Haven for the Human Amoeba

If you go to the bottom of this post, you will see the message I tried to send you by E-mail.

The message was returned to me because your E-mail box is over-quota.

Do you think that maybe you ought to check it out?

To anyone else who reads this:

Read my message, originally addressed to <drksparkle@...> and if you can answer my question, I would really like to hear from you.

Please write to me at

hteetlufituaeb@...

Message from yahoo.com. Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

<drksparkle@...>:

Sorry, your message to drksparkle@... cannot be delivered. This account is over quota. - mta552.mail.yahoo.com

--- Original message follows.

Sun, 13 Oct 2002 10:07:26 PDT Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 10:07:26 -0700 (PDT) From: <hteetlufituaeb@...> Subject: Asexuality To: drksparkle@...

Hi,

I just now discovered your asexual site on Yahoo.

I have not had time to get into it. I did not think that there WERE any other asexuals in the world, besides myself.

Do I understand what you MEAN by asexual correctly?

I am a male, a Pennsylvanian. I am interested in affectionate things like cuddling, fondling, touching, etc. I am NOT interested in sex.

Is this the same kind of asexuality that you are talking about?

I would really be interested in a response.

<< But here is a question for you. If the relationship does not imply ownership at all, even dual "equal" ownership, then would you feel hurt or perhaps betrayed if the other person decided to go off and have sex with somebody -- spend the night -- relieve some tension they cannot relieve with you? >>

Yes. Because to be in a relationship with me, they would promise me fidelity, and that would be breaking a promise. I am a very jealous person, and I would never betray a partner, and expect the same. I don't think that means it's ownership. I consider it "respect" and "courtesy."

<<Now as for the equally obsessive part: Is that the word you really meant? I understand that I am a fiercely independent person, and the absolute opposite of a narcissist, so I have to factor that in -- but if a person were obsessed with me, that would annoy me to no end. Nothing would make me leave faster than a person who had to always be around me, or *depended* upon me to function correctly.>>

That's the word I meant. I want a lot of time, and co-dependance is my ideal. My motto is.. What is there you can do by yourself that wouldn't be better with someone else? I'm hardly going to follow someone into the bathroom, and if someone wanted some time to think about something, that would be fine with me. But I don't see the point of going off and doing something else by yourself.

<< Quite frankly, I am puzzled as to why people equate emotional neediness and dependency with normality. And what puzzles me even more is why there are so many people who feel threatened by people who enjoy solitude. >>

It's not normal. I'm just crazy.

I guess I don't understand the concept of solitude, so it's hard to understand why someone else would want it. I'd prefer joint activities.

Yes, like some on this forum, I also need a lot of time for myself. I couldn't bear a relationship where the other one depends on me too much (to be able to function). I also walk away from those who "need me desperately". On itself, I don't think I'm the type of person to have a one-to-one relationship with someone. I prefer to have a good contact with more than 1 person on a non-romantical basis. So far, so good.

There is only 1 problem .... Most others don't function that way. Most people of my age (beginning thirties) are married and start having children. That makes then less available. And that leaves you more alone. So, if I ever would have a relationship, then it would be a kind of "secondary wish". Not so much because I really want the relationship, but because it is kind of imposed to you because everyone else lives like that and so, if you don't want to be alone ALL THE TIME, because there is little choice. In fact, I would like to meet people of my age who don't look for a 1- to-1 relationship. Only, whereever you go, you don't meet people of your age, simply because they are at home, taking care of their children. And, this is something that is totally different for people who are still studying for example. I wonder how other people in their 30s think about this ...

Hi Ioa,

I agree with what you are saying completely especially your comments on narcissism. :-)

I wish you were around several months ago, when I got into a argument online with a couple of "born-again" folks who said that my being an independent sort (more specifically a loner) equated to an exercise in selfishness and narcissism.

Quite frankly, I am puzzled as to why people equate emotional neediness and dependency with normality. And what puzzles me even more is why there are so many people who feel threatened by people who enjoy solitude.

Nom

Now as for the equally obsessive part: Is that the word you really meant? I understand that I am a fiercely independent person, and the absolute opposite of a narcissist, so I have to factor that in -- but if a person were obsessed with me, that would annoy me to no end.

Nothing would make me leave faster than a person who had to always be around me, or *depended* upon me to function correctly.

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

Hi bostongirl :)

Yeah being in my 30's, I would have to agree that it can be a bit difficult to find people especially if you don't know where to look.

I have found most of my closest friendships through my interests-- writing, painting, photography, spending time outdoors (hiking, kayaking, horseback riding, skiing, etc), etc.

In fact, one of my closest friendships is with a guy who is about a couple of years older than me. We've known each other for 8 years and he is a single "ne'er married" like me. We've never slept together nor are we remotely attracted to each other sexually but we are best friends and have traveled together on occasion.

So yeah you can find folks-- but yeah, it's not the same as when you're younger and you had the time and freedom of running around and partying with each other after high school or college. :)

Face to face interaction does diminish when one reaches one's 30's, but I have learned to cast a bigger net when it comes to my friendships. I don't just limit my friendships to people in my age group, but I also seek out friends who are in their 40's, 50's, and 60's.

I have also gotten used to replacing face to face interaction with phone calls, emails, and even Yahoo Messenger for keeping in touch.

And I'll have to admit that sometimes especially when I get busy myself, I find that I prefer such modes of communication over the ring of the doorbell. :)

Nom

Yes, like some on this forum, I also need a lot of time for myself. I couldn't bear a relationship where the other one depends on me too much (to be able to function). I also walk away from those who "need me desperately". On itself, I don't think I'm the type of person to have a one-to-one relationship with someone. I prefer to have a good contact with more than 1 person on a non-romantical basis. So far, so good.

There is only 1 problem .... Most others don't function that way. Most people of my age (beginning thirties) are married and start having children. That makes then less available. And that leaves you more alone. So, if I ever would have a relationship, then it would be a kind of "secondary wish". Not so much because I really want the relationship, but because it is kind of imposed to you because everyone else lives like that and so, if you don't want to be alone ALL THE TIME, because there is little choice. In fact, I would like to meet people of my age who don't look for a 1- to-1 relationship. Only, whereever you go, you don't meet people of your age, simply because they are at home, taking care of their children. And, this is something that is totally different for people who are still studying for example. I wonder how other people in their 30s think about this ...

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

<< I say this just as a bit of fair advice. As asexuals, it is already extremely difficult to find a relationship -- if we even want it -- and this will only make it more difficult for you. Unless you get lucky, you will *have* to learn to become more dependent in life one way or another. Either with a person who will not want you to be *always* around, or without anyone at all. I know this might sound a bit harsh, but I am just being realistic. >>

If I have to change who I am to have a relationship, I would rather stay single forever. No relationship appeals to me if I have to change who I am, just as I would never want to change who someone else was. My parents will be around for another 20 years, at least, and after that I can have a career. I'm used to being alone. I've never had a satisfying relationship with another person. I've tried every kind of friendship ever been offered. It just doesn't satisfy me.

In short, the only love for me is a love where nobody needs to change. If I have to change, it's not worth it for me. I can manage alone, I have my parents and I've never *not* been alone.

I wonder how other people in their 30s think about this ...

Well, I am not quite in my thirties yet, I am twenty-five, but I have already watched this happen to most of my friends of the past. Even in my group, which was fairly independent and "anti-society" to a degree (passively) the "I am never going to get married" types -- well their body clocks all started ticking and they decided that it was time to "grow up." Well, in their minds, growing up meant joining their life with another, and starting new lives. That's all fine and dandy, I certainly don't hold it against them, but I do miss them from time to time.

In my age group, there are still a certain number still single, and not wanting to change that, but this number grows steadily smaller. If anything, this fact alone is the one that causes me to wish perhaps I could find somebody who would understand me, and share my life long term (I see no reason to make it a Life Arrangement.) If this person were enough like myself, it would almost be like having a perpetually single close friend -- almost.

In an ironic twist. I recently told my ex-girlfriend from three or four years back about my asexuality, and as I explained what it meant, she has come to identify as an asexual herself. It turns out she disliked it as much as I did, but felt silently obligated to do it as well. Ah, if only we'd know about this -- but I don't think this group even existed back then. So who knows, maybe sometime in the future we will get together again. That would really be ideal for me. We were truly perfect for each other in every respect but the sex.

Quite frankly, I am puzzled as to why people equate emotional neediness and dependency with normality.

Well, to be candid, it is. The number of people who are happily single throughout their entire lives are in an extreme minority.

That said, "normality" is a slippery word. While it is entirely normal to have a family, especially in the western world, that doesn't mean that one who is without a family is *not* a normal person. Slippery slippery. That's why I hate the world, it is all but useless except in mathematics.

And what puzzles me even more is why there are so many people who feel threatened by people who enjoy solitude.

See the above. Humans are by nature threatened by something that challenges their view of correctness. Multiply this with another human nature of allowing your own personal life to become correctness, and you end up with what most people have coined "Narrow Mindedness." It is just a natural effect, a fossilization of viewpoints that results from non-exposure. Going back a few posts to how so many 30-somethings notice that all of their friends have gone off and gotten married -- they have isolated themselves into that world now. Non-exposure by necessity, really. It takes a very attentive and strong person to mentally overcome the effects of fossilization.

You see the opposite around here sometimes. People will post a message saying marriage is Evil and so on -- non-exposure.

As for why that makes one feel threatened? Because when exposed, after a period of fossilization, they are suddenly presented with a living example of somebody who manages to live perfectly happy without the things they consider so important and right. This challenges their world-view directly. In this case, specifically, it stings them even more because they've been taught that they are weak without their relationships. Just as Christians are taught that they are weak without their God. So to see a person who is happy and productive, all by themselves, implicates a certain amount of superiority, a threat.

Naturally, this isn't *true* but that is what the fossilized mindset sees.

Ioa ]

That's the word I meant. I want a lot of time, and co-dependance is my ideal. My motto is.. What is there you can do by yourself that wouldn't be better with someone else? I'm hardly going to follow someone into the bathroom, and if someone wanted some time to think about something, that would be fine with me. But I don't see the point of going off and doing something else by yourself.

Likewise, I don't see the point of doing nearly everything with another person. We are both correct -- we are both different (perhaps on opposite ends of the pole,) I just wanted to make sure you meant the full terms of "obsessiveness." I should point out to you though, that most people are not keen on this degree of it as you are. Just as most people would not be keen on having somebody as reclusive as myself for a partner.

I say this just as a bit of fair advice. As asexuals, it is already extremely difficult to find a relationship -- if we even want it -- and this will only make it more difficult for you. Unless you get lucky, you will *have* to learn to become more dependent in life one way or another. Either with a person who will not want you to be *always* around, or without anyone at all. I know this might sound a bit harsh, but I am just being realistic.

Ioa ]

http://allforfree.4mg.com/index.html

Hi Ioa,

Regarding your comments below, you said it very well and quite eloquently. I agree totally.

Your post is a keeper. :-)

Nom

Quite frankly, I am puzzled as to why people equate emotional neediness and dependency with normality.

Well, to be candid, it is. The number of people who are happily single throughout their entire lives are in an extreme minority.

That said, "normality" is a slippery word. While it is entirely normal to have a family, especially in the western world, that doesn't mean that one who is without a family is *not* a normal person. Slippery slippery. That's why I hate the world, it is all but useless except in mathematics.

And what puzzles me even more is why there are so many people who feel threatened by people who enjoy solitude.

See the above. Humans are by nature threatened by something that challenges their view of correctness. Multiply this with another human nature of allowing your own personal life to become correctness, and you end up with what most people have coined "Narrow Mindedness." It is just a natural effect, a fossilization of viewpoints that results from non-exposure. Going back a few posts to how so many 30-somethings notice that all of their friends have gone off and gotten married -- they have isolated themselves into that world now. Non-exposure by necessity, really. It takes a very attentive and strong person to mentally overcome the effects of fossilization.

You see the opposite around here sometimes. People will post a message saying marriage is Evil and so on -- non-exposure.

As for why that makes one feel threatened? Because when exposed, after a period of fossilization, they are suddenly presented with a living example of somebody who manages to live perfectly happy without the things they consider so important and right. This challenges their world-view directly. In this case, specifically, it stings them even more because they've been taught that they are weak without their relationships. Just as Christians are taught that they are weak without their God. So to see a person who is happy and productive, all by themselves, implicates a certain amount of superiority, a threat.

Naturally, this isn't *true* but that is what the fossilized mindset sees.

Ioa ]

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

If I have to change who I am to have a relationship, I would rather stay single forever.

You are aware that by its very definition, relationships require you to change who you are? Consider the complexities of initial impression versus final impression, even within the first period of a relationship, who a person thinks you are and what you actually are, are two very different things. Once they discover who you are, they'll either want you to become who they want you to be, or the relationship will fail -- and vice versa as well. If there were some foolproof way of making somebody aware of who you really are, right off the bat, perhaps this wouldn't be such a factor, but there really is no good way to do this because even *you* are not aware of who you are in all details. On the other hand, if somebody could absolutely see through you, you probably wouldn't like that either, most people do not.

Part of what makes a relationship interesting, if you go about it the right way, is change -- for both participants. Another person can reveal much about you that you do not see, they can provide a mirror and help you grow to be a better person. Saying that you do not want to change anything about who you are implies that you are in a state of perfection -- right now.

One of the things that I've learned as I have grown older is that change can be a beautiful thing, perhaps the most beautiful thing we have. There is rarely any merit in remaining static.

Couple this with the above: As you grow older with this person you've chosen, they *will* change, they will want to change, and so will you -- a relationship is all about learning to dance with that. :)

In short, the only love for me is a love where nobody needs to change.

That is passive love that you describe. Like love for a painting, or an object. People are not these things.

Ioa ]

I like to think that we humans are sort of like an onion. There are many layers that cover up our true self.

A good relationship can slowly remove some of those layers however I think all relationships fail to reveal ourselves completely. Only a few layers get removed and only if we allow such a thing to happen.

In all relationships no matter how close, we still wind up dancing the dance of love while wearing a mask.

Nom

If I have to change who I am to have a relationship, I would rather stay single forever.

You are aware that by its very definition, relationships require you to change who you are? Consider the complexities of initial impression versus final impression, even within the first period of a relationship, who a person thinks you are and what you actually are, are two very different things. Once they discover who you are, they'll either want you to become who they want you to be, or the relationship will fail -- and vice versa as well. If there were some foolproof way of making somebody aware of who you really are, right off the bat, perhaps this wouldn't be such a factor, but there really is no good way to do this because even *you* are not aware of who you are in all details. On the other hand, if somebody could absolutely see through you, you probably wouldn't like that either, most people do not.

Part of what makes a relationship interesting, if you go about it the right way, is change -- for both participants. Another person can reveal much about you that you do not see, they can provide a mirror and help you grow to be a better person. Saying that you do not want to change anything about who you are implies that you are in a state of perfection -- right now.

One of the things that I've learned as I have grown older is that change can be a beautiful thing, perhaps the most beautiful thing we have. There is rarely any merit in remaining static.

Couple this with the above: As you grow older with this person you've chosen, they *will* change, they will want to change, and so will you -- a relationship is all about learning to dance with that. :)

In short, the only love for me is a love where nobody needs to change.

That is passive love that you describe. Like love for a painting, or an object. People are not these things.

Ioa ]

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

On Sunday, Oct 13, 2002, at 19:57 US/Pacific, Nom De Plume wrote:

I like to think that we humans are sort of like an onion. There are many layers that cover up our true self.

Yes, we are all Ogres. :)

But quite true, though I would modify that a bit to be an onion constructed of soap bubbles. So many millions of them that the center is opaque. Each layer fluid and constructed of shifty colours.

Ioa ]

<<Couple this with the above: As you grow older with this person you've chosen, they *will* change, they will want to change, and so will you -- a relationship is all about learning to dance with that. :)

If I change, I change. If they change, they change. But I wouldn't change for THEM.

My dear friends, My family lives in New York and I live in Florida. Anyway, I am not very close to my biological family. Relationships provide a buffer against the "outside world."

Even though I am asexual, I identify as a lesbian.

I thrive on community. I am feeling out the asexual community in the Tampa Bay, Florida area, and thus far I am getting a positive response.

There is no shame in needing and seeking relationships.

Also, the asexuals I have met, both online and in person, impress me as intelligent and thoughtful people.

I have learned sexuality is not good for me because it saps my energy that I need for my job and socialization, and sexuality seems to bring out the very worst in the lesbian community, such as lying and manipulative behavior.

It is refreshing when my fellow asexuals return my honesty with their honesty.

I thrive on the sharing the rhythym of daily life, such as shopping, walking the dog and entertaining friends.

I suspect asexual partnerships are much more healthy than both homosexual and heterosexual partnerships.

My dear friends, thank you for giving me permission to be me.

Your friend, Beth

<< I say this just as a bit of fair advice. As asexuals, it is already extremely difficult to find a relationship -- if we even want it -- and this will only make it more difficult for you. Unless you get lucky, you will *have* to learn to become more dependent in life one way or another. Either with a person who will not want you to be *always* around, or without anyone at all. I know this might sound a bit harsh, but I am just being realistic. >>

If I have to change who I am to have a relationship, I would rather stay single forever. No relationship appeals to me if I have to change who I am, just as I would never want to change who someone else was. My parents will be around for another 20 years, at least, and after that I can have a career. I'm used to being alone. I've never had a satisfying relationship with another person. I've tried every kind of friendship ever been offered. It just doesn't satisfy me.

In short, the only love for me is a love where nobody needs to change. If I have to change, it's not worth it for me. I can manage alone, I have my parents and I've never *not* been alone.

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

Dear Ioa, I relate very well to what you have to say.

I strive for interdependence with my partner. I always remember I am a complete human being on my own, but that I want to share time and space with my partner.

I get scared when people won't give me space to breathe, or they define love as being joined at the hip. I expect my lover to put herself first with herself and I openly put myself first with myself, and if we didn't, we wouldn't have anything left to give to one another.

Your friend, Beth

That's the word I meant. I want a lot of time, and co-dependance is my ideal. My motto is.. What is there you can do by yourself that wouldn't be better with someone else? I'm hardly going to follow someone into the bathroom, and if someone wanted some time to think about something, that would be fine with me. But I don't see the point of going off and doing something else by yourself.

Likewise, I don't see the point of doing nearly everything with another person. We are both correct -- we are both different (perhaps on opposite ends of the pole,) I just wanted to make sure you meant the full terms of "obsessiveness." I should point out to you though, that most people are not keen on this degree of it as you are. Just as most people would not be keen on having somebody as reclusive as myself for a partner.

I say this just as a bit of fair advice. As asexuals, it is already extremely difficult to find a relationship -- if we even want it -- and this will only make it more difficult for you. Unless you get lucky, you will *have* to learn to become more dependent in life one way or another. Either with a person who will not want you to be *always* around, or without anyone at all. I know this might sound a bit harsh, but I am just being realistic.

Ioa ]

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

Dear Ioa and Friends, As I have gotten older I have a stronger desire to settle down. Maybe it is because I have a chronic illness. Maybe it is because I came from a large family that is almost 100% divorce-free. I feel a dissonance with my 4 brothers not only because they are Straight and I am Gay, but because they were able to drop roots, have children and bond with other family members (siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles) who have done the same.

All I know is I do not thrive alone. Interesting that you mention that a lover also turned out to be asexual.

My first 2 lovers cheated on me from day one (both to make another woman that they truly loved jealous) and my last lover coldly used my sexually. The love of my life, Joan, turned out to be another asexual. Interestingly, she and I mutually reconnected just last month. Second to Joan, another lovely asexual lady in my life, Paula, and I would have been serious except she lived with a schizophrenic son (38 yo) who would not take his medication and who was violent. I could not remain in an unsafe situation, and I made it clear to Paula that it was NOT her I was rejecting, but a living condition. At the same time, I made it clear I understood why she had to live with him and I admired her for it, and I would never ask her to reject him to have a relationship with me, because the only alternative to living with his mother was the state hospital.

You are right, dear friend, very few people are comfortable with true lifelong singleness, but that does not imply those people are more or lesshealthier than the rest of us.

I challenge my fellow asexuals to educate those around them, as I find there are MANY asexual people who do not YET know they are asexual.

I have placed announcements in all of the Gay magazines in the Tampa Bay, Florida area but it is too soon to know the response. If I get enough responses, I am starting an asexual women's support and social group called Asexual Women of Tampa Bay (AWTB). Thus far, as I speak of it to asexual women, or women whom I suspect are asexual, I am getting a very positive response!

Just because we have no/low sex drives does not necessarily mean we do not want relationships! I want everything a healthy relationship has to offer but the sex.

Good luck in finding that special person, if that is what you want. You deserve happiness in your life.

Your friend, Beth yahoo@...> wrote:

I wonder how other people in their 30s think about this ...

Well, I am not quite in my thirties yet, I am twenty-five, but I have already watched this happen to most of my friends of the past. Even in my group, which was fairly independent and "anti-society" to a degree (passively) the "I am never going to get married" types -- well their body clocks all started ticking and they decided that it was time to "grow up." Well, in their minds, growing up meant joining their life with another, and starting new lives. That's all fine and dandy, I certainly don't hold it against them, but I do miss them from time to time.

In my age group, there are still a certain number still single, and not wanting to change that, but this number grows steadily smaller. If anything, this fact alone is the one that causes me to wish perhaps I could find somebody who would understand me, and share my life long term (I see no reason to make it a Life Arrangement.) If this person were enough like myself, it would almost be like having a perpetually single close friend -- almost.

In an ironic twist. I recently told my ex-girlfriend from three or four years back about my asexuality, and as I explained what it meant, she has come to identify as an asexual herself. It turns out she disliked it as much as I did, but felt silently obligated to do it as well. Ah, if only we'd know about this -- but I don't think this group even existed back then. So who knows, maybe sometime in the future we will get together again. That would really be ideal for me. We were truly perfect for each other in every respect but the sex.

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

My dear friends, Sexual fidelity is important to me even though I am asexual because it is a matter of mutual respect. I would only be with another asexual, because I feel it would be grossly unfair to a sexual person for me to partner with them and not satisfy their sexual needs.

Without apology, I am old fashioned, and I have great difficulty seperating sex from love. Ideally, if I were healthy, making love would be the physical expression of my love for my partner. Other than my health problems, I find sexuality the main cause of why so many Gay relationships, both male and female, are all too brief and painful. Because I have no sex drive, my passion and love for my partner has increased. My doctors offered all kinds of medications to give me an artificial sex drive, and I even tried some at first, but the fact I have no sex drive has SET ME FREE.

To avoid the disappointment to any potential partners I am candid upfront that I have no sex drive. This avoids the situation of being paired with a person with a greater sex drive than mine that will be looking for release somewhere else.

Your friend, Beth

<< But here is a question for you. If the relationship does not imply ownership at all, even dual "equal" ownership, then would you feel hurt or perhaps betrayed if the other person decided to go off and have sex with somebody -- spend the night -- relieve some tension they cannot relieve with you? >>

Yes. Because to be in a relationship with me, they would promise me fidelity, and that would be breaking a promise. I am a very jealous person, and I would never betray a partner, and expect the same. I don't think that means it's ownership. I consider it "respect" and "courtesy."

<<Now as for the equally obsessive part: Is that the word you really meant? I understand that I am a fiercely independent person, and the absolute opposite of a narcissist, so I have to factor that in -- but if a person were obsessed with me, that would annoy me to no end. Nothing would make me leave faster than a person who had to always be around me, or *depended* upon me to function correctly.>>

That's the word I meant. I want a lot of time, and co-dependance is my ideal. My motto is.. What is there you can do by yourself that wouldn't be better with someone else? I'm hardly going to follow someone into the bathroom, and if someone wanted some time to think about something, that would be fine with me. But I don't see the point of going off and doing something else by yourself.

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

My dear friend, There are several different kinds of definitions for asexuality.

First, you might want to check out a website called www.ambrosian.org for Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN).

They even have a dating service for $15.00 a month.

In my opinion, there is the asexuality which means a person has a low/no sex drive, for a variety of reasons. The person stills retain an identity of gay/lesbian/bisexual or straight. Gay/lesbian/bisexual/straight refers to the orientation of a person's sexuality, and asexuality the amount of drive. Rememer, sex drive looks like a bell curve. Some people are oversexed, some have a "normal" drive (3 times a week) and others have a low sex drive. I personally say that when someone can be comfortably celibate for non religious reasons and not for lack of a partner for 6 months or more, they should start considering the possibility they are asexual.

Another type of asexuality is where a person in very childlike (not childish) in that they do not relate romantically as an adult.

May I comment on your actual sexual practice? Perhaps you do as much as you do to satisfy your partner as opposed to getting excited yourself. In the past, when I was with a sexual partner, before I knew I was asexual, I would satisfy them as a courtesy because they were my partner, and I felt an obligation to satisfy them because I was their lover.

I would suggest reading all you can online and try to join, and if one is not available, start an asexual support/social group and you might be surprised how "normal" you are.

Your friend, Beth.com> wrote:

If you go to the bottom of this post, you will see the message I tried to send you by E-mail.

The message was returned to me because your E-mail box is over-quota.

Do you think that maybe you ought to check it out?

To anyone else who reads this:

Read my message, originally addressed to <drksparkle@...> and if you can answer my question, I would really like to hear from you.

Please write to me at

hteetlufituaeb@...

Date

13 Oct 2002 17:07:27 -0000

From

MAILER-DAEMON@... | This is Spam | Add to Address Book

To

hteetlufituaeb@...

Subject

failure delivery

Message from yahoo.com. Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

<drksparkle@...>:

Sorry, your message to drksparkle@... cannot be delivered. This account is over quota. - mta552.mail.yahoo.com

--- Original message follows.

Sun, 13 Oct 2002 10:07:26 PDT Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 10:07:26 -0700 (PDT) From: <hteetlufituaeb@...> Subject: Asexuality To: drksparkle@...

Hi,

I just now discovered your asexual site on Yahoo.

I have not had time to get into it. I did not think that there WERE any other asexuals in the world, besides myself.

Do I understand what you MEAN by asexual correctly?

I am a male, a Pennsylvanian. I am interested in affectionate things like cuddling, fondling, touching, etc. I am NOT interested in sex.

Is this the same kind of asexuality that you are talking about?

I would really be interested in a response.

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

http://maensell.htmlplanet.com

<< If you are engaging in behavior that you (or an average person) wouldn't consider or ordinarially WOULDN'T EXTENSIVELY and FREQUENTLY engage in with a family member (i.e. brother, sister, aunt, uncle, mother, father, grandparent) or with one of your friends, than you are a SEXUAL participating in a SEXUAL relationship. >>

::Shrugs:: I have absolutely no sex drive whatsoever. I have no sexual attraction. I don't think wanting to hug another woman is a sexual thing.

Hi Moni,

You wrote:

In my opinion, there is the asexuality which means a person has a low/no sex drive, for a variety of reasons. The person stills retain an identity of gay/lesbian/bisexual or straight.

Okay folks... I am going to kick up real hornet's nest here as I am sure that this topic has been discussed on this list many times before, but just what is asexuality anyway?

I have seen the AVEN site but to me I have a problem with idea of considering someone who has a non-existant sex drive an asexual if they are involved in a ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP.

To me if you are living with someone you consider to be your life partner-- sharing a bed, even it you are ONLY just cuddling, kissing & caressing... that in my opinion IS A SEXUAL relationship.

To say that such a relationship is an asexual thing or to say that you are an ASEXUAL just because you don't engage in sex with this other person, is in my opinion almost akin to a woman saying she is a virgin when she has engaged in anal and oral pleasure.

I may be narrow minded here but the way I define sexuality and/or a sexual relationship is this:

If you are engaging in behavior that you (or an average person) wouldn't consider or ordinarially WOULDN'T EXTENSIVELY and FREQUENTLY engage in with a family member (i.e. brother, sister, aunt, uncle, mother, father, grandparent) or with one of your friends, than you are a SEXUAL participating in a SEXUAL relationship.

Anyway that's my opinion. :-)

If someone wants to tell me I am wrong that's fine but it seems to me like there's a real gray area here where its hard to determine what is what. :-)

Nom

P.S. Sorry for the some of the capitalized words. I am not trying to yell at anyone-- only just trying to emphasize words since I can't always tell if text formatting (i.e. bold & underlining) will come through okay or not.

Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com

To me if you are living with someone you consider to be your life partner-- sharing a bed, even it you are ONLY just cuddling, kissing & caressing... that in my opinion IS A SEXUAL relationship.

I would agree with that, though I've kept my mouth shut about it. I suppose the best way to look at it is like this: Asexuality is just like anything else, it comes in degrees. Some people, like myself are positively revolted by the act, much like I would suspect a straight person would trying out homosexuality. Other folks seem to just have an air of nonchalance about it, in fact they would even have a sexual relationship, if that is what it takes to have a relationship. To them it is more a preference or inclination.

So where do you draw the line? It's like bisexuality, when do you stop calling a person bisexual and call them straight or strictly homosexual? There are obvious cases, but there is a twilight zone in between where you could go one way or the other with it.

Okay, so what then about the people who wouldn't mind having somebody live with them for decades, but they sleep in separate beds (or even share a bed, but just sleep in it) and share all of the other joys of life. The types of people you addressed would likely say that isn't a relationship at all, it is just a roommate or a close friend -- well to *me* that is the perfect asexual relationship.

If someone wants to tell me I am wrong that's fine but it seems to me like there's a real gray area here where its hard to determine what is what. :-)

I don't think you are wrong, technically, but I do think that this place is a bit of a haven for everyone who feels even the slightest gradient of asexuality. Be they the types that like actually caressing each other, or the types that feel ill at the thought of it. I think that's great, for now. It's all such a "new" thing on the 'net, and there really are not enough of us to go around to splinter much. I suspect, in the coming years things will splinter though.

P.S. Sorry for the some of the capitalized words. I am not trying to yell at anyone-- only just trying to emphasize words since I can't always tell if text formatting (i.e. bold & underlining) will come through okay or not.

It's best to assume they do not. Even in the Yahoo! groups that pass HTML emails, a lot of people have that stuff turned off for security reasons. I think Haven strips HTML.

Back in ye olde BBS days, we used things like *bold* and _underline_ and /italics/.

/Shrug/

Whatever *you* prefer. :)

Ioa ]