Haven for the Human Amoeba

...was just a manner of speaking. Boy, you sure are "literal Lil!" ha ha. 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."

Amy

Amy,

Literal Lil huh? Hehehehe... Hmmmm.. you think I should change my nickname to Lily? LOL. :-)

Regarding the physical feelings thing, that might be true in most cases... but getting back to my very first post.... which was "Just what is IT anyway?", I have a really difficult time considering a person to be asexual when they call another person their "life partner" and frequently share a bed and cuddle extensively in it with this "life partner" person.

To me even if such folks are not having sex, I think there is definitely some sort of sexual component there-- at least on some psychological level anyway.

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.

Nom

...was just a manner of speaking. Boy, you sure are "literal Lil!" ha ha. 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."

Amy

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

Check these sites out. Free sign ups.

Singles: http://AdultFriendFinder.com/go/p55181 http://dating.iwantu.com/index.love?id=jam1124 http://ebony.sexyads.net/?rs=2093 http://sexyads.net/?rs=2093

Gay: http://gay.sexyads.net/?rs=2093 http://outpersonals.com/go/p9244

Asian: http://asiafriendfinder.com/go/f130721

Alternative: http://alt.iwantu.com/index.love?id=jam1124 http://alt.com/go/p11586c http://www.altmatch.com/index.htm?AssociateID=235657&MID=309665

Older Men and Women: http://mature.sexyads.net/?rs=2093

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ FREE STUFF HERE! http://chargers.freestores.biz

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Grace,

<you wrote:>

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.

Do you mean aroused physically or mentally? If you are only talking about physical arousal, I would say that while that may be true with most cases, one cannot discard the notion that a person can still sexually aroused on a mental level.

For example: A man who is totally incapable of getting an erection or even ejaculating but likes to run around in his neighborhood as a peeping Tom.

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

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.

Hey there, Rachel... calm yourself down :-)

I am only talking about MY own opinion here NOT everyone elses on the list.

As Ioa said and I agree: there's not enough of us on this list to splinter it anyway...

However that's not to say that in the future... as people become more and more aware of us on the Internet... that there may come a time when the definition we have for asexuality becomes much more narrow than what it presently is.

And frankly when that time comes, I am not sure if any of us would even have a role in making that determination-- except perhaps as a case study.

What I am saying is this:

If the field of psychology begins to consider us as a legitimate lifestyle much like hetrosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, than I would imagine that they would be the ones who ultimately would determine how best to define our behavior.

Nom

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

If the field of psychology begins to consider us as a legitimate lifestyle much like hetrosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, than I would imagine that they would be the ones who ultimately would determine how best to define our behavior.

Whatever research the Kinsey group is doing will no doubt have a lot of influence.

I don't think romance and sex have any connection whatsoever.>

I seperate romance and sex completely. Love does not require sex.>

Rachel, I totally agree! I have been in a non-sexual relationship with a man for more than three years...and it can be very romantic at times, so I guess I'm "living proof." :o)

Amy

<< Do you mean aroused physically or mentally? If you are only talking about physical arousal, I would say that while that may be true with most cases, one cannot discard the notion that a person can still sexually aroused on a mental level.

For example: A man who is totally incapable of getting an erection or even ejaculating but likes to run around in his neighborhood as a peeping Tom. >>

I mean sexually aroused at all. Sex disgusts me.

<< OK, I'll take a stab at it...it's a bit tricky because such things are so subjective. In our case it's mostly about words...poetry, terms of endearment, and so on. It's just a special kind of feeling that I don't get with people who are "just friends". And it really has nothing to do with physical contact at all...it's a mental and emotional phenomenon. Hope that helps! >>

I also like cheesy things like flowers and surprise gifts/notes/letters..

Hi Amy,

<you wrote:>

Rachel, I totally agree! I have been in a non-sexual relationship with a man for more than three years...and it can be very romantic at times, so I guess I'm "living proof." :o)

Can you explain in detail by what you mean when you say "very romantic"?

I am trying to understand the use of the word "asexual" even though one is "very romatic"-ally involved with someone.

Nom

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

Hi Ioa,

Whatever research the Kinsey group is doing will no doubt have a lot of influence.

Yeah it would be interesting to see what the Kinsey report has to say or has said in the past about the "Boston Marriage" phenomenon-- where the relationship doesn't involve sex but the parties involved in the relationship consider each other as "life partners" and where that relationship involves sharing a bed together and engaging in extensive and frequent cuddling.

Many activists in the GLB community already consider such relationships to be sexual in nature and I am sure the "hetero" community would probably agree with that viewpoint too, especially if such a relationship were to consist of "life partners" of opposite genders.

However... I am not sure if the GLB community's assertions on Boston Marriages are politically motivated or based upon what the psychology experts think.

If they are based upon what the majority of psychology experts think, than I would wholeheartedly have to agree with the expert viewpoint.

It's been my opinion for a long time that such relationships have a sexual component anyway, but that's only just my opinion. I don't have any research data to back me up on this-- only a hunch on my part and three college level courses in psychology. :-)

Nom

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

Can you explain in detail by what you mean when you say "very romantic"?>

OK, I'll take a stab at it...it's a bit tricky because such things are so subjective. In our case it's mostly about words...poetry, terms of endearment, and so on. It's just a special kind of feeling that I don't get with people who are "just friends". And it really has nothing to do with physical contact at all...it's a mental and emotional phenomenon. Hope that helps!

Amy

Surely it's not just a case of dividing relationships into 'sexual' and 'non-sexual' - there's a continuum involved. Some relationships are based on pure lust, others (like long-term marriages) have a sexual component but are primarily affectionate in nature, then there are friendships where one party feels vaguely attracted to the other but would never be interested enough to consider doing anything about it, not to mention all sorts of other variants. Sexuality is not just about lust, there's a lot more to it than that.

Similarly, there probably is a faint sexual component to celibate romantic relationships, but does that matter? The important thing is that the parties involved have no desire to have sex with each other or anyone else.

I think it's a shame to create divisions between 'real' asexuals and those whom you seem to suggest aren't worthy of the label. It's bit like saying that a man isn't really gay if he's ever found a woman attractive, even though he only ever wants to sleep with other men. There are asexuals who masturbate, which seems weird to me but we are all different and I don't have a problem with them identifying as asexual!

It is hard enough being voluntarily celibate in this society anyway, surely we should focus on what we have in common - if people feel themselves to be asexual that's enough for me.

Incidentally, has anyone read the FAQ on the www.asexuality.org site about these matters and lots of others - it is very comprehensive and (I think) very good. I would be interested to know what you thought!

Prosymna

Yeah it would be interesting to see what the Kinsey report has to say or has said in the past about the "Boston Marriage" phenomenon-- where the relationship doesn't involve sex but the parties involved in the relationship consider each other as "life partners" and where that relationship involves sharing a bed together and engaging in extensive and frequent cuddling.

Many activists in the GLB community already consider such relationships to be sexual in nature and I am sure the "hetero" community would probably agree with that viewpoint too, especially if such a relationship were to consist of "life partners" of opposite genders.

However... I am not sure if the GLB community's assertions on Boston Marriages are politically motivated or based upon what the psychology experts think.

If they are based upon what the majority of psychology experts think, than I would wholeheartedly have to agree with the expert viewpoint.

It's been my opinion for a long time that such relationships have a sexual component anyway, but that's only just my opinion. I don't have any research data to back me up on this-- only a hunch on my part and three college level courses in psychology. :-)

Nom

I think it's a shame to create divisions between 'real' asexuals and those whom you seem to suggest aren't worthy of the label.

I do not think that anyone suggested *creating* divisions, nor did anyone suggest that any position on the scale of sexuality is any more "real" than other position. Such an assertion wouldn't even make sense. What my comment was referring to is the natural human tendency to group. Once a grouped section of society becomes sufficiently large, it sub-divides into smaller groups. This is how you get things like sub-cultures and several hundred different types of electronic music.

This isn't evil, it is just something that happens. Eventually, if things keep growing the way they have in the past year, there will be divisions because some types of asexuals simply are not interested in the things other types are interested in.

At some point, your hypothetical gay man or women becomes a bisexual, that is another example of a sub-division. And within bisexuality, you have further sub-divisions -- because that group has become enormous! It's the same way with asexuality. Eventually the hypothetical person would not be considered asexual, just a person with a low libido. Doesn't mean they are not "worthy" it's not like being an asexual is royalty or something. It just means the word doesn't fully describe their unique personality.

It is hard enough being voluntarily celibate in this society anyway,

I've never considered myself to be voluntarily celibate. I don't even think about celibacy, so the implicit choice that voluntary status provides doesn't seem relevant. Really, "involuntarily" would be more accurate, since that can mean that the action is not subject to will or reason.

<<Is it really THAT difficult?>>

I don't think they meant it was hard to refrain from sex, but that it was hard to live in the world with people being judgmental about it. I get ridiculed every day.

<< One should always be skeptical about any sexuality opinion given by a woman who tries to make a judgement based only on her own sexual situation. The guys are much more conscious that they are jerks than woman conscious of their "nun-ness". >>

Is it just me or was that just a tad sexist?

<< I don't see that either, I guess. I don't really talk about myself, and people do not really ask. Then, I always have been thick skinned. I have never given credit to judgmental people, especially if they are not in a position to dispense opinions. Who cares what they think. I can see how a more sensitive person would operate differently, and perhaps I just don't see the things they see because I am not paying attention. >>

Well, I independant study and spend most of my time online. And that generally involves chatting. So it comes up a lot.

<< Aren't you sometimes a nun? >>

Lol, I'd hardly consider myself a nun seeing as I'm far too disturbed.

< Gee Grace... I really hope you are not using the online chat community to judge the world as a whole.

Nope! Just saying that in that arena, it's pretty tough.

Hello,

I think it's a shame to create divisions between 'real' asexuals and those whom you seem to suggest aren't worthy of the label.

Wow... who says I am creating divisions? I am only stating my opinion as you are yours, so what's wrong with that?

Furthermore, if the group did divide at some point in the future, who says that it would necessarily be a bad thing?

All the world-- its ideas, etc have followed a path of evolution, so why should our group be any different?

Must we continue on in perpetuity to be of one faith and of one church?

It is hard enough being voluntarily celibate in this society anyway

Is it really THAT difficult?

Perhaps it is for celibacy, where one refrains from sex for religious or creative reasons, but I wouldn't say it is that way for asexuality.

With asexuality one typically has a very strong INVOLUNTARY reaction of not feeling anything sexual (physical or psychological) towards anyone else at all.

At least that's been my own experience anyway. :-)

Nom

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

> << One should

i think it was just you.

b.

always be skeptical about any

sexuality opinion given by a woman who tries to make a judgement based only on her own sexual situation. The guys are much more conscious that they are jerks than woman conscious of their "nun-ness". >>

Is it just me or was that just a tad sexist?

Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

I don't think they meant it was hard to refrain from sex, but that it was hard to live in the world with people being judgmental about it. I get ridiculed every day.

I don't see that either, I guess. I don't really talk about myself, and people do not really ask. Then, I always have been thick skinned. I have never given credit to judgmental people, especially if they are not in a position to dispense opinions. Who cares what they think. I can see how a more sensitive person would operate differently, and perhaps I just don't see the things they see because I am not paying attention.

Ioa ]

Well, I independant study and spend most of my time online. And that generally involves chatting. So it comes up a lot.

Gee Grace... I really hope you are not using the online chat community to judge the world as a whole.

It's been my experience that the people one often finds in chatrooms are of the type that pretty much rank at the bottom of the human gene pool when it comes to intelligence, maturity, and good judgment.

And when I say gene pool, I am defining it very loosely in this particular context as I am referring to a gene pool where the chlorine hasn't been added yet. :-)

Nom

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

< Gee Grace... I really hope you are not using the online chat community to judge the world as a whole.>

Nope! Just saying that in that arena, it's pretty tough.

Yeah... well don't let those folks get to ya. Most of those people have a big "L" written across their foreheads for L-O-S-E-R, lol.

When I first got my computer and was totally geeked about finally being on the Internet, I cruised quite a few chatrooms and I only found one where there were some folks who were capable of having an interesting and intelligent conversation.

It was a chatroom for writers that was located in New Zealand and sadly it is no longer in operation. As for the rest of my chatroom experiences, they were for nothing more than a futile exercise in the search for intelligent life. :-(

But while we're on the topic of chatrooms, I don't know why us list members don't take advantage of our own chatroom which has been provided to us by Yahoo groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/chat

Heck, if we can't find any intelligent conversation out there, I should hope that we should at least be able to find it amongst ourselves.

Nom

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

While we're on the topic I'm probably going to throw a chat room up on AVEN as soon as I get back from Ghana (>14.4kbps and 80 cedis a minute at the 'ol no- ftp internet cafe sadly doesn't cut it. Kickass plantain though..)