Haven for the Human Amoeba

similarly, i LOVE my friends they are great, i love to be able to love all my friends not a singular noun

but because i am their friend, i have got to be independent of them at some level sometimes, i really want someone i can cry to, i can scream to, on my personal issues (i do that too often to my pillows and my stuffed animals by now) i meant, if i do that to my friends, they will just think i am a cry baby or a whiner.

maybe some of my friends will reach that level very soon, i will wait and see that would be nice to have someone who truly listen to you, in a 2 person, intimate setting

oh, the question i would like to have a relationship, but i am used to not having one, so i am not dying to get involved

I love the intimate friendships I have right now. They make me feel fulfilled. I don't see what romance could give me that I don't already have. So I would say that I am not opposed to relationships, I just don't feel the need to pursue romance.

That's an answer, right?

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

okay, i'll try to expand on this concept a bit. to really appreciate the state of "uncouplehood" i think one had to previously be in a state of couplehood. sometimes a euphoria could arise after a relationship breakup, as you feel independent and on your own again. of course, it often depends which side of the breakup you were on. nonetheless, for those that have experienced that feeling, i suggest to capture that euphoria and extended it over a longer duration in your life--to enjoy that sudden availability of personal time and to not to give it up so freely again.

being in a state of uncoupleness doesn't mean that you don't have friends, or even many close friends! it just means you're not one-half of a couple. a couplehood is when two people are "going out" or dating or married; couplehood is when you're someone's boyfriend or girlfriend. In couplehood, you have a "significant other" and in most cases, in my opinion, you tend to validate yourself somewhat through that other person. (if you're a guy dating a girl, other girls perceive you a little --or a lot-- differently.) In couplehood, you may shift your concerns (as you perhaps should) to your significant other. You "care" for the other person. You're considerate to that other person's feelings, you do almost everything together, and you compromise a lot. I'm not saying that's bad. it's VERY good. nonetheless, it's not for everyone. not everyone needs someone else to feel whole. not everyone needs to have children in order to feel self-worth. Many people find themselves in a relationship in which they start losing their personal identity. And those disparate personal identities were the freshness and difference that once made things novel, exciting, attractive, interesting, etc.

all right, i don't want to go on in too much detail because i want to explore this concept with others as I'm starting to myself. To make it perfectly clear: I'm not saying any one thing is wrong or bad for everyone. It is, however, wrong or bad for some people at certain times in their life. Yes, this is true for me but I'm sure others currently feel the same way about themselves.

I think I've got an idea of what you're saying, even though I've never been "coupled." It seems like it's a critique of dating and monogomy (which I wholeheartedly agree with.) All for intimate relationships, but not for ones that become intimate in a limiting way. Here's a distinction I used a while ago when talking about relationships, I'll dust it off and see if it fits here:

You can talk about two types of relationships, "active" and "passive."

A passive relationship is what we think of as a platonic friendship. There people form relationships based on experience. They're relationships are about doing things together: dancing, hanging out, talking, whatever. After two or more people have done enough stuff together they become comfortable around one another, and consider each other friends. The relationship sort of passively builds up based on common interaction.

Then there are active relationships, which are closer to dating. In an active relationship, people consciously set out to form a relationship with one another. They set the relationships apart from others, consciously invest energy in building the relationship, and form an collective expectation of what the relationship will grow into.

All relationships are some mix of these two, and each extreme has it's benefits. Active relationships tend to form faster, and because the people in them are focusing on what's going on emotionally they tend to be more emotional. They're also depenent (in some way) on expectations and contracts, which can make them more limiting and more devistating. In an active relationship the "project" of building/maintianing the relationship is either "on" or "off", relationships are either "together" or "not", there is little middle ground. By contrast passive relationships tend to grow and shrink as they are given reason to. Where active relationships base their trust on commitement passive relationships rely on a high level of familiarity.

Hope the concept's useful..

okay, i'll try to expand on this concept a bit. to really appreciate the state of "uncouplehood" i think one had to previously be in a state of couplehood. sometimes a euphoria could arise after a relationship breakup, as you feel independent and on your own again. of course, it often depends which side of the breakup you were on. nonetheless, for those that have experienced that feeling, i suggest to capture that euphoria and extended it over a longer duration in your life--to enjoy that sudden availability of personal time and to not to give it up so freely again.

being in a state of uncoupleness doesn't mean that you don't have friends, or even many close friends! it just means you're not one-half of a couple. a couplehood is when two people are "going out" or dating or married; couplehood is when you're someone's boyfriend or girlfriend. In couplehood, you have a "significant other" and in most cases, in my opinion, you tend to validate yourself somewhat through that other person. (if you're a guy dating a girl, other girls perceive you a little --or a lot-- differently.) In couplehood, you may shift your concerns (as you perhaps should) to your significant other. You "care" for the other person. You're considerate to that other person's feelings, you do almost everything together, and you compromise a lot. I'm not saying that's bad. it's VERY good. nonetheless, it's not for everyone. not everyone needs someone else to feel whole. not everyone needs to have children in order to feel self-worth. Many people find themselves in a relationship in which they start losing their personal identity. And those disparate personal identities were the freshness and difference that once made things novel, exciting, attractive, interesting, etc.

all right, i don't want to go on in too much detail because i want to explore this concept with others as I'm starting to myself. To make it perfectly clear: I'm not saying any one thing is wrong or bad for everyone. It is, however, wrong or bad for some people at certain times in their life. Yes, this is true for me but I'm sure others currently feel the same way about themselves.

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/

Hm. This is true.

An "active relationship" often includes some sort of discussion on the participants' parts - where it should go, etc. You don't really see someone getting nervous and finally confronting someone they know and stuttering (terrified) "Wanna be friends?"

I agree that friendships generally form spontaneously. I mean, you may notice someone around that looks friendly, or find that someone has your same interests, and try to get to know them better because you feel they would be a good candidate for friendship, but I don't think friendships are so much an active decision as they are a realization. You like their company, you hang out together and feel comfortable with each other; therefore, it's safe to assume that you are friends.

On the other hand, there's the whole ordeal of asking someone out. I know many people who have pursued people they don't really know as romantic interests; it's like developing a crush on someone who doesn't really know you exist. I don't get that.

My two cents. Am I contributing anything here? I'm not sure.

-Selie

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Cybersex doesn't seem at all "intellectual" to me other than that it requires reading. In fact, it usually seems to be just the opposite... juvenil, eternally horny, easily stimulated people who practice it (in my experience that is... not intending to offend anyone). Merely typing that you are naked, or horny, or doing this and that is... even less interesting than real sexual experiences to me. But then, anyway, I'm a very visual person and cybersex seems to remove the only possible interesting thing - the actual interaction - without actually adding anything. I'm better described as just bored by sex. Gotta be a better way.

steven_n_g said:

So give me a way to make sex have more personality, more intelligence, more depth on the level of the mind, and we'll see.

This statement made me think of "cyber-sex". I imagine this takes place between two people who are actually typing provocative words to each other (online) that stimulate the mind into thinking about having sex (I think). Anyway, what's your take on this kind of "intellectual sex"? This question is posed for anybody to answer. (I'm just being a little gremlin!) ;)

You have intimate friendships, and not romance? A difference of definition then. To me intimacy IS romance. I couldn't imagine any other way to think of it, other than maybe calling romance the silly stuff like poetry or all that, which I never really understood or desired. I have a few friends, but I'm sure as anything not "intimate" with them. We do stuff together, might have common interests, make good conversation, but that's neither intimacy, nor romance. Not even close... I'm guessing here that most people identifying as asexual or something like that, have no concept of jealousy, and can't understand the concept behind it?

I love the intimate friendships I have right now. They make me feel fulfilled. I don't see what romance could give me that I don't already have. So I would say that I am not opposed to relationships, I just don't feel the need to pursue romance.

That's an answer, right?

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Hm... my definitions of "intimacy" and "love" don't seem to agree with most other people on this group? I dunno. I kind of adapted the words to fit me, so they probably aren't entirely usual-usage.

To me, "intimacy" is a state of being completely yourself around someone, never having to fear about them hating you or changing their mind about you on a whim. They love you deeply, and you love them. You can share everything with them, anything you're able to share with yourself, and you trust them with your life. They mean the world to you and you mean the world to them. My sister has always been the person I am closest to - we aren't actually twins, but the whole "twin bond" that is supposedly shared by real twins could almost be used to describe just how close we are. She doesn't know EVERYTHING about me, and I don't know EVERYTHING about her, but it's pretty damn close. My other friends, the really close ones, are like other brothers and sisters. I love them. I trust them. I do both of these to a point that extends beyond normal friendship, but I feel no sexual or "romantic" attraction to them.

This is why the idea of a romantic relationship is so alien to me. Sure, I've tried it. Bad things came of it, but I don't blame those on the fact that it was a relationship, I just made some poor choices. A large part of the problem in the relationship was that he was controlling and wanted me to put him above everyone else, and I couldn't do that. My sister and my very close friends still held priority. The idea of making one person, someone who is relatively new in your life, more important than the people who have more claim to your love - I don't understand why that's desirable. Why share so closely with only one person if you can share equally closely with multiple people? This is, of course, taking sex out of the equation, because I do.

There. I think I clarified things... ask away if I didn't, or if I sound stupid...

-Selie

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Don't worry, you're not sounding stupid. You don't need to qualify at the end of all of your E-mails...

It seems like we're dealing with a notable difference in symantics, but also in personal experiences. I'll give my definitions and then see if I can desribe what different people are talking about (I'll be wrong, but it'll give interesting context.) Ok, so..

Romance- Something in a relationship that is felt (to some extent) ON PURPOSE. E.G, "Romantic" scenarios are constructed in order to consciously highlight the emotional bonds in a relationship (you, me and the moon stuff.) This is why you can have close relationships without them, because you don't necessarily have to go out of your way to realize how you feel about someone. Which brings us to...

Love- An oldie but goodie. I like to define it (technically) as "gratitude for past emotional fulfillment", but the relevant distinction here is that it is something that you feel for another another person as a direct result of your relationship with them. Love does not have to be as overpowering as romance (though it can be), it can be buried much deeper in the background of whatever you are doing.

Intimacy- Unlike the other 2, which are emotions, intimacy is a relationship component. This is a measure of how well you know someone, how comfortable you are around them. You can know someone extremely well, and be extremely comfortable around them without feeling any outward emotions towards them. To recap:

Romance- What you feel about your relationship with someone (often on purpose, though not always.) Love- What you feel about THEM Intimacy- How comfortable you are around them.

Here's my read on things:

Steven_ng has had close intimate relationships that are reasonably similar to dating, in terms of their emotional structure. That is to say, when there is intimacy there he actively feels it, so intimacy and romance are the same thing to him.

Lauren forms intimate relationships with people but doesn't feel the need to focus that much on the relationships themselves. She and her sister don't feel the need to stare into each other's eyes for hours and think about how close they are to one another, so it's not romantic, but they ARE extremely intimate in that they know each other very well. Because they know each other so well they have an all around warm fuzzy feeling about one another, but they don't spend their relationship focusing on that feeling, it comes as a byproduct of all of the other stuff that they do together.

Then there's me. I've had relationships that were romantic in structure (they sucked), and I have relationships like lauren's, where I'm close to someone and love them dearly. However, a good portion of my close, intimate relationships work differently. Alot of them have close intimacy without having love. I'll have friendships where someone and I do alot of stuff together (oftentimes competative), and so become extremely comfortable around one another and even trust each other to a deep level but don't really feel that much emotion for one another. If we were to stop and think about how we feel about each other then yes, we love each other but in the course of our relationship we do that so rarely that it's not relevant to anything. It's always about what we're doing, not what we're feeling towards one another (almost antiromantic), so how we feel about each other isn't a relevant part of the relationship, and if asked to describe the relationship it wouldn't seem logical to start by saying "I love them."

I'm curious what people think of these distinctions!!

Oh, and I definitely know about jealosy. I see no reason why sexual people get a monopoly on that one. Though I think I avoid it more successfully then most of them most of the time..

-BRC

Hm... my definitions of "intimacy" and "love" don't seem to agree with most other people on this group? I dunno. I kind of adapted the words to fit me, so they probably aren't entirely usual-usage.

To me, "intimacy" is a state of being completely yourself around someone, never having to fear about them hating you or changing their mind about you on a whim. They love you deeply, and you love them. You can share everything with them, anything you're able to share with yourself, and you trust them with your life. They mean the world to you and you mean the world to them. My sister has always been the person I am closest to - we aren't actually twins, but the whole "twin bond" that is supposedly shared by real twins

could almost be used to describe just how close we are. She doesn't know

EVERYTHING about me, and I don't know EVERYTHING about her, but it's pretty damn close. My other friends, the really close ones, are like other brothers and sisters. I love them. I trust them. I do both of these to a point that extends beyond normal friendship, but I feel no sexual or "romantic" attraction to them.

This is why the idea of a romantic relationship is so alien to me. Sure,

I've tried it. Bad things came of it, but I don't blame those on the fact that it was a relationship, I just made some poor choices. A large part of the problem in the relationship was that he was controlling and wanted me to put him above everyone else, and I couldn't do that. My sister and my very close friends still held priority. The idea of making one person, someone who is relatively new in your life, more important than the people who have more claim to your love - I don't understand why that's desirable. Why share so closely with only one person if you can share equally closely with multiple people? This is, of course, taking sex out of the equation, because I do.

There. I think I clarified things... ask away if I didn't, or if I sound

stupid...

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

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

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/

I'm supposing that maybe selie is talking about intimacy as related to closeness? Intimacy in terms of sexual closeness or affection is not friendship but something more than friendship. Whereas, the "intimacy" that selie might be talking about relates to a very close personal, mental connection but no sexually physical connection whatsoever. You connect with someone conversation-wise and everything else but there is no actual physical act. As for "romance" I think that has a different meaning than "intimacy" I take it to mean all the mushy stuff such as flowers, moonlight walks on the beach, going above and beyond for someone else, that kind of thing. "Romance" is pretty much wrapped up in a close, sexual, serious relationship between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

You have intimate friendships, and not romance? A difference of definition then. To me intimacy IS romance. I couldn't imagine any other way to think of it, other than maybe calling romance the silly stuff like poetry or all that, which I never really understood or desired. I have a few friends, but I'm sure as anything not "intimate" with them. We do stuff together, might have common interests, make good conversation, but that's neither intimacy, nor romance. Not even close... I'm guessing here that most people identifying as asexual or something like that, have no concept of jealousy, and can't understand the concept behind it?

Lauren Liebowitz said:

I love the intimate friendships I have right now. They make me feel fulfilled. I don't see what romance could give me that I don't already have. So I would say that I am not opposed to relationships, I just don't feel the need to pursue romance.

That's an answer, right?

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

First, I want to say thanks for letting me tap into this group. I think it's great, thoughtful people.

Okay, to answer that question for me below: No, I don't think my idea of uncouplehood is about having one-night stands. I've actually never had one myself. It's not my style. Sex for the first time with someone new is almost always horrible, at least compared to what it can be like after learning more about that person--what they like, dislike etc. I think being in a state of uncouplehood, which I'm starting to move toward and better understand (..and maybe I'm not using the best word for it), means not doing any of the things that *exclusively* lead to a couplehood between two people. That is, not doing the things that only "couples" do, which would of course include sex. So, no, I don't think this uncouplehood thing I'm working on would mean one-night stands are okay. That was a good question though. Thanks.

I wonder where we all stand on this. I wonder how many of us here want 1) a relationship with no sex or 2) no relationship and no sex I'm personally leaning toward the first one myself...

opelchan said:

i think the line is between 1) asexuals who want a relationship with no sex 2) asexuals who does not want any relationship or sex

uncouplehood also can be seen as----one night standers dont you think, rob? gotta explain that throughly

djay@w... said:

Interesting...

Though I can see the groups being related in some way, I want to be extremely careful about drawing a line between not wanting sexuality and not wanting "intimate relationships." I know that I still do (a sentiment echoed by many people on this forum), in fact I think that the idea that one can somehow avoid emotional relationships by not being sexual is preposterous (if socially reinforced.) That being said, there is a certain relevant crossover. While I definitely find myself forming intimate relationships I don't really "couple." I'm all for emotional closeness, but monogomy (which I'm not that hot on to begin with) doesn't make sense for me as an asexual. How could an asexual monogomous partner "cheat"? For that matter, why should I purposely elevate one relationship to a seperate catagory from all the others? It's unclear to me exactly what your group is about. Is it against, say, close but non "couplish" friendship? Would sexaul polyamorous people fit?(I'd argue that most asexuals are polyamorous by default, since we don't have access to a meaningful system of monogomy.) Or is it for people who want to be alone emotionally and, by extension sexually? (As opposed to people who just don't want to be sexual, which is us.)

Yes, indeed. My bad. Here you go...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Uncouplehood/

...sorry about that. I just set it up and the name didn't sink in deep enough yet!

djay@w... said:

Not according to your link you haven't..

Hi. I just started a new related e-group. Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Uncoupled for more info. -Rob

------------------------ 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/

------------------------ 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/

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Ah, I think that was a really good point! The distinct needs to be made between what "type(s)" of relationships you want and what "type(s)" you don't. Everybody has a relationship with people they interact with. I've trying use that couple vs noncouple idea to draw the line in which I want (or don't want) my relationships to be. Of, as you know, I've starting to understand that I don't want to do the couplehood thing.

On Thursday 13 June 2002 19:36, athenayu9 wrote:

I wonder where we all stand on this. I wonder how many of us here want 1) a relationship with no sex or 2) no relationship and no sex I'm personally leaning toward the first one myself...

I pretty much heavily lean towards the latter. I think that question has more to do with personality than asexuality. The 'no sex' bit is the common denominator, so it can really be broken down to wanting a relationship, or not wanting one.

Personal choice, in my opinion.

---

.:.

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

I think "being romanced" is one way a person can feel validated. If you're being validated (i.e., feeling important, worthy, having purpose, etc) by others in other ways, or if you can produce this feeling for yourself, than romance isn't that big of a deal. I think our culture (a la Hollywood movies and so on) promotes being validated romantically almost as if it's the only way to be a fulfilled person--but I see many people in this group would laugh at that.

I love the intimate friendships I have right now. They make me feel fulfilled. I don't see what romance could give me that I don't already have. So I would say that I am not opposed to relationships, I just don't feel the need to pursue romance.

That's an answer, right?

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Great! That was helpful. I think contractual vs casual sum it up better for me that active vs passive because I'm quite active (i.e., get involved and make things happen) in casual relationships. The problem is that many contractual/active relationships start as casual/passive. And a person involved in an casual/passive relationship may "see signs" or think there are implicit elements of the other kind of relationship developing. So, what do you do? Do you wait until this might happen and then say "Whoa, hey, that's not what I want." Or do you say from the beginning what you don't want at the very beginning?

For me, the problem with saying it a the beginning is it makes you both feel awkward. Tt makes me look weird or all-important, as if I assumed this person would think of me romantically. I think it would also hurt an early friendship because even though some of my friends start out thinking that maybe we'll be romantically involve ended up getting to know me a lot better and we were able to create great friendships. For some of my friends, if I were to say I'm not sexual from the beginning or that I don't want to become a couple with that person, I probably wouldn't have become friends with them.

Does anyone have any good strategies for this?

I think I've got an idea of what you're saying, even though I've never been "coupled." It seems like it's a critique of dating and monogomy (which I wholeheartedly agree with.) All for intimate relationships, but not for ones that become intimate in a limiting way. Here's a distinction I used a while ago when talking about relationships, I'll dust it off and see if it fits here:

You can talk about two types of relationships, "active" and "passive."

A passive relationship is what we think of as a platonic friendship. There people form relationships based on experience. They're relationships are about doing things together: dancing, hanging out, talking, whatever. After two or more people have done enough stuff together they become comfortable around one another, and consider each other friends. The relationship sort of passively builds up based on common interaction.

Then there are active relationships, which are closer to dating. In an active relationship, people consciously set out to form a relationship with one another. They set the relationships apart from others, consciously invest energy in building the relationship, and form an collective expectation of what the relationship will grow into.

All relationships are some mix of these two, and each extreme has it's benefits. Active relationships tend to form faster, and because the people in them are focusing on what's going on emotionally they tend to be more emotional. They're also depenent (in some way) on expectations and contracts, which can make them more limiting and more devistating. In an active relationship the "project" of building/maintianing the relationship is either "on" or "off", relationships are either "together" or "not", there is little middle ground. By contrast passive relationships tend to grow and shrink as they are given reason to. Where active relationships base their trust on commitement passive relationships rely on a high level of familiarity.

Hope the concept's useful..

On 14 Jun 2002, rob-fisch said:

okay, i'll try to expand on this concept a bit. to really appreciate the state of "uncouplehood" i think one had to previously be in a state of couplehood. sometimes a euphoria could arise after a relationship breakup, as you feel independent and on your own again. of course, it often depends which side of the breakup you were on. nonetheless, for those that have experienced that feeling, i suggest to capture that euphoria and extended it over a longer duration in your life--to enjoy that sudden availability of personal time and to not to give it up so freely again.

being in a state of uncoupleness doesn't mean that you don't have friends, or even many close friends! it just means you're not one-half of a couple. a couplehood is when two people are "going out" or dating or married; couplehood is when you're someone's boyfriend or girlfriend. In couplehood, you have a "significant other" and in most cases, in my opinion, you tend to validate yourself somewhat through that other person. (if you're a guy dating a girl, other girls perceive you a little --or a lot-- differently.) In couplehood, you may shift your concerns (as you perhaps should) to your significant other. You "care" for the other person. You're considerate to that other person's feelings, you do almost everything together, and you compromise a lot. I'm not saying that's bad. it's VERY good. nonetheless, it's not for everyone. not everyone needs someone else to feel whole. not everyone needs to have children in order to feel self-worth. Many people find themselves in a relationship in which they start losing their personal identity. And those disparate personal identities were the freshness and difference that once made things novel, exciting, attractive, interesting, etc.

all right, i don't want to go on in too much detail because i want to explore this concept with others as I'm starting to myself. To make it perfectly clear: I'm not saying any one thing is wrong or bad for everyone. It is, however, wrong or bad for some people at certain times in their life. Yes, this is true for me but I'm sure others currently feel the same way about themselves.

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/

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

My free webcam is up guys - http://jamie.z3z.net I have pics in the yahoo club section too..

.._.¨¨¯¯¯._.¨¨ .._.¸¸ ¹²³._. -¹²³.

Wow... what a definition of intimacy. You love your friends deeply? Gosh I sure don't. I like 'em plenty, I get along with them, and have things in common. But I know, as they've all shown, one day, they WILL (and have) move on, and it will be like I never existed. This is the nature of "just friends". But Deep love? Not even close. I'd be married had I felt that way. ;) (Which then, I suppose, would have qualified me as gay) :p In fact I've never met anyone that met the emotional criterion for marriage anyway, forget the physical component. Of course the very fact that I'm saying things like "emotional criterion" probably means that people might be right when they tell me I think too much and won't have a relationship until I learn to feel rather than analyze... Sex might be out of the question for me just because I think one is supposed to just lose oneself in the act and the moment. I can't do that. I'd always be aware, always be calculating my options, planning my next move in my head, analyzing the situation and its possible consequences, etc. That's what just goes on naturally and comfortably. But it doesn't sound like someone lost in passion.

Hm... my definitions of "intimacy" and "love" don't seem to agree with most other people on this group? I dunno. I kind of adapted the words to fit me, so they probably aren't entirely usual-usage.

To me, "intimacy" is a state of being completely yourself around someone, never having to fear about them hating you or changing their mind about you on a whim. They love you deeply, and you love them. You can share everything with them, anything you're able to share with yourself, and you trust them with your life. They mean the world to you and you mean the world to them. My sister has always been the person I am closest to - we aren't actually twins, but the whole "twin bond" that is supposedly shared by real twins could almost be used to describe just how close we are. She doesn't know EVERYTHING about me, and I don't know EVERYTHING about her, but it's pretty damn close. My other friends, the really close ones, are like other brothers and sisters. I love them. I trust them. I do both of these to a point that extends beyond normal friendship, but I feel no sexual or "romantic" attraction to them.

This is why the idea of a romantic relationship is so alien to me. Sure, I've tried it. Bad things came of it, but I don't blame those on the fact that it was a relationship, I just made some poor choices. A large part of the problem in the relationship was that he was controlling and wanted me to put him above everyone else, and I couldn't do that. My sister and my very close friends still held priority. The idea of making one person, someone who is relatively new in your life, more important than the people who have more claim to your love - I don't understand why that's desirable. Why share so closely with only one person if you can share equally closely with multiple people? This is, of course, taking sex out of the equation, because I do.

There. I think I clarified things... ask away if I didn't, or if I sound stupid...

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

I go to a college chock full of sexual people who analyze everything, so I question whether passion is really a key issue.

I don't see why the fact that someone will move on is a deterant for the relationship. It's true of the vast mojority of monogomous relationships, and NOTHING is permanent anyway, so why get hung up on it?

So is it just that you haven't developed close meaningful friendships YET, or you don't see friendships as a way to develope intimacy? If so then how do you propose to develope it? I think it somewhat stringent to say that the emotional criterion for marriage must be present before a state of intimacy can be declared (how's THAT for analytical?)

-D Laz

Wow... what a definition of intimacy. You love your friends deeply? Gosh I sure don't. I like 'em plenty, I get along with them, and have things in common. But I know, as they've all shown, one day, they WILL (and have) move on, and it will be like I never existed. This is the nature of "just friends". But Deep love? Not even close. I'd be married had I felt that way. ;) (Which then, I suppose, would have qualified me as gay) :p In fact I've never met anyone that met the emotional criterion for marriage anyway, forget the physical component. Of course the very fact that I'm saying things like "emotional criterion" probably means that people might be right when they tell me I think too much and won't have a relationship until I learn to feel rather than analyze... Sex might be out of the question for me just because I think one is supposed to just lose oneself in the act and the moment. I can't do that. I'd always be aware, always be calculating my options, planning my next move in my head, analyzing the situation and its possible consequences, etc. That's what just goes on naturally and comfortably. But it doesn't sound like someone lost in passion.

Lauren Liebowitz said:

Hm... my definitions of "intimacy" and "love" don't seem to agree with most other people on this group? I dunno. I kind of adapted the words to fit me, so they probably aren't entirely usual-usage.

To me, "intimacy" is a state of being completely yourself around someone, never having to fear about them hating you or changing their mind about you on a whim. They love you deeply, and you love them. You can share everything with them, anything you're able to share with yourself, and you trust them with your life. They mean the world to you and you mean the world to them. My sister has always been the person I am closest to - we aren't actually twins, but the whole "twin bond" that is supposedly shared by real twins could almost be used to describe just how close we are. She doesn't know EVERYTHING about me, and I don't know EVERYTHING about her, but it's pretty damn close. My other friends, the really close ones, are like other brothers and sisters. I love them. I trust them. I do both of these to a point that extends beyond normal friendship, but I feel no sexual or "romantic" attraction to them.

This is why the idea of a romantic relationship is so alien to me. Sure, I've tried it. Bad things came of it, but I don't blame those on the fact that it was a relationship, I just made some poor choices. A large part of the problem in the relationship was that he was controlling and wanted me to put him above everyone else, and I couldn't do that. My sister and my very close friends still held priority. The idea of making one person, someone who is relatively new in your life, more important than the people who have more claim to your love - I don't understand why that's desirable. Why share so closely with only one person if you can share equally closely with multiple people? This is, of course, taking sex out of the equation, because I do.

There. I think I clarified things... ask away if I didn't, or if I sound stupid...

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

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

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/

Yeah, that's true, you've got to have hte right emotional makeup with a person already in place, the sort of thing that, in technical terms, resembles marriage requirements, before there's intimacy. I'd never be a one-night stand person, in any case. Of course, I also don't think sex is in any way a requirement for marriage, and I think it'd be wonderful to be newly married (the marriage night) and know that sex wasn't going to happen and wasn't required for happiness. No pressure... society sure isn't going to tell me how to have a relationship. Now, even though I'm not after sex, it seems that men are unable to meet my technical for marriage even on an emotional level, and since my friends tend to be male, no intimacy. I suppose a lot of asexuals feel that way about both sexes?

I go to a college chock full of sexual people who analyze everything, so I question whether passion is really a key issue.

I don't see why the fact that someone will move on is a deterant for the relationship. It's true of the vast mojority of monogomous relationships, and NOTHING is permanent anyway, so why get hung up on it?

So is it just that you haven't developed close meaningful friendships YET, or you don't see friendships as a way to develope intimacy? If so then how do you propose to develope it? I think it somewhat stringent to say that the emotional criterion for marriage must be present before a state of intimacy can be declared (how's THAT for analytical?)

-D Laz

Wow... what a definition of intimacy. You love your friends deeply? Gosh I sure don't. I like 'em plenty, I get along with them, and have things in common. But I know, as they've all shown, one day, they WILL (and have) move on, and it will be like I never existed. This is the nature of "just friends". But Deep love? Not even close. I'd be married had I felt that way. ;) (Which then, I suppose, would have qualified me as gay) :p In fact I've never met anyone that met the emotional criterion for marriage anyway, forget the physical component. Of course the very fact that I'm saying things like "emotional criterion" probably means that people might be right when they tell me I think too much and won't have a relationship until I learn to feel rather than analyze... Sex might be out of the question for me just because I think one is supposed to just lose oneself in the act and the moment. I can't do that. I'd always be aware, always be calculating my options, planning my next move in my head, analyzing the situation and its possible consequences, etc. That's what just goes on naturally and comfortably. But it doesn't sound like someone lost in passion.

Lauren Liebowitz said:

Hm... my definitions of "intimacy" and "love" don't seem to agree with most other people on this group? I dunno. I kind of adapted the words to fit me, so they probably aren't entirely usual-usage.

To me, "intimacy" is a state of being completely yourself around someone, never having to fear about them hating you or changing their mind about you on a whim. They love you deeply, and you love them. You can share everything with them, anything you're able to share with yourself, and you trust them with your life. They mean the world to you and you mean the world to them. My sister has always been the person I am closest to - we aren't actually twins, but the whole "twin bond" that is supposedly shared by real twins could almost be used to describe just how close we are. She doesn't know EVERYTHING about me, and I don't know EVERYTHING about her, but it's pretty damn close. My other friends, the really close ones, are like other brothers and sisters. I love them. I trust them. I do both of these to a point that extends beyond normal friendship, but I feel no sexual or "romantic" attraction to them.

This is why the idea of a romantic relationship is so alien to me. Sure, I've tried it. Bad things came of it, but I don't blame those on the fact that it was a relationship, I just made some poor choices. A large part of the problem in the relationship was that he was controlling and wanted me to put him above everyone else, and I couldn't do that. My sister and my very close friends still held priority. The idea of making one person, someone who is relatively new in your life, more important than the people who have more claim to your love - I don't understand why that's desirable. Why share so closely with only one person if you can share equally closely with multiple people? This is, of course, taking sex out of the equation, because I do.

There. I think I clarified things... ask away if I didn't, or if I sound stupid...

-Selie

---

http://www.bengoodman.com/selie/ ~~AROH~~

"And when you draw your number, Remember, Remember when we wondered what would be When we grew up? And you didn't say Someone Lost, And I didn't say Someone Frail, And we watched the sun seep into the sky, Knowing that the next day, The next day, There'd still be one." -- from "Lauren's Poem" (Kristin Chirico, a friend)

---

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

------------------------ 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/

So is asexuality (or whatever one calls it) a bad thing or good thing for everyone here? I'm guessing most people are indeed pleased or at least ok with not being interested in sex. I'd have to agree, I think it is a sort of liberation. My only regrets are that most basically that many asexual women are as uninterested in love and monogamous relationships as they are in sex. (No offense to anyone here who doesn't fit that description). It seems that, even in asexuality, sex and marriage are still seen as related in many cases. But, just speaking for myself alone, I am not bothered by the low opinion I have of sex. Anyone here feel differently?

Good in my book. On the love/monogomy thing..

First off, why the focus on asexual women? Why do people's urinal apparati matter here? Second, if I were you I wouldn't jump to equating love with monogomy. It seems like most women here want the former, in some form or another (and many also want the latter.) I know that monogomy's a shaky concept for me, but I feel like I can by fine without it. There's nothing inherint to mongomy that I need, everything (emotion, support, stability) can be gotten other ways, and often times gotten better. I can form close relationships with people without having to officially declare them as such, and I can trust that my friends will be there for me because of the bonds I feel with them, not because of some vague and often times limiting promise that they made me.

So is asexuality (or whatever one calls it) a bad thing or good thing for everyone here? I'm guessing most people are indeed pleased or at least ok with not being interested in sex. I'd have to agree, I think it is a sort of liberation. My only regrets are that most basically that many asexual women are as uninterested in love and monogamous relationships as they are in sex. (No offense to anyone here who doesn't fit that description). It seems that, even in asexuality, sex and marriage are still seen as related in many cases. But, just speaking for myself alone, I am not bothered by the low opinion I have of sex. Anyone here feel differently?

Why limit to women? Who knows, but that is the way it is (in my case at least). Who knows why anyone has their particular preferences or lack thereof? some odd aspect of nature or psychology or philosophy no doubt. I know I don't need sex for love. But I know that I don't "love" men either, as is in "in love". The emotional bond is simply not there. Never higher than simple comradery. For whatever reason, however, that bond is, or rather, can be there for me, in regards to women, on an emotional and intellectual level (without ever becoming something that needs to include sex in the mix). I think I identified myself as "straight asexual" a while back, and that pretty much sums it up. Anyone else here associate as not just asexual, but rather as "straight/gay/lesbian asexual"? I don't think its too odd a concept, since there's plenty that, for instance, straight people of opposite genders enjoy in each other that they don't with the same sex (outside of sex). Even just a hug... it can be a big difference. Why? Who knows. For once, I'm not analyzing. Well. Unless this whole mess of a post counts as analyzing. ;)

Good in my book. On the love/monogomy thing..

First off, why the focus on asexual women? Why do people's urinal apparati matter here? Second, if I were you I wouldn't jump to equating love with monogomy. It seems like most women here want the former, in some form or another (and many also want the latter.) I know that monogomy's a shaky concept for me, but I feel like I can by fine without it. There's nothing inherint to mongomy that I need, everything (emotion, support, stability) can be gotten other ways, and often times gotten better. I can form close relationships with people without having to officially declare them as such, and I can trust that my friends will be there for me because of the bonds I feel with them, not because of some vague and often times limiting promise that they made me.

So is asexuality (or whatever one calls it) a bad thing or good thing for everyone here? I'm guessing most people are indeed pleased or at least ok with not being interested in sex. I'd have to agree, I think it is a sort of liberation. My only regrets are that most basically that many asexual women are as uninterested in love and monogamous relationships as they are in sex. (No offense to anyone here who doesn't fit that description). It seems that, even in asexuality, sex and marriage are still seen as related in many cases. But, just speaking for myself alone, I am not bothered by the low opinion I have of sex. Anyone here feel differently?

Why limit to women?

This brings up an interesting point that has been touched upon lightly in the past. It seems that most of us *do* in fact use a tangent label along with the asexual label to characterize our tendencies.

I have used the term straight asexual with myself, but I'm not sure if that is accurate. I do not think that I would have any problems being intimate with a man. The reason I use 'straight' is because my tendency is towards women. This likely doesn't have to do with much, except for the fact that I have yet to physically meet a man that I can be comfortable with. I seem to be much more naturally inclined to the female's mind-set. I just get along with them better.

Since sex related things are not really in my equation anymore, "getting along with" becomes much more important. Not in that it wasn't ever, but in that there is absolutely no fall-back. If I don't get along with someone, there is little reason for me to be around them on a friendly basis.

I do fully believe that if I found a man who understood me, and vice versa, I could have an intimate (or whatever word you prefer for a strong, deeply personal friendship) asexual relationship with him. It just has yet to happen. So perhaps I should use an aBisexual tag.

All of this being said, I'm in no rush to actually find a "companion." It is just a notion, really. I am content being single, I always have been.

So is asexuality (or whatever one calls it) a bad thing or good thing for everyone here? I'm guessing most people are indeed pleased or at least ok with not being interested in sex.

I think that I would seperate it into two bits. The realization, or concept of asexuality is a decidedly good thing for me. Especially when I first came across the community and realized I wasn't a "malfunction." On the other hand, is the actual asexuality a good thing? I'm not sure. There seems to be pros and cons. On the positive side, I can dispense with a lot of things that other people couldn't dispense with, and I can dispense with them *easily.* One who has chosen lifelong celibacy typically has to struggle with it, sometimes their whole lives. The benefits of being celibate are there, but without the effort. This is a wonderful thing. The negatives still exist though. Feeling distanced from sexuals, especially when the majority of their discussions revolve around sex, the massively increased difficulty in finding a companion; these things are complications -- which fortunately I do not bump into frequently. From time to time they do come up though.

I think, on the whole, it is a positive for me.

.:.

Yes, this is a good point. I've also wondered if the people on this list feel like they "gave up" sexuality (for various reasons) or because they "never had" it (for various reasons). The former would be, as examples, someone just being sick of it or perhaps a medical condition or an amazing awakening. The latter would be, for examples, sex never appealed to them or it never made sense or it's not possible for religous or physical/psychological reasons.

Also, being asexual is about no sex, right? Seems like some people's posts here are trying to not even acknowledge "gender" ...being like an "agender" person or something. -Rob

So is asexuality (or whatever one calls it) a bad thing or good thing for everyone here? I'm guessing most people are indeed pleased or at least ok with not being interested in sex. I'd have to agree, I think it is a sort of liberation. My only regrets are that most basically that many asexual women are as uninterested in love and monogamous relationships as they are in sex. (No offense to anyone here who doesn't fit that description). It seems that, even in asexuality, sex and marriage are still seen as related in many cases. But, just speaking for myself alone, I am not bothered by the low opinion I have of sex. Anyone here feel differently?

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

I think in sexuals it has more to do with being sexually aroused by particular gender characteristics. For us, I'd say that gender preference is just that, not really an inate orientation, but a compatability with the socially constructed characteristics of a particular gender. Would you, say, be able to love an effeminate man? What about an emmasculate woman? I know that I get along better with girls in general, but still have some extremely rewarding male friendships. All I'm saying is that it's a limiting distinction to make, even if there's a statistical trend. -DJ

Why limit to women? Who knows, but that is the way it is (in my case at least). Who knows why anyone has their particular preferences or lack thereof? some odd aspect of nature or psychology or philosophy no doubt. I know I don't need sex for love. But I know that I don't "love" men either, as is in "in love". The emotional bond is simply not there. Never higher than simple comradery. For whatever reason, however, that bond is, or rather, can be there for me, in regards to women, on an emotional and intellectual level (without ever becoming something that needs to include sex in the mix). I think I identified myself as "straight asexual" a while back, and that pretty much sums it up. Anyone else here associate as not just asexual, but rather as "straight/gay/lesbian asexual"? I don't think its too odd a concept, since there's plenty that, for instance, straight people of opposite genders enjoy in each other that they don't with the same sex (outside of sex). Even just a hug... it can be a big difference. Why? Who knows. For once, I'm not analyzing. Well. Unless this whole mess of a post counts as analyzing. ;)

djay@w... said:

Good in my book. On the love/monogomy thing..

First off, why the focus on asexual women? Why do people's urinal apparati matter here? Second, if I were you I wouldn't jump to equating love with monogomy. It seems like most women here want the former, in some form or another (and many also want the latter.) I know that monogomy's a shaky concept for me, but I feel like I can by fine without it. There's nothing inherint to mongomy that I need, everything (emotion, support, stability) can be gotten other ways, and often times gotten better. I can form close relationships with people without having to officially declare them as such, and I can trust that my friends will be there for me because of the bonds I feel with them, not because of some vague and often times limiting promise that they made me.

So is asexuality (or whatever one calls it) a bad thing or good thing for everyone here? I'm guessing most people are indeed pleased or at least ok with not being interested in sex. I'd have to agree, I think it is a sort of liberation. My only regrets are that most basically that many asexual women are as uninterested in love and monogamous relationships as they are in sex. (No offense to anyone here who doesn't fit that description). It seems that, even in asexuality, sex and marriage are still seen as related in many cases. But, just speaking for myself alone, I am not bothered by the low opinion I have of sex. Anyone here feel differently?

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

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/

Why limit to women?

This brings up an interesting point that has been touched upon lightly in the past. It seems that most of us *do* in fact use a tangent label along with the asexual label to characterize our tendencies.

I have used the term straight asexual with myself, but I'm not sure if that is accurate. I do not think that I would have any problems being intimate with a man. The reason I use 'straight' is because my tendency is towards women. This likely doesn't have to do with much, except for the fact that I have yet to physically meet a man that I can be comfortable with. I seem to be much more naturally inclined to the female's mind-set. I just get along with them better.

Do you think this is comprable more to someone who's sexual orientation is straight, or (to be archetypical) to the straight girl who spends all of her time hanging out around gay guys? I generally get along with girls better, but not to the point that I feel oriented toward them (not to say that you're not..)

Since sex related things are not really in my equation anymore, "getting along with" becomes much more important.

Maybe we just realize how important it is. It's hrader to get along without it.

I think that I would seperate it into two bits. The realization, or concept of asexuality is a decidedly good thing for me. Especially when I first came across the community and realized I wasn't a "malfunction."

On the other hand, is the actual asexuality a good thing? I'm not sure. There seems to be pros and cons. On the positive side, I can dispense with a lot of things that other people couldn't dispense with, and I can dispense with them *easily.* One who has chosen lifelong celibacy typically has to struggle with it, sometimes their whole lives. The benefits of being celibate are there, but without the effort.

Not all of them. I'd say that celibates get a genuine sort of spiritual insight from teh for them difficult task of redirecting their sexuality.

This is a wonderful thing. The negatives still exist though. Feeling distanced from sexuals, especially when the majority of their discussions revolve around sex,

I realized recently that I actually LIKE alot of discussions around sex. That's because so many of them aren't about sex itself, but all of the social stuff around it (which I find fascinating.)

the massively increased difficulty in finding a companion; these things are complications -- which fortunately I do not bump into frequently. From time to time they do come up though. I think, on the whole, it is a positive for me.

.:.

What's the quote? "Being black is wonderful. Being black in america is an inconvenience." -Fredrick Douglass

I must be a rare bird then because I am interested in love and a monogamous relationship without sex. As for asexuality, it's definitely a GOOD thing! Sex and marriage are not always related for there are celibate marriages out there.

So is asexuality (or whatever one calls it) a bad thing or good thing for everyone here? I'm guessing most people are indeed pleased or at least ok with not being interested in sex. I'd have to agree, I think it is a sort of liberation. My only regrets are that most basically that many asexual women are as uninterested in love and monogamous relationships as they are in sex. (No offense to anyone here who doesn't fit that description). It seems that, even in asexuality, sex and marriage are still seen as related in many cases. But, just speaking for myself alone, I am not bothered by the low opinion I have of sex. Anyone here feel differently?