... if no one else wants to create one, I can do that and post the address here.

I have no qualms with this. While, as another person stated, the few we've seen haven't been much of a nuisance (and to me are actually quite amusing,) it is in my experience something that will only get worse. If it is anything like any other form of spam attack, word will get out that Yahoo! Groups are easy to target, especially since demographics/interests can be (in a somewhat limited way, as we've seen) determined based on keywords. With that, it will only become more annoying.

.:.

Too true. I submit for everyone's approval a shiney new forum:

http://www.asexuality.org/forum

It turns out that it's surprisingly easy to set these things up with my new hosting service. It looks pretty spiff, multiple threads and I'll have admin priviledges so we won't have to worry about random camera adds. Asexuality.org is where I'm moving AVEN, it's almost cleanly transferred...

-DJ

We could always move to ezboard.com. It's easy to sign up, and as long as registration is required to post people can be banned for posing sex ads where we don't want them... if no one else wants to create one, I can do that and post the address here.

I have no qualms with this. While, as another person stated, the few we've seen haven't been much of a nuisance (and to me are actually quite amusing,) it is in my experience something that will only get worse. If it is anything like any other form of spam attack, word will get out that Yahoo! Groups are easy to target, especially since demographics/interests can be (in a somewhat limited way, as we've seen) determined based on keywords. With that, it will only become more annoying.

.:.

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/

yes, i think spam will only get worse i meant, i never get "real" messages on my hotmail account anymore

we can wait for a while, and see, afterall there were like 4 posted, some were sent to my yahoo account we will see, when we need one, we can move

it probably wouldnt make the difference in a long run like DJ said, but when the board is new, then not many people will know, the problem is solved temporary

the best way is if someone knows CGI, then put on the asexual.net we will have adminstrative power over it, to delete unanted messages that is the way to be what do you think?

We could always move to ezboard.com. It's easy to sign up, and as long as registration is required to post people can be banned for posing sex ads where we don't want them... if no one else wants to create one, I can do that and post the address here.

I have no qualms with this. While, as another person stated, the few we've seen haven't been much of a nuisance (and to me are actually quite amusing,) it is in my experience something that will only get worse. If it is anything like any other form of spam attack, word will get out that Yahoo! Groups are easy to target, especially since demographics/interests can be (in a somewhat limited way, as we've seen) determined based on keywords. With that, it will only become more annoying.

.:.

"to be liberal" is to accept ideas. note: when you blindly believe in everything that is "defined" as liberal, and unaccepting different ideas, that is not "liberal"

anyway, on sex i have no problem when my friends and i discuss about it its absolutely ok for them to like it but you know, sometimes its get onto the nerves when all they talk about is sex all i want is to have a break from that topic cause i know i would be bored from that topic (note, when they are talking it daily) i usually get sick when they were like, "hey, who do you have your eyes on these days", and that is all they can ask me, etc

because how this work is socialised, people think sex a lot more these days but from my point of view, there is always something better to do with a person than to fxxx them anyway its alsolute alright for anyone to do anythign they want, just sometime fed up with the stupid topic, it gets ol fast--i think

I agree with your def of liberal. It gets tricky though, because how do you deal with ideas that are themselves not accepting. (Like how can you have an accepting environment that's accepting of unaccepting people. My school gets hung up on this one alot..)

I agree with you on sex. It gets old and awkward fast, because it's hard to figure out where I fit in the conversation.

-DJ

"to be liberal" is to accept ideas. note: when you blindly believe in everything that is "defined" as liberal, and unaccepting different ideas, that is not "liberal"

anyway, on sex i have no problem when my friends and i discuss about it its absolutely ok for them to like it but you know, sometimes its get onto the nerves when all they talk about is sex all i want is to have a break from that topic cause i know i would be bored from that topic (note, when they are talking it daily) i usually get sick when they were like, "hey, who do you have your eyes on these days", and that is all they can ask me, etc

because how this work is socialised, people think sex a lot more these days but from my point of view, there is always something better to do with a person than to fxxx them anyway its alsolute alright for anyone to do anythign they want, just sometime fed up with the stupid topic, it gets ol fast--i think

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/

for those unaccepting individuals or groups, please forgive their ignorance. if they do not want to be educated, they will not listen no matter what the bottle line is, freedom of speech, i think: hate speech is allowed, but hate action should be limited i suppose hate action can be conducted privately, but anything that violates law should be prosecuted---eg. if they paint their hate speech on public area, or attacking, that can be prosecuted by law should be prosecuted by law

for example the stupid wesley church people (or something?) they have their antigay champaign, but instead of banding them, what the wyoming peopel did (the angel projects) was great. they just stood ther with their form of protest and equalise the negatives or we can have an table right across of their protest, about education, on different issues, letting peopel know those unaccepting peopel is simply becayse they are idiot, i meant they are ignorant

I agree with your def of liberal. It gets tricky though, because how do you deal with ideas that are themselves not accepting. (Like how can you have an accepting environment that's accepting of unaccepting people. My school gets hung up on this one alot..)

I agree with you on sex. It gets old and awkward fast, because it's hard to figure out where I fit in the conversation.

-DJ

On 30 May 2002, opelchan said:

"to be liberal" is to accept ideas. note: when you blindly believe in everything that is "defined" as liberal, and unaccepting different ideas, that is not "liberal"

anyway, on sex i have no problem when my friends and i discuss about it its absolutely ok for them to like it but you know, sometimes its get onto the nerves when all they talk about is sex all i want is to have a break from that topic cause i know i would be bored from that topic (note, when they are talking it daily) i usually get sick when they were like, "hey, who do you have your eyes on these days", and that is all they can ask me, etc

because how this work is socialised, people think sex a lot more these days but from my point of view, there is always something better to do with a person than to fxxx them anyway its alsolute alright for anyone to do anythign they want, just sometime fed up with the stupid topic, it gets ol fast--i think

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/

...

I've been receiving your digests about battling with spam - and noting with horror the stunningly inappropriate posts you've been getting - and do hope I didn't add to people's distress by posting as a journalist.

not at all. Everyone's welcome here, we jsut want people to respectful (and non-spammy), which you've been.

-Dj

...

I've been receiving your digests about battling with spam - and noting with horror the stunningly inappropriate posts you've been getting - and do hope I didn't add to people's distress by posting as a journalist.

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/

Sounds okay with me!!

Too true. I submit for everyone's approval a shiney new forum:

http://www.asexuality.org/forum

It turns out that it's surprisingly easy to set these things up with my new hosting service. It looks pretty spiff, multiple threads and I'll have admin priviledges so we won't have to worry about random camera adds. Asexuality.org is where I'm moving AVEN, it's almost cleanly transferred...

-DJ

On 29 May 2002, Ioa Petra'ka said:

We could always move to ezboard.com. It's easy to sign up, and as long as registration is required to post people can be banned for posing sex ads where we don't want them... if no one else wants to create one, I can do that and post the address here.

I have no qualms with this. While, as another person stated, the few we've seen haven't been much of a nuisance (and to me are actually quite amusing,) it is in my experience something that will only get worse. If it is anything like any other form of spam attack, word will get out that Yahoo! Groups are easy to target, especially since demographics/interests can be (in a somewhat limited way, as we've seen) determined based on keywords. With that, it will only become more annoying.

.:.

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/

i meant, as long as ones know what this place is, its free to express their ideas but the spammy people are just posting without knowing they are at an asexual area, etc

...

I've been receiving your digests about battling with spam - and noting with horror the stunningly inappropriate posts you've been getting - and do hope I didn't add to people's distress by posting as a journalist.

another good reason to move the haven if the haven is move to a "private" domain, we dont have to deal with all the yahoo advertisements

Sounds okay with me!!

David G. Jay said:

Too true. I submit for everyone's approval a shiney new forum:

http://www.asexuality.org/forum

It turns out that it's surprisingly easy to set these things up with my new hosting service. It looks pretty spiff, multiple threads and I'll have admin priviledges so we won't have to worry about random camera adds. Asexuality.org is where I'm moving AVEN, it's almost cleanly transferred...

-DJ

On 29 May 2002, Ioa Petra'ka said:

We could always move to ezboard.com. It's easy to sign up, and as long as registration is required to post people can be banned for posing sex ads where we don't want them... if no one else wants to create one, I can do that and post the address here.

I have no qualms with this. While, as another person stated, the few we've seen haven't been much of a nuisance (and to me are actually quite amusing,) it is in my experience something that will only get worse. If it is anything like any other form of spam attack, word will get out that Yahoo! Groups are easy to target, especially since demographics/interests can be (in a somewhat limited way, as we've seen) determined based on keywords. With that, it will only become more annoying.

.:.

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 y'all! I've been lurking for a while, but I guess it's time for me to step out of the shadows for a minute. While surfing the 'net, I came across this web page and found it to be interesting:

http://www.sexhelp.com/what_is_sex_anorexia.cfm

I'm not going to sate my opinion about this article yet. Instead, I'm going to give you all a chance to read it first. I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.

I don't doubt some asexuals are sexual anorexia, but many are not just like saying all the lesbians are man-hating. i must say, i don't think i will ever be "fixed" about my view about sex. i think sex is disgusting and only people who is bored out would do. i do not doubt people ffind pleasure out of it, but i find pleasure doing other things

these sex therpaists think sex is like food, people cannot live without; the truth is, sex is just another activity that people do. i don't see a difference between golfing, eating, bowling or watching tv, fxxxing is just another thing to do.

if the sex therapists conclude that all people like sex, they are just as narrow view as saying everyone is born straight

my last words are, everyone is different, and we all like different things; i really hate to see peopel who like to conclude things/humanities

Hi y'all! I've been lurking for a while, but I guess it's time for me to step out of the shadows for a minute. While surfing the 'net, I came across this web page and found it to be interesting:

http://www.sexhelp.com/what_is_sex_anorexia.cfm

I'm not going to sate my opinion about this article yet. Instead, I'm going to give you all a chance to read it first. I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.

This is why I believe that mental "illness" is really a form of social control designed to force people into societal norms. The idea that asexuality is an illness is as absurd as asceticism (more commonly referred to as anorexia) is a disease.

--Nothing

This is why I believe that mental "illness" is really a form of social control designed to force people into societal norms. The idea that asexuality is an illness is as absurd as asceticism (more commonly referred to as anorexia) is a disease.

To a certain point, that holds merit, and if you read the definitions of mental illnesses loosely, it would sound as if the entire thing were a bit fishy. You have to remember that most of these descriptions must be taken to their extremes before they are considered illnesses. It must impact the daily life of the individual in a handicapping way. Merely avoiding sex for whatever reason probably wouldn't negatively impact a person's life too much. If on the other hand, that is all they can think about, obsess about, and their entire waking life is skewed around the avoidance of sexual material, direct and indirect -- then it becomes a problem. That person would be significantly happier in life if they didn't have the obsessions and fears.

This just covers the "disorder" type problems. Surely you do not believe that illnesses such as schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, and other known diseases that can be physically rendered with computer aided tomographic equipment, and for the most part cured with medication just like any other disease, is just a social control to bombard the masses into thinking a certain way? If not they, then where exactly do you draw the line? Chemical imbalances or neurological malfunctions only? Does trauma induced mental dehabilitation fall under clear or muddy water? What about the fact that animals do, and have always displayed similar malfunctions as well? There are studies into mammal and bird life mental disorders that go way back. Were animals in the middle ages somehow under the influence of modern United States of American psychological examination? So would you draw the line where animals display illnesses too? You would have to cut the line back quite far, if you did, because intelligent animals, such as dogs and chimpanzees can display very acute mental disorders, even the most "watered" down types that you read about, such as issues with abandonment.

I don't know you, so I cannot make any statements about you. However, in my experience the people that hold this viewpoint have never really suffered from a mental condition, or personally known anyone who has. It is easy to deny the existence of something when you have no experience with it -- when it is an abstract concept. You could be an exception though, maybe you've been through the "system" and hold a grudge against it.

I will hold no sides with the majority of psychologists that roam the earth. They do many things that I do not agree with. This does not mean that I think what they are looking for is invalid. I just believe their tactics are suspect. I have experienced personally, and have seen the effects of major mental difficulties. To say that it is all a figment of a group or organization's imagination does not hold logical water (if a group of people could mentally coerce and cause another group of people to suffer imaginary difficulties as a way of weeding out the 'abnormals' and padding their wallets, then you would have to admit that it is possible to bend the mind to a point where it doesn't operate correctly -- which would contradict the notion that it is all a facade.)

I'm sorry for ranting way off topic like this, but this is a pet peeve.

.:.

Wow- you all have got alot of new members! Last time I was here it was like at 7 or 8- wow! Well, I don't care for sex at all; and GREAT CLUB!!! Glad I found it back! I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your possible interest in joining my free Yahoo group under Olivia Newton John http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nosnowpresentsobliviannights We are constantly and quickly growing to be the among the most popular Livvy group on Yahoo! I sincerely appreciate all of your support and posts, photos, updates, ideas, etc. We have recently added a ton of photos in our gallery section- a tip to all of you who have joined- try the slideshow option to view them- they are breathtaking! Prizes will only get better on a month by month basis for the member of the month and LIVE chat sessions. Many thanks again for your interest in this "No Snow OBLIVIAN NIGHTS" Yahoo group. Take care, have a great day, Sincerely, Michael

This just covers the "disorder" type problems. Surely you do not believe that illnesses such as schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, and other known diseases that can be physically rendered with computer aided tomographic equipment, and for the most part cured with medication just like any other disease, is just a social control to bombard the masses into thinking a certain way? Actually, the physical renditions are often done after medication and there are persuasive arguments that the differences between the brain of a mentally "ill" person and others is actually caused by the medication. If not they, then where exactly do you draw the line? Chemical imbalances or neurological malfunctions only? Since when have neurological problems been treated under the label of psychiatry? What about the fact that animals do, and have always displayed similar malfunctions as well? There are studies into mammal and bird life mental disorders that go way back. Were animals in the middle ages somehow under the influence of modern United States of American psychological examination? So would you draw the line where animals display illnesses too? You would have to cut the line back quite far, if you did, because intelligent animals, such as dogs and chimpanzees can display very acute mental disorders, even the most "watered" down types that you read about, such as issues with abandonment. So essentially if a creature doesn't act as one would assume it should, it is mentally ill? Sounds like imposing behaviors upon others... I don't know you, so I cannot make any statements about you. However, in my experience the people that hold this viewpoint have never really suffered from a mental condition, or personally known anyone who has. Have you? And was this individual (or you) treated voluntarily or against his/her/your will? It is easy to deny the existence of something when you have no experience with it -- when it is an abstract concept. You could be an exception though, maybe you've been through the "system" and hold a grudge against it. I have yet to meet anyone being treated against their wills that have anything positive to say about therapy. I will concede though that my age group (that is teenagers) is more likely to be considered "at- risk" over more minor things and have our confidentiality broken, making it significantly more likely that my friends and I will hold a grudge. To say that it is all a figment of a group or organization's imagination does not hold logical water (if a group of people could mentally coerce and cause another group of people to suffer imaginary difficulties as a way of weeding out the 'abnormals' and padding their wallets, then you would have to admit that it is possible to bend the mind to a point where it doesn't operate correctly -- which would contradict the notion that it is all a facade.) A difficulty isn't a disease. I'm sorry for ranting way off topic like this, but this is a pet peeve. Ditto. --Nothing

Actually, the physical renditions are often done after medication and there are persuasive arguments that the differences between the brain of a mentally "ill" person and others is actually caused by the medication.

Where are your sources, and what are the dates on them? All of the modern comparisons that I have seen are before/after type scenarios where the final "product" compares the brain pretty closely to what a non-effected brain looks like. If medication created the difference, then how exactly did it cause it to return to a normal image years/months later?

It should also be noted that in some cases, medication is not necessary to produce differences. Jeffrey Schwartz' work with OCD in fact advocates *not* seeing a therapist except in the more extreme varieties of it. His cases show dramatic differences between imaging before and after, without medication. This shows that large scale changes in the structure of the brain can be altered through solo mental technique alone. It also shows that your assertion has less global merit, since it relies upon the specific alterations of post-medication examination.

If you've done any research into psychosomatic illness (such as common hay fever,) and mental healing, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

Medication can produce results, but the camps are divided on how well it works. With some people, it works perfectly, and once they are off they live a liberated life, swearing by their treatment. With others, it does nothing but misery, and their only choice is to use them their entire lives to get marginal gain, or just stop using them altogether and go back to the way they were.

So essentially if a creature doesn't act as one would assume it should, it is mentally ill? Sounds like imposing behaviors upon others...

When a cat has hyperesthesia, or a dog consistently pulls its hair out in patches until it bleeds -- with no evidence of any skin conditions or nerve disorders, or other ordinary reasons that animals do this -- they have a problem. Does the problem exist in the mind of the beholder, imposing its view, or does the problem exist in the mind of the animal? Which is more likely?

Additionally, your line of reasoning does not hold beyond its application. Are all sicknesses then suspect to imposed abnormalities, since they are nothing more than deviations from the assumed norm?

Have you? And was this individual (or you) treated voluntarily or against his/her/your will?

To the first question, yes. Both myself and my ex-girlfriend. The intensity of her problems were caused by a rare, and severe hormonal imbalance. For myself, I have yet to find a cause, I've been as I am, for as far back as I can remember. As far as I know, I was born this way.

To the second question, no. Both of us felt strongly against typical therapy, and resolved to overcome our problems with homeopathic remedies, and our own mutual support (with the obvious exception of her medical problems, as it required surgery. They affected the intensity, not the basis.) Today, her issues still exist, but she has mentally overcome them. Instead of fighting against them, she's found a way to live with them. While I am not completely to that point yet, I am making progress as well. It is important to note that the malfunctions still exist in my brain. I am just learning how to embrace them, and use them as an asset in my life. Something you won't find many traditionally schooled psychologists supporting.

The point is, the illness is real. I can poke at it, trigger it, and even play with it from time to time. Other times, I forget myself, and I wake up one morning realizing that the past five months have been destroyed by it.

I have yet to meet anyone being treated against their wills that have anything positive to say about therapy. I will concede though that my age group (that is teenagers) is more likely to be considered "at- risk" over more minor things and have our confidentiality broken, making it significantly more likely that my friends and I will hold a grudge.

I've yet to meet anyone beyond childhood who has to do *anything* against their will have overly positive things to say about the process that they went through. That line of thought is a straw man. On this topic though, I will reiterate my earlier point. I hold no favor for the psychological industry, and it is an industry. They have probably ruined as many lives as they have helped. The reason for that is, as I said before, their tactics. Putting people through a system against their will has base merit in some cases, but is taken way out of context and applied to almost all forms of mental disorder, as a mandate against individuality -- as you put it.

The industry is has not created an image for itself that causes anyone to coo lovingly. Psychologists are often uttered in the same disdainful breath as lawyers, for a good reason. They have a noble task, but in both cases they, the *common* members of their cabal, have warped and abused their power beyond all recognition.

On this topic, I believe we are in accord. The community is shifting, thank goodness, but the shift is currently hard to find. The ones who practice natural remedies, cognitive behavioral therapy, and a very limited approach to medication (if at all) are still harder to find, but their success and findings is having a large impact on the body of psychology itself.

As an interesting side-note, these remedies are not new. In fact they are very old. They all but died in the early 1900s, despite the successes they were beginning to have, thanks to the psychotherapy movement, which to this day has yet to produce any statistically impressive results. It is also this psychotherapeutic model and its derivatives that receive the criticism of you and I.

A difficulty isn't a disease.

I made a clear distinction between the two in an earlier paragraph, so I do not see the relevance of this retort. It can be conveniently flipped though: A disease is a difficulty (but I am planting my tongue in my cheek at this point. I love flipping axioms too. :)

.:.