Haven for the Human Amoeba

I will never forget the first time I read a book (The Body and How It Works, for relatively young people) that described, even in kiddie terms, how sex worked physically... if I recall correctly, it also listed some of the euphemisms ("making love") and mentioned what usually accompanies the act, all the moaning and rubbing and whatnot. I think I was 5. It was absolutely repulsive and I figured there had to be something else because sex was icky. I don't know what I was thinking about, what I meant by "something else" ... but I figured that I wouldn't have to have sex somehow. It sounded optional. I think I asked my mom about it, but I don't remember what she said. When I was really little, a bit after reading that for the very first time, I tried to learn about sex. I read about it in biology books and the dictionary and things like that. For some reason it was very interesting to me then. It was interesting scienficially for a couple of years in elementary school. For some reason I tried to figure it out then. I don't know why. I also hit puberty when I was 10, I think. Not so early as to be unhealthy, but bad enough that out of my entire grade, I only knew one other girl who had to wear a bra. I started menstruating then too. You might think this led me to developing sexual feelings when I was young, but you would think wrong. I remember in seventh grade, during truth or dare at someone's birthday party, one girl kept asking the rest if they had had dreams of sex. She had. Most of the others had to some small extent. I never had. I never did. Other girls always commented on how hot some guy was. I never did. People could be beautiful, and I would gladly admit that they were good-looking, but I've never used "attractive" or "hot" to describe anyone because ... well ... I don't feel attracted to a person, no matter how beautiful or "sexy" he or she may be. My sister came from the same household and she and I are very, very close. However, unlike me, she really has had a thing for men. She loves hot guys, she's interested in guys, she's given me advice to take to college on sleeping with guys and whatnot. Her sexuality is obvious, though she isn't promiscuous or anything. I don't think it's anything in the raising of children. I mean, I DID read a great many stories about chivalry when I was younger. Sex was always something dirty to me. Real love, pure love, didn't get sullied by sex. When I started reading books targeted towards adults in middle school, I was absolutely appalled to find that there was so much sex in them. I asked my mom why there would be so much sex. I didn't have a problem if the scene blacked out - yeah, so the characters slept together, that didn't bother me. It was just what happened to people sometimes. But when a scene would be written more graphically, it bothered me. I didn't want to read that, and I couldn't understand why ANYONE would! It seemed about as appealing as reading excessive gore, which also has never appealed to me. "Well," my mom told me, "sex is on most people's minds a lot. Most of the time, in fact. It's very important. When you get older you'll know what I mean." I'm 18 years old, old enough that I should have gone through sexual maturity. I still don't know what she's talking about. I don't think about sex in the way she hinted at. I have no reason to. Sometimes it crosses my mind, but that's almost always some thought about asexuality and the self-discovery of sorts I've only recently started into.

There. Maybe there's something in all of that that might be helpful to any of you in figuring out what makes us all tick?

-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)

Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

That's true, but it's not all joy and intense physical pleasure if you're sexual. Non-optional extras include:

- sexual frustration (a severe problem if some of my friends are to be believed) - vast quantities of time spent thinking about sex, searching for sex, being paranoid you'll never get sex - the manifold humiliations and awkwardnesses of trying to get sex (having crushes, asking people out, rejection etc) - embarrassing, boring and just plain bad sex.

All in all I suspect there are more drawbacks than positives in having a sex drive per se.

However, where it all starts looking much more complex is the question of whether being asexual is better for one's general life happiness or not. Having spent most of my life taking my asexuality for granted and assuming it was a good thing, I've recently begun to realise just how much it cuts you off from. I'm not worried about the lack of marriage/children as such, more the fact that all my friends are going to follow that route and I will be increasingly left out. Also, it can't be denied that these are emotionally fulfilling and developing experiences which I won't have. On the other hand they include massive potential for misery which I won't suffer.

It's an incredibly complex balance sheet and if a genie suddenly appeared and asked me whether I wanted to be sexual I don't know what I'd say. I might say yes on the grounds that it does feel increasingly weird being cut off from such a major area of human experience. But I'd probably regret it!

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?

Yeah, good arguements in favor of asexuality. I'm stuck on both sides of the matter here, perhaps, in that I still worry about all those things, from an asexual point of view. I believe, for instance, its still possible to "make love" in a way, without actual sex. I can still fall in love and, I suppose, have crushes (though I don't seem to do either, generally). And i can still worry that I'm not going to find "the one" for me - in this case someone who shares my ideas on relationships for starters.

About Selie's post as well: I remember being shocked, disgusted, perhaps even horrified when I first found out what sex was. I couldn't believe people would do something so gross, so inappropriate to each other. I thought "thats not what those parts are for! He shouldn't do that to her!". So I assume its possible that attitude at a young age had a lasting effect. I don't remember ever truly feeling so horrible about kissing, however, and love-making is, or should be more than "doing that to her" ;)

That's true, but it's not all joy and intense physical pleasure if you're sexual. Non-optional extras include:

- sexual frustration (a severe problem if some of my friends are to be believed) - vast quantities of time spent thinking about sex, searching for sex, being paranoid you'll never get sex - the manifold humiliations and awkwardnesses of trying to get sex (having crushes, asking people out, rejection etc) - embarrassing, boring and just plain bad sex.

All in all I suspect there are more drawbacks than positives in having a sex drive per se.

However, where it all starts looking much more complex is the question of whether being asexual is better for one's general life happiness or not. Having spent most of my life taking my asexuality for granted and assuming it was a good thing, I've recently begun to realise just how much it cuts you off from. I'm not worried about the lack of marriage/children as such, more the fact that all my friends are going to follow that route and I will be increasingly left out. Also, it can't be denied that these are emotionally fulfilling and developing experiences which I won't have. On the other hand they include massive potential for misery which I won't suffer.

It's an incredibly complex balance sheet and if a genie suddenly appeared and asked me whether I wanted to be sexual I don't know what I'd say. I might say yes on the grounds that it does feel increasingly weird being cut off from such a major area of human experience. But I'd probably regret it!

steven_n_g said:

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?

Continuing the overpopulation thread...

--- bostongirl10y <[email protected]> wrote and I quote only the first part of her message:

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

You can't really say that sexual orientation isn't at all linked to population issues. You have to admit that homosexuals and asexuals have less children. Right?

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

"A" doesn't necessarily lead to "B", but "B" is a direct cause of "A". Yes, procreation and sex IS linked. That premise can't be denied. Just because it's not a "total" link (I guess you mean 2-way bidirectional) doesn't mean you can through out all linkage.

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.

I think homosexuality and asexuality help contribute to the overpopulation problem, as well as your basic standard diseases and old age limitations. Sure, no one thing by itself precludes overpopulation, but the point is that they all help to contribute to its control.

...I see a trend in your reasoning so far. You seemed to think if "A" doesn't totally cause "B", then the two aren't linked at all. Is there no room for influencing factors?

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

Okay. Not really related to the overpopulation theory, but that's a fair statement.

Thirdly, it seems more likely to me that asexuality becomes more "popular" or acceptable after the holebi-culture has

Okay, you end your message talking about holebi-culture and I don't know anything about that. You end by saying there's a sort of freedom by not being confined to social-sexual norms. Good points.

...and please understand that I'm NOT saying that since asexuality may be related (in some way) to an ever-rising overpopulation, then asexaulity is bad. No, no, no. I would actually argue the opposite. It HELPS control overpopulation, world hunger, child abuse, etc. -Rob

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

Yes, I sympathise - I too have had crushes. They're a bit weird if you're asexual, aren't they - if you're sexual you can have fantasies about 'getting together' with the adored object, whereas if you're asexual you just want to talk to them a lot.

I know some people are very sceptical about the whole possibility of asexual partnerships, but I don't think they're such an odd idea. A desire for close one-to-one relationships seems natural to humans, from the bond between mother and baby through 'best friends' at school onwards. In fact, I've been in what is basically an asexual partnership for some years - it suits me perfectly, unfortunately the other half isn't asexual and at some point he will get a proper girlfriend and our relationship will stop being so close.

Interesting about being disgusted by sex - I've never been that distressed by it, but I think that I'm technically about 95% asexual rather than 100%. I did have a brief sexual relationship with my now asexual partner out of a combination of affection for him and general curiosity. It was OK, quite nice sometimes, but my heart was never in it and I felt there were many more interesting things to do with my time.

Yeah, good arguements in favor of asexuality. I'm stuck on both sides of the matter here, perhaps, in that I still worry about all those things, from an asexual point of view. I believe, for instance, its still possible to "make love" in a way, without actual sex. I can still fall in love and, I suppose, have crushes (though I don't seem to do either, generally). And i can still worry that I'm not going to find "the one" for me - in this case someone who shares my ideas on relationships for starters.

About Selie's post as well: I remember being shocked, disgusted, perhaps even horrified when I first found out what sex was. I couldn't believe people would do something so gross, so inappropriate to each other. I thought "thats not what those parts are for! He shouldn't do that to her!". So I assume its possible that attitude at a young age had a lasting effect. I don't remember ever truly feeling so horrible about kissing, however, and love-making is, or should be more than "doing that to her" ;)

Yes, I sympathise - I too have had crushes. They're a bit weird if you're asexual, aren't they - if you're sexual you can have fantasies about 'getting together' with the adored object, whereas if you're asexual you just want to talk to them a lot.

That was always strange for me too. Despite the fact that in general I steer clear of the world, I have always felt myself "drawn" to certain individuals. So, I suppose if one could use the word 'crushes' that would fit, but they've always been along the lines of: This person has really neat thought patterns that I would like to spend more time understanding.

Needless to say, I must have left a wide trail of confusion littered behind me in my history.

I know some people are very sceptical about the whole possibility of asexual partnerships, but I don't think they're such an odd idea.

I don't see anything odd with it either. I don't think asexuality = an absolute solitary life. I'm sure this is often how it ends up happening, but mostly because up until very recently, there was no good way to find another asexual -- if you even knew that you were yourself. My high-school chemistry teacher was asexual. She was in her mid-fifties at the time, and hadn't been in a single relationship, a virgin, with no desire to "correct" either situation. Of course, this completely dismayed her pupils. I had a very high opinion of her. She is the type of person that you typically think of as Asexual.

Interesting about being disgusted by sex - I've never been that distressed by it,

I am on the far end of the wing on this one. I've always seen the entire procedure as more than mildly distasteful. I had one sexual relationship in my past, and it was a struggle for me. I imagine it was much like a homosexual trying to be straight. It was compounded by the fact that this woman was *very* much in the "this person has neat thought patterns" category (otherwise I wouldn't have put up with the relationship so long.) Plus, at the time I didn't know what was wrong with me. So I was a bucket of confusion myself, wondering how I could care for this person so much, who was an obviously very attractive individual to others, yet for some reason I had no inclination, nay, an almost sickening reaction to, any sexual relations.

Again, trail of confusion littered behind me.

.:.

It was indeed dealing with an attraction that isn't truly sexual but is clearly something more than friends. When I say I was disgusted by sex, that's the thoughts of a little kid. I don't really despise it so much now, but there's better ways to express intimacy (even intimacy that has a bit of a physical side). I'm not 100% asexual either, as I can recognize sexual attractiveness just fine. Its wierdly more complex than that.

Yes, I sympathise - I too have had crushes. They're a bit weird if you're asexual, aren't they - if you're sexual you can have fantasies about 'getting together' with the adored object, whereas if you're asexual you just want to talk to them a lot.

I know some people are very sceptical about the whole possibility of asexual partnerships, but I don't think they're such an odd idea. A desire for close one-to-one relationships seems natural to humans, from the bond between mother and baby through 'best friends' at school onwards. In fact, I've been in what is basically an asexual partnership for some years - it suits me perfectly, unfortunately the other half isn't asexual and at some point he will get a proper girlfriend and our relationship will stop being so close.

Interesting about being disgusted by sex - I've never been that distressed by it, but I think that I'm technically about 95% asexual rather than 100%. I did have a brief sexual relationship with my now asexual partner out of a combination of affection for him and general curiosity. It was OK, quite nice sometimes, but my heart was never in it and I felt there were many more interesting things to do with my time.

steven_n_g said:

Yeah, good arguements in favor of asexuality. I'm stuck on both sides of the matter here, perhaps, in that I still worry about all those things, from an asexual point of view. I believe, for instance, its still possible to "make love" in a way, without actual sex. I can still fall in love and, I suppose, have crushes (though I don't seem to do either, generally). And i can still worry that I'm not going to find "the one" for me - in this case someone who shares my ideas on relationships for starters.

About Selie's post as well: I remember being shocked, disgusted, perhaps even horrified when I first found out what sex was. I couldn't believe people would do something so gross, so inappropriate to each other. I thought "thats not what those parts are for! He shouldn't do that to her!". So I assume its possible that attitude at a young age had a lasting effect. I don't remember ever truly feeling so horrible about kissing, however, and love-making is, or should be more than "doing that to her" ;)

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass confusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Thanks.

-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)

Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

I believe its possible to find an attraction in someone, something desirable, something amazing (for me, I find it in women), that just isn't found in everyone else. While I wouldn't actually say its a crush, as I tend to be too logical to develope that sort of thing for someone I don't know, its still there to some degree. Doesn't mean I want sex though... Are there any people here who are not completey against physical intimacy, and can gain something "special", intimate, etc. from hugs or even kissing?

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass confusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Thanks.

-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)

---

Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

I've definitely formed fixations for one reason or another. Usually with people who I have an intreguing sort of relationship. I'll need something, intimacy or whatever, and someone will do that thing in an intreguing way, so I'll get fixated on them until I can figure them out (usually once I'm good friends with them..)

-DJ

I believe its possible to find an attraction in someone, something desirable, something amazing (for me, I find it in women), that just isn't found in everyone else. While I wouldn't actually say its a crush, as I tend to be too logical to develope that sort of thing for someone I don't know, its still there to some degree. Doesn't mean I want sex though... Are there any people here who are not completey against physical intimacy, and can gain something "special", intimate, etc. from hugs or even kissing?

Lauren Liebowitz said:

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass confusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Thanks.

-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)

---

Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

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/

Basically it's having an altered state of consciousness in relation to one specific person. So you think about them a lot, get excited about seeing them, want to tell them everything you feel and find out how they feel about everything. I agree with the others that it's primarily a reaction to someone's personality/thought patterns, but the person also needs to have some element of charm/force of character/individuality – something that seems to make them `special' somehow.

I don't think this is very clear – it's one of those things you either recognise from personal experience or you don't! Most children seem to have non-sexual crushes, on junior school teachers or whatever and it's just a development of that without the added sexual bit most people experience.

In reply to Steven, yes I think asexuals can enjoy hugging etc – it is all part of getting close to people. I would have thought kissing (with the exception of pecks on the cheek) was fairly undeniably sexual, though!

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass confusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Thanks.

-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)

---

Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

I never thought of kissing as sex in any way. Sex is... sex. Kissing isn't sex. No one ever sees someone kissing and says "hey you just had sex!". Its something else. It may be physical, or intimate, but its not sex. I'm not opposed and uninterested in doing it like I would be to outright sex.

Basically it's having an altered state of consciousness in relation to one specific person. So you think about them a lot, get excited about seeing them, want to tell them everything you feel and find out how they feel about everything. I agree with the others that it's primarily a reaction to someone's personality/thought patterns, but the person also needs to have some element of charm/force of character/individuality – something that seems to make them `special' somehow.

I don't think this is very clear – it's one of those things you either recognise from personal experience or you don't! Most children seem to have non-sexual crushes, on junior school teachers or whatever and it's just a development of that without the added sexual bit most people experience.

In reply to Steven, yes I think asexuals can enjoy hugging etc – it is all part of getting close to people. I would have thought kissing (with the exception of pecks on the cheek) was fairly undeniably sexual, though!

Lauren Liebowitz said:

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass confusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Thanks.

-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)

---

Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

Kissing is kind of odd. A peck on the cheek or even an innocent little peck on the lips is okay and comfortable, but anything beyond that is totally weird and alien to me. And yes, I've been seriously kissed before, many times. It did not feel normal.

Hugging, on the other hand, is something entirely different. I like being hugged and hugging other people. Same for holding hands and linking arms. That doesn't mean it's sexual - I'll drag any of my good friends around by the hands if they'll let me.

-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)

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Same with me, though I've never tried any varient of lip-kissing. I can see pecking being sort of appealing, but anything with an opened mouth seems a tad intrusive an unnatural. I'm also into hugging ang cuddling, depending on my mood.

How are people on sleeping with people (in the literal sense?)

-DJ

Kissing is kind of odd. A peck on the cheek or even an innocent little peck on the lips is okay and comfortable, but anything beyond that is totally weird and alien to me. And yes, I've been seriously kissed before, many times. It did not feel normal.

Hugging, on the other hand, is something entirely different. I like being hugged and hugging other people. Same for holding hands and linking arms. That doesn't mean it's sexual - I'll drag any of my good friends around by the hands if they'll let me.

-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)

---

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

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/

On kissing, I pretty much agree with the majority. A peck is alright, reassuring in a sense; a way of communicating with another. "Making out" is something entirely different, and not appealing to me.

How are people on sleeping with people (in the literal sense?)

Personally, I love it. It is one of the things I enjoyed most about prior relationships. Talking late into the night, laying on your back, and listening to the disembodied voice across from you. For me, it is when I was able to communicate best, since communication in general is a difficult thing for me. There is something about the disassociation of self, the darkness, the lack of body language (body language can be very useful, but for me it is an added complication, and without it I am able to be more eloquent, since I'm forced to rely upon words alone,) ect. There is also something to be said for having sleep be the ultimate punctuation mark. The uber-period. When all your thoughts run down and the mind expires itself -- silence reigns. Some of my favorite conversations were ones that ended up as a half-coherent mumble, and continue a few hours later under the first rays of morning -- as if there were no break in the line of thought, only a very long contemplative pause.

I know I am just focusing on the conversational aspect of it, but perhaps that is why I enjoy sharing a bed. Additionally, I suppose there is some comfort in it too. Much in the same sense of why I don't mind a small kiss now and then. It is a way of being reassured. A way of saying, I enjoy your presence enough to fall asleep with it, and to know that another feels the same way.

Of course, all of this can be accomplished with good friends as well. Many times, my best buddy and roommate would hold these types of conversations in our bunk beds. That is college though, after that phase in life, it becomes a wee bit more complicated in finding ways to cause this circumstance to arise. Even if you share an apartment, if you are not romantically involved, most people do not sleep in the same room, let alone in the same bed.

Now, my eccentric sleep duration are another issue, and one that usually ends up driving the other person mad. :)

.:.

I know exactly what you mean, in second grade I had my only 'crush" feelings of my life, There was this little blond girl, and I actually said "I love you" however that feeling passed after a while and never returned. It had to be non-sexual since I was a kid and no erection was involved.

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass confusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Thanks.

-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)

---

Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

I agree completely with Ioa Petraka, who phrases it much more beautifully than I could. In fact, I would say that lying in bed curled up with someone you are very close to (fully pyjama-clad of course) is a great pleasure too, perhaps one of the greatest. You get to relax and be yourself in a way that is very rarely possible.

As I said in a previous post, I am in some sort of asexual partnership and we often share a bed - in fact it is probably the major difference between our relationship and a 'normal' close friendship. However he is not asexual so it can get a bit frustrating for him - which I feel guilty about.

How are people on sleeping with people (in the literal sense?)

Personally, I love it. It is one of the things I enjoyed most about prior relationships. Talking late into the night, laying on your back, and listening to the disembodied voice across from you. For me, it is when I was able to communicate best, since communication in general is a difficult thing for me. There is something about the disassociation of self, the darkness, the lack of body language (body language can be very useful, but for me it is an added complication, and without it I am able to be more eloquent, since I'm forced to rely upon words alone,) ect. There is also something to be said for having sleep be the ultimate punctuation mark. The uber-period. When all your thoughts run down and the mind expires itself -- silence reigns. Some of my favorite conversations were ones that ended up as a half- coherent mumble, and continue a few hours later under the first rays of morning -- as if there were no break in the line of thought, only a very long contemplative pause.

I know I am just focusing on the conversational aspect of it, but perhaps that is why I enjoy sharing a bed. Additionally, I suppose there is some comfort in it too. Much in the same sense of why I don't mind a small kiss now and then. It is a way of being reassured. A way of saying, I enjoy your presence enough to fall asleep with it, and to know that another feels the same way.

Of course, all of this can be accomplished with good friends as well. Many times, my best buddy and roommate would hold these types of conversations in our bunk beds. That is college though, after that phase in life, it becomes a wee bit more complicated in finding ways to cause this circumstance to arise. Even if you share an apartment, if you are not romantically involved, most people do not sleep in the same room, let alone in the same bed.

Now, my eccentric sleep duration are another issue, and one that usually ends up driving the other person mad. :)

---

.:.

About kissing: it really depends on a lot of things. I can like it, but it may not last too long. And I like it more when it's a seldom thing.

About bed-sharing: I don't like it that much. I like the privacy of a bed for my own. I like to communicate with people I like, but I don't think that real communication is an easy thing. It asks a lot and it isn't relaxing for me. I don't like waking up and having to start doing such a difficult thing first thing in the morning. I like the rest of sleeping alone.

How are people on sleeping with people (in the literal sense?) Maybe it's because my friends tend to have twin mattresses, but I find it uncomfortable to be *that* close to someone for so long. Besides, I am not fond of being touched even in a way that isn't sexual. --Nothing

Ioa. You had a long response to my last post about this (appended below), which was very good. I finally read over it during the weekend and will only reply briefly.

You said it would interesting to see trends (i.e., proof) of homosexuality in highly populatated places, if indeed high population contributes to it at a genetically influencing level. You particularly pointed to China as a interesting place to study since homosexuality is so counter-culture there. I don't know enough about China's culture to really comment too intelligently, but I do know that China just admitted last week that their AIDS problem is much larger than they previously announced publically. AIDS is not a direct sign of gay presence, but it is much more prevalent (unfortunately) amoung gay males than straight males. Of course drug abuse contributes, etc, ...I know.

On another related issue you brought up, I do feel that things happening in one place in the world could and does have global effects. The "butterfly effect" is a classic example in chaos theory, but a more contrete example would be the US contribution to the ozone layer phenomenon.

You had related your point to human development, saying that if something in a local community had an effect on the local people, remote people ought not be affected. Otherwise, we would all be similar. I know I might sound crazy to argue against this, but then where we all the fun be if I didn't? ;-) ...my arguement would be that humans worldwide are much more similar to each other than different. For example, if an alien abducted just one of us and based findings of studying that one person to generalize to our whole race, that would be a great start and mostly of what it means to be human would be found in that one person. There's a school of study called parapsychology that looks into this sort of thing but then again most see those folks as completely nuts.

You had some other really good comments and I actually read about "memes" too somewhere, but neither of us have the time to get too far into this stuff. And then you also bring up issues like 'becoming an atheist' which is a whole different thread altogether! Hmmm, some other time that would be a good one to scratch the surface of, but then we'll get off the topic of this e-group.

Thanks for your words! -Rob

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.)

.:.

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

This is where my mother would say something like, "...would you jump off a cliff if everyone was doing that?". -Rob

That's true, but it's not all joy and intense physical pleasure if you're sexual. Non-optional extras include:

- sexual frustration (a severe problem if some of my friends are to be believed) - vast quantities of time spent thinking about sex, searching for sex, being paranoid you'll never get sex - the manifold humiliations and awkwardnesses of trying to get sex (having crushes, asking people out, rejection etc) - embarrassing, boring and just plain bad sex.

All in all I suspect there are more drawbacks than positives in having a sex drive per se.

However, where it all starts looking much more complex is the question of whether being asexual is better for one's general life happiness or not. Having spent most of my life taking my asexuality for granted and assuming it was a good thing, I've recently begun to realise just how much it cuts you off from. I'm not worried about the lack of marriage/children as such, more the fact that all my friends are going to follow that route and I will be increasingly left out. Also, it can't be denied that these are emotionally fulfilling and developing experiences which I won't have. On the other hand they include massive potential for misery which I won't suffer.

It's an incredibly complex balance sheet and if a genie suddenly appeared and asked me whether I wanted to be sexual I don't know what I'd say. I might say yes on the grounds that it does feel increasingly weird being cut off from such a major area of human experience. But I'd probably regret it!

steven_n_g said:

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?

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

True. Kissing isn't sex. But (...drum roll please...) isn't it "sexual"? Yes, I can already hear people saying, no, it's "sensual." Is this another semantics game for the academics?

Perhaps kissing is the 5% of sexual desire for all those people who say they're 95% asexual? -Rob

I never thought of kissing as sex in any way. Sex is... sex.

Kissing isn't sex. No one ever sees someone kissing and says "hey you just had sex!". Its something else. It may be physical, or intimate, but its not sex. I'm not opposed and uninterested in doing it like I would be to outright sex.

prosymna said:

Basically it's having an altered state of consciousness in relation to one specific person. So you think about them a lot, get excited about seeing them, want to tell them everything you feel and find out how they feel about everything. I agree with the others that it's primarily a reaction to someone's personality/thought patterns, but the person also needs to have some element of charm/force of

character/individuality something that seems to make them `special' somehow.

I don't think this is very clear it's one of those things you either recognise from personal experience or you don't! Most

children

seem to have non-sexual crushes, on junior school teachers or whatever and it's just a development of that without the added sexual bit most people experience.

In reply to Steven, yes I think asexuals can enjoy hugging etc it is all part of getting close to people. I would have thought

kissing

(with the exception of pecks on the cheek) was fairly undeniably sexual, though!

Lauren Liebowitz said:

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass confusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Thanks.

-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)

---

Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

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

Thi is getting into an interesting line, one which no one really seems able= to define. Where does sexuality stop? This is a much more relevant questio= nthan where does sex stop, because sex (if you're at all creative beyond th= e slot a tab b mentality) flows pretty undisturbed out into the greater wor= ld of sexuality. So where does the sensual wiring stop and the sexual wirin= g kick in? Culturally, if we are to look at women (since men can't be sensu= al worth beans and still be "men") it goes up to but does not include lip-k= issing. Forehead and cheek kissing, bed-sharing, most everything we're talk= ing about here. It seems like, from talking to this group, the distinction = is somewhere in lip-kissing. After all, if cheeck-kissing can be platonical= ly sensual, as can forehead etc then what's so special about lips to make t= hem not count? On the other hand, intensive lip-kissing (making out, anythi= ng involving suction) seems out of range. We like our sensuality as a means= of communication, not as an end onto itself. (this is just hte understandi= ng I've gotten from reading peoiple's posts. There will, as always, be vari= ance.) A peck is sneough to get the message across, anything past that is r= edundant.

True. Kissing isn't sex= . But (...drum roll please...) isn't it "sexual"? Yes, I can already he= ar people saying, no, it's "sensual." Is this another semantics game for= the academics?

Perhaps kissing is the 5% of sexual desire for all thos= e people who say they're 95% asexual? -Rob

--- steven_n_g <gelf@pla= net-save.com> wrote:

I never thought of kissing as sex in any way. Sex= is... sex.

Kissing isn't sex. No one ever sees someone kissing an= d says "hey you just had sex!". Its something else. It may be phy= sical, or intimate, but its not sex. I'm not opposed and uninteres= ted in doing it like I would be to outright sex.

--- In hav= enforthehumanamoeba@y..., "prosymna" <prosymna@y...> wrote:

Basic= ally it's having an altered state of consciousness in relation to= one specific person. So you think about them a lot, get excited = about seeing them, want to tell them everything you feel and find o= ut how they feel about everything. I agree with the others that i= t's primarily a reaction to someone's personality/thought pattern= s, but the person also needs to have some element of charm/force of =

character/individuality =96 something that seems to make them = `special' somehow.

I don't think this is very clear =96 i= t's one of those things you either recognise from personal experi= ence or you don't! Most

children

seem to have non-sexual crus= hes, on junior school teachers or whatever and it's just a develo= pment of that without the added sexual bit most people experi= ence.

In reply to Steven, yes I think asexuals can enjoy huggin= g etc =96 it is all part of getting close to people. I would have= thought

kissing

(with the exception of pecks on the cheek) w= as fairly undeniably sexual, though!

--- In hav= enforthehumanamoeba@y..., "Lauren Liebowitz" <selie22@h...> wrote= :

So ... um ... can everyone please describe what an "asexual = crush" is like for them?

I'm having mass c= onfusion right now and I'd appreciate hearing what others = have to say.

Thanks.

-Selie =

---

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

=

"And when you draw your number, Remember, R= emember 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)

__________=

---

Join the wo= rld's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.c= om

---

Do Yo= u Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaw= orldcup.yahoo.com

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

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

Ok, so one of the first places that AIDs appeared in the US was the gay male community in San Fransisco, and it spread through the gay male community in the US arguably before it hit the striahgt community ful force (which is why it was ignored.) Now it's everywhere, the fastest growing population of HIV positive individuals in this country are straight women. And internationally the same rules definitely do not apply. In china, where it's not really ok to be gay, but is ok for married men to sleep with prostitutes, AIDS is going to spread differently than it happened to start spreading here.

While overpopulation is an interesting phenominon, I think that statistical corellations are sketchy at best. The best argument against would be that homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality are seen in ALL sexual species, regardless of their current population level. It seems like what we're dealing with is the evolutionary quagmire: why would some people be "programmed" not to reproduce is the point is survival of the fittest?

Who knows. Maybe there's som eevolutionary advantage in there (recent reworkings of Darwin's theory have showed that it's survival of the fittest GROUP, not genetic individual. From a group standpoint there could be benefits to having some individuals non-reproductive.) It could be that the programming of gender attraction is complex enough that there is some variance (which is not to imply that anything other than heterosexuality is "not what nature intended" any more than a similar argument would imply that left-handed people are not what nature intended.)

Ioa. You had a long response to my last post about this (appended below), which was very good. I finally read over it during the weekend and will only reply briefly.

You said it would interesting to see trends (i.e., proof) of homosexuality in highly populatated places, if indeed high population contributes to it at a genetically influencing level. You particularly pointed to China as a interesting place to study since homosexuality is so counter-culture there. I don't know enough about China's culture to really comment too intelligently, but I do know that China just admitted last week that their AIDS problem is much larger than they previously announced publically. AIDS is not a direct sign of gay presence, but it is much more prevalent (unfortunately) amoung gay males than straight males. Of course drug abuse contributes, etc, ...I know.

On another related issue you brought up, I do feel that things happening in one place in the world could and does have global effects. The "butterfly effect" is a classic example in chaos theory, but a more contrete example would be the US contribution to the ozone layer phenomenon.

You had related your point to human development, saying that if something in a local community had an effect on the local people, remote people ought not be affected. Otherwise, we would all be similar. I know I might sound crazy to argue against this, but then where we all the fun be if I didn't? ;-) ...my arguement would be that humans worldwide are much more similar to each other than different. For example, if an alien abducted just one of us and based findings of studying that one person to generalize to our whole race, that would be a great start and mostly of what it means to be human would be found in that one person. There's a school of study called parapsychology that looks into this sort of thing but then again most see those folks as completely nuts.

You had some other really good comments and I actually read about "memes" too somewhere, but neither of us have the time to get too far into this stuff. And then you also bring up issues like 'becoming an atheist' which is a whole different thread altogether! Hmmm, some other time that would be a good one to scratch the surface of, but then we'll get off the topic of this e-group.

Thanks for your words! -Rob

Ioa Petra'ka said:

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.)

.:.

---

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

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 see the 'line' as partially a gradient and partially a line. The deeper you go into actions which are sexual, the less appealing they become. There is a line though, because at some point, mentally I wouldn't want to take it any further because I know from experience that if the other person is not asexual, it will get them in a state where they want to go further, even irrationally. An asexual person would come up against a barrier at some point, the threshold where it no longer is appealing to them. I'm not sure if the 'line' would be breached with me, because I feel it is a lot further past the point where I'm uncomfortable on the underlying gradient between sensuality and sexuality.

I believe that right there is the difference between an asexual and a sexual. The ramp goes up and instead of down. The will to continue ceases instead of increases. It is this point, where we stop, that makes us feel the way we do about ourselves. It is why, in general, we avoid relationships, because running into that upwards/downwards ramp conflict between individuals is less probable.

This is all mental. The actual actions that are on the gradient differ depending on culture, upbringing, and such. I'm not sure if I am making any sense at all. This is just a concept that popped into my head. I could be completely wrong. I'd have to think about it a bit more.

.:.