Haven for the Human Amoeba

I think that we are acknowledging gender here. And as for labels, I would probably be a straight asexual as well, for I get along better with men than women, however I also get along okay with women so maybe I should be a bisexual-asexual

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

steven_n_g said:

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

On the asexual monogomy thing (I know I've said this a million times), but has anyone gotten this to work? How? What does it look like? Does this require "asking people out" asexually?

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.

steven_n_g said:

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?

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/

Nope, I've never (to my knowledge) known asexual women in person. Not like I'm going to go around just asking either. Still, I don't see why asexual monogamy _can't_ work. All I'd need is the "right woman" with a philosophy like or close to mine. *shrug* I've got no problem with asexual monogamy, and see no difficulties in it (well, I mean, its probably easier than sexual monogamy). And despite being uninterested in the sex act, I'm not without my sexuality, interests, preferences, etc. It just doens't have to be expressed with the same 'ol sex. I'm still quite in favor of affection and closeness, for instance. So I've been thinking about it, and perhaps I'm probably more like celibate (I think, at least, its philosophical, and either not at all or only moderately related to hormones or psychology). I don't feel much like an amoeba, really. ;)

On the asexual monogomy thing (I know I've said this a million times), but has anyone gotten this to work? How? What does it look like? Does this require "asking people out" asexually?

On 21 Jun 2002, athenayu9 said:

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.

steven_n_g said:

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?

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 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..)

I am almost sure that it is not only comperable, but linked. With my personality, I just don't have a lot in common with *most* men, so I tend to seek out female friends if given the choice. That isn't to say that I've never met a male that I cannot gel with, it is just my tendancy because the percentage is so small (we are talking maybe two guys that I have met in my *entire* life that I can get along with on a consistent basis.)

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.

True to a degree. I believe it is quite important to most relationships, but I would say that it is in general more important *in our context*, because there is little or no cushion around it.

...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.

Yes, which is why I used the key words: 'typically' and 'sometimes.'

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.)

Ah, unfortunately I have little interest in social things of that magnitude. Larger issues, I have a vast interest in, but interpersonal mechanics is something I tend to yawn over.

.:.

Nah, now that's being silly. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to call oneself a "bisexual-asexual" (or even a "straight-asexual") simply because it's a contradiction of terms. The "sexual" part of both words in "bisexual-asexual" must mean different things or it must signify an inherent confliction--which may be the main point.

Seems like people are associating the first part (bisexual- or straight-) with an orientation or desire but then associating the second part (-asexual) with a condition of fact that they are not having sex.

Just "getting along better" or "identifying better with" a certain gender doesn't make you straight or gay. Being able to make close friends with both genders doesn't make you bisexual. We need to clarify this. If you qualify yourself as a "straight-asexual", you must being saying you're living a conflicted life.

I think that we are acknowledging gender here. And as for labels, I would probably be a straight asexual as well, for I get along better with men than women, however I also get along okay with women so maybe I should be a bisexual-asexual

Rob Fisch said:

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

steven_n_g said:

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

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

Nah, now that's being silly. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to call oneself a "bisexual-asexual" (or even a "straight-asexual") simply because it's a contradiction of terms. The "sexual" part of both words in "bisexual-asexual" must mean different things or it must signify an inherent confliction--which may be the main point.

Seems like people are associating the first part (bisexual- or straight-) with an orientation or desire but then associating the second part (-asexual) with a condition of fact that they are not having sex.

Just "getting along better" or "identifying better with" a certain gender doesn't make you straight or gay. Being able to make close friends with both genders doesn't make you bisexual. We need to clarify this. If you qualify yourself as a "straight-asexual", you must being saying you're living a conflicted life.

I'd have to disagree that asexual straight is a contradiction, but then it depends on how you're defining asexual. By asexual I mean I'm not having sex, and not really interested in it. But there's more to even a physical attraction (and certainly an emotional one) than just having sex. By straight, I feel a sort of attraction, bond, and potentially love for a theoretical woman that I can't feel with a man... I'll never be "in love" with a man, and I'm never going to think a man has anything special about their appearance, and I'm never going to be stunned by the beautiful personality and "completeness" I feel with a guy. One can be physically and/or emotionally attracted to another and still not feel like expressing it sexually. That's a good example of straight asexual. But then, I also think its posisble to have sex without the sex. (heh, don't know if anyone is even going to know what I mean by that)

athenayu9 said:

I think that we are acknowledging gender here. And as for labels, I would probably be a straight asexual as well, for I get along better with men than women, however I also get along okay with women so maybe I should be a bisexual-asexual

Rob Fisch said:

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

steven_n_g said:

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

---

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

...and sex all but disappears in most marriages anyway as it moreso becomes an obligation of being a parent and breadwinner/housekeeper. It's not unusual for a "straight couple" to not have sex for months or years at a time, after many years of marriage. The relationship becomes defined by non-sex realities--paying the bills and caring for the kids. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is simply because of hard realities and priorities. Sex loses it's priority status after "doing it" with your partner 1,000 times.

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.

steven_n_g said:

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

Nah, now that's being silly. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to call oneself a "bisexual-asexual" (or even a "straight-asexual") simply because it's a contradiction of terms. The "sexual" part of both words in "bisexual-asexual" must mean different things or it must signify an inherent confliction--which may be the main point.

Just "getting along better" or "identifying better with" a certain gender doesn't make you straight or gay. Being able to make close friends with both genders doesn't make you bisexual. We need to clarify this. If you qualify yourself as a "straight-asexual", you must being saying you're living a conflicted life.

Till now, I thought I was/am oriented towards women, but "lesbian" isn't a good word for me, because I find it a word with a sexual implication, which isn't true for me. I thought I was oriented towards women, because most of my close friendships are with women. I feel closer to women, feel more emotionally-linked, mostly find it easier to talk to women, have more things in common with women ... (I can continue for a while ...). But, my first opinion was: so I'm a lesbian (although this isn't a good word for me).

But, more and more, I start doubting this. I'm not questioning my feelings of more closeness to women, but I am doubting whether this means that I'm a lesbian. More and more, the thought comes that, only on the pure physical level, meaning finding someone beautiful (their body), I'm maybe oriented to men. But emotionally, friendshiply, I'm oriented to women. And, I don't want to have a sexual relationship ... Maybe, I feel more at ease with women, just because I "know" that nothing sexual is going to happen - because I'm NOT a lesbian ...

Besides, what does define your orientation? To whom you feel romantically attracted? In that case, I am a REAL 100% asexual, since I don't feel attracted to anyone on a romantical level.

On Friday 21 June 2002 07:43, Rob Fisch wrote:

...and sex all but disappears in most marriages anyway as it moreso becomes an obligation of being a parent and breadwinner/housekeeper.

Ah, but if questioned, very *few* of those individuals would state that such a situation was something satisfactory for them; something they were content with.

Not to mention the fact that many of these people turn to other forms of sexual gratification. Everything from prostitutes to neighbors, and in most cases they do not do it because of a lack of *love* for their partner, it is an extension of their love, just aimed in the wrong direction. So in a nebulous way, these affairs become entwined in the base relationship, and not something seperate from it. So you could draw from this that sex is still an important item in the relationship, it has just migrated.

.:.

I think someone else said something like this too... but I don't think how well one becomes friends with a particular gender has anything to do with orientation. Its "just friends". I'd like to think that, even without sex, "relationship love" is far beyond friendship. I've _only_ got male friends. I'm definetely not in any way "orientated" toward men. I can't fall in love with them, don't desire to live monogamously with them.

Rob Fisch said:

Nah, now that's being silly. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to call oneself a "bisexual-asexual" (or even a "straight-asexual") simply because it's a contradiction of terms. The "sexual" part of both words in "bisexual-asexual" must mean different things or it must signify an inherent confliction--which may be the main point.

Just "getting along better" or "identifying better with" a certain gender doesn't make you straight or gay. Being able to make close friends with both genders doesn't make you bisexual. We need to clarify this. If you qualify yourself as a "straight-asexual", you must being saying you're living a conflicted life.

Till now, I thought I was/am oriented towards women, but "lesbian" isn't a good word for me, because I find it a word with a sexual implication, which isn't true for me. I thought I was oriented towards women, because most of my close friendships are with women. I feel closer to women, feel more emotionally-linked, mostly find it easier to talk to women, have more things in common with women ... (I can continue for a while ...). But, my first opinion was: so I'm a lesbian (although this isn't a good word for me).

But, more and more, I start doubting this. I'm not questioning my feelings of more closeness to women, but I am doubting whether this means that I'm a lesbian. More and more, the thought comes that, only on the pure physical level, meaning finding someone beautiful (their body), I'm maybe oriented to men. But emotionally, friendshiply, I'm oriented to women. And, I don't want to have a sexual relationship ... Maybe, I feel more at ease with women, just because I "know" that nothing sexual is going to happen - because I'm NOT a lesbian ...

Besides, what does define your orientation? To whom you feel romantically attracted? In that case, I am a REAL 100% asexual, since I don't feel attracted to anyone on a romantical level.

I recently taken an interest in polyamory and find these discussion about asexual monogamy and assertive relationships. Essentially it advocates that monogamy is an inadequate way of dealing with jealousy and insecurity in a fragmented society. Many people here assert that dating (even in an asexual sense) is a more assertive relationship than friendship. The question then is: would anyone consider maintaining several assertive relationships at a time? (Does this make any sense?)

--Nothing

My first glance response would be that I'd prefer monogamy. I have to further consider, however, whether or not that first thought was thinking of sexual monogamy. If it had been that I were looking for a purely sexual relationship, or one centered heavily on sex, I've little doubt that it would need to be monogamous to have any duration. Polyamorous asexual relationships? I'd have to consider, actually, poly-fidelitous... (I mean, like a faithful monogamous relationship, merely with a number higher than 2). And I'm straight, so asexual or not, I don't know how well I'd feel about other men involved. I'd need to feel that each person was "the right one" to feel right about it. And that means each person would have had to have somehow transcended "mere" friendship, gone somehow to another level of intimacy. Basically, it seems, its nearly all the same basic rules for picking a monogamous partner. But monogamy (that is, finding even one "right one" is hard enough. I don't quite see running into several "asexual soulmates" anytime soon.

I recently taken an interest in polyamory and find these discussion about asexual monogamy and assertive relationships. Essentially it advocates that monogamy is an inadequate way of dealing with jealousy and insecurity in a fragmented society. Many people here assert that dating (even in an asexual sense) is a more assertive relationship than friendship. The question then is: would anyone consider maintaining several assertive relationships at a time? (Does this make any sense?)

--Nothing

I'm not trying to look for a general "rule" like "all asexuals are ...", but I was asking myself whether others in this group have a clearly defined (for yourself) gender identity (and what that is).

I personally find this a difficult one. I am a woman (biologically), and have a "tomboy-look". I don't like talking about myself as a woman. But, since I have a tomboy-look, sometimes people make a mistake (as long as I haven't said anything) and think I am a man (mostly in winter - in summer, there aren't a lot of mistakes); I don't like that either ...

So, my question about genderidentity ... Woman, man, hermafrodite (mentally), transgender, androgyn, gynandric, ...? I think androgyn or gynandric are good words for me, and I sometimes wonder whether there is a link with asexuality is and if yes, what it is ...

I'm so amazingly girly. I get told this quite often. I really couldn't pass as a man, either physically or with personality. I have some uncharacteristic tastes and characteristics (I like video games, and fighting games are very fun; read comic books; like action movies) but I also like the stereotypical fluffy pink things. I get along really well with kids, but it isn't at all a maternal feeling - it's just that I identify really well with them, for whatever reason. I am kind of like the mother figure for my group of friends, though. I'm a pacifist, which I think is a trait generally attributed to women...

Yeah. I'm a girly-girl with the odd tomboy tendency. ^^

-Selie

http://meteo.rydia.net/AROH/ ~~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

Hello fellow asexuals!

I've been lurking for a while but decided to join in as this is an issue I've thought quite a lot about. I've never felt very `in touch' with my gender – since being a small child I have always rejected typically girly things (pink frilly dresses etc.) and been attracted to the idea of androgyny. I hated all that puberty nonsense and had wishful fantasies about people just being disembodied brains communicating only on an emotional/intellectual level (in fact, the idea still seems quite appealing!). Recently I've made more effort with my appearance owing to having a proper job, but I still feel it's not really me and get incredibly bored with conversations about clothes, make-up, perceived physical imperfections etc. Flicking through Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus in a bored moment I realised I had just as many of the `male' characteristics as the `female' (OK, I know John Gray is not an infallible guide to these things, but it's still interesting).

Obviously all this is inseparably connected with my asexuality; it's so difficult to disentangle sexual from socio-cultural influences, but there does seem to be a fundamental link between our sexual and social selves – like little boys who turn out to be gay preferring to play with dolls rather than soldiers. I know this is all a horrendous generalisation and there are lots of people who don't fit this stereotype at all – macho gays and girly asexuals for example! What do other people think?

I'm plenty male, and I don't think I'm at all feminine... though I'm accepting of those who vary from the norm (even, perhaps, sometimes prefer those who vary from the norm). I wonder though if asexuality more likely has its beginnings early in life, or is just something that "doesn't happen" at puberty as it would with the majority?

Hello fellow asexuals!

I've been lurking for a while but decided to join in as this is an issue I've thought quite a lot about. I've never felt very `in touch' with my gender – since being a small child I have always rejected typically girly things (pink frilly dresses etc.) and been attracted to the idea of androgyny. I hated all that puberty nonsense and had wishful fantasies about people just being disembodied brains communicating only on an emotional/intellectual level (in fact, the idea still seems quite appealing!). Recently I've made more effort with my appearance owing to having a proper job, but I still feel it's not really me and get incredibly bored with conversations about clothes, make-up, perceived physical imperfections etc. Flicking through Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus in a bored moment I realised I had just as many of the `male' characteristics as the `female' (OK, I know John Gray is not an infallible guide to these things, but it's still interesting).

Obviously all this is inseparably connected with my asexuality; it's so difficult to disentangle sexual from socio-cultural influences, but there does seem to be a fundamental link between our sexual and social selves – like little boys who turn out to be gay preferring to play with dolls rather than soldiers. I know this is all a horrendous generalisation and there are lots of people who don't fit this stereotype at all – macho gays and girly asexuals for example! What do other people think?

I'm pretty male on the whole but I definitely have some girly characteristics. For me the male/female binary isn't really that useful, I've definitely been influenced by it but it's not that relevant a map. For me the connection (or at least part of it) is that I don't have to stress over my gender identity the way that (mostly striaght) people do. The biggest part is that I don't have to worry about being attractive and other guys/girls do. Usually people are attractive by in some way hightening their gender performance. Also it's hard for me to get really enamored with the idea of gender. I can't see asexuals getting that deeply into "classic" masculinity (which is largely about sexual agression) or femininity (which is largely about sexual attractiveness.) So while we might be masculine or femanine to some degree it seems like we're less likely to stress about whether we're being masculine/femanine ENOUGH.

Hello fellow asexuals!

I've been lurking for a while but decided to join in as this is an issue I've thought quite a lot about. I've never felt very `in touch' with my gender since being a small child I have always rejected typically girly things (pink frilly dresses etc.) and been attracted to the idea of androgyny. I hated all that puberty nonsense and had wishful fantasies about people just being disembodied brains communicating only on an emotional/intellectual level (in fact, the idea still seems quite appealing!). Recently I've made more effort with my appearance owing to having a proper job, but I still feel it's not really me and get incredibly bored with conversations about clothes, make-up, perceived physical imperfections etc. Flicking through Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus in a bored moment I realised I had just as many of the `male' characteristics as the `female' (OK, I know John Gray is not an infallible guide to these things, but it's still interesting).

Obviously all this is inseparably connected with my asexuality; it's so difficult to disentangle sexual from socio-cultural influences, but there does seem to be a fundamental link between our sexual and social selves like little boys who turn out to be gay preferring to play with dolls rather than soldiers. I know this is all a horrendous generalisation and there are lots of people who don't fit this stereotype at all macho gays and girly asexuals for example! What do other people think?

------------------------ 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, and I also wonder if true asexuality (not interested in sex nor attracted to anyone in that way) is some sort of organic/systemic reaction by nature to respond to the ever-growing over-population problem of mankind. ...boy, that was a long sentence!

I'm plenty male, and I don't think I'm at all feminine... though I'm accepting of those who vary from the norm (even, perhaps, sometimes prefer those who vary from the norm). I wonder though if asexuality more likely has its beginnings early in life, or is just something that "doesn't happen" at puberty as it would with the majority?

prosymna said:

Hello fellow asexuals!

I've been lurking for a while but decided to join in as this is an issue I've thought quite a lot about. I've never felt very `in touch' with my gender since being a small child I have always rejected typically girly things (pink frilly dresses etc.) and been attracted to the idea of androgyny. I hated all that puberty nonsense and had wishful fantasies about people just being disembodied brains

communicating only on an emotional/intellectual level (in fact, the idea still seems quite appealing!). Recently I've made more effort with my appearance owing to having a proper job, but I still feel it's not really me and get incredibly bored with conversations about clothes, make-up, perceived physical imperfections etc. Flicking through Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus in a bored moment I realised I had just as many of the `male' characteristics as

the `female' (OK, I know John Gray is not an infallible guide to these things, but it's still interesting).

Obviously all this is inseparably connected with my asexuality; it's so difficult to disentangle sexual from socio-cultural influences, but there does seem to be a fundamental link between our sexual and social selves like little boys who turn out to be gay preferring to play with dolls rather than soldiers. I know this is all a horrendous generalisation and there are lots of people who don't fit this stereotype at all macho gays and girly asexuals for example! What do other people think?

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

Yeah... I guess another way of putting it is... do children (pre- puberty) who grow up as sexual act differently from the children who turned out to be asexual as adults? Maybe for some reason the puberty hormones just don't kick in, or at least not in the same way.

Yeah, and I also wonder if true asexuality (not interested in sex nor attracted to anyone in that way) is some sort of organic/systemic reaction by nature to respond to the ever-growing over-population problem of mankind. ...boy, that was a long sentence!

steven_n_g said:

I'm plenty male, and I don't think I'm at all feminine... though I'm accepting of those who vary from the norm (even, perhaps, sometimes prefer those who vary from the norm). I wonder though if asexuality more likely has its beginnings early in life, or is just something that "doesn't happen" at puberty as it would with the majority?

prosymna said:

Hello fellow asexuals!

I've been lurking for a while but decided to join in as this is an issue I've thought quite a lot about. I've never felt very `in touch' with my gender – since being a small child I have always rejected typically girly things (pink frilly dresses etc.) and been attracted to the idea of androgyny. I hated all that puberty nonsense and had wishful fantasies about people just being disembodied brains

communicating only on an emotional/intellectual level (in fact, the idea still seems quite appealing!). Recently I've made more effort with my appearance owing to having a proper job, but I still feel it's not really me and get incredibly bored with conversations about clothes, make-up, perceived physical imperfections etc. Flicking through Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus in a bored moment I realised I had just as many of the `male' characteristics as

the `female' (OK, I know John Gray is not an infallible guide to these things, but it's still interesting).

Obviously all this is inseparably connected with my asexuality; it's so difficult to disentangle sexual from socio-cultural influences, but there does seem to be a fundamental link between our sexual and social selves – like little boys who turn out to be gay preferring to play with dolls rather than soldiers. I know this is all a horrendous generalisation and there are lots of people who don't fit this stereotype at all – macho gays and girly asexuals for example! What do other people think?

---

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

Yeah, and I also wonder if true asexuality (not interested in

sex nor attracted to anyone in that way) is some sort of organic/systemic reaction by nature to respond to the ever-growing over-population problem of mankind. ...boy, that was a long sentence!

I have entertained this concept before, indeed, the same thing can be said for homosexuality as well. The immediate problem with this theory is that there is no supporting evidence to show that homosexuality (or asexuality for that matter) increases in direct relation to population increase. Take India, or Japan for example, where people are crammed into their world like tuna fish, and you won't find a significantly larger percentage of non-straight individuals.

The United States is a much harder place to objectively look at within itself, because in general, its occupants live more luxuriously, and changing where you live to suit your lifestyle isn't really blinked at. So you can easily find places where the homosexual percentage is higher, but these are for cultural (grouping) reasons, and not really because these places are more crowded than Georgia (where you would most certainly think very hard before coming out.)

History doesn't really support it either. The "rise of alternative lifestyles" that often gets touted as a relatively modern event isn't well founded. Greece is the classic example of where at least once in the past, it was even more widespread than now, and much more accepted. The appearance of increase is really due more to an increase in culture acceptance. Now-a-days, one can feel much less afraid of coming out, whereas only 50 years ago they probably would have lived their whole lives under a cover marriage and been miserable.

.:.

Your last point seems to conflict with your first point. That is to say, perhaps it's less evident in India or Japan because of social acceptance barriers. I'd take it farther though and argue that mother nature works on a global scale and doesn't attend to some areas moreso than others. Over-population is a global phenomenon and so it still makes sense to me if our hypothesis is salient in places that aren't over-crowded and not salient in places that are crowded. Sure it would be more supported if the phenomenon was pinpointed, but I think the problem is global affecting all mankind so it can happen anywhere.

Regarding history, you always have to be careful about source material. Since we are so far out of touch with the distant past, we tend to "fill in the blanks" and interpret past history as it makes sense to us in current times. Recording devices were primative and those with money/power were the ones who recorded history, so you have to take in all these factors. Saying something like, "well, is was more accepted to by gay in historic Greece" isn't a fact. It's an accepted assumption. There's a difference.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm just saying that it's debatable and the over-population (nature's reaction) viewpoint is a valid hypothesis. Also, please don't think I'm making the argument that asexuality or homosexuality is wrong because of nature's reaction. In fact, the opposite argument may be made saying it's by nature's authority. Likewise, if you really want to stir up the waters, replace the reference to nature with the reference to G-d.

Yeah, and I also wonder if true asexuality (not interested in

sex nor attracted to anyone in that way) is some sort of organic/systemic reaction by nature to respond to the ever-growing over-population problem of mankind. ...boy, that was a long sentence!

I have entertained this concept before, indeed, the same thing can be said for homosexuality as well. The immediate problem with this theory is that there is no supporting evidence to show that homosexuality (or asexuality for that matter) increases in direct relation to population increase. Take India, or Japan for example, where people are crammed into their world like tuna fish, and you won't find a significantly larger percentage of non-straight individuals.

The United States is a much harder place to objectively look at within itself, because in general, its occupants live more luxuriously, and changing where you live to suit your lifestyle isn't really blinked at. So you can easily find places where the homosexual percentage is higher, but these are for cultural (grouping) reasons, and not really because these places are more crowded than Georgia (where you would most certainly think very hard before coming out.)

History doesn't really support it either. The "rise of alternative lifestyles" that often gets touted as a relatively modern event isn't well founded. Greece is the classic example of where at least once in the past, it was even more widespread than now, and much more accepted. The appearance of increase is really due more to an increase in culture acceptance. Now-a-days, one can feel much less afraid of coming out, whereas only 50 years ago they probably would have lived their whole lives under a cover marriage and been miserable.

.:.

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

I wouldn't link overpopulation and the "popularity" of homosexuality and/or asexuality.

Firstly, even in heterosexual relationships, most people don't make love to get children. A lot of people use anticonceptives and there are a lot of (legal or illegal) abortions. So, procreation and sex are linked, but not totally. People "invented" other ways to be able to limit the overpopulation. And these ways are much more used compared to the number of homo- and asexuals. So, homo- and asexuality is not that efficient (in number) to limit overpopulation.

Secondly, there are asexuals and homosexuals who do want children, so sexual orientation isn't necessarily linked with the wish for children or not.

Thirdly, it seems more likely to me that asexuality becomes more "popular" or acceptable after the holebi-culture has gotten some kind of acceptance. Before holebi-sexuality became (more or less) accepatble, everyone was supposed to be heterosexual. Now, a lot of people accept the fact that people can be holebi. It was very progressive to give people the right to choose whether they wanted sex with a man or a woman. But, it was/is still supposed that everyone is sexual. It was only after the first "fixed idea" (about hetero-) was broken, that it became possible to question further the nature of people's sexuality and to be able to declare that sex isn't that evident either. Asexuality is again a form of liberation, because it frees people from the (social?) duty of being sexual. I think asexuality and homosexuality are more about freedom than about nature. And I also think that that's one of the reasons that still a lot people don't accept these orientations. Freedom can be scary and it' s much more difficult to "control" people who have freed themselves!

Your last point seems to conflict with your first point. That is to say, perhaps it's less evident in India or Japan because of social acceptance barriers.

This is true, though the conflicting nature of these two arguments does not bother me. I'm offering alternatives. This does reinforce the assertion that cultural acceptance has a greater impact on the perceived numbers than other factors. Let's take this and run with it for a second. Say the increased population counts in these areas were in fact producing less heterosexual individuals, but the cultural barriers were causing the public percentages to remain roughly stable. Thus, since an increasing percentage of the population is living in the closet, you could then look for the types of indicators that individuals usually give off when in that situation, on a mass scale.

I'm not sure if such a task could even really be possible, but it would be an interesting study for someone to pursue. If one could somehow quantify (even roughly) the percentage of unmasked individuals, you could dismiss the *perceived* percentage and focus on whether or not these areas of higher concentration are seeding more asexual and homosexual individuals. It is unfortunate that one of the locations that would provide a good data point is also one of the most difficult to extract accurate information in and out of -- China.

I'd take it farther though and argue that mother nature works on a global scale and doesn't attend to some areas moreso than others. Over-population is a global phenomenon and so it still makes sense to me if our hypothesis is salient in places that aren't over-crowded and not salient in places that are crowded.

The problem with this is that evolution has simply never worked that way. It has always worked in pockets depending on the conditions of locality, this is why we have so much diversity between life forms. If all creatures of one species were globally attuned to something, the rate of forking evolutionary paths would be all but squelched, and we would have a very simple biosphere. We wouldn't even have racial differences. You cannot really separate one causation from another and make it special in this system.

To take this in the extreme: How would a group of humans living in Northern Siberia, with very little contact with the outside world, somehow genetically 'know' what the rest of the world is undergoing? Unless you brought individuals in from other highly populated areas, and introduced their genetics into the mix, there shouldn't be any reason for their [a|homo]sexual percentage to fluctuate. If any deviation between regions were shown to exist, than the global scale theory would collapse.

One could say that the state of modern global communication is the carrier instead of pure genetic mixing (despite the fact that many regions of the world have yet to be embraced by this network of instant real-time knowledge.) This would be a very interesting line of thought to take, and would be supported by Richard Dawkin's "meme" theory, where thought evolution has replaced physical evolution as the dominant form of progress among sophont species. Could it be that the sense of overpopulation is spread memetically instead of genetically?

If it were shown that a global scale correlation in evolutionary shifts were *not* demonstratable through all of history, then it would lend a lot of credence to the communication as carrier theory.

However, I view that as a pretty 'iffy' way of explaining things. The fact of the matter is, while over-population is indeed a very important and global problem, the physical impact of it is hardly noticeable in many, many sparser populated areas of the world.

If you go back to the more accepted forms of genetic distribution, you run into other problems. The issue is compounded by the fact that in general, the people who travel the most in today's culture are also the people who come from more sparsely populated areas. In specific example, the United States, whose business folk do extensive world traveling, is also not plagued by overpopulation at all. Rates have shown a plateau for quite some time. So is the dilution coming from people who travel abroad, copulate, and bring the genetics back with them? Possibly, but I would suggest that such forms would die out pretty quickly when placed in an environment that isn't over-populated. The same goes for the much more obvious form of social and genetic mixing, mass immigration.

Lastly, this theory would have to be expanded beyond humanity before it could be accepted as an evolution related cause and effect. Indeed, there has been research done into homosexual and increased masturbation behavior in animals as a way to reduce population in areas of the ecology that have been over filled (note that locality *does* factor in here though.) These remain theories though. I haven't seen any documentation that proves one way or another if this holds universal water.

Comically, there has been at least one life form that over-populated the earth to their own extinction -- and they were asexual organisms (though of the more literal type. Would a homosexual asexual organism be one that has no desire to enter into the act of fission? Heh. Or would that be an Asexual Asexual Organism.) Comic aside, it raises the issue of why evolution did not step in and somehow check the massive increase through some method similar to homosexuality amongst gendered reproductive animals. Perhaps it did, and the effects were just too slight -- who knows what happened several billion years ago?

Anyway, disclaimer: I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of evolution is a bit wanting. I was brought up in a strict religious environment that taught young earth theories, and was not even exposed to formal education on evolution during the duration of my schooling. Since I became an atheist, I have consequently tried to remedy this, but it isn't always easy to find the time.

Saying something like, "well, is was more accepted to by gay in historic Greece" isn't a fact. It's an accepted assumption. There's a difference.

Indeed, just as all statements should be suspect. I don't believe you would find many supporters for a non-homosexual society in this particular instance. I have never heard of any large movement to debunk the current theories in this regard. I'd like to stress that I would be interested in any references you might have.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm just saying that it's debatable and the over-population (nature's reaction) viewpoint is a valid hypothesis.

I agree, its debatable, and that is why I offered two theories which partially contradict each other instead of one cohesive argument in an effort to say You Are Wrong, Sir. It is not my intention to do so. I am too ignorant to make such claims.

It is indeed a valid hypothesis. As I said in the prior email, I've entertained it before. I've recently replaced this notion in my head with a more complicated answer. I think that over-population does factor into the equation, but that there are other evolutionary causes for it as well. It is sometimes best for certain genetic strains to be diminished in the grand picture, not because they are faulty, but because they are experimental forks.

Also, please don't think I'm making the argument that asexuality or homosexuality is wrong because of nature's reaction. In fact, the opposite argument may be made saying it's by nature's authority.

On the individual level, yes, you and I are not "sinning" or being "ethically corrupt". However, by this hypothesis it *is* a result of a situation that has gone wrong, that being a global state of over-population.

Likewise, if you really want to stir up the waters, replace the reference to nature with the reference to G-d.

Ha. Though, it would seem an unlikely reaction, since god deplores homosexual behavior among humans (it seems to be okay for other animals though.)

.:.

Secondly, there are asexuals and homosexuals who do want children, so sexual orientation isn't necessarily linked with the wish for children or not.

Yes, but the intentions/desires of the conscious mind should not be confused with the "intentions" of the genes. I often have we wished that we were something different in some way?

You make good points though. The efficiency of the homosexual mechanism (and presumably asexual as well) to limit ecologically crowded climates has always seemed suspect to me. Other methods have *always* been more potent. In the case of species unable to invent contraceptives, diseases, and the arise of predators attuned to the over-populating animal have always been very effective at diminishing them.

I still hold that theory that it is used as a form of closing off minor prototype evolutionary genetic chains, or at least regulating their spread.

.:.

So it seems most people, if not all, see it as a good thing to be asexual. That's sortof what I guessed would be the consensus. However, I'm curious as to why. I mean, if the asexuality is indeed a hormonal or psychological/trauma related issue... why would one not want it, er, so-called-fixed? (That is, if one could indeed determine that this was the cause). If someone approaches me and gave me a highly plausible argument that "here's pure, total ecstasy, like nothing else" and, assuming they weren't talking about drugs... why not? I've considered it myself, this issue. If I'm missing out on something unbelievable, indescribably wonderful... why would I like missing out on it? Why would I want to continue missing out on it? Even if I'm happy with myself as I am, why not desire to experience it in all its supposed glory? I really can't come up with an arguement there that truly holds up. I can philisophically talk on and on about my theories about how it circumvents this or that problem... but how does that compare to the intense glory and wonder and all that, that some people attribute to the pleasure involved?