Haven for the Human Amoeba

<< And, given my attraction to things that I find attractive, I'd never have a romantic asexual crush on a man who wasn't handsome, a man who was ugly. >>

Lol, that makes you sadly superficial. And hypocritical, you're looking for acceptance for being different, in being asexual, but you pick and choose on looks. Very judgmental, very sad.

http://www.geocities.com/qbtebjpmnxsd/index.html

The computer says that the message achives are currently unavialable, but I received an email from someone who made me so steamed that I have to reply to it now by posting without the original text to which I'm replying. This person counted the number of times I mentioned "handsome man" in my original post, called me a "homosexual wimp" with a "low libido" rather than an asexual man, and said that because I stated that I wanted a "handsome man" for a romantic relationship, then I must want sex since I'm emphasizing apperance. Them's fightin' words, bud. First off, would you rather I said I preferred an "ugly man"? I've always been ROMANTICALLY attracted to handsome men, ever since I was eight years old and had a crush on Donny Osmond in 1976; I can assure you that, in second grade, I did NOT want to have sex with Donny Osmond, as I didn't even know what sex was. I was asexual back then as surely as I am asexual now. I only wanted to tell him I loved him and talk mushy with him and be accepted by him. Another thing: I've always been attracted to things--not just to people but to things-- that I consider attractive. I buy DVDs based not only on their storylines but on the attractive artwork and colors on the cover; I sew my own Miami Vice-like clothes in pretty shades of pink, peach, lavender, fuschia and white because I cosnider such hues attractive and I despise the UGLY bluejeans, khakis, grey flannel suits, pullovers and sweaters in horrid swamp-muck earth tones in shades of olive, maroon, beige, brown, navy, stone, and the like that are readily available for men. I listen to disco music because of the pretty violin riffs and attractive synthesizer noises beneath the thumping beat. I hate the ugly jagged rhythms and guitars of rock and heavy metal. And "handsome" does not necessarily equal "sexy"; little prepubescent boys can be regarded as handsome, but no one except a child molestor, perhaps, would consider little boys "sexy." So as you can see, I like things I find attractive; since I have always been romantically drawn to other men ever since I was a small child and had romantic crushes on them, I prefer men with handsome faces over those with ugly ones. I used to think I was gay. Until I realized something. Here I was, a 34 year old virgin who'd never been kissed by either a male or a female, nor even held hands with anybody, not even in grade school, and why was that? Because I'd never wanted to have sex with anybody. I have never experienced an erection in connection with another person, man or woman. From puberty--age 11--to age 21, I did experience erections...but only in connection to men's CLOTHES, not to men themselves. I never fantasized about having sex with another man. I fantasized about a pair of Levis or men's Converse high top sneakers and the image of the apparel turned me on. I think penises are gross, disgusting looking--including my own, which I refrain from looking at. I've never wanted to have sex with anybody in my life, nor fantasized about it, but I've had romantic crushes on other males ever since I was eight years old. Since I'm disabled, I don't get out much. Last year, I met a handsome 39-year-old man who was the manager of the local drugstore, we became friends, and I fell in love with him. I had a crush on him, an asexual crush. At no time did I even THINK of wanting to have sex with him, and I couldn't anyway, as I haven't had an erection since I was 21 back in 1989. I think sex between men and women or men and men or women and women is gross. I just think the sex act is yucky. But that doesn't prevent me from having romantic crushes on guys, dreaming of a Prince charming who will sweep me off my feet and wine me and dine me and accept me just as I am and think I'm special, and fall in love with me and even want to cuddle and ever kiss me LIGHTLY on the lips (no deep kissing-- yuck)---but NO SEX. I just don't want to have sex, and, to correct you, I do not have a "low libido," I have NO LIBIDO beacuse I think sex is gross and yucky. But romance without sex seems so fun. And, given my attraction to things that I find attractive, I'd never have a romantic asexual crush on a man who wasn't handsome, a man who was ugly. So don't go around assuming that just because someone has crushes on someone they think is handsome or pretty means that they want to have sex with them. All I want is romance, no sex. <mikevice waits for apology> --Mike Vice, Style God

Dear Mike,

I understand that some of your feelings were a little too judgemental for some group members, but I hear what you are saying.

And I don't think your feelings disqualify you as being asexual. It is a large, undefined spectrum...and based on your non-existant libido, I'd say you're fit somewhere on it.

I somewhat relate to what you are saying about being attracted to good looking guys and wanting innocent romance (though not, *at all*, to the same extent you've clearly articulated).

I am an asexual female with, what I like to call, heterosexual tendencies. One insightful woman on the board suggested I was a platonic hetero because I am innocently attracted to guys, get mild, ephemiral crushes, and because I have some awareness of my sexuality, etc.

I respect her opinion and think the term is applicable to me, but, like yourself, I still consider myself asexual.

Anyway, I am sorry you've taken some flak on the board...but, no offense- when I read your first post, I thought it was a hoax...and still have my suspicions...

But, forget that, and welcome.

I hope you can find who you are looking for one day.

Also, I hope you are not discouraged from continuing to participate on the board. You were very diplomatic in your response and took the high road. I commend you.

The computer says that the message achives are currently unavialable, but I received an email from someone who made me so steamed that I have to reply to it now by posting without the original text to which I'm replying. This person counted the number of times I mentioned "handsome man" in my original post, called me a "homosexual wimp" with a "low libido" rather than an asexual man, and said that because I stated that I wanted a "handsome man" for a romantic relationship, then I must want sex since I'm emphasizing apperance. Them's fightin' words, bud. First off, would you rather I said I preferred an "ugly man"? I've always been ROMANTICALLY attracted to handsome men, ever since I was eight years old and had a crush on Donny Osmond in 1976; I can assure you that, in second grade, I did NOT want to have sex with Donny Osmond, as I didn't even know what sex was. I was asexual back then as surely as I am asexual now. I only wanted to tell him I loved him and talk mushy with him and be accepted by him. Another thing: I've always been attracted to things--not just to people but to things-- that I consider attractive. I buy DVDs based not only on their storylines but on the attractive artwork and colors on the cover; I sew my own Miami Vice-like clothes in pretty shades of pink, peach, lavender, fuschia and white because I cosnider such hues attractive and I despise the UGLY bluejeans, khakis, grey flannel suits, pullovers and sweaters in horrid swamp-muck earth tones in shades of olive, maroon, beige, brown, navy, stone, and the like that are readily available for men. I listen to disco music because of the pretty violin riffs and attractive synthesizer noises beneath the thumping beat. I hate the ugly jagged rhythms and guitars of rock and heavy metal. And "handsome" does not necessarily equal "sexy"; little prepubescent boys can be regarded as handsome, but no one except a child molestor, perhaps, would consider little boys "sexy." So as you can see, I like things I find attractive; since I have always been romantically drawn to other men ever since I was a small child and had romantic crushes on them, I prefer men with handsome faces over those with ugly ones. I used to think I was gay. Until I realized something. Here I was, a 34 year old virgin who'd never been kissed by either a male or a female, nor even held hands with anybody, not even in grade school, and why was that? Because I'd never wanted to have sex with anybody. I have never experienced an erection in connection with another person, man or woman. From puberty--age 11--to age 21, I did experience erections...but only in connection to men's CLOTHES, not to men themselves. I never fantasized about having sex with another man. I fantasized about a pair of Levis or men's Converse high top sneakers and the image of the apparel turned me on. I think penises are gross, disgusting looking--including my own, which I refrain from looking at. I've never wanted to have sex with anybody in my life, nor fantasized about it, but I've had romantic crushes on other males ever since I was eight years old. Since I'm disabled, I don't get out much. Last year, I met a handsome 39-year-old man who was the manager of the local drugstore, we became friends, and I fell in love with him. I had a crush on him, an asexual crush. At no time did I even THINK of wanting to have sex with him, and I couldn't anyway, as I haven't had an erection since I was 21 back in 1989. I think sex between men and women or men and men or women and women is gross. I just think the sex act is yucky. But that doesn't prevent me from having romantic crushes on guys, dreaming of a Prince charming who will sweep me off my feet and wine me and dine me and accept me just as I am and think I'm special, and fall in love with me and even want to cuddle and ever kiss me LIGHTLY on the lips (no deep kissing-- yuck)---but NO SEX. I just don't want to have sex, and, to correct you, I do not have a "low libido," I have NO LIBIDO beacuse I think sex is gross and yucky. But romance without sex seems so fun. And, given my attraction to things that I find attractive, I'd never have a romantic asexual crush on a man who wasn't handsome, a man who was ugly. So don't go around assuming that just because someone has crushes on someone they think is handsome or pretty means that they want to have sex with them. All I want is romance, no sex. <mikevice waits for apology> --Mike Vice, Style God

<<Well, here I am wearing my heart on my sleeve again. I'd better quit while I'm ahead. Anyway, thanks again for the very kind words and it's nice to meet you.>>

The problem I have is that it's a very judgmental, superficial heart. It pains me to see someone who would discard a wonderful person because they weren't aesthetically beautiful. Many people more wonderful than I are rejected because they aren't handsome or pretty.

If you want to argue human nature to like attractive things, fine. I think Catherine Zeta-Jones is pretty. I think most people think someone is pretty. But there's a difference between appreciating beauty and discriminating on it.

Anyone who rejects a wonderful heart and soul on the basis of appearence is a very sad, cruel person who will not only hurt many people in their life, but lose the opportunity to be with wonderful ones.

Thank you very much for the kind words. It's always nice to receive empathy and some semblance of acceptance, as you doled out to me, rather than presumptiously judgemental observations based on precious little information from individuals who don't know you from Adam. Funny about the hoax comment, though; nearly every initial post on a new message board has been regarded as a hoax, regardless of the topic of the board--Modern Men's Clothing Forum, AOL Defining Manhood In the 21st Century, Miami Vice Fanclub, whatever. I guess it's because I present too much information too soon and I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve--that and the fact that I'm very different from most people, my asexuality being the least of my differences: I'm an anorexic and bulimic man, a 34 year old virgin with a long history of physical, verbal and sexual abuse that has contributed to various mental disorders, I dress in pastel Miami Vice/Don Johnson-like clothes that I sew, in colors like pink, peach, aqua, lavender, fuchsia and white that are rarely worn by men; I'm very self conscious and lack many social skills since I had few friends in grade school and no friends at all after age 15 because people thought I was too "weird" and a "fag" because I had no girlfriends. Well, here I am wearing my heart on my sleeve again. I'd better quit while I'm ahead. Anyway, thanks again for the very kind words and it's nice to meet you. --Mike Vice *********************************************

Dear Mike,

I understand that some of your feelings were a little too judgemental for some group members, but I hear what you are saying.

And I don't think your feelings disqualify you as being asexual. It is a large, undefined spectrum...and based on your non-existant libido, I'd say you're fit somewhere on it.

I somewhat relate to what you are saying about being attracted to good looking guys and wanting innocent romance (though not, *at all*, to the same extent you've clearly articulated).

I am an asexual female with, what I like to call, heterosexual tendencies. One insightful woman on the board suggested I was a platonic hetero because I am innocently attracted to guys, get mild, ephemiral crushes, and because I have some awareness of my sexuality, etc.

I respect her opinion and think the term is applicable to me, but, like yourself, I still consider myself asexual.

Anyway, I am sorry you've taken some flak on the board...but, no offense- when I read your first post, I thought it was a hoax...and still have my suspicions...

But, forget that, and welcome.

I hope you can find who you are looking for one day.

Also, I hope you are not discouraged from continuing to participate on the board. You were very diplomatic in your response and took the high road. I commend you.

mikevice2002 said:

The computer says that the message achives are currently unavialable, but I received an email from someone who made me so steamed that I have to reply to it now by posting without the original text to which I'm replying. This person counted the number of times I mentioned "handsome man" in my original post, called me a "homosexual wimp" with a "low libido" rather than an asexual man, and said that because I stated that I wanted a "handsome man" for a romantic relationship, then I must want sex since I'm emphasizing apperance. Them's fightin' words, bud. First off, would you rather I said I preferred an "ugly man"? I've always been ROMANTICALLY attracted to handsome men, ever since I was eight years old and had a crush on Donny Osmond in 1976; I can assure you that, in second grade, I did NOT want to have sex with Donny Osmond, as I didn't even know what sex was. I was asexual back then as surely as I am asexual now. I only wanted to tell him I loved him and talk mushy with him and be accepted by him. Another thing: I've always been attracted to things--not just to people but to things- - that I consider attractive. I buy DVDs based not only on their storylines but on the attractive artwork and colors on the cover; I sew my own Miami Vice-like clothes in pretty shades of pink, peach, lavender, fuschia and white because I cosnider such hues attractive and I despise the UGLY bluejeans, khakis, grey flannel suits, pullovers and sweaters in horrid swamp-muck earth tones in shades of olive, maroon, beige, brown, navy, stone, and the like that are readily available for men. I listen to disco music because of the pretty violin riffs and attractive synthesizer noises beneath the thumping beat. I hate the ugly jagged rhythms and guitars of rock and heavy metal. And "handsome" does not necessarily equal "sexy"; little prepubescent boys can be regarded as handsome, but no one except a child molestor, perhaps, would consider little boys "sexy." So as you can see, I like things I find attractive; since I have always been romantically drawn to other men ever since I was a small child and had romantic crushes on them, I prefer men with handsome faces over those with ugly ones. I used to think I was gay. Until I realized something. Here I was, a 34 year old virgin who'd never been kissed by either a male or a female, nor even held hands with anybody, not even in grade school, and why was that? Because I'd never wanted to have sex with anybody. I have never experienced an erection in connection with another person, man or woman. From puberty--age 11--to age 21, I did experience erections...but only in connection to men's CLOTHES, not to men themselves. I never fantasized about having sex with another man. I fantasized about a pair of Levis or men's Converse high top sneakers and the image of the apparel turned me on. I think penises are gross, disgusting looking--including my own, which I refrain from looking at. I've never wanted to have sex with anybody in my life, nor fantasized about it, but I've had romantic crushes on other males ever since I was eight years old. Since I'm disabled, I don't get out much. Last year, I met a handsome 39-year-old man who was the manager of the local drugstore, we became friends, and I fell in love with him. I had a crush on him, an asexual crush. At no time did I even THINK of wanting to have sex with him, and I couldn't anyway, as I haven't had an erection since I was 21 back in 1989. I think sex between men and women or men and men or women and women is gross. I just think the sex act is yucky. But that doesn't prevent me from having romantic crushes on guys, dreaming of a Prince charming who will sweep me off my feet and wine me and dine me and accept me just as I am and think I'm special, and fall in love with me and even want to cuddle and ever kiss me LIGHTLY on the lips (no deep kissing-- yuck)---but NO SEX. I just don't want to have sex, and, to correct you, I do not have a "low libido," I have NO LIBIDO beacuse I think sex is gross and yucky. But romance without sex seems so fun. And, given my attraction to things that I find attractive, I'd never have a romantic asexual crush on a man who wasn't handsome, a man who was ugly. So don't go around assuming that just because someone has crushes on someone they think is handsome or pretty means that they want to have sex with them. All I want is romance, no sex. <mikevice waits for apology> --Mike Vice, Style God

<< An individual who makes harsh judgements on another without adequate

information owes the other party an apology. >>

You blatantly confirmed that you're a cruel, superficial person when you said you wouldn't date an ugly person. I think the accusations were warranted and I full-heartedly agree with them.

<< But you, my frien', are an EXTREMELY judgemental individual; you proved that with your last post. Even if someone WERE to base their relationships with others solely on apperance, so what? Live and let live, I say. >>

It leaves perfectly wonderful people alone because they're not pretty. I think that's cruel.

I judge those I find judgmental. I think being judgmental negates you from not deserving judgment. Do unto others as you would have them done to you.

<< I suspect that YOU, Pessimist, have been judged and hurt based on your apperance, and now you're out to condemn ANYONE who gives the slightest inkling that they do the same.>>

I'm not a great looking person, you'd probably find me ugly or something, but I've been homeschooled since 6th grade, so I haven't really had the chance to be "hurt" because of my appearence.

It's really more of the people I see hurt because of superficial people. I'm not a prize, true. But I see perfectly unjudgmental, wonderful people who deserve the world rejected because they're not good-looking.

<<At least I don't go around with a holier-than-thou attitude condemning them and calling them "cruel and superficial" to the core, "very sad," with absolutely no good qualities in them to balance out the negative. >>

Someone who picks romantic partners only if they're beautiful is condemning all of the good qualities they may have despite their unattractive aesthetics. So I think we're even.

<<And here you are, trying to engage me, a total stranger you don't know from Adam, into a flame war yet!>>

Not really. If you take it that way, alright. I just felt like responding to your comments with my own. I have no intention on writing e-mails a week after the discussion has stopped, trust me.

I'm not a great person to most people. No arrogance there. Most of the people I associate with, I think are far more deserving of happiness than I. But superficiality and homophobes are where I draw the line of my inferiority to others.

<< I do tend to agree with Mikevice...it's best to live and let live. >>

While I hate superficiality, I do not seek out people to criticize. It is only when I come in contact with these people that I get angry, because of my contact with the people hurt by their discrimination. I think it's wrong to discriminate on anything like that, be it race, gender, weight, height, hair color, eye color, any other physical features.. I think it's as silly as discriminating on whether someone owns a Honda or a Ford.

I have had better psychological interaction with females and thus find myself and females most compatable. But it has nothing to do with anatomy, only my personal experiences. Men really seem to dislike me. I'd date anyone I got along with, male, female, FTM, MTF, hermaphrodite, whatever.

An individual who makes harsh judgements on another without adequate information owes the other party an apology.

You have a right to your opinion--and I have a right to disagree with your opinion.

I don't think I'm gay because I am a member of the AVEN website/forum, and AVEN defines asexuality as "Not being sexually attracted to other people." AVEN also points out that asexuals can have strong "romance drives" and develop asexual romantic crushes on others--all while remaining asexual rather than hetero,homo,or bisexual. Would a man who experiences no desire to have sex with other people, who is totally repulsed by the idea of having sex with anybody, but who still develops romantic nonsexual crushes on women be considered heterosexual? Not by AVEN's definition. He'd be an "asexual with a romance drive toward females." Likewise, I am, by AVEN's definition, "an asexual man with a romance drive toward other males." And "gay is not what lies inthe mind no matter what your sexual organs are doing"--not according to Merriam-Webster's, which definies homosexuality as "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." That leaves me out, because I experience NO sexual desire, NO libido, and I think sex between men and men, women and women and men and women is repulsive. Therefore, I don't fit the dictionary definition of "homosexual" and I DO fit AVEN's definition of "asexual." 'Nuff

mikevice waits for apology

I won't apologize - I don't regret what I said.

I don't think you're gay because you fit into the gay stereotype.

I think you're gay because in my opinion, the romantic attraction is more determinating in one's sexuality then the will to have sex itself.

Gay is what lies in your mind - no matter what your sexual organs are doing.

There's no need to feel offended by the things I say, since all the things WE say are personal opinions that are never absolute truths.

"É muito mais certo pedir do que roubar mas é muito mais digno roubar do que pedir" Oscar Wilde

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

<< Let us be realistic. Phystical attractiveness is just one of many variables that go into making a person. Given that phsyical appearance is just another variable of a person -- I see absolutely no reason why it should be /entirely/ excluded from the overall attraction matrix. Saying that it should be is just as silly as saying that you shouldn't dismiss a person with Wildly different interests, simply because of those interests. While in rare cases, some can hold a relationship with another who has no common ground, nine times out of ten it is not going to work at all.

We weren't talking about their looks being part of the equation. He said that he couldn't date an ugly person (regardless of personality), I consider that to be making it the number one priority and therefore being cruel.

<<What you are essentially saying is that All People should be able to love All Other People, with no conditions attached. This is entirely unrealistic, and I would even go so far as to say that it is undesirable too. I have no interest in people who spend their lives "living on the edge" because none of the things that interest me eclipse that. >>

No. Interests and connection are different. What I'm saying is that all mentally compatable and connected couples should be together regardless of appearence. When I say wonderful, I mean wonderful in the sense that they would be a wonderful partner if not for their looks.

<<You are contradicting yourself by saying that one should /in/clude people of all levels of attraction -- by /ex/cluding physical attractiveness from the countless other variables.>>

I really don't care if someone finds the other personal physically attractive. That's fine for me. I have my own aesthetic preferences, but I draw the line when you EXCLUDE someone because of their physical appearence alone. I think that is cruel.

<<Should a person who is a Satanist gothic seek out Christians for relationships? Probably not! And I don't think anybody would say it were cruel of them to focus their sights on their own demographic.>>

Again, I only meant appearence. When I said a perfectly wonderful person, I meant in a compatable way that would be wonderful to you if they were attractive enough.

<<What this man is saying is no more cruel than me saying I simply wouldn't consider a relationship with a highly sexual person. >>

He is saying that he would not date an ugly person regardless of personality. How can you not consider that cruel? That is discriminating entirely on looks with no regard to personality.

<<Would *you* persue such a relationship? It would be hell, and you know it would -- but in your own words: "Why exclude them!" They, the highly sexual, might be terribly wonderful, intelligent, and witty people! You are missing out! You are cruel to look the other way. My priority is just different than Mike's.>>

Sex is different than aesthetic appearence. It's an activity, like an interest. And again, I spoke only of aesthetic appearence. Not interests. The presumption is that the person is in all other ways compatable with you, but they happen to be ugly. I believe Mike was saying that the ugliness would prevent him from dating them, regardless of their character or personality.

<,Different. That is all. Accept people of differences. Realize that most things are just a choice we make. As he said, just live. Don't let people who simply see the world differently raise your ire.>>

It's pretty hard not to get upset when a friend or good acquaintence of yours with a wonderful character and personality is rejected because they're not pretty enough.

Pessimist, you chose you screen name well. Am I superficial? To a point. Cruel? No. I couldn't swat a fly. I don't try to be friends or enemies with people based on their appearances--though I have been severely discriminated against and abused based on my somewhat unconventional appearance. But you, my frien', are an EXTREMELY judgemental individual; you proved that with your last post. Even if someone WERE to base their relationships with others solely on apperance, so what? Live and let live, I say. That's THEIR problem. At least I don't go around with a holier-than-thou attitude condemning them and calling them "cruel and superficial" to the core, "very sad," with absolutely no good qualities in them to balance out the negative. I suspect that YOU, Pessimist, have been judged and hurt based on your apperance, and now you're out to condemn ANYONE who gives the slightest inkling that they do the same. And here you are, trying to engage me, a total stranger you don't know from Adam, into a flame war yet! Yes, you're very judgemental and inflammatory--and that, Pessimist, is what *I* happen to call, "very sad." IMHO, --Mike Vice **************************************************** --- In [email protected], pessimisticgrace@a... wrote:

<< An individual who makes harsh judgements on another without adequate

information owes the other party an apology. >>

You blatantly confirmed that you're a cruel, superficial person when you said you wouldn't date an ugly person. I think the accusations were warranted and I full-heartedly agree with them.

Just musing here about the issue of personal appearance...it all seems so subjective to me, this business of whether someone is "pretty" or "handsome." True, there are certain people on TV, in films, etc., that are considered by many to be "beautiful" or "gorgeous," or whatever, but for many of us, I think beauty is definitely not just in the eye, but in the heart of the beholder. To me it's impossible to consider someone I love as anything less than wonderful to look at, no matter what the rest of the world thinks of him/her.

And it's true that some people are very "beauty" conscious...not just about what people they think (and I do mean "they think") are beautiful, but also places, objects, food, or whatever.

Another thing: the so-called "prettiest" people are not necessarilythe happiest.

I do tend to agree with Mikevice...it's best to live and let live.

Amy

It leaves perfectly wonderful people alone because they're not pretty. I think that's cruel.

Let us be realistic. Phystical attractiveness is just one of many variables that go into making a person. Given that phsyical appearance is just another variable of a person -- I see absolutely no reason why it should be /entirely/ excluded from the overall attraction matrix. Saying that it should be is just as silly as saying that you shouldn't dismiss a person with Wildly different interests, simply because of those interests. While in rare cases, some can hold a relationship with another who has no common ground, nine times out of ten it is not going to work at all.

What you are essentially saying is that All People should be able to love All Other People, with no conditions attached. This is entirely unrealistic, and I would even go so far as to say that it is undesirable too. I have no interest in people who spend their lives "living on the edge" because none of the things that interest me eclipse that. Why should I feel compelled to automatically include them in my attraction matrix? They might be wonderful people, *sure* but we wouldn't get along with each other; we would either drag each other to events that would bore the other to death, or simply never spend time together.

I don't see anything cruel with noting that either, and I think you would agree. So we come back to physical appearance. It being just another "thing" about a person. The irony is that the very thing you are chastising is something you are doing yourself. You are placing an extremely high amount of importance on physical appearance. Why are you putting it on such a pedestal? You are contradicting yourself by saying that one should /in/clude people of all levels of attraction -- by /ex/cluding physical attractiveness from the countless other variables.

Should a person who is a Satanist gothic seek out Christians for relationships? Probably not! And I don't think anybody would say it were cruel of them to focus their sights on their own demographic.

What this man is saying is no more cruel than me saying I simply wouldn't consider a relationship with a highly sexual person. Would *you* persue such a relationship? It would be hell, and you know it would -- but in your own words: "Why exclude them!" They, the highly sexual, might be terribly wonderful, intelligent, and witty people! You are missing out! You are cruel to look the other way. My priority is just different than Mike's.

Different. That is all. Accept people of differences. Realize that most things are just a choice we make. As he said, just live. Don't let people who simply see the world differently raise your ire.

Ioa ]

Hi Dalton,

You make an excellent point. The whole issue of "romantic attraction" is something that has bothered me since I joined this list.

As I said a few days ago, "boston marriages" which are romantic relationships without sex (if any of you have done any research on Google or Yahoo) are considered by many in the gay/lesbian world to be a part of their community, lifestyle and belief system.

I also want to say that while I have nothing against people's sexual orientation, I don't think somebody who has a romantic interest is really an asexual.

Celibate... yes, but an asexual no way!

BTW, who really is "AVEN" any way?? Is this an organization made up of people who have some clinical knowledge of human psychology and sexual behavior or just a bunch of folks who decided to put together a web site promoting their beliefs????

Nom

I don't think I'm gay because I am a member of the AVEN website/forum, and AVEN defines asexuality as "Not being sexually attracted to other people." AVEN also points out that asexuals can have strong "romance drives" and develop asexual romantic crushes on others

Then I must disagree with AVEN... my opinion is that these "romantic driven" people are sexually platonic or celibate...

I wonder: no matter what you say about not wanting to have sex with a man... why must this romantic partner be a male if there's no physical component involved?

There are males and females - and there are physical differences between them. You want to have a romantic relationship with a _male_ - only a male - i.e: you can't have this kind of relationship with a female or an ugly male.

Then, some questions arise:

- Why such a requirement if a romantic relationship is mostly about having good dialogues, sympathy, etc?

- What is there on handsome males that you can't find on females and ugly males? Can you describe it for us?

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

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

< I also want to say that while I have nothing against people's sexual orientation, I don't think somebody who has a romantic interest is really an asexual. >>

As I said, if the owner wants me to leave, that's fine. But I don't see such a strict criteria as part of the rules.

<< I do not think it is "cruel" to be attracted to a certain aesthetic. "Cruel" would be to treat someone like crap because you find them unattractive. One can hardly help one's natural attractions. >>

No, but you can not disregard their entire personality because you don't think they're cute. Big deal, we're all going to be old in the end.

<<Some people only want unattractive people as partners...is that discriminatory as well? Granted, it is less common.>>

Absolutely. Discriminating at all on looks is on my hate list.

<,It is human nature that attracts us to good looking people...we all know that. In women for example, wide set eyes, full lips, and high cheekbones are all associated with higher levels of estrogen and a high fertility rate.>>

Attract is different than discriminate.

<<Mike is attracted to handsome men. I know guys who are only attracted to asian, hispanic, black women etc! Are they cruel for not being attracted to someone like me, a caucasian?

I think discriminating on race is even worse than on "ugliness."

<<But, when it comes to natural attractions, I don't think that people are discriminatory. It's like having an affinity for a certain color, blue, green, etc.>>

Again, we're not talking about just attraction, we're talking about MUST-HAVES.

<,Sorry for getting on my soapbox, but I think it is unfair to call Mike cruel for his attraction to good looking guys. That doesn't result in his maltreatment of unattractive guys and, therefore, he is not discriminating.>>

I think rejecting an unattractive person because they're unattractive is maltreatment.

As a PS to my last e-mail, I feel this way because I have seen kind people hurt because someone rejected them due to looks. I think we look different for a reason and you shouldn't hold that against someone ever.

Lighten up, Grace. I'm not an asexual, either, and so far no one has booted me off!

Amy

Hi all,

I just wanted to respond to some recent comments:

Nom said: "I also want to say that while I have nothing against people's sexual orientation, I don't think somebody who has a romantic interest is really an asexual.

Celibate... yes, but an asexual no way!"

I understand where your coming from on this, Nom, but I slightly disagree. First of all, "celibacy" has a connotation of restraint, abstaining. I have romantic feelings towards guys, but already gave you the story of how disgusted I am by sexual relations. So, I respect your opinion, but I do consider myself on the asexual spectrum.

So maybe I am a 1 and you are a 10, and rightly so. This doesn't bother me...I acknowledge that I am not a textbook asexual...

I'd hate to think I belong to an even more obscure group, you know? Platonic hetero/homo is all fine for me and the controversial MikeVice, but it seems even less common.

2nd point about appearances:

Grace,

you had some very harsh words for Mike because of his attention to aesthetic beauty.

You called him "cruel" and something else really harsh because he is attracted to "handsome" men and wouldn't consider someone "ugly" as a potential partner.

I do not think it is "cruel" to be attracted to a certain aesthetic. "Cruel" would be to treat someone like crap because you find them unattractive. One can hardly help one's natural attractions.

Some people only want unattractive people as partners...is that discriminatory as well? Granted, it is less common.

It is human nature that attracts us to good looking people...we all know that. In women for example, wide set eyes, full lips, and high cheekbones are all associated with higher levels of estrogen and a high fertility rate.

There is a biological explanation for it all.

Mike is attracted to handsome men. I know guys who are only attracted to asian, hispanic, black women etc! Are they cruel for not being attracted to someone like me, a caucasian?

I dare say not.

And they wouldn't even entertaining the idea of finding someone who they aren't inherently attracted to.

Kelly Osbourne and James King, a model, were quoted as saying they only are attracted to "ugly" or "unattractive" guys. Perhaps you would argue that this is equally discriminatory.

But, when it comes to natural attractions, I don't think that people are discriminatory. It's like having an affinity for a certain color, blue, green, etc.

Besides, sexual attraction is the catalyst of almost all relationships, lest we forget.

If one is not sexually attracted to their partner...well, then they shouldn't consider that person their partner. Of course, there are exceptions to this...but, I'd say it is the general rule.

You can't force yourself to be attracted to someone. Perhaps you can find someone increasingly attractive because of their personality (this has happened to me). But if there is no chemistry, it won't work.

Sorry for getting on my soapbox, but I think it is unfair to call Mike cruel for his attraction to good looking guys. That doesn't result in his maltreatment of unattractive guys and, therefore, he is not discriminating.

<< I agree with the others. I don't know where you get the idea that rejecting an unattractive person is maltreatment. The only way it could ever be that is if one were to meet someone for a blind date and then tell them later, "Well I am not planning on calling you again because you're too ugly." >>

Yes, I'm generally the lone person on these things.

Several situations, including having a crush on someone for a long time and being rejected because of looks, or pursuing the reason why you were rejected in any circumstance to find you are considered unattractive. I know people who have been hurt because the people they cared for found them too ugly.

<<I fail to see how this is cruel. As the others pointed out, it only becomes cruel if you are rude and vocal about your dislike of their appearance -- just as it would be cruel to be rude and vocal about their mental traits! Simply not considering somebody for a relationship -- whatever the reason may be -- is not cruel unless you are severely warping the definition of cruelty.>>

There are situations in which the reason is stated.

<<Again, you are flying right past the point. My reason for bring up those other examples is to show how silly it is to expect all people to get along. Appearance /cannot/ be extracted by itself and suppressed from the matrix. To do so is to look at things in a skewed, unrealistic light. Appearance is just yet another factor.>>

I just don't think it should matter.

<<Ah! See now you are glimpsing the way things really are. Being attractive enough *does* cause the overall level of "wonderfulness" to decrease or increase depending on the individual's taste.>>

<, The simple fact is, if the individual is too far from another's opinion of ideal, they simply are not wonderful as a relationship partner anymore. They might make a great friend, but that is off the topic.>>

And being ugly automatically makes you too far from the ideal? Sounds pretty strict to me.

<<Just as I wouldn't date a person who is highly sexual. I don't see the difference between my stipulation and his except in where the priority is placed.>>

Sex is an activity. An appearence is an "is."

<<Which, I am sad to say, you have been rude and vocal to Mike on this topic -- which is where my contradiction comment came in. In pouncing upon his appearance "discrimination" you have revealed your own "discrimination" against people who factor in appearance. >>

I don't think prejudice against prejudice is always a bad thing. Rejecting racists is generally a good thing. Yes, I'm aware, no one here considers this bad, let alone to the standard of racism. Again, I'm the lone person on that.

<<So far, you have been the cruel one, and I'm not the first to say that.

If that many people want me to leave the list, just say the word.

<<I suppose, if you are placing so much avid importance on appearance as you are. Personally I don't see it that way at all. I've been "rejected" on merits of my appearance in the distant past, and it no more hurt my feelings than would someone turning me down because we didn't have anything in common.>>

That doesn't mean other people don't get hurt. I'm not dreaming up the people I've known in my head. It did happen, they were hurt. If you want to criticize them for being hurt, alright.

<<These are the types of things you simply cannot persuade other people to agree with.>>

I was not trying to persuade anybody to agree with anything. I was upset and wrote a response.

<<The only time it loses its beauty is when people start believing that their subjective viewpoint is somehow /better/ than others. >>

I will always think, however misguidedly, that being open to more kinds of people in a relationship is something to aspire to and admire.

<<Then, you come back harshly criticizing his natural attraction matrix preferences because you believe that certain point 2 shifts are more important than point 1 shifts, and that your point 2 viewpoint are somehow "better" than his -- demonstrating your Point 3 rejection of his offer (which is perfectly fine and natural by itself,) but also leading you into a point 4 infraction, due to verbal assault (totally unnecessary and cruel.)>>

I'm sorry if you feel that it was unnecessary and cruel. I've seen people utterly crushed because of people like Mike, and I don't think I had that impact.

Once again, if you all want me to leave the list, just say so.

I think we're all getting the wrong end of the stick here. The guy said he doesn't have a crush on ugly people. I mean, it's not as if he sat and thought 'hey, that person's ugly! I'd best not go out with them...' We seem to be casting aspersions on someone's subconscious! I don't think that a productive line-of-enquiry at all... :-/

Point 1: the Athenians had a definite distinction between sex and romance. At one point, it was acceptable to have sex with one's wives and with other Athenians, but only OK to pursue a romantic relationship with the former. Also, plenty of people have sex with no romantic component, and it's hard to see where romance comes into auto-erotic stimulation. Is it inconcievable that, if sex can exist without romance, that romance could exist without sex? Have you any proof that sexual attraction is a necessary entailment for romance? Point 2: the sex drive is partly socialised, partly genetic. There is little evidence that, once fixed, it can be changed. Some people end up feeling sexually attracted to men, some to females, some to both, some to none. Point 3: if the sex drive can be selective on the basis of gender, it is perfectly reasonable to expect it to be selective on the basis of attractiveness (or any other factor), and it is just as futile to expect it to change in this respect as it is with respect to gender. This is supported by studies, which I could look up if you don't trust me. Point 4: it is possible that a romantic drive, not based on sexual preference, could be biased in a similar way. Conclusion: it is quite possible that Mike cannot possible change his romantic drives any more than his sexual preference. QED.

As a final consideration, look at what people have considered important over time. There was a time when physical strength was the measure of a man, another where it was speed. In other times and in other cultures men (and women) were esteemed due to intellect, artistic talent, courage, religion, religious conviction, political belief, race, strength of character, public opinion, fame, gender, heritage, title, wealth, sense of humour, personality, technical literacy, erudition or attractiveness, to name a few. Why should any of these indicate our worth? And yet most of us are biased towards one or the other, and often it is the factor which we consider ourselves to have, or aspire to attain to. And so you have no more right to judge people by virtue of their personality or intelligence or sense of humour than he does to judge on looks. Note carefully that I did /not/ say that you have /no/ right to judge on these factors. You just have no more right than anyone else, or at least cannot demonstrate any right to do so without resorting to some intrinsic factors. Also, you have instantly discriminated against some group of people if you select on the basis of one of these factors, even if that factor is simply 'what's in their hearts' or 'quality of character'. If we did not have any basis for selection, there would be no way to choose between people as potential mates. Consider the situation: everyone likes everyone else equally! We would be eternally indecisive, and life would have no variety since we would have no desire or reason to seek it out.

Why not just forget this ever happened? :-)

- Jordan

<< And, given my attraction to things that I find attractive, I'd never have a romantic asexual crush on a man who wasn't handsome, a man who was ugly. >>

Lol, that makes you sadly superficial. And hypocritical, you're looking for acceptance for being different, in being asexual, but you pick and choose on looks. Very judgmental, very sad.

<< Rationalization. The end result is that you are still prejudiced. >>

I'm not ashamed to admit that.

<<If you insist, but it sure did not look that way.>>

I'm genuinely surprised, I never, ever expect agreement. No one has ever agreed with me on a subject like this. I was stating my mind, that's it.

<<Generally, calling other people "sad," "judgemental," and "cruel" are methods to make another person look wrong, and persuade them to see things another way.. You might not know this-- so now you do.>>

It was more of an expression of my irritation. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

<,Does that make you proud?>>

No, but it seemed more offended that someone would disagree with him that genuinely crying over it.

<<More histrionics. I do not maintain or presume to own the list. I do not even post here that frequently. Leave if you wish to, my word means nothing.>>

If people seriously want me to leave, I will, whether they're owners or not. Really, I don't want to be somewhere people don't want me. I know nobody really cares for me or agrees with me on anything.

Hi Grace

I think rejecting an unattractive person because they're unattractive is maltreatment.

I agree with the others. I don't know where you get the idea that rejecting an unattractive person is maltreatment. The only way it could ever be that is if one were to meet someone for a blind date and then tell them later, "Well I am not planning on calling you again because you're too ugly."

That is the ONLY instance where I could see a case being made for maltreatment.

On other hand going into a room of strangers and deciding to acquaint oneself with certain people there soley on the basis of their physical appearance is nothing more than normal human nature.

Nom

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com