Haven for the Human Amoeba

Hehe why don't you expand upon that "interesting", IOA? The reason I said so is because like drk my friendships have been disastourous, but for different reasons (but her statement still applies).

After the friendship progresses with me, the guys are like "you are a great friend with a great personaily but I think that we should have sex, in fact if we don't have sex I don't think we should continue our friendship".

To me that says that the guy just wanted me for sex all along at that I as a person mean nothing to him. I don't think men see it this way at all.

Now am I not trying to start a battle of the sexes...remeber that drk pointed out that women overinterpret as well so the blame isn't on the men. I am just trying to figure out why it doesn't work. Maybe I am just talking to the wrong men, though I have had failed relationships with all sorts of men (except for homosexuals and asexual men). Oh well that is all I care to talk about that.

--GirlTech

It's Reason's Like this I Dislike Most Sexual People. (Hypocritical, But hypocrisy is a sure sign of sentient Life.) They may be able to think, but when the sex drive takes over, they lose all reason. I call these people Boys, TO differentiate them from me. I consider myself a Man, who is more Mature than that. Oh well. Girls aren't always better. They seem to loose their judgement not about their own actions, as men, but about people. (Sorry BRC, for making Generalizations.) I've learned to put up with it, as long as they leave me out of it. Unfortunately, These are the people that Breed. Quick, Someone Develop Cloning!

Welcome, Judy!

I think, actually, that your perspective is similar to a lot of people in the club. Techgirl said that she often felt pity for sexual people, I said something about that, too. I have seen so many unhappy couples that stay together just so they aren't alone (whatever that means). That doesn't happen to everyone, but it seems to happen more often than anyone would like to admit. As long as we aren't restraining ourselves, I think we'll be more content than people hopping from bad relationship to bad relationship.

If you don't mind my asking, what were the problems with your other clubs? (I've never had a problem, but they seem to be common. I was just wondering what these problems were).

About the my other clubs...one was deleted by Yahoo due to some really bad press clubs of that sort have been getting of late. This was not an "adult" club but, of all things, a pro-anorexia support group. Now before anyone gets up in arms about this let me just say that few of the persons who visit those clubs are truly uncontrolled anorectics and for those who are, those clubs were really a haven for them. I believe that there was actually a case of a girl falling off the edge with anorexia because she lost her support outlet when one of these clubs was deleted.

As for the other club...let's just say that the club leader thought I was too "argumentative" and that I was scaring other members away and detracting from the normal flow of, pat on the back, "I'll love you no matter what you do" sort of support that he was looking for . No, seriously... So he blocked me from the club. Incidentally, it was a club with a similar theme as this one.

Anyway...What stuns me about the way people think of sexuality is that they seem to believe that it's some sort of inevitable thing, that you simply must settle for something because it's just not healthy to make do with nothing. Avoiding sex is the easiest thing in the world to do. I'm more suprised that so many persons are actually out having sex than I am by persons who wish to avoid it completely.

Judy

[ ...why don't you expand upon that "interesting",... ]

I was being ornery, and offering a framework upon which you could over-analyze my oblique response. That aside, I do in fact find your collective opinions "Interesting" in the name of Everything Human Being (pun?) Interesting.

It is not really possible for me to fully explain what men are thinking when they carry out these particular actions and ultimatums like that. Since I do think like a man though (sans the obvious differences), I can attempt to apply the scenario to a hypothetical model, at the risk of inaccuracies due to reduction (lossy compression ratios.)

For both genders (and all sexual orientations, excluding the obvious.) the desire for a relationship is multi-facetted, and not unlike twine. It seems that underlying sexual fancy is an almost ever-present attribute in this theoretical twine. If one part of the twine becomes too weak, the friendship can wane over time. This is of course relational to the other parts of the twine. If one part is strengthened, than other parts can be reduced safely. In this way, two sexual people can have a very fulfilling relationship without any sexual tension between them.

If the individual strands are thicker on one end than the other, it can cause the entire thing to unravel. If one person is attracted to the friend, but that other isn't, it can severely disturb, and even destroy the relationship if it isn't strong enough. I had this happen with a good friend of mine: She was attracted to me, but I was not attracted to her. We had a happy ending though because the rest of our friendship was strong enough to pull it through. I maintain contact with her to this day, and she is one of my best friends.

The manners in which both genders build this emotional and relational twine differ, and it has been the source of many songs, poems, misunderstandings, films, mistakes, and so much more. On the other hand, it has been the source of what keeps them going. It seems to be the enigma within the darkness that is created by opposite polarity methodologies towards identical ends.

The important thing to note is that while this fuels them, it does not fuel us. It becomes a merely frustrating and a most pithy extension of the whole friendship deal. They approach the twine as they always have, and one cannot really blame them for that. The things that annoy you with the male philosophy are the very things that keep a sexual woman going. Sure, they are annoying to her as well, but that is part of the game, and that is the vital difference.

As for how both genders differ. Reams of documentation have been written on this topic, and far better than I could ever humbly recreate a wheel with my obviously tainted viewpoints. In a nutshell attempt however: Men communicate better with actions, and expect action oriented communication. Women communicate better with verbiage, and expect reciprocation on those grounds in return.

This is where I wander into territory where I can only report what I have observed with male friends. Women tend to "blunder" with men on the basis of physical action just as often as men "blunder" verbally. Men read detail and over-analyze body language and gesturing just as frequently as women over-analyze the mens' comments. It is also important to note that women place much more importance upon communication, while men place more importance on action.

This is just part of what creates the "wave cancellation" that they both find so alluring.

The entire duration of my last relationship was the most unhealthy experience I've ever gone though. I was literally blown apart psychologically, to the point of a nervous breakdown.

Whoever says a sexual extension is a healthy [necessary] component to any human's life need only observe my radical decline during the relationship, and post-phase ascension prior to leaving it.

I think I left some of you up in the air here, so I'll do what I said and tell yo that the local Queer "Club at my university is sanctioning several Disscussion groups for special interests. They call them Visibility groups. I plan on sitting in on a lot of them, but I have Signed up to form an Asexuality Visibility group. I plan on using this and a few of your personal pages as starting points for disscussion. The only long term goal I really have is to get them to add an A to the LGBT in the Club's paperwork. The next meeting is wenesday, but The Groups probably don't get going for another few weeks. Don't be surprised if a few new members pop up around then.

I'm curious to know if you think that the LGBT groups will ever be receptive to having asexuality added onto their charter. It seems to me that such groups are more or less adamant about asserting their sexuality. They are alternative sexualities to be sure, but sexuality nonetheless. I would have thought that they would be put off by abstinence as your average run of the mill sexually active heterosexual. Or am I just completely wrong about this?

Judy

I can't say that you're wrong, but I don't necessarily agree, either. I've had pretty good experiences with gay people accepting my lack of sexuality more so than I have with straight people. Straight people (the ones I know) are constantly thinking of weddings and children, etc. Homosexual people look at those things in a much different light (due to most state laws and, of course, biology), and these ideas aren't necessarily on the forefront. I think that if you tell a heterosexual "I'll never marry", they'll say something like "Oh, just wait until you're older" or "you just haven't met the right person". If a person isn't inclined to thinking about white wedding gowns and cake, they'll probably simply say "Not getting married? Is that so?"

If only making generalizations could be an Olympic event.

Well, I got bind configured as a domain on our internal server here. The rest of my day is pretty blank, so I started playing around with Da-V and came up with some odd "art" while I as at it.

Here are the links:

<a href=http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol_art1.jpg target=new>http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol_art1.jpg</a>

<a href=http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol_art2.jpg target=new>http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol_art2.jpg</a>

<a href=http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol_art3.jpg target=new>http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol_art3.jpg</a>

I'm back at college now, being insanely busy and dirty and generally hippiesque. Now that I finally have time (whatever that means) I'm really eager to respond to everything that's been going on. But first, before I get too exhausted, I want to update everyone on what's being goin on here and get your opinion on some things.

Breif history: I started talking to the queer community about asexuality last semester, they seemed fairly uncomfortable with the topic and when I had a seminar on it only 4 people showed up. This year I still sense some of that uncomfortability, but the power-that-be, after switching hands and apparently shifting ideologies (three cheers for trannies), has decided that asexuality is a worthwhile subject. It's getting brought up now by people other than me, and the discussions on it aren't being awkwardly shut down, which is really great. There seems to be a real interest in the queer community around learning more about asexuality, which is great. More on that later.

Further story: Wesleyan every year has a frosh orientation program on LGBTQQ issues (called a bilegata). I was on the committee that ran them this year, so I made certain that asexuality made it onto the definitions list and got talked about briefly. I gave permission for facilitators to give out my name to people who had further questions (which now means I'm "out" [or other appropriate term] to about the entire frosh class). I've gotten quite a few questions, and quite a few people who have expressed futher interest in learning whome I haven't gotten to talk to yet. A few also who are considering asexuality as an identity, though that's all very new so I don't know what to make of it yet. Go conversion. Moving on before my post overflows...

-BRC

So the long and short of it is that I have a reasonably strong campuswide interest and, if I play my cards write, a sizable number of people willing to help me out. I'm setting out to design some sort of a workshop (Pimp, this may be useful to you as well) that I can do to give people a broader understanding of asexual issues/give them the benefit of an asexual perspective on sexuality. While just getting up there and blabbing on about asexuality is an option, I think that it is too unstructured and unintersting. In the end what my audience (mostly sexual), wants is to better understand sexuality, so that's what I should talk about. I've generated two models for the workshop at this point, let me know what you think.

A. Sexual Intensity Model: I have people go around privately rate themselves on a scale of one to ten (decimals allowed) in terms of sexual intenstity. I then go around the room and have people talk about issues of sexual intensity. What are the ways in which society normalizes us to a certain level of sexual intensity (in the striaght and queer communities.) What does it feel like to be more or less sexual than you are "supposed" to be. What happens to people who are too sexual or not sexual enough? Why is sexual intensity not something that is talked about in our society? This model is more abstract, so people might not get it, but I think it touches on some key issues around how society is sexually normalized.

B. Relationship Theory Model: I have the group go around and throw up definitions for some buzzwords around relationships, sexuality, attraction, intimacy, romance, love, etc. Generate a list of adjetives describing a romantic relationship and one describing a platonic relationship. Then I get into the difference between the two, how they relate to each other, and what the social stigmas are around each one. Why do we think that we can only find intimacy in sexual relationships? Where do things like monogamy come from? This model might be more interesting, as it deals with issues that are more pertanent (though also more personal.) It's good because it directly adresses the question on everyone's mind about asexuality, but is also more limited in scope.

Neither of these are set in stone, I'm just brainstorming. Feel free to combine/add/splice.

Wow I can't believe all the work you guys are doing toward asexual visibility. I really can't wait to hear how it all turns out. I have never done a workshop and haven't really been able to come up with any ideas, but if I do I'll be sure to let ya'll know. Wish I could do more to help other than just my girlgeek internet work.

I would actually like to expand upon my view about "love". I can honestly say that I have *never* told a soul on this planet that I love them. Now a couple people have professed to love me but from the way that they treated me, I am sure that they didn't. The people that I know love me show me every single day, it doesn't have to be said. It tends to be the ones that throw these three words around that love me the least if at all.

Though I have never said "I love you" to anyone, I strive to show the ppl that I do "love", how much I care everyday. I guess I have been shown love through action and not words. Love in my world is not something that you say but things that you do and don't do (or not even not that so much is how you *treat* the ones you love). In my world, love truly is a verb. Even though I don't say the words, everyone that I love knows it and vise versa. There is no doubt of it unlike with the people that continually vomit up those three diluted words. To me the words only take away. If someone has to actually say it to let you know that you are loved, something isn't right anyway.

--GT

...I hope everyone will forgive me. IOA, I like your work with the symbols and I was wondering if I could pay you to draw me a symbol so I can get a tatoo. I know how I want it but I have no artistic ability what-so-ever. What I was looking for was the feminine symbol (the circle with the cross thingy) with two swords crossed behind it. I want the words "I fight like a girl" (*winks at drk*) on there some where, maybe around the symbol itself. If you could just do a couple of vairations on the desing it would be cool. I am hoping it won't be too tacky to get done and if I decide that it is, I prob won't do it (I have seen *some* tatoos carried off nicely but it is a rare thing indeed). If you are interested, you can e-mail or IM me though I rarely see you on.

Sorry for posting this off topic post guys, but I didn't know how else to contact IOA. Bye :D

--GT

BTW this club shows me on messenger 24/7 and I obviously am not so if you IM me and don't get a response, I prob ain't on!

Relentlessly, I submit another symbol. If you all wish me to stop already, just say so. :)

This one is located here:

<a href=http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol4.jpg target=new>http://homepage.mac.com/ioapetra/gfx/asymbol4.jpg</a>

Obviously, I drew this one with a brush. I got the idea last night while I was at home, and I do not have access to any vector based tools there. If you are at all familiar with Hebrew, you might already have a grin on your face.

In case you are not familiar, Hebrew is very much like Greek in that each character has a wealth of meaning behind it. Additionally, Hebrew letters were also used as numerals, much like the Romans did with some of their letters (I, V, X, M, and so on.)

This symbol, the Aleph, has a numerical value of both 1 and 1,000 depending on its usage, making it both the smallest and the largest single numeral character in the Hebrew Alephbet.

Further, more poetic meanings of the word render a palette of self contained; contented; whole and undivided; benign attributes. While a solitary one, it is happily one.

Hey I really like that symbol! The meaning is awesome and it is unique yet it sticks with you. There is also a part of it that looks like a raised fist, which I interpret to mean "empowerment" Kind of like saying, we are here so look out! Maybe that is just me tho. Interested to hear everyone else's thought.

It really is difficult to choice a symbol because so few of us are represented by the club. It is a shame that so few of us will be part of the decision and I don't think it should be that way. Unfortunately doing it that way usually posed the problem of everyone tending to just adopt their own symbol. That is fine and good but it would be better to have a universal symbol recognized by all.

Symbols help publicize an issue or cause so we need to have one but then again a symbol should be chosen by a vast number of the sect. Ah, I love those vicious circles!

--GT

I've only told someone (not in my family) that I loved him exactly once in my life. I was taking a philosophy class at the time and the students were caught up in discussing what the term love really meant. It was narrowed down to a desire to be physically near the beloved, and experiencing misery in his/her absence. I was essentially only a pen-pal with this particular beloved and had only spent three days in his company prior to our correspondence. Nevertheless, I laid the "I love you" on him with a full of explanation of it's philosophical meaning. Needless to say, it really went over his head. Love is the thing that need not be uttered, because just by it's very declaration it becomes sullied and disingenuous.

Judy

Quick topic-introduction before I run off and steal mroe stuff for my dorm room (yeah motherboards mounted all over the walls !!) We've been talking alot about love, and about how there's no reason why it should be talked about. It's part of the background mechanics of a relationship, not the part that needs focusing on. (This has been my experience anyway.) This all seems to make a good deal of sense. My question, then, is why IS there such a focus on love, on saying "I love you," etc ? Is there something specific to asexuality which makes us not need that part of it?

-BRC

the Easy answer is that it's comforting. Most of us humans want to be loved. We seek it out. Perhaps it's instict for reproduction, or our Herd emntality, but whatever the reason, we want to be loved, and so we demand that peope love us. But we are also unsure of ourselves, and so demand that our loved ones contantly show us how much they love us. This is the way it works in most humans heads.

Also, I'm not sure that at any other time in history Romance was so pushed down everyones throats before. For the most part Mararige was an economic contract in the past, and people rarely ever married for Love. It seems few people besides poets and Playwrites beleived in true ove too strongly. These days, Epic romance sells for 10 cents at the bookstore and Every action movie has to have a romantic subplot. I think perhaps the importance love has taken on is merely a Peak point on the cultural wave this Century.

I put the most importnace on love because it is an empothion felt, and not a relationship per say. It is accurate for me to say I love someone when It may not be accurate to say I'm dating someone, Engaged, Maiired, Friends, Arch Rivals, Etc. I like to hear it when I'm down, and After an arguement so I know we don't hate each other now. I like to say it to reassure my Love and comfort her.

It's like a verbal hug.

Perhaps as asexuals you don't feel the need for love because you don't rely as much on others for your self image. Us sexual people put great weight in the opinions of the opposite gender because they essentially decide if we are good enough to be worthy of reproduction. Most Asexuals Don't have that Problem

Damn posting late at night. I hate when I have Typos.

Well to answer BRC's question, I really can't say why it is an oft discussed topic in this forum. The reason I mention it is just if it's on my mind. I guess I mention in this forum because it is something that both asexuals and sexuals deal with. I think that part of asexuality is defining "love" with out sex. After all, many people believe that sex is the consumation of love, so it's time to say "hey, we are asexuals and we love but we don't have sex, does that mean we love any less?" Of course I believe that the answer is no, we just express our love differently. That is just my reasoning. Of course when I refer to love, I am also refering to "non romantic" love as well so maybe I am just expressing myself period. I don't guess there has to be a reason for everything (not being a smart ass, hope it doesn't sound that way).

Pimp, I hear ya about those late night postings! I also understand what you are saying about reassuring by saying "i love you." I guess it all boils down to how you express your love. I just hope that you don't say "I love you" and then not step up and prove it. ;-)

I remember some talk about losing respect for those entering relationships and I just have to shamefully admit that this is the case and with my own sister no less. Now my sister used to be the most independant woman and I used to envision us being old maids together. Now she is in her thirties and is trying to beat the biological clock and it's discusting and just plain pittiful. It is like when a woman reaches her thirties she loses all self respect and dignity, no matter how independant she was (my sis actually used to be a man hater!). Just PLEASE don't let me EVER get like that!! Of course sis is sexual so maybe it won't be an issue for me. I can only HOPE.

--GT

It's precisely because modern day culture is putting such a phony emphasis on romance that real love and genuine affection have practically been murdered. People get married nowadays with some bizarre belief that their entire marriage should be as blissful as their honeymoon. The sense of duty and devotion that used to be inherent (for the most part) in such a sacred rite/contract is all but defunct.

Love isn't the gosh darn roses and champagne of the movies, it's more like sponge-bathing a terminally ill spouse. I don't understand why so many seem to have lost sight of this. Being "asexual" in no way means that one is adverse toward the concept of love. If anything, it may mean that one is unwilling to settle for any of the flimsy, phony manifestations of so-called love. Maybe we just want the genuine article.

I'm convinced that people only ever say "I love you" when they've ran out of other more interesting things to say to one another. It is a phrase with no real inherent meaning because the concepts and feelings that it is meant to convey are largely unutterable. If you're standing on a beach with the one person in the world whom you would want to spend eternity with, and the view is spectacular, and the moment leaves you absolutely breathless, saying something as trite as "I love you" should warrant a severe bitch-slapping. Love isn't something you can declare, it's simply something that you feel and know.

Oh yeah...and sex certainly isn't intrisic in the idea of love. Sex is physical, love is cerebral...only neuroscientists and some psychiatrits would break love down to a physical entity located in X part of the brain governed by Y neurotransmitter. I'm fairly convinced that love doesn't play any part in most of the sexual encounters that take place in the world (e.g. rape, prostitution, unhappy marriages, casual encounters).

Judy

Yeah, I almost always try to back it up, but it's difficult sometimes. I usually only say " I love you" If there's no better way of expressing it. That, and My Love doesn't quite understand the way of thinking I use on these subjects, and So she wants to hear it more often. It's mostly a fufillment of an expectation to make her feel better, since Simply existing in the state doesn't seem to be satisfactory. I don't get it, but then again, It makes more sense than Laizee-Faire Capitalism.

The recent movie A.I. addressed this topic rather adroitly, in my opinion (and I'll try not to spoiler it for those who have not seen it yet.) Perhaps the most interesting thing this movie did was let each viewer take with them a story based on their concept of love. Some people saw it as a very sentimental movie, others saw it is an almost bitter satire on the harsh reality of love, as opposed to the fantasy of it.

Despite final interpretations, one facet that is directly relevant to this discussion placed the silent question: What is love? I've been an admirer of Kubrick for quite some time, and I believe that Spielburg completely misinterpreted sections of this film, and lent a fuzzy touch where perhaps a bit of steel would have done a better job. So looking past the over the top Stevenisms, we observe that at the core of this movie there are two major themes.

Axis one is the rising sentience of the robots [Mechas]. From the opening scene, we are lead to believe that Mechas do not, and cannot attain self-actualization. For the first hour or so, we see nothing that would hint otherwise. Even David's display of emotion and love towards Monica appears to be nothing more than a slight-of-hand. Surprising in its mimicry, but a mimicry nonetheless. As the movie progresses into a decidedly more Kubrick texture, we see that this presumption is perhaps false. After witnessing many hints as to why, halfway through the film, Gigolo Joe gives a passionate manifesto to David on the relationship between love and fantasy, and how this relates to Mechas and humans. The unspoken thoughts screaming from between his lines are: "I think! I feel!" Another hour later, near the end of the movie, Joe delivers another gripping line which completely smashes all prior disbelief in Mecha sentience as he reaches down towards David in a universal gesture of undesired separation and says the words, "I am ... I was."

On a convergent axis, we have the rising ability to love with the robots. It is crucial to understand that David does not fall into this category unless by forgiveness! David was built by humans to love, and in doing this they created a manifestation (and a gross caricature, at that) of what they believed love was. A priori, if he possessed some of the fundamental abilities inherent in the other Mechas, they are completely obscured by this artificial facade that has been inserted in place.

So let us examine two other Mechas, with whom the story revolves around (and in my opinion the story is about them, not David.) They would be the pet Teddy, and the aforementioned Gigolo Joe. Throughout the entire movie they consistently demonstrate the qualities of love, without once even uttering the phrase, "I love you." The dedication and understanding they showed towards David was unconditional (to use a word that humans prefer.) Even after Joe's speech, when David refused to listen to reason and follow his obsessions, Joe equally refused reason, but not out of obsession, out of dedication. He and Teddy were going to stick with this boy until the end, even if they did not agree with his motives.

Out of all the characters in the film, these two seemed to possess a greater capacity for love than any other, even the humans. Relevant to this discussion, they demonstrate it in a completely asexual way. (Gigolo Joe's occupation aside, as he obviously has been just as tweaked as David to be something manifested and artificial. Even the way that he approaches sex is asexual, more like a job at which he excels; an art form where he is the ultimate artist. He has no love for his customers, and this is reaffirmed by both spoken word and by action.)

Now, before you say: I don't think we should be comparing ourselves to robots! Bear in mind that these fictitious Mechas are allegorically not strict robots. That would have been much to passe for Kubrick. These Mechas are actually (and inversely to the movies own internal decree) a portrait of idealistic humanity. The paragon of what a Human Should Be in utopian colors.

For this reason, I find it very interesting that asexuality has been painted into that concept. Coming from Kubrick, however, I would expect nothing else. Not that Kubrick was an asexual, but few would argue that his viewpoint on sex was one that had it meshed with true love and enduring relationships.