Haven for the Human Amoeba

<< Also, I don't have to cite my sources. If AVEN isn't going to cite theirs why do I need to cite mine?

And if I did would a lazy person like yourself read it? I doubt it and even if you could, I doubt if it would make much sense.

Yadda yadda yadda..

If you want people to narrowly define asexuality to your terms, you're going to need to cite sources. Sorry.

<< Sorry but you're an adult-- or at least you like to think that you are.. even though you are just what 15,16, 17? >>

18. And I don't think I'm an adult. ;) I'm a teenager. But I don't think that makes me less than an adult.

<<Anyway... when you have done research papers in school, did your teacher hold your hand and tell you what titles and authors to read in order to write your paper?>>

Nope, but I had a vested interest in doing such papers. In this situation, I am very much content with my opinion, and it is you who wishes to convince me otherwise. If that is so, you can make the effort. Otherwise, I'm happy with my views.

Now I'm going to go enjoy my Kennedy Center Honors.

<< Hahaha the only time I will cite my sources is when AVEN does which probably will never happen. >>

Then don't expect anyone to change to your view.

Perhaps, but you DID infer I was drunk, so please don't say you didn't say that.

So what if I did?

After all, if the shoe fits... wear it!

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

Grace

Um, my father is a marriage counselor and has dealt with many different kinds of relationships. I learned the term asexual from him.

Uh huh, yeah right. I seem to recall you mentioning you found AVEN.

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

Hello,

<< Well it's just not freudian psychologists, Amy. The subconscious mind and its motivations/desires are pretty much accepted practice across the whole of pyschology. >>

Believing in the subconscious mind and it's motivations and desires doesn't automatically equate with "all romance is sexual." Luckily in this world there are different interpretations.

<<For example, the diagnostic tests that psychologists use today, to understand personality and behavior are all based up on the idea that the subconscious mind exists.>>

Yep, but you're taking a belief in the subconscious mind to automatically meaning that all romantic relationships are sexual. Fortunately for me, not all psychologists make that leap.

Man.. you are painfully so naive, I don't know why I even bother replying to your posts.

I did not imply that ALL romantic relationships are sexual... I think you need to think before you start writing.... or quit drinking so much egg nog.. lol!

Nom

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

If heterosexual women were as disinterested in sex as Nom says, I'd actually have people to talk to offline.

That wasn't me who made that comment, Grace. Get your facts straight and have your Mommy and Daddy put the egg nog away.

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

<< Hey I am not trying to convince anyone other than the fact that the definition for asexuality needs to be more narrowly defined. >>

Narrowly defined in YOUR direction. You don't want it narrowly defined in mine.

<<I mean you don't have to convince me that you're a lesbian, that's obvious.>>

;) You really wouldn't know.

&#92;<< Like I said, I am not trying to convince anyone. That's like you trying to convince me you're an asexual when it's obvious you are not. >>

I know I'm an asexual. I don't need your approval to know that, sorry.

<< Prove it! Let's see some citations! >>

I don't have to prove anything to you. I know what I am, and if you don't believe me, your loss.

<< I don't need your approval either to see you for what you are.

Sorry about that. >>

Lol, if you say so. You'll never be me, and thus your opinion will never truly matter to me.

S.J.

Well, how do YOU know if AVEN's definition is correct since it seems to overlap other groups' definitions for themselves?

Also how do you know AVEN is the correct definition since it seems to run counter to the accepted ideas on sexual behavior?

For example, do you even know what a "boston marriage" is?

Have you ever even bothered researching the topic?

Can you tell me why these relationships are considered sexual even though there is no sex involved?

If your answer is "no" to any or all the questions above, then how can you sit there at your keyboard and dismiss my ideas??

It would be nice to see some of the people on this list read up on the subjects at hand rather than assuming that just because they "think" or "feel" a certain way about their own relationships that somehow those feelings must be the gospel truth.

I think if certain people on this list did some reading about sexuality, relationships (friendships, etc), I think they would have a better idea of the topics being discussed rather than adding nothing but confusion and empty words.

Nom

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

<< From the looks of your posts, I am not losing much, lol!! >>

You really wouldn't know.

You implied that relationships where one professes love, cuddles frequently, gazes into each other's eyes, wants to spend a life together, has a spiritual connection, etc, is sexual.

Here is something to consider:

You need to quit reading between the lines and just learn to read.

Nom

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

<< Can you tell me why these relationships are considered sexual even though there is no sex involved? >>

Are the people who consider them sexual, actually asexuals, or are they judging from outside?

In your teenage naiveness, I doubt if you would understand, so why don't read up on the subject rather than ask questions?

Is it so hard for you to be able to think?

Nom

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

Well, how do YOU know if AVEN's definition is correct since it seems to overlap other groups' definitions for themselves?

You're avoiding the question. I didn't ask about me. I asked about you.

If you must know, I don't think the overlap invalidates the basic idea of asexuality promoted by AVEN. Sexuality is a spectrum, just like the rainbow is. When you're faced with pure red, it's easy to say what color it is, but when you have a hue between red and orange, some people are going to say it's red and some will say it's orange. Similarly, woman who is sexually attracted to men and men alone is easy to label as straight, but what about one who, for every fifty men she finds attractive, will be attracted to one woman. So is she heterosexual or bisexual?

Likewise, a pure asexual is easy to identify, but someone who is not quite so asexual may fit under the fringes of the defitions for both asexuality and some other orientation.

Also how do you know AVEN is the correct definition since it seems to run counter to the accepted ideas on sexual behavior?

Accepted by whom? There are many different ideas of what human sexuality is like.

For example, do you even know what a "boston marriage" is?

Yes, I do. It is two women with a close relationship who live together, but do not have sex.

Have you ever even bothered researching the topic?

Yes, I have.

Can you tell me why these relationships are considered sexual even though there is no sex involved?

Because a) some people cannot fathom extremely close friendship that isn't sexual and b) presumably, some of the women getting into boston marriages actually were lesbians.

However, none of this has anything to do with my question. Instead of telling me why your opinions should be considered more valid than anybody else's, you simply went on about how I know nothing.

I repeat my question, though I'll phrase it differently this time: Why should I accept your opinions as fact? If you have as much knowledge about sexuality as you say you do, then it shouldn't be any trouble to put together a cogent argument for your position.

And do try to be more polite next time.

--Inkburrow

Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Amy

No, no, I don't, and I know when to stop, too. You have every right to believe what you do, but it is clear to me that we inhabit two completely different mental "planets".

Keep in mind Amy that I am in a relationship too with a guy I have known for 9 years. It is "spiritual" in the sense that we have a lot of things in common but it is only a best friendship.

All I am saying is that if you are implying that a spiritual bond = romantic connection, you need to look at all the other stuff too.

If you are just sitting around talking, but you are not doing sappy stuff like gazing into each others eyes, frequently professing your love, wanting to live together, snuggling and all that other stuff, then I would find it hard to call it a romantic relationship.

Nom

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

<< In your teenage naiveness, I doubt if you would understand, so why don't read up on the subject rather than ask questions? >>

;) Send me a link.

Sorry, but I don't help lazy, stupid folks who can't take the initiatve to anything for themselves.

Maybe you can get your Daddy, Dr. Shrinko, to read you a bed time story.

Nom

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

I am not avoiding the question here, as I think I have already made my points clear in my earlier posts.

Read through the archives.

Care to give me message numbers to make that easier? I'll happily read them -- I just don't want to wade through messages where you do nothing more than accuse other posters of being drunk or stupid. Or is this yet another example of what you do in the rest of this post: namely, telling me to go read up without bothering to give any concrete details on what I should read?

I find it interesting that you want to accept their assertions as fact without evidence, but on the other hand you want me to "prove" my theories.

I accept AVEN's assertions because they appear to basically make sense considering what I know about sexuality. Incidentally, most of my information on sexuality comes from http://www.scarleteen.com, which is run by people who are familiar with the field and do keep abreast of current developments. If you are concerned about the credentials of the editors, you can read biographies of them at http://www.scarleteen.com/about.html.

What I want you to do is cite your sources and make some sort of argument for your theories.

Likewise, a pure asexual is easy to identify, but someone who is not quite so asexual may fit under the fringes of the defitions for both asexuality and some other orientation.

Exactly!!!

That has been my argument all along.

That is why I think the definition needs to be more narrowly defined.

Some people are definitely asexual.

And some people are clearly sexuals with low libidos.

No, not "exactly." That's not my argument at all. Why, for example, should someone who is /very/ mildly attracted to one sex automatically get shunted into the sexual category? It doesn't fit them perfectly -- no more perfectly than the asexual label would, anyway.

Also how do you know AVEN is the correct definition since it seems to run counter to the accepted ideas on sexual behavior?

Accepted by whom? There are many different ideas of what human sexuality is like.

I am not talking about the nature vs. nurture controversy here my friend.

Neither was I. For somebody who accuses others of not thinking, your own cognitive skills seem to be in poor shape.

What I meant was: there are a few theories of human sexuality floating around -- the Kinsey Institute and a conservative Christian are going to have different ideas on homosexuality, for example. Granted, the latter's ideas are pretty much guaranteed to be nonsense, but that doesn't mean that there aren't multiple ideas floating around.

Read up on sexual behavior. It's more clear cut than you like to define it.

Resources, Nom. List resources. Or would actually having to cough up articles and books for me and others to read rob you of the ability to dismiss all arguments by claiming that everybody else knows nothing?

Sorry if I disagree with article (a) but your average set of best friends-- no matter how close-- do not behave that way. They might live together as room mates, but they DO NOT behave like a couple!

The average set of best friends is acting according to societal norms (not that there's anything wrong with that). Two different standards of behavior are assigned to sexual and platonic relationships -- though I should note that those behaviors differ by time period and culture. Female friends in Victorian times, IIRC, were more physically affectionate than women are today with their friends.

That is why boston marriages are considered to be gay relationships, the argument that they are or were only just close friendships has never been adequately supported!

What about two people who care very much for each other, and live in the same house, and don't have sex with each other and don't really want to, and claim they're just friends? That's not adequate support for them merely being friends?

However, none of this has anything to do with my question. Instead of telling me why your opinions should be considered more valid than anybody else's, you simply went on about how I know nothing.

I wasn't referring to you but to a couple of others on this list.

Hint: when you include questions like "have you even done any research" in your reply to somebody, they are going to assume you're talking to them. And that you're asserting their ignorance.

Why should it be my job to spoon feed the information to you? You say you want facts, well go read up on the subject.

You know, Nom, the more you point to this allegedly superior of yours and screech that my head is empty without actually giving sources or cogent arguments, the more convinced I become that you have neither.

--Inkburrow

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf

You know, Nom, the more you point to this allegedly superior of yours and screech that my head is empty without actually giving sources or cogent arguments, the more convinced I become that you have neither.

Like I said read up on it, pal. Get up off your lazy butt and go visit the library tomorrow.

If I can do the research on my own without anyone to spoon feed it to me or hold my little hand, you can do

it too.

So what's stopping you?

Or would you just rather while away your time by whining and sniveling behind your keyboard?

Also, I don't have to cite my sources. If AVEN isn't going to cite theirs why do I need to cite mine?

And if I did would a lazy person like yourself read it? I doubt it and even if you could, I doubt if it would make much sense.

Good riddance!

Nom

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

Hello,

<< Sorry, but I don't help lazy, stupid folks who can't take the initiatve to anything for themselves.>>

Then I'm afraid you're stuck with my "misinformed" statements. If you don't like what I say, a) ignore me or b) "cure me" of my lack of knowledge by giving me links. If you refuse to provide links, how can I know any better?

Sorry but you're an adult-- or at least you like to think that you are.. even though you are just what 15,16, 17?

Anyway... when you have done research papers in school, did your teacher hold your hand and tell you what titles and authors to read in order to write your paper?

I doubt it.

So get busy. If this stuff interests you read up on it.

I did my research on my own, why can't you???

Insulting my father being a psychologist when all of your arguments are based on psychology? Can we say "convenient exception"?

Hahahaaha! Who says I am insulting your father?

If your dad really is psychologist, why don't you have him point you toward some books where you can research and read up on things?

Or are you too afraid to ask him?

Nom

Nom

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

If you want people to narrowly define asexuality to your terms, you're going to need to cite sources. Sorry.

Blah, blah, blah, More teenage whining.

Hahaha the only time I will cite my sources is when AVEN does which probably will never happen.

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

You know, Nom, the more you point to this allegedly superior of yours and screech that my head is empty without actually giving sources or cogent arguments, the more convinced I become that you have neither.

Like I said read up on it, pal. Get up off your lazy butt and go visit the library tomorrow.

If I can do the research on my own without anyone to spoon feed it to me or hold my little hand, you can do it too.

Translation: "I don't actually have any sources to cite."

Also, I don't have to cite my sources. If AVEN isn't going to cite theirs why do I need to cite mine?

First, what AVEN does has no bearing on what you should do. AVEN doesn't cite its sources, and it should, but I'm willing to accept their theories anyway because they're in line with what I already know about sexuality. You, on the other hand, are proposing ideas that clash with what I've read, so I need to see some sort of evidence before I'll be convinced.

Secondly, these emails you've exchanged with me on the list are not a debate with AVEN. They are a debate with me. And I /did/ cite my source.

Of course, since you're probably just talking out of your ass and don't have any sources in the first place, it's a moot point.

--Inkburrow

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_virusprotection_3mf

Yes, I've also seen people shocked by the behavior of some Japanese schoolgirls.

Sure there is always going to be cultural differences but that is something psychologists take that into account.

Psychologists look at the ENTIRE relationship (emotions, motivations, behavior) not just an individual set of behaviors. For example your average set of best friends may hug each other, but they do not behave towards each other like a couple!

While your argument about cultural differences is sound, it in no way explains what occurrs in Boston Marriages.

If one looks at your average set of best friends and then looks at the relationship in a Boston Marriage, that extra component in the Boston Marriage that "zing", is most definitely sexual in nature.

Nom

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

Translation: "I don't actually have any sources to cite."

Sorry buddy but like I said it's not my job to hold your hand because you are too scared to walk into a library yourself.

The information is out there, go find it!

Also, I don't have to cite my sources. If AVEN isn't going to cite theirs why do I need to cite mine?

First, what AVEN does has no bearing on what you should do. AVEN doesn't cite its sources, and it should, but I'm willing to accept their theories anyway because they're in line with what I already know about sexuality.

Oh I see... so if their ideas agree with yours, than they must be a fact? And therefore they do not need to be cited?

Sorry but if AVEN is going to assert their theories without citations, I am more than entitled to do the same with mine.

So get over it!

You, on the other hand, are proposing ideas that clash with what I've read, so I need to see some sort of evidence before I'll be convinced.

Secondly, these emails you've exchanged with me on the list are not a debate with AVEN. They are a debate with me. And I /did/ cite my source.

Sorry buddy but this debate is over with. I am not interested in discussing an issue with someone who clearly lacks the understanding or the initiative to go do the research himself.

It's quite funny that I can read up on this topic but you are too lazy to do so!

And now that I think about it... is your lack of initiative because you are lazy or is it because you are really nothing more than a dim bulb?

Is it the former, the latter or is it both?

you're probably just talking out of your ass

Hahahaha! From the looks of things, I think you clearly have been doing that more than I.

BTW, if you're going to more of that in the future (i.e. talk out of your ass), make sure you wipe.

Goodbye!

Nom

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