Haven for the Human Amoeba

I tend to agree overall with Nom, although I can certainly appreciate that there are gradations. I guess "pure" asexuality is a state of no sexual arousal. So, it's not so much a question of whether you hug or not, but whether or not hugging sexually arouses you. Any other ideas about this?

Amy

Hi Grace,

Well that's why I emphasized the words "extensively" and "frequently" in my definition.

Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that you and your very best friend haven't seen each other in couple of years. Upon greeting him or her after such a long while, you give them a very big, emotionally passionate hug.

That hug would fall under my definition of "extensive", due to its intensity. After all, when you greet or even say goodbye to a friend, you typically just give them a short squeeze and that's it, you don't typically hold them for a minute or two--do you know what I mean?

Anyway... while it would fall under my condition of being extensive, I wouldn't necessarily consider your relationship to be sexual in nature, unless you are engaging in long, passionate hugs with your friend on a frequent basis.

Like for example, let's say your best friend visits you quite often and everytime your friend pops by your house for a visit, you like to sit on the couch and hold each other and cuddle while you watch TV together for several hours.

That would in my opinion be a sexual relationship.

To be considered sexual in my opinion BOTH conditions--(i.e. frequently and extensively) have to be met--not just one or the other.

Now do you see what I am getting at?

Nom

<< 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.

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

Hi Grace,

<< 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. >>

I hope my very last post wasn't too confusing but what I should have said was that things that are sort of in a gray area--like hugging for example, would have to meet both the conditions of extensive and frequent to be considered sexual in my way of thinking.

For more obvious things like french kissing, biting and kissing somebody on the neck, kissing somebody's genitals, etc. such actions would definitely be considered sexual because they would fail the "relative" test-- as in: "Would this be a behavior a typical average person would normally engage in with a sibling, a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc?"

Nom

Hi Grace,

Well that's why I emphasized the words "extensively" and "frequently" in my definition.

Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that you and your very best friend haven't seen each other in couple of years. Upon greeting him or her after such a long while, you give them a very big, emotionally passionate hug.

That hug would fall under my definition of "extensive", due to its intensity. After all, when you greet or even say goodbye to a friend, you typically just give them a short squeeze and that's it, you don't typically hold them for a minute or two--do you know what I mean?

Anyway... while it would fall under my condition of being extensive, I wouldn't necessarily consider your relationship to be sexual in nature, unless you are engaging in long, passionate hugs with your friend on a frequent basis.

Like for example, let's say your best friend visits you quite often and everytime your friend pops by your house for a visit, you like to sit on the couch and hold each other and cuddle while you watch TV together for several hours.

That would in my opinion be a sexual relationship.

To be considered sexual in my opinion BOTH conditions--(i.e. frequently and extensively) have to be met--not just one or the other.

Now do you see what I am getting at?

Nom

pessimisticgrace@... said:

<< 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.

---

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

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

<< I guess "pure" asexuality is a state of no sexual arousal >>

Exactly. I have absolutely no sexual arousal, but I like the closeness of hugs..

<< Like for example, let's say your best friend visits you quite often and everytime your friend pops by your house for a visit, you like to sit on the couch and hold each other and cuddle while you watch TV together for several hours.

That would in my opinion be a sexual relationship. >>

Does that mean I have a sexual relationship with my parents? I cuddle with them on the couch watching television.

<< If it did-- irregardless of whether there was a physical sexual response out of it or not, I think such behavior if it occurred frequently would be extremely weird to say the very least. >>

^^ Eh, I have a close relationship with my parents. I connect with them. There is no sexual interest on either part. It just marks a closer relationship.

<< And when I say love I am not talking about the hot, fiery sexual sort of love, but type of love you would have for them if they were a very dear family member. >>

So loving someone like a family member is sexual?

<< Nope... look through Amy's earlier posts. Her statement was in regards to my word "emotionally passionate." >>

But I love my family in an emotional, passionate way. I wouldn't marry them, or have children with them because I'm not *in* love with them. But I'm very close to them and cuddle and hug.

Nom de Plume wrote:

Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that you and your very best friend haven't seen each other in couple of years. Upon greeting him or her after such a long while, you give them a very big, emotionally passionate hug. Anyway... while it would fall under my condition of being extensive, I wouldn't necessarily consider your relationship to be sexual in nature, unless you are engaging in long, passionate hugs with your friend on a frequent basis.>

To me there's a world of difference between an "extensive" hug and a "passionate" hug. When I see one of my daughters after a long time of not seeing her, we indulge in what I would call an "extensive" and "emotional" hug, but of course it's not passionate!

Like for example, let's say your best friend visits you quite often and everytime your friend pops by your house for a visit, you like to sit on the couch and hold each other and cuddle while you watch TV together for several hours. That would in my opinion be a sexual relationship.>

I don't think this would be sexual unless one or both parties became sexually aroused. I can sit around with my daughters hugging for hours without getting aroused. :o)

So I still say that the key is sexual arousal...not how much or how long hugging goes on. I do agree about the other stuff, though...french kissing, playing with the genitals, etc., etc., because these are designed to arouse sexually, while just plain hugging is not, necessarily.

Amy

<< I think you missed the point of what I am getting at here. Read through all my posts again and perhaps you might then see what I am getting at. >>

I guess I don't understand what you meant by that one. Can you please clarify?

I don't think this would be sexual unless one or both parties became sexually aroused. I can sit around with my daughters hugging for hours without getting aroused. :o)

Hi Amy,

While that may be true, how freqently do you do this and how old is your daughter?

When I was a little girl, sometimes my mom would come into my room and climb into bed with me and cradle me. My mother's behavior in this fashion was quite a rare occurrence and it certainly didn't happen when I became older. If it did-- irregardless of whether there was a physical sexual response out of it or not, I think such behavior if it occurred frequently would be extremely weird to say the very least.

The example I made of the two best friends who visit each other often and frequently hold and cuddle each other as they watch TV on the couch is a relationship that has a sexual component to it in my opinion.

I guess the point I am trying to make out all of this, is that just because one does not physically get aroused, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a sexual arousal in the psychological sense.

It's like a man who can no longer ejaculate or get an erection due to physical reasons, but still enjoys pleasuring his wife or having his wife pleasure him.

Anyway... in my opinion, while we may all like to think that our sexual organs are located between our legs, the biggest sexual organ we have on our bodies is the one located between our ears.

Nom

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

Hi Amy,

Nom de Plume wrote:

Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that you and your very best friend haven't seen each other in couple of years. Upon greeting him or her after such a long while, you give them a very big, emotionally passionate hug.

To me there's a world of difference between an "extensive" hug and a "passionate" hug. When I see one of my daughters after a long time of not seeing her, we indulge in what I would call an "extensive" and "emotional" hug, but of course it's not passionate!

BTW, please note that I said "emotionally passionate" not passionate in the lustful/romantic sense. When I am talking about emotionally passionate, I am referring to tears of joy & happiness, and the love you feel towards this person--

And when I say love I am not talking about the hot, fiery sexual sort of love, but type of love you would have for them if they were a very dear family member.

Nom

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

Hi Nom, My daughters are both adults and live in a different country than I do. Therefore I only see them once, or at the most, twice a year. I'm pretty sure that if I lived close to them and saw them every day our hugs would be shorter... :o)... but I know we would still hug, because we are very fond of each other.

I agree that sexual arousal is mental, by the way, since the body on its own can't act without the mentality (if it could, then a corpse could get sexually aroused--I know that sounds weird, but think about it).

Amy

Hi Grace,

Nope... look through Amy's earlier posts. Her statement was in regards to my word "emotionally passionate."

Nom

<< And when I say love I am not talking about the hot, fiery sexual sort of love, but type of love you would have for them if they were a very dear family member. >>

So loving someone like a family member is sexual?

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

Hi Amy,

I think corpses already do-- that is why they get stiff. Hahahaha. Just kidding.

That was a very bad joke, wasn't it? ;-)

Nom

I agree that sexual arousal is mental, by the way, since the body on its own can't act without the mentality (if it could, then a corpse could get sexually aroused--I know that sounds weird, but think about it).

Amy

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

I think you missed the point of what I am getting at here. Read through all my posts again and perhaps you might then see what I am getting at.

Nom

<< Nope... look through Amy's earlier posts. Her statement was in regards to my word "emotionally passionate." >>

But I love my family in an emotional, passionate way. I wouldn't marry them, or have children with them because I'm not *in* love with them. But I'm very close to them and cuddle and hug.

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

Hi Amy,

Hi Nom, My daughters are both adults and live in a different country than I do. Therefore I only see them once, or at the most, twice a year. I'm pretty sure that if I lived close to them and saw them every day our hugs would be shorter... :o)...

Yup, I think you know what I am talking about.

but I know we would still hug, because we are very fond of each other.

Oh most definitely and there is nothing wrong with that.

Nom

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

I guess I don't understand what you meant by that one. Can you please clarify?

Which one? Which of my posts are you referring to?

Nom

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

<

Which one? Which of my posts are you referring to?

Well, I fit the criteria of a sexual relationship that you list.. with my family. That's something I find hard to believe. My father is a behavioral, domestic, family and forensic psychologist. He wrote his thesis on sex. Am I bragging? No, I'm just trying to explain that I find it hard to believe that my father who specializes in that field, wouldn't know if my relationship with him was sexual?

I adore my parents, and hug them, and cuddle with them when we watch movies. I like to spend a lot of time with them, including gardening, playing games, surfing the internet, going to movies, resteraunts (spelling?) etc. We have a lot of physical contact I don't consider sexual (kisses on the cheek, hugs, leaning against one another, sometimes we're sitting on the couch and my mother falls asleep leaning against me.)

My point is.. How could a behavioral/domestic psychologist who specializes in family problems NOT know if he was having a sexual relationship?

To me, sexual is when something goes beyond affection, to either a physical reaction, or an attraction to want to do physical things with someone.. I don't see how a loving hug is sexual if neither of the parties have ever had ANY sexual drive, desire, fantasy, or inclination whatsoever.

I just don't understand how loving hugs are automatically sexual. And I don't think my relationship with my parents is 'extremely weird.' Children today usually hate their parents, complain about curfew, never get along, and makes statements wishing they were dead. They want to move out immediately, and don't keep close contact. Does that mean my relationship with my parents is weird? No, it means it's unusual. That doesn't mean there's something sick about it. In other countries, it is tradition to move in with your mother and/or father when you get married, or if you're still single, you may still live with a parent. I think it's sad how kids don't appreciate their parents and want to seperate from them. I adore my parents and I think my relationship does not "cross the line," qualify as "sick," but that it displays affection almost never seen nowadays because of what I consider deterioration. It makes me want to live centuries ago because children are so detached from parents now.

I feel lucky to have my parents, and they've done much for me and that's why we're close. I recognise it. There's no "fondling" or "inappropriate touching," unless you have a problem with hugs.

I just hope you don't honestly think I have a sick relationship with my parents.

You said:

<<Like for example, let's say your best friend visits you quite often and everytime your friend pops by your house for a visit, you like to sit on the couch and hold each other and cuddle while you watch TV together for several hours.

That would in my opinion be a sexual relationship.

I see my family quite often, sit on the couch, and cuddle watching television together. What am I misinterpreting here then?

<<When I was a little girl, sometimes my mom would come into my room and climb into bed with me and cradle me. My mother's behavior in this fashion was quite a rare occurrence and it certainly didn't happen when I became older. If it did-- irregardless of whether there was a physical sexual response out of it or not, I think such behavior if it occurred frequently would be extremely weird to say the very least.

Again, that fits me and my mother.

<<It's like a man who can no longer ejaculate or get an erection due to physical reasons, but still enjoys pleasuring his wife or having his wife pleasure him.

It's much different. I don't enjoy ANY sexual contact, to, from, whatever.

<<The example I made of the two best friends who visit each other often and frequently hold and cuddle each other as they watch TV on the couch is a relationship that has a sexual component to it in my opinion.

Once again, I do that with my family.

What am I missing here? You repeatedly state these relationships qualify as sexual.

I think you are reading my posts completely out of context, Rachel because that's not what I said at all.

Nom

<

Which one? Which of my posts are you referring to?

Well, I fit the criteria of a sexual relationship that you list.. with my family. That's something I find hard to believe. My father is a behavioral, domestic, family and forensic psychologist. He wrote his thesis on sex. Am I bragging? No, I'm just trying to explain that I find it hard to believe that my father who specializes in that field, wouldn't know if my relationship with him was sexual?

I adore my parents, and hug them, and cuddle with them when we watch movies. I like to spend a lot of time with them, including gardening, playing games, surfing the internet, going to movies, resteraunts (spelling?) etc. We have a lot of physical contact I don't consider sexual (kisses on the cheek, hugs, leaning against one another, sometimes we're sitting on the couch and my mother falls asleep leaning against me.)

My point is.. How could a behavioral/domestic psychologist who specializes in family problems NOT know if he was having a sexual relationship?

To me, sexual is when something goes beyond affection, to either a physical reaction, or an attraction to want to do physical things with someone.. I don't see how a loving hug is sexual if neither of the parties have ever had ANY sexual drive, desire, fantasy, or inclination whatsoever.

I just don't understand how loving hugs are automatically sexual. And I don't think my relationship with my parents is 'extremely weird.' Children today usually hate their parents, complain about curfew, never get along, and makes statements wishing they were dead. They want to move out immediately, and don't keep close contact. Does that mean my relationship with my parents is weird? No, it means it's unusual. That doesn't mean there's something sick about it. In other countries, it is tradition to move in with your mother and/or father when you get married, or if you're still single, you may still live with a parent. I think it's sad how kids don't appreciate their parents and want to seperate from them. I adore my parents and I think my relationship does not "cross the line," qualify as "sick," but that it displays affection almost never seen nowadays because of what I consider deterioration. It makes me want to live centuries ago because children are so detached from parents now.

I feel lucky to have my parents, and they've done much for me and that's why we're close. I recognise it. There's no "fondling" or "inappropriate touching," unless you have a problem with hugs.

I just hope you don't honestly think I have a sick relationship with my parents.

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

Hi Amy,

I think corpses already do-- that is why they get stiff. Hahahaha. Just kidding.

That was a very bad joke, wasn't it? ;-)

Nom>

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny! LOL!

And Rachel, I have to say I loved your long post about your parents. I think it's great that you have such a cozy, affectionate relationship with them. I remember when I was a kid, my parents (especially my mother) were not that affectionate at all, and when my kids were small I tended to be like them. But as they grew up I saw how important closeness and hugging are and how much my girls needed this (me, too!), so I changed in that respect.

Nom, I guess I misunderstood your posts, too, because I got the feeling that you were saying the kind of hugging and closeness that Rachel has with her family is essentially sexual. Maybe that's not what you meant, but to me it came across that way. I agree with Rachel that physical contact of any kind becomes sexual only when sexual feelings (arousal) are involved.

Amy

Amy,

Nom, I guess I misunderstood your posts, too, because I got the feeling that you were saying the kind of hugging and closeness that Rachel has with her family is essentially sexual.

I really honestly don't know where you or Rachel got that idea, but I think you guys are probably not understanding the degree of "frequent" and "extensive".

For example:

While Rachel's family MAY be FREQUENT huggers, in my opinion they are NOT EXTENSIVE about it.

Also... I just want to add that while they may hug often... I doubt very much if they would even come close to my definition of frequent!

However even if the level of hugging did reach my definition of frequent, I doubt very much if she and her dad are laying on the couch together in an EXTENSIVE embrace-- such as "spooning" for example.

And even if she did "spoon" with her dad, I doubt very much if she "spoons" with him frequently -- the way one would behave with a significant other in a romantic relationship!

So therefore I wouldn't term their relationship sexual at all, because none of their individual actions towards each other simultaneously meet the conditions of being both frequent and extensive.

Continue reading on...

Example #2

When you were saying you "could hug your daughter for hours"-- and I wrote back and said: "How often do you this and how old is your daughter?" --- let's discuss that phrase you typed in your post:

"hugging for hours"

In the first place... who could actually hold someone in a fierce bear hug for hours and hours on end??

Let's be real! :-)

For one thing, your arms would quickly get very tired, and secondly, you probably want to do something else with your time!

And even if you WERE able to do such a thing-- as "hug for hours" would it be a FREQUENT occurrence?

While "hugging for hours" would probably be something that COULD FREQUENTLY happen with a significant other (assuming you had the physical stamina and some very strong biceps, LOL), would you frequently "hug for hours" with a family member or a friend?

Would you FREQUENTLY hug your daughters "for hours", or your sister, your brother, your mother, etc?

I seriously doubt it.

Furthermore, when you wrote back and said that your hugs would probably be shorter if your daughters lived close by and not so faraway-- that makes absolutely perfect logical sense in my opinion.

After all, it makes sense that you would give your daughter a very long hug if you hadn't seen her in quite a while.

However, on the other hand, IT WOULD BE WEIRD in my opinion to hug her "for hours" or even give her a long embrace that lasted several minutes if you just saw and hugged her a couple days earlier -- unless of course you had a very good reason for giving her such a very long hug-- like something terribly traumatic happened or something like that.

Do you see what I am saying here?

As I close my message... let me just say that if all that I said above still doesn't make any sense and you or Rachel still can't get the idea about what I am talking about, then think about what I am saying if that other person was NOT a family member, but just a friend.

As you do, think about your own personal comfort zone and then think about when being hugged by that person might start to make you feel uncomfortable and/or make you wonder if that other person who is hugging you had more of thing for you than just mere friendship.

Personally, I can think of two situations-- that would make me uncomfortable:

1. If that friend wanted to hug me ALL THE TIME (i.e. practically every stinking minute I am with them) (FREQUENT)

AND...

2. Everytime that friend hugged me, they physically clung to me like a vine for a significant amount of time when there was no logical reason for them to behave in this manner. (EXTENSIVE)

Both conditions would have to simultaneously be present before I would wonder... "what the heck is going on?" :-)

Nom

I mean its one thing to give someone a long hug

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

<< That is why-- at least in my own opinion anyway-- I don't refer to those types of people as "asexuals", but rather as sexuals with a very low physical sex drive >>

I don't think romance and sex have any connection whatsoever. But if I don't fit this list's criteria of asexual, just let me know and I'll leave.

<< Anyway, I think a simpler way to explain all of this stuff is just by saying it is sexual if you get sexually aroused when you do it and it's not if you don't...whether it's just for a short time or "for hours." >>

That's what I believe. I don't see how I'm sexual when I've never been sexually inclined or aroused. I maintain that I'm asexual, regardless of whatever anyone else says. I seperate romance and sex completely. Love does not require sex.