Haven for the Human Amoeba

I like the up-down ramp metaphore as more organic than the concept of a line. And I definitely here what you're saying, there are some things that are just so associated with sexuality that I steer clear of them for clarity's sake (this includes lip-kissing for me.) -Dj

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.

.:.

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 really like your analogy, with the upward slope and the downward slope. It seems to fit very well. I often read or hear about people (mostly men) complaining about women "teasing" them and then not following through with it ... apparently, once you start most people down the hill of sexuality, it's very difficult for them to stop past a certain point.

So ... that point is quite possibly related to the point beyond which asexuals feel uncomfortable...

Ok.

-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

I agree with you on both counts. When kissing goes on for long, it can become tedious, all you're doing is exchanging spit and "exploring" each others oral cavities. I like my own bed as well. Having been on my own for so long, it would be somewhat uncomfortable or I would not be used to having another individual in my bed taking up space. I have a queen-size bed and I like spreading out when I'm sleeping

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.

The main reason gay men have more disease is that they have more sex. Some of my gay fiends have sex with a different guy every day. I haven't met straight guys who screw around as much. Besides, anal sex is very effective for transmitting disease. I do believe there is an advantage to being gay as homosexuals tend to be non-reproducing

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.)

On 1 Jul 2002, Rob Fisch said:

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: havenforthehumanamoeba-unsubscribe@y...

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

I definitely agree that certain segments of the gay male population (since that what we seem to be focusing on) or at a high risk for AIDS and other STDs. However, it is important to realize that that does not extend to ALL gay men, nor does it diminish the risk of heterosexuals. Nor can a high rate of STDs be attributed solely to a gay population.

The main reason gay men have more disease is that they have more sex. Some of my gay fiends have sex with a different guy every day. I haven't met straight guys who screw around as much. Besides, anal sex is very effective for transmitting disease. I do believe there is an advantage to being gay as homosexuals tend to be non-reproducing

David G. Jay said:

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.)

On 1 Jul 2002, Rob Fisch said:

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: havenforthehumanamoeba-unsubscribe@y...

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

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

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

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

Well, I was wondering this weekend: most people who don't like sex / sexual activities see this as a problem. This asexual community doesn't experience this as a problem. I was asking myself what causes the difference? So, I also wonder whether asexuality isn't a problem if it exists together with certain other characteristics in 1 person? And, if this is correct, what these characteristics are.

And, maybe a question that will cause some commotion, whether you think asexuality is "born" or "acquired". You know, education/experience-caused or genetic/physiological/hormonal-caused. And I realise this question is mostly asked by people who consider asexuality as an unnatural/unhealthy state, but this is really not what I mean. I was just wondering how other asexuals feel and think about this one.

I think the state of asexuality can be both born and acquired, possibly with both types of backgrounds, sociological and biological, playing a role, like a number of other disorders. I wouldn't classify it as a psychological disorder/malfunction but merely another state of being/class of sexuality among heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality..I also don't think that there are any specific criteria or characteristics regarding what it takes to be a asexual individual. I think the condition of asexuality encompasses all kinds of individuals from every walk of life...

Well, I was wondering this weekend: most people who don't like sex / sexual activities see this as a problem. This asexual community doesn't experience this as a problem. I was asking myself what causes the difference? So, I also wonder whether asexuality isn't a problem if it exists together with certain other characteristics in 1 person? And, if this is correct, what these characteristics are.

And, maybe a question that will cause some commotion, whether you think asexuality is "born" or "acquired". You know, education/experience-caused or genetic/physiological/hormonal- caused. And I realise this question is mostly asked by people who consider asexuality as an unnatural/unhealthy state, but this is really not what I mean. I was just wondering how other asexuals feel and think about this one.

I just want to say right off, in response to this, that this is very Western thinking. Western thinkers want to divide a problem up into isolated pieces and attribute causation. That's fine for small mechanical devices but doesn't carry over as the best methodology for psycho-social studies. You cannot ligitimately separate a person's genetics from a person's environment. They are intertwined. They interact with each other. Certain elements in one affect or "turn on" things in the other. The are not "one" but they are interconnected in such a way to create a bigger organic entity. I think "dynamic systems" research and theory pretty much killed the old nature vs. nurture debate in most academic circles. ...okay, that's it. Didn't mean to get off on a rant. --just a knee-jerk response to the post below.

Well, I was wondering this weekend: most people who don't like sex / sexual activities see this as a problem. This asexual community doesn't experience this as a problem. I was asking myself what causes the difference? So, I also wonder whether asexuality isn't a problem if it exists together with certain other characteristics in 1 person? And, if this is correct, what these characteristics are.

And, maybe a question that will cause some commotion, whether you think asexuality is "born" or "acquired". You know, education/experience-caused or genetic/physiological/hormonal-caused. And I realise this question is mostly asked by people who consider asexuality as an unnatural/unhealthy state, but this is really not what I mean. I was just wondering how other asexuals feel and think about this one.

Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com

Huh? Your definition of asexuality is: A type of sexuality. That's it? Seems like you need to get a little more specific. How about this as an operational definition.

ASEXUALITY: A preference or condition in which one is not sexual with others. This may include the absence or minimization of sexual attraction to members of both the same and opposite sex. This may not interfere with one's ability to be sensual, sensitive, compassionate, or loving with another person.

Hmmm. I writing that first line, I wondered if I should delete the end of the sentence that says "with others". In other words, can an asexual be sexual with oneself?

It would be good if we all worked on an acceptable definition for this list. As for many people, as they come and go from this list, often ask for a definition. I'm sure there are great websites out there that have tried to tackle this question and even this list has a decent paper written on the subject in the "files" section of the group webpage, but it would be handy if we all agreed on a definition and maybe even adjusted it from time to time as we keep up the dialog. Just an idea.

I think the state of asexuality can be both born and acquired,

possibly with both types of backgrounds, sociological and biological, playing a role, like a number of other disorders. I wouldn't classify it as a psychological disorder/malfunction but merely

another state of being/class of sexuality among heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality..I also don't think that there are any specific criteria or characteristics regarding what it takes to be a asexual individual. I think the condition of asexuality encompasses all kinds of individuals from every walk of life...

bostongirl10y said:

Well, I was wondering this weekend: most people who don't like sex / sexual activities see this as a problem. This asexual community doesn't experience this as a problem. I was asking myself what causes the difference? So, I also wonder whether asexuality isn't a

problem

if it exists together with certain other characteristics in 1 person? And, if this is correct, what these characteristics are.

And, maybe a question that will cause some commotion, whether you think asexuality is "born" or "acquired". You know, education/experience-caused or genetic/physiological/hormonal- caused. And I realise this question is mostly asked by people who consider asexuality as an unnatural/unhealthy state, but this is really not what I mean. I was just wondering how other asexuals feel and think about this one.

Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com

We did some work on a definition about eight or nine months ago I think, about the time we were throwing logos around too. I don't have time to search for it right now, but I will later on. It would be within the first 200 messages I think.

.:.

This is, of course, a tricky one. Like other sexual orientations the technical definition is:

Asexual-One who identifies as asexual.

We're really defining our community, which isn't easy because we want it to be fluid. Any definition we adopt should be "working", not carved in stone. What we're really doing is trying to say "people who identify themselves with the term asexual generally fit this description."

That being said I like the definition that you've put forth, though I like your second sentence a little better than yoru first. It seems like a lack of sexual attraction (though not necessarily a lack of all types of attraction) is the biggest common bond. "Condition in which one is not sexual" might be too broad. The vast majority of people who simply are not sexual with others probably wouldn't fall under the definition of asexuality that we like to throw around. Consider:

Celibates Young people People living with AIDS Sexually Disfunctionate people Repressed homosexuals The Sexual But Merely Unlucky Busy people (this is actually the reason why the majority of my sexual friends aren't.) Etc.

All of these groups could probably benefit from a good understanding of asexuality, but I doubt that they would identify as asexual themselves. It seems like the term is being used primarily by adults who do not experience sexual attraction. Other groups of nonsexual people, those who want to be sexual but choose not to or those that want to be sexual but can't, tend to choose different terms.

Huh? Your definition of asexuality is: A type of sexuality. That's it? Seems like you need to get a little more specific. How about this as an operational definition.

ASEXUALITY: A preference or condition in which one is not sexual with others. This may include the absence or minimization of sexual attraction to members of both the same and opposite sex. This may not interfere with one's ability to be sensual, sensitive, compassionate, or loving with another person.

Hmmm. I writing that first line, I wondered if I should delete the end of the sentence that says "with others". In other words, can an asexual be sexual with oneself?

It would be good if we all worked on an acceptable definition for this list. As for many people, as they come and go from this list, often ask for a definition. I'm sure there are great websites out there that have tried to tackle this question and even this list has a decent paper written on the subject in the "files" section of the group webpage, but it would be handy if we all agreed on a definition and maybe even adjusted it from time to time as we keep up the dialog. Just an idea.

athenayu9 said:

I think the state of asexuality can be both born and acquired,

possibly with both types of backgrounds, sociological and biological, playing a role, like a number of other disorders. I wouldn't classify it as a psychological disorder/malfunction but merely

another state of being/class of sexuality among heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality..I also don't think that there are any specific criteria or characteristics regarding what it takes to be a asexual individual. I think the condition of asexuality encompasses all kinds of individuals from every walk of life...

bostongirl10y said:

Well, I was wondering this weekend: most people who don't like sex / sexual activities see this as a problem. This asexual community doesn't experience this as a problem. I was asking myself what causes the difference? So, I also wonder whether asexuality isn't a

problem

if it exists together with certain other characteristics in 1 person? And, if this is correct, what these characteristics are.

And, maybe a question that will cause some commotion, whether you think asexuality is "born" or "acquired". You know, education/experience-caused or genetic/physiological/hormonal- caused. And I realise this question is mostly asked by people who consider asexuality as an unnatural/unhealthy state, but this is really not what I mean. I was just wondering how other asexuals feel and think about this one.

---

Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.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/

Agreed. I want to extend this and question why causation is so important in the first place. Is it because what is genetic is "inherint" and what's learned isn't? Our bodies (which are reasonably genetically determined) change constantly over time, and many times learned behaviors (such as accents) can stay with us our entire lives. It seems like the relevant question with asexuality is not where does it come from but what are its affects. If asexual people are living full, productive lives then the specifics of why they are asexual shouldn't be important.

I just want to say right off, in response to this, that this is very Western thinking. Western thinkers want to divide a problem up into isolated pieces and attribute causation. That's fine for small mechanical devices but doesn't carry over as the best methodology for psycho-social studies. You cannot ligitimately separate a person's genetics from a person's environment. They are intertwined. They interact with each other. Certain elements in one affect or "turn on" things in the other. The are not "one" but they are interconnected in such a way to create a bigger organic entity. I think "dynamic systems" research and theory pretty much killed the old nature vs. nurture debate in most academic circles. ...okay, that's it. Didn't mean to get off on a rant. --just a knee-jerk response to the post below.

bostongirl10y said:

Well, I was wondering this weekend: most people who don't like sex / sexual activities see this as a problem. This asexual community doesn't experience this as a problem. I was asking myself what causes the difference? So, I also wonder whether asexuality isn't a problem if it exists together with certain other characteristics in 1 person? And, if this is correct, what these characteristics are.

And, maybe a question that will cause some commotion, whether you think asexuality is "born" or "acquired". You know, education/experience-caused or genetic/physiological/hormonal-caused. And I realise this question is mostly asked by people who consider asexuality as an unnatural/unhealthy state, but this is really not what I mean. I was just wondering how other asexuals feel and think about this one.

---

Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.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'd say that our defining characteristic as asexuals is that we don't think it's a problem. In my mind it has less to do with how "inherint" asexuality is and more to do with how it plays out internally. For many people it IS a problem: some traumatic experience (or something) has caused them to fear and avoid not only sex, but also intimacy and a whole slew of other things that they genuinely need to function. Other's still experience sexual attraction, so they still want to have sex with people, but for some reason are limited from it.

We also need to draw a destinction. While not liking sex hasn't been a problem for me in and of itself it has certainly been PROBLEMATIC at times, and I think that it's easy for many to confuse the two. I was definitely deeply confused for quite some time. I can see some people thinking that their problem is around sex when it's really around accepting their own asexuality.

Well, I was wondering this weekend: most people who don't like sex / sexual activities see this as a problem. This asexual community doesn't experience this as a problem. I was asking myself what causes the difference? So, I also wonder whether asexuality isn't a problem if it exists together with certain other characteristics in 1 person? And, if this is correct, what these characteristics are.

And, maybe a question that will cause some commotion, whether you think asexuality is "born" or "acquired". You know, education/experience-caused or genetic/physiological/hormonal-caused. And I realise this question is mostly asked by people who consider asexuality as an unnatural/unhealthy state, but this is really not what I mean. I was just wondering how other asexuals feel and think about this one.

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'd say that our defining characteristic as asexuals is that we don't think it's a problem.

Well, that's an answer! I hadn't expected such an answer, but maybe indeed, it's the only real common characteristic ...

We also need to draw a destinction. While not liking sex hasn't been a problem for me in and of itself it has certainly been PROBLEMATIC at times, and I think that it's easy for many to confuse the two. I was definitely deeply confused for quite some time. I can see some people thinking that their problem is around sex when it's really around accepting their own asexuality.

Yes indeed. For people in this confusion, it would be a great help if others could see asexuality as a possible way of being, for example: people who are working on a professional level with people: doctors, therapists, psychologists, ... At this moment, those people help ... to make a problem of asexuality. It's simply not recognised and accepted as a one of the possibilities. And I think they don't "recognise" and "believe" in it, cause most people who don't like sex / sexual activities consider this as a problem ... Then the circle is round ... And, exactly people who are confused about their asexuality and try to figure this out with the help of others, get "a problematic answer". People who call themselves asexual, are, at least I think, more sure about this aspect of themselves and are stronger against strange and close-minded reactions from others.

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

¬-¬ ¸¸ ---¯¯¯-.¯¯¯ -¨¨ ¯¯¯ ..._...

Um.. so...yeah...

http://www.sketchie.com/britney.htm

hehe, someone was looking for grant opporitunities?

well, if its valid, that would be great cause someone finally speak up to be an asexual however according to the webaddress, its pretty sketchie, so, i am not sure about the validity

anyway, we will wait and see how the world grow up

Um.. so...yeah...

http://www.sketchie.com/britney.htm

hehe, someone was looking for grant opporitunities?

well, if its valid, that would be great cause someone finally speak up to be an asexual however according to the webaddress, its pretty sketchie, so, i am not sure about the validity

anyway, we will wait and see how the world grow up Um, sweetie, I think it was sarcasm.

--Nothing [Vivez sans temps mort.]

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

Um, sweetie, I think it was sarcasm.

Yeah.

Read the sketchie.com mission statement. :)

.:.

He, who knows? That would be something..

Um, sweetie, I think it was sarcasm.

Yeah.

Read the sketchie.com mission statement. :)

---

.:.

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 have gotten this impression about "teasing" personally. On a few occasions I have just been friendly with guys, passing the time of day and acting with them as I would with female friends, but when they made a move and I came back with, "Uh, I don't know what YOU were thinking" they dropped me like a hot potato and moved onto fresh game. So for some guys, if you give them the time of day you're saying, "I'm ready and willing." It wasn't teasing on my part. What's wrong with just talking? Do they think telling dirty jokes is a green light for getting it on? But when they find out that you're not going to give them something "in exchange" they think you're not worth while. It's no wonder that I just keep to myself now. I hate the situations that I've been in in the past and want to keep my life simple.

As for crushes, periodically I do see someone who I think is attractive, nice, blah blah blah and sort of pine for them. Then some thought occurs to me like "Why don't you go after them?" and then my overriding laziness kicks in and I begin to dread the effort I'd have to put into being interesting to them, taking time away from my own busy schedule to fit them in, and so on and so forth and I get exhausted just thinking about it. Resentful, too. "It's MY time and I don't want to have to bend myself to fit someone else." Pure selfishness enters into it too. So I just forget about it and go back to my life the way it was. I have these phases of flightiness. I dabble in astrology and I've read enough about my birthsign to recognize that I'm a classic featherbrained Gemini. :) Some days I feel like I want a million things, most other days I'm content with a bag of chips, my dog, a TV...and solitude. If being a hermit was a viable career option, I'd apply.

I often read or hear about people (mostly men) complaining about women "teasing" them and then not following through with it ... apparently, once you start most people down the hill of sexuality, it's very difficult for them to stop past a certain point.

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 find this often happens in bars and the club scene where guys expect a girl to be attracted to them physically if they are talking to them but that's to be expected I guess because, in that kind of situation, the guys ARE there to hook up with a girl sexually-wise. As for your second paragraph, I am in complete agreement with you. If I find someone attractive or I have a crush on them, it's often a pain in the "rear end" and just so much trouble to pursue your feelings. If being a hermit were a viable career option, I would be the CEO/president of that company!!

I have gotten this impression about "teasing" personally. On a few occasions I have just been friendly with guys, passing the time of day and acting with them as I would with female friends, but when they made a move and I came back with, "Uh, I don't know what YOU were thinking" they dropped me like a hot potato and moved onto fresh game. So for some guys, if you give them the time of day you're saying, "I'm ready and willing." It wasn't teasing on my part. What's wrong with just talking? Do they think telling dirty jokes is a green light for getting it on? But when they find out that you're not going to give them something "in exchange" they think you're not worth while. It's no wonder that I just keep to myself now. I hate the situations that I've been in in the past and want to keep my life simple.

As for crushes, periodically I do see someone who I think is attractive, nice, blah blah blah and sort of pine for them. Then some thought occurs to me like "Why don't you go after them?" and then my overriding laziness kicks in and I begin to dread the effort I'd have to put into being interesting to them, taking time away from my own busy schedule to fit them in, and so on and so forth and I get exhausted just thinking about it. Resentful, too. "It's MY time and I don't want to have to bend myself to fit someone else." Pure selfishness enters into it too. So I just forget about it and go back to my life the way it was. I have these phases of flightiness. I dabble in astrology and I've read enough about my birthsign to recognize that I'm a classic featherbrained Gemini. :) Some days I feel like I want a million things, most other days I'm content with a bag of chips, my dog, a TV...and solitude. If being a hermit was a viable career option, I'd apply.

Lauren Liebowitz said:

I often read or hear about people (mostly men) complaining about women "teasing" them and then not following through with it ... apparently, once you start most people down the hill of sexuality, it's very difficult for them to stop past a certain point.

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

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to say "hello" and introduce myself. My name is Liz and I'm an author from New Hampshire. I'm 20 years old and seriously thinking about pursuing this "asexual" lifestyle. Since I was in middle school I've had nearly no interest in relationships. My main focus in being with people is having the fabulous group of friends I have. I've never tried to date, nor have I been asked out. Or I wasn't in high school. When I was 17 I decided I was going to be a sort of "nun" though I never pursued creating a group of Like Me's.

I thought about being a lesbian because I do find some women attractive, but even in lesbian relationships there is usually sex involved. Simply put, sex doesn't interest me. I do like people, though, and wouldn't mind finding an asexual man to spend my life (or some amount of it) with. After doing research I know that voluntary celibate marriages are/were common, especially before 100 years ago.

Although I kind of want a "celibate relationship" I know that I run the chance of never finding someone up to my standards. That's perfectly fine with me, it's just a wish. I find guys charming and attractive, just not sexually.

I've never discussed these ideas of mine with anyone before, and I'm kind of surprised I'm doing it now. I've confessed to one other person that I find women attractive, but because I've never dated and make it known I have no interest in dating my friends know I'm essentially asexual, though I'm sure they don't know there's a word for it.

Anyway, thanks for reading my message.

Liz

welcome to the club.

many of us have went through this phase until we found this group, and vertify the asexual existance--we are not the weirdo!

just follow your heart, the point is to be liberal, love whoever you know, enjoy your friendships as much as you want be a workaholic as you wish

there will be noone to force you to have sex (like the public), nor we would reject you if you sleep around

stay with us, we have interesting conservations here

francis

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to say "hello" and introduce myself. My name is Liz and I'm an author from New Hampshire. I'm 20 years old and seriously thinking about pursuing this "asexual" lifestyle. Since I was in middle school I've had nearly no interest in relationships. My main focus in being with people is having the fabulous group of friends I have. I've never tried to date, nor have I been asked out. Or I wasn't in high school. When I was 17 I decided I was going to be a sort of "nun" though I never pursued creating a group of Like Me's.

I thought about being a lesbian because I do find some women attractive, but even in lesbian relationships there is usually sex involved. Simply put, sex doesn't interest me. I do like people, though, and wouldn't mind finding an asexual man to spend my life (or some amount of it) with. After doing research I know that voluntary celibate marriages are/were common, especially before 100 years ago.

Although I kind of want a "celibate relationship" I know that I run the chance of never finding someone up to my standards. That's perfectly fine with me, it's just a wish. I find guys charming and attractive, just not sexually.

I've never discussed these ideas of mine with anyone before, and I'm kind of surprised I'm doing it now. I've confessed to one other person that I find women attractive, but because I've never dated and make it known I have no interest in dating my friends know I'm essentially asexual, though I'm sure they don't know there's a word for it.

Anyway, thanks for reading my message.

Liz

My name is Liz and I'm an author from New Hampshire.

Just out of curiosity, do you have anything out there yet that we could admire? I write frequently as well, but I don't call myself an author, not yet anyway.

.:.