Haven for the Human Amoeba

<< Furthermore, even if he was referring to attractiveness in the physical sense, HOW DO YOU KNOW what he meant when he said "attractive"? I do not recall him making any specific comments about what he meant by "attractive". >>

He said handsome.

<<If his attractiveness/ugliness criteria is different than yours--- does that somehow mean his choices are less valid and therefore more cruel than those of your own??>>

If it hurts other people, I think it's more cruel.

<<Sorry, but love and friendship are not based on martyrdom, Grace, but more on a mutual quid pro quo. A symbiotic interaction of "you have something I want and I have something that you want".>>

I don't think appearence should determine if there is or isn't a relationship.

<<Soo... Grace... quit beating a dead horse and let this topic rest!

I only respond as long as other people are addressing me. Seems kind of silly to let people make an assumption or something about me and not defend myself.

THE SICKEST DVDs - Grannies, Goats, Midgets and more......

Hey Guys,

These are some of the sickest DVDs I think I've ever seen! PERFECT!!!

Check them out at http://SuperPornMart.com or just cut and paste these links:

Grannys --------------- CUT & PASTE URL ------------------- superpornmart.com/spmstore/customer/search.php? substring=&cat=2&search_style=50%2B&search_studio=

Midgets --------------- CUT & PASTE URL ------------------- superpornmart.com/spmstore/customer/search.php? substring=&cat=2&search_style=Midget&search_studio=

Anime Erotica --------------- CUT & PASTE URL ------------------- superpornmart.com/spmstore/customer/search.php? substring=&cat=2&search_style=Cartoon&search_studio=

She Males --------------- CUT & PASTE URL ------------------- superpornmart.com/spmstore/customer/search.php? substring=&cat=2005&search_style=&search_studio=

Zoo Fun --------------- CUT & PASTE URL ------------------- superpornmart.com/spmstore/customer/search.php? substring=&cat=1&search_style=Kinky&search_studio=

Kisses,

Crystal

<< You still haven't answered my question which I posed in my earlier message-- is he supposed to sacrifice his own happiness to make someone else happy?? >>

I just can't understand how your happiness depends on someone being pretty.

<<Hey that's life pal. Get used to it.>>

Yes, and I can dislike it.

I'm dropping it. If you write another response and add that you want it to be the last e-mail and dont' want me to reply, I will not reply.

We weren't talking about their looks being part of the equation.

Of course you weren't, that is why I brought it up, because you were ignoring an important aspect of humanity.

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 missing the point, and that could be my fault for not being clear enough in my response.

Appearance is another aspect of compatability and connection.

Some people just wouldn't make wonderful partners, even if they were mentally compatible, because they were not /physically compatible/, hence, they are not really compatible at all -- because to say they are is to strip out one section of who they are and hold that up as the sole reason for compatibility. Another example would be to take two people who normally wouldn't be fond of each other, but note that they both have an interest in photography, so they "should be together regardless of [insert all other parts of the attraction equation.]"

...I draw the line when you EXCLUDE someone because of their physical appearence alone. I think that is cruel.

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.

Again, I only meant appearence.

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.

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

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.

<<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.

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. Where you place the priority is just yet another variable in the matrix. Some people are less interested in /parts/ of the attraction equation and more interested in other parts. You claim a complete disinterest in the phsyical sector -- which is fine -- he claims a higher level of interest than you do. He might be more accepting of another person's variables in places where you might be very -- eh, "discriminating" as you would put it. Call it the meta-matrix variable, if you will.

Neither is cruel, unless as mentioned before, one is rude and vocal about the difference. 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. So far, you have been the cruel one, and I'm not the first to say that.

Sex is different than aesthetic appearence. It's an activity, like an interest. And again, I spoke only of aesthetic appearence. Not interests.

All of these things are equal variables. None of them by themselves have any greater significance than others. The variations in priority are a display of individual taste in the meta-matrix, just as variables within the matrix are variations in priority of specific character traits, from physical appearance, to athletic condition, to which movies you like, to what songs you sing.

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.

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.

The only reason I've barged into this conversation is to bring to light the fact that you are just experiencing a difference in priorities in the meta-matrix. I see cruelty getting thrown around because of it. These are the types of things you simply cannot persuade other people to agree with. Just as you probably couldn't persuade somebody to suddenly "see the light" about your personal music affinity or whatever else. They are subjective, they are part of what makes humanity beautiful.

The only time it loses its beauty is when people start believing that their subjective viewpoint is somehow /better/ than others. You see this in many things, and wars have even been started over such plithy displays of differing opinion.

So, to encapsulate what I've said again, since I seem to be having difficulty making sense with this:

1) All factors of attraction are equal in importance (including appearance) by themselves. 2) The level of importance is modified by the individual on an /individual/ basis, and this itself is another factor. 3) "Discriminating" the "correctness" of Point 2 is just as pointless as "discriminating" /within/ items in Point 1, such as what makes a person attractive. 3) Compatability is a combination of Point 1 variables, and most often to a lesser degree the presets in Point 2. Actively selecting (and by implication rejecting) individuals based on either Point 1 or Point 2 variables is natural and good. 4) Selective actions in Point 3 does not become cruel until one verbally or phsyically assaults another based on differences of opinion in either Points 1 or 2.

In application:

Mike states some of the variables he is interested in within the realm of point 1, and in doing so he brings to light some of the priorities of importance he places within Point 2. He does this to reach out to people on this board, effectively demonstrating a Point 3 line of inquiry. People who feel they fall within his desirables would in turn inact Point 3 by contacting Mike and getting to know each other. All others are implicately rejecting each other, also a Point 3 action.

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.)

Ioa ]

I just don't think it should matter.

That is perfectly fine. That is your preference, your opinion.

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

That is perfectly fine. That is /their/ preference, their opinion.

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

Well technically, a high sex drive is an "is" as well. Sure, factors can change it over time, appearance changes quite a great deal over time as well. Most people cannot change their libido without drugs! I know this quite well, as I've certainly tried in an attempt to "fit in" to this world before I knew I could be perfectly natural this way.

But, to play along, a hobby is a predilection towards an activity. A religion is a belief system. They are different variables that define compatibilty as well. They are different, but equally important at the Point 1 level. You pointing out that they are slightly different does nothing to substantiate any superficial level of importance except for reasserting your position of Point 2 importance -- which once again is your preference *not* the world's. That is why I put these things into two different catagories. There is no universal here!

I don't think prejudice against prejudice is always a bad thing. Rejecting racists is generally a good thing.

Rationalization. The end result is that you are still prejudiced. Whether or not you feel you have a Reason to be prejudiced does not factor in. Remember the source of your prejudice have their Reasons as well.

This is besides the point, but rejecting a racist is one thing, and certainly within your rights at Point 3. Entering into their domain of cruelty and hatred just puts you in the same spot as they (again this has very little to do with our present line of conversation, but you brought it up for some reason.)

....here considers this bad, let alone to the standard of racism. Again, I'm the lone person on that.

No, I would agree with you. What I don't agree with is that Mike was displaying this behavior; you are.

That doesn't mean other people don't get hurt.

Please read what I wrote again, I will paste it for your convenience:

[ 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. ]

Key phrase: "...and it no more hurt my feelings than would someone turning me down because we didn't have anything in common."

Yes, it hurt my feelings, just as it hurt your friend's feelings. I never said that it did not! What I did say is that it did not cause me *more* grief than somebody saying they didn't think I was their type, or whatever reason.

That is because my Point 2 priorities are different. Other areas would probably hurt more!

People are going to get their feelings hurt! This is life. This is earth. No matter how kind and gentle you may be, you are going to hurt other people's feelings (in some cases because you /are/ kind and gentle.) Sometimes this is for the better good. Would it be better to accept a proposal for marriage and live a mutually depressing life simply because you did not wish to hurt their feelings?

It did happen, they were hurt. If you want to criticize them for being hurt, alright.

Histrionics.

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

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

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.

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

That's great, keep it up. Nobody said you should change that part of you. I'm suggesting you open up even more, that's all. Read what I've said again, if necessary. At every point I've suggested seeing Mike's side, or seeing the global side of the issue instead of just yours. That is what being open is all about.

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.

Straw man argument. I've seen people crushed because of people like you. I've seen people crushed because of people like me. Just because some people are crushed by other people, does not alone an argument make!

You might not have had that impact because perhaps Mike doesn't have as thin a skin as your friend, it is an irrelevant observation and another straw man argument -- that is entirely conjecture on your part as well, and assumes that the points you were attacking about him are important points to him as well.

According to his responses, he's felt the same sort of discrimination for his appearances, though from his description Real discrimination, as I've seen people point their fury towards homosexuals before. Not just rejecting someone because they think they are ugly. He says that he /was/ hurt by your comments , so I'm not sure why you think you didn't have an impact.

Does that make you proud?

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

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.

Hi Grace,

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.

Well let me just say this... I think people who continually persist in asking "why" when the answer has been "no" leave themselves open to being hurt.

Sometimes people are forced to say such things just to keep people from badgering them. I know because there's been times that I've been forced to say cruel things just to get people off my back--- those people who can't seem to take "no" for an answer!

I also want to say that you jumped to conclusions about Mike's posts. First off when he said he was only interested in attractive men, what did he mean by the word "attractive"-- physically attractive, psychologically attractive, or a combination of both?

Furthermore, even if he was referring to attractiveness in the physical sense, HOW DO YOU KNOW what he meant when he said "attractive"? I do not recall him making any specific comments about what he meant by "attractive".

For example, did he say he only likes men with hair versus men who are bald? Did he say he likes thin men over fat men? Blondes over brunettes?

Just what did he mean when he said "attractive" ???

And finally what gives you the right to pass judgment on other people's decisions??

If his attractiveness/ugliness criteria is different than yours--- does that somehow mean his choices are less valid and therefore more cruel than those of your own??

Also when it comes to his relationships, is he supposed to sacrifice his own ideals and preferences and subsequently his own happiness just to make someone else happy??

Sorry, but love and friendship are not based on martyrdom, Grace, but more on a mutual quid pro quo. A symbiotic interaction of "you have something I want and I have something that you want".

Because all relationships are based upon a "this for that" matrix, there is no choice that is any less or more cruel than any other.

I also want to add that finding a special someone, even a best friend is pretty much like buying a car-- the decision making process is combination of both logical and emotive reasoning. And there's nothing wrong with using such a combination to evaluate one's choices in my opinion.

Soo... Grace... quit beating a dead horse and let this topic rest!

Nom

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

Hi Grace,

<< Furthermore, even if he was referring to attractiveness in the physical sense, HOW DO YOU KNOW what he meant when he said "attractive"? I do not recall him making any specific comments about what he meant by "attractive". >>

He said handsome.

Still... we don't know exactly what he meant by "handsome". That's like defining the word "delicious".

Everyone has different definitions for what delicious is. For example, some people like chocolate and some people hate it. Some people like onions, others don't.

The fact still remains you jumped to conclusions and jumped all over this guy's case which is totally wrong!

<<If his attractiveness/ugliness criteria is different than yours--- does that somehow mean his choices are less valid and therefore more cruel than those of your own??>>

If it hurts other people, I think it's more cruel.

You still haven't answered my question which I posed in my earlier message-- is he supposed to sacrifice his own happiness to make someone else happy??

Is he supposed to be miserable because he settled for less than what he wanted, just because he didn't want to hurt someone else's feelings?

That's not logical nor is it even realistic Grace!

I don't think appearence should determine if there is or isn't a relationship.

Hey that's life pal. Get used to it.

I only respond as long as other people are addressing me. Seems kind of silly to let people make an assumption or something about me and not defend myself.

Hey nobody is picking on you personally, we just don't agree with the ideas you have presented. So let's agree that we all disagree, walk away from this topic, and quit discussing it.

Finally I just want to add that if you wish leave out physical appearance in your own relationships, then that's your choice... go for it!

However don't criticize other people on the basis of your own beliefs and ideals, nor expect or demand that other people should follow your standards of conduct. After all, EVERYONE'S life is about freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness. And if "handsome" is something that makes Mike happy, well let him alone.

It's after all, HIS LIFE-- NOT yours!

Nom

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

<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?>

Romance can exist without sex. I know, because I am in such a relationship right now, and it's great!

Amy

Amy, Thank you for confirming that romance can ideed exist without sex. I wish you well in your relationship. I hope that I can someday become involved in such a relationship, as I am romantically attracted to other handsome men while feeling no libido or sexual desire towards them, so your statement does give me hope! -- Mike Vice ************************************--- In [email protected], "xzprtlq <ahdbiz@y...>"

<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?>

Romance can exist without sex. I know, because I am in such a relationship right now, and it's great!

Amy

<< Yes... but who is AVEN? Is this organization run by people with clincial degrees in psychology and human relationships or by a bunch of people who decided to band together and start a web site? >>

Not everything can be explained with psychology. If you're that focused on it, I can go ask my father, he's a shrink.

<< As for panic disorder and sexual desire, sounds like a lot of hooey to me...I've known lots of sexy people who have panic attacks. But you know how it it with those theories...they change all the time, anyway. >>

I was concieved when my father was having panic attacks. ;)

<< Who's says any of us are attacking Mike? I was referring to AVEN. >>

Well, Mike identifies as asexual by AVEN's standards.

Mike, I believe the most important thing is the old adage "know thyself" and then accept who you are, which you seem to be doing. This doesn't mean, of course, that everything we do will be right, and we all have lessons to learn. But if you have reached the point where you know as much as you do about yourself, then it will be easier for the right person to find you and vice-versa...much easier than if you were prentending to be something you're not. My friend and I are "twin-souls" ... sometimes these relationships are sexual, but not always. We have been through struggles together, but it has all been very worthwhile...to me the romantic part could be described as a never-ending fascination with each other.

Amy

< Let's take this group for an example: there are lots of people here who declare themselves as having a "romantic drive" which I rather call "platonic sex drive" - maybe they are the majority, I don't know - where are our loners, our not-romantic asexuals? Our voices are low. >>

As far as active people, you guys have it.

<,I will go against the flow again: >>

Between you and Zenomdeplume, you guys are seriously more vocal than anyone else here. You are the flow..

<<If romance are the psychological intimacy with physical intimacy and sex is a kind of physical intimacy, then sex can be considered as being part of romance >>

I don't agree with that, I think sex is physical intimacy involving sexual desire. I don't think hugging and cuddling is sexual at all.

<< If it isn't some sort of psychological sexual desire, than just want accounts for that extra intensity of feelings? >>

It's a longing to feel close to someone, non-sexually.

<<Nope in my opinion the reason why romantic relationships have that extra zing is because there is a sexual component there. Even if it doesn't materialize into physical action it is still there nonetheless. >>

Luckily that's your opinion and not law.

<< Let's put it this way... Mike is only applying his own opinions to his life. AVEN on the other hand is trying to push its ideas and ideology on everyone else -- by trying to come across that its ideas on asexuality have factual/scientific validity when the truth is they do not.

AVEN is a place for people to connect with other people who are similar. They're not on this list demanding you renounce your idea of asexuality. People who agree with you will simply look at it and dismiss it.

<<For example can you explain why the LGB community thinks Boston marriages are sexual relationships-- even those relationships do not involve sexual intercourse?

The LGB community is not a scientific group either. It's pretty easy to peer through the looking glass and label something.

<<Do you have an actual answer to that one Grace or are you back to the usual histronics and dodge the issue game again?>>

Lol, my answers are complete and natural. Your questions are often very vague and I don't know what you want me to respond to. If you feel I have not answered your question, please state it in the form of a question without another paragraph for me to "dodge" with.

It's not worth the time to purposefully avoid anything, trust me.

<< Your reply still doesn't answer why there's an extra "zing" in romantic relationships. >>

I'd like to think of it as the strongest form of connection, perhaps on the highest spiritual and emotional level. Some people you meet are suited to be friends with, some people connect deeper with you. I find that if my family were not my family, they would be the sort of people I would fall in love with. I think of romantic love as a deep connection akin to the deep connection to family members, simply without the blood barrier.

<<And how do you know that their positions on this issue are not based on clinical studies or scientific theory?>>

How do you know that AVEN isn't? Because they disagree with you?.

Hi Amy,

We have been through struggles together, but it has all been very worthwhile...to me the romantic part could be described as a never-ending fascination with each other.

I am not sure if I would qualify it as romantic if you are just fascinated with each other.

Let me ask you this about your relationship, do you guys live together, share a bed and snuggle, lip kiss, (Boston Marriage) or is this romantic thing you feel towards this person mostly just emotions and nothing more?

I also don't necessarily agree with the idea that romance and sex are two different things. While it is true that one can have sex without romance, I still think that the lack of a physical sex act component does not mean that the sexual matrix in the relationship is non-existent.

After all, our minds are our biggest sex organ.

In Mike's case-- while he claims he is an asexual, I have to wonder if he isn't really just a homosexual t suffering from a sexual aversion disorder due to his years of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.

If you don't want to believe me, look up "sexual aversion disorder" on the internet and you will see what I mean. I also want to mention that there is a strong correlation between panic disorders and lack of sexual desire.

Nom

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

Hi Nom,

<I am not sure if I would qualify it as romantic if you are just fascinated with each other.>

That's OK, a rose by any other name is just as sweet!

<Let me ask you this about your relationship, do you guys live together, share a bed and snuggle, lip kiss, (Boston Marriage) or is this romantic thing you feel towards this person mostly just emotions and nothing more?>

It's emotions, since we live on different continents and don't get to see each other that ofter. In any case, I can't see us lip kissing ever, unless it was just a peck, because lip kissing (IMHO) is sexy.

<I also don't necessarily agree with the idea that romance and sex are two different things. While it is true that one can have sex without romance, I still think that the lack of a physical sex act component does not mean that the sexual matrix in the relationship is non-existent.>

Maybe so, I guess it depends how you define sex. I love to hug him (when I see him), but I love to hug my daughter, too, so... that's physical, but it's not sex.

<After all, our minds are our biggest sex organ.>

That's for sure!

<In Mike's case-- while he claims he is an asexual, I have to wonder if he isn't really just a homosexual t suffering from a sexual aversion disorder due to his years of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.>

Maybe...but he seems to be pretty contented with his life and his definition of himself. I don't personally know the guy, so I can't say for sure, of course. To me, the word homoSEXual is somewhat unfortunate, because it doesn't leave room for people who have what we might call a "gay mentality", but who don't care for sex.

As for panic disorder and sexual desire, sounds like a lot of hooey to me...I've known lots of sexy people who have panic attacks. But you know how it it with those theories...they change all the time, anyway.

Amy

Do any of /us/ have degrees in clinical psychology and/or human relationships? Any of the people attacking Mike? :-)

- Jordan

Mike,

Yes... but who is AVEN? Is this organization run by people with clincial degrees in psychology and human relationships or by a bunch of people who decided to band together and start a web site?

I suspect it's the latter not the former which in my opinion doesn't give its philosophies much weight.

Nom

Jordan,

Who's says any of us are attacking Mike? I was referring to AVEN.

Do any of /us/ have degrees in clinical psychology and/or human relationships? Any of the people attacking Mike? :-)

- Jordan

Nom De Plume said:

Mike,

Yes... but who is AVEN? Is this organization run by people with clincial degrees in psychology and human relationships or by a bunch of people who decided to band together and start a web site?

I suspect it's the latter not the former which in my opinion doesn't give its philosophies much weight.

Nom

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

<< Who's says any of us are attacking Mike? I was referring to AVEN. >>

Well, Mike identifies as asexual by AVEN's standards.

And your point is???

Like I said-- who is AVEN?? What's their qualifications? It's easy for anyone with knowledge of HTML to build a web site touting every type of opinion but does that mean those opinions have any proven, factual validity?

I think not.

Nom

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

Hello,

You still have not providing any valid points to sucessfully argue your side of the issue here Grace.

If you have feelings for someone that extend beyond the feelings you have for your closest friends and family members... how do you account for those feelings? What gives those feelings their extra "punch" or "zing"?

If it isn't some sort of psychological sexual desire, than just want accounts for that extra intensity of feelings?

Do you have any answers to that one???

And don't try to tell me that you just feel an extra amount of love, but I think that anyone who has had children can tell you how intense those feelings towards their children can be.

Nope in my opinion the reason why romantic relationships have that extra zing is because there is a sexual component there. Even if it doesn't materialize into physical action it is still there nonetheless.

Nom

< Let's take this group for an example: there are lots of people here who declare themselves as having a "romantic drive" which I rather call "platonic sex drive" - maybe they are the majority, I don't know - where are our loners, our not-romantic asexuals? Our voices are low. >>

As far as active people, you guys have it.

<,I will go against the flow again: >>

Between you and Zenomdeplume, you guys are seriously more vocal than anyone else here. You are the flow..

<<If romance are the psychological intimacy with physical intimacy and sex is a kind of physical intimacy, then sex can be considered as being part of romance >>

I don't agree with that, I think sex is physical intimacy involving sexual desire. I don't think hugging and cuddling is sexual at all.

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

Let's put it this way... Mike is only applying his own opinions to his life. AVEN on the other hand is trying to push its ideas and ideology on everyone else -- by trying to come across that its ideas on asexuality have factual/scientific validity when the truth is they do not.

For example can you explain why the LGB community thinks Boston marriages are sexual relationships-- even those relationships do not involve sexual intercourse?

Do you have an actual answer to that one Grace or are you back to the usual histronics and dodge the issue game again?

Nom

<< Like I said-- who is AVEN?? What's their qualifications? It's easy for anyone with knowledge of HTML to build a web site touting every type of opinion but does that mean those opinions have any proven, factual validity? >>

Wait a second, you tell me Mike's opinions have validity, but AVEN's definition doesn't? Isn't that a little double standard?

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