John Doe

Welcome to your <insert number> year on Earth!

Glad you came out between your Mum's legs! Congrats!

I'm am 100 percent of what I am (I'm not disclosing... since my world is very small). I will say that centuries ago, my ethnic race can be traced back to China, though we are not Chinese. We spoke a different language (and I don't mean dialect, completely different language) and have different customs. Ancient China persecuted us and as the minority group we went south. So these days when I get asked where in world region I say Southeast Asia though I have to explain in depth more cause my ethnic group is not Thai, Lao, or any of the major countries though we could be of those nationalities (not ethnicity). Today it's a general SE asia, from southern China to Burma, Vietnam, etc... Though I was born and bred in the United States. genology.com and ancestry.com is completely useless for me. As stated, as a minority group, my ancestors had to live in areas not liked to be habitied by the majority group, and that lives on today. The villages today don't have electricity still and they are still farmers and what not. I can go back about 6 generations orally. But I know that in the US (as with those in France, the UK, and Australia) those that are first generation born (like me) is it. The later generations are losing to the main culture and customs of their respective "host" countries. I have nieces and nephews who don't even know our "native" language. Studies have shown that by the 4th generation in US borns, the lagauage will be about 80 percent lost and I believe it. I grew up with struggling to be "American," had hardcore issues with it, clashed with my family, deserted many things which I am picking up again and putting value in... and it's not enough. I live in an area where I can't converse in my other native tongue and I find that I'm forgetting simple words... like the term for older sister, or a term for my cousin's wife or husband, or my uncle from my mom's side. There are a lot of these familial terms, ones I shouold know and did know but I forget them since I don't use them often enough. Tradiationally, it's used oftened. You never call your cousins wife by name but by that term and since I haven't lived near my family for years I lose what I don't use. Another popular thing these days is kids moving out of parents' home when they come of age, etc, which can attribute to a lack of lineage knowledge. Before in the old days families stuck together (in both eastern and western worlds) and thus the knowledge of one's heritage was well known. Also families stayed in one place for decades and even centuries. Hence I liked the South and small town New England for that matter. Old Mr. Johnson down the street has been living in his home for 80 plus years and that house has been in his family for 5 generations, etc.... and maybe I spoke too much here, but I like these kinds of discussion...

Haha... this glared at me from the forum page, I had to read it... glad I did...

Yes thank you all who are/were involved for putting together a nice piece of collective work. The borg will be proud of you/us...

Happy late bIrthday!

Happy birthday feline!!!!!

I posted this on my facebook and already have comments... Well spoken young lady...

It's actually season TWO... so it's not entirely new... season one the group called nota won... it was also on about the same time this year last year... my roommate records this show and use to make me watch it with him. Now his girlfriend is my sometimes saving grace... Thank god he has a girlfriend cause I would rather spend my time reading than watching tv but now they sometimes both make me watch it with them... and a group did do a beiber song.... same episode as that lady gaga rendition... -something- Hour... 11th I think... they sang Justin's Baby song... gah I can't believe I know this stuff... no tv for me!!!

LOL I read this intiallly as my "Christian" group... I laughed at myself after a reread it... I think theres some closeted folks at my school... some of them gets way too friendly with me... makes me feel weird since I'm not entirely out myself and yet I know... and they know about me... hmmm Interesting stuff though. That survey won't last a minute where I live.

Makes me want to go see a musical...

I would have to say that a kiss is impossible for me. Even a hug is breaking bounds with me. Maybe it's me and my comfortability and a little of my Asian inheritence. But if its someone I know I will smile and nod an acknowledgement. A handshake if its a business situation or meeting someone for the first time. (I hate the fist bumps and handshake gestures though... it always confuses me and makes me feel like a loser). Even among my friends I smile and nod. If I'm in a cultural setting (read that as other Asian people, regardless of specific ethnic race) I would most likely bow a bit at the waist instead of the simple nod, especially if its to an older person (even if only by a year or two). My closer and better friends force me to hug them. I'm okay with it now. But most everyone knows and respects my simple smile and nod. It's okay for other people, but for me I like my space. Kissing on the lips I can respect and separate it from sexuality. But it still would shock me if I saw it, if even for a split second. It just very uncommon.

Reminder this is a poll, so who knows what the participants are saying... and it's a pool poll too so... there's a large possibility of descrepency. Or more correctly of the people they polled that was the percentage that represented those they polled. Anyway I clicked on here cause I thought we'd be talking about shirts... now that I'm here it made more sense. On clothing mode cause I'm redoing my wardrobe!

You should be glad. Discussions are much needed, even if they get tense and heated. Without it, the world would still be "backwards" (more so than now). Blacks will still be slaves. Chinese will still be making railroads. Native Americans would be wiped from the face of the earth, and depending on how history falls there would be no more Jews. Korea would be one state, but basically an unfunctional country due to it's civil war. Science will still believe the earth is the center of the universe. The Christian God will be non existant. And majorities of humans would still be runnning around hunting and gathering. And you shouldn't toss your own opinions aside so lightly. It's not nonsense. It reflects a part of your understanding and impression of the world.

Are you using a template? Cause I saw this format in another forum thread. It's be easier to discuss this if an asexual just lacked sexual organs. Done. No gripes about it. No gray areas.

The way you have presented yourself (word choice and structure) kinda shows that you are not open to other people's opinions. I was not commanding you to do something. Only pointing out the fact that your tone was very condensing. Your last two sentences were condenscending as it was a response to Yang and myself's comments. You speciifcally made that comment (and addressed us) because our views were slightly different. If they were the same would you have made those comments about enlightment? Why not simply say I disagree or We're coming from different perspectives. To use that specific word (enlightment) has its own implication and taken from the context and the mode of response it read that way, hence I suggested a better way of stating your emotions. Enlighment suggests that we lack something, thus making our own comments and opinions invalid, thus condenscending. As I have stated before my comments and opinions are my own and I do not assume or implicate them onto anyone else or have my own opinions and comments influence how I feel, think, or assume to know about a person. I do not think I was "right and know everything about 'gay.' gayness,[etc.]." Looking back I should have stated that I agreed with Yang and not use the words "yang was right" (or whatever words to that effect I have used). I have stated that what I have said on this forum strand is my opinion and is how I feel about the subject. Even Yang and I have our disagreements we do not claim the other of claiming to be something or wanting to be something. You are right there have been assumptions and generalizations made from ALL three of us, but for me I don't think they meant this is the only and final way. The words we chose to show and write all have a connotation. As writers and even as anyone who speaks a language we all know this (you called yang out on his slack language because of this very notion). As I have stated before you should find a better way to articulate your feelings. You accuse us of being unopen and "convinced of our correctness." Explain to us. Instead of accusing us of making assumption and generalizations as I wasn't making such claims and (I'm stretching to say) that Yang's repsonses were not of that sort either (at least for the earlier parts.) I'll say this now, I was annoyed with your responses. We need to reevualate this situation. I apologize if you felt like you were being attacked for having your own opinions and even more so if you felt like you couldn't voice your opinions. You have that right (to voice that opinion as this is a forum). It was not my intentions of doing so... We argued that you cannot be asexual if you have a physical attraction to some guy. You stated in a previous post that you have been attracted to a guy in the past and still feel that attraction. You said you would not have sex with him, to which I have commented that sexual abstenance and celibacy does not infer asexuality. I said my thoughts of asexuality means that you have to be void of that attraction, but you can still love a man (if you are a man or woman if you are a woman). Thus what you said did not fall into my definition of asexuality. Your article articulated and questioned the meanings and definitions of being gay but nothing of the sort of asexuality. You have yet to offer an explantion or definitions of asexuality from your perspective. Instead you keep saying that Yang and I are making assumptions and generalizations. That we should not define you in our terms. Well define yourself. State your mind. What does asexuality mean to you? What constitute it and wasn't doesn't. Yang and I keep explaining our piece and we are accused generalizers and assumers. I can't even see where you are coming from as you offer us no foundations to begin with. It'd be a different story if you explained yourself, defined your perspectives and if we continued to say that "no that's not how it is" then yes we are doing what you said we were. You say you come from a society and culture of discussion. It's kinda hard to have a discussion where one side refuses to explain oneself and only accuses the other of generalizing and assumptous. I don't consider that a discussion.

Yang - Heh, I can see where you are coming from but just based on those words alone I can't come to that conclusion. I have a guy friend who I'm very close to. We hold hands, hug, whisper to one another, do all the small "cute" things that most would define as couple like but neither one of us find the other attractive. He's straight by the way. (It's kinda weird but kinda not. You have to take cultural aspects into perspective. Physical displays of affection between the same sex is more acceptable in Korea and Japan (friend is Japanese) than the western world and it doesn't always constitute sexual physical attraction. That's why Red's passage that you pulled ... I can't get right up there with you on that bandwagon cause I can see the two of us (friend and I) do that.... but I can see where you are coming from. That wanting of touch is in the gray zone ... borderline. Where as in my relationship with my friend we both uderstood that we deeply cared for the other, there wasn't a moment of oh I love him *hits a wall of realization* . We kinda just figured it out(i'm talking platonic here); it's like loving your parents. There's no sexual tension nor do sexual thoughts or responses occur when we do those small things to each other (i.e. brushing one's hair aside). Sleeping on the other's stomach if the other is already laying down or using their lap as a pillow. We just do it without a thought. I guess that's the difference. Red's passage hints at wanting to touch, an urge... that's why I can see your argument... but I just can't be completely sold.

I am not in the mood to be talked down to today so I'll make a response to this specific part here. Maybe in the future choose better words to describe the way you feel instead of belittling others as if you knew them. The same can be said to you. This world is created by definitions and representation. Thats how we communicate. Without them there would be no sense of communication and a world with no communication is a world lacking of many things. I wasn't saying that an asexual person can't love or that it doesn't exsit. I was saying that being gay means you feel an attraction (sexual) with other members of the same sex. To be asexual you have to be void of that desire. There's a difference from abstaining from sexual desires and being asexual. Just because you are celibate and have no involvement in sexual activities does not mean you are asexual. That's where I side with Yang. Asexuals are platonic lovers. (I disagree with your <yang> assesment of Red's article passage that you pulled though.... I believe you can love physical qualities of a person and not be sexually attracted to them. For example, I go around judging girls if they are attractive or not and I'm not sexually attracted to women. But I have a ideal of what an attractive woman is... but that doesn't make me bisexual. Wmoen do not excite me.) And I did not generalized as I was speaking on behalf of my self and my opinion of the subject at hand. I understand that that what I said was my understanding and perspective on things and I know others have different parameters in which they qualify things. I do not assume that what I think is what everyone thinks. That is generalization: applying ones thoughts to represents others. To clarify I was responding to Yang's definition of asexual (in my first response). I wasn't saying that asexuals cannot love. Nor for the matter that in order to love you have to be sexually attracted to someone. I love my family and I do NOT want to have sex with them. To sum it all up: I stand by what I say. For me, one cannot be asexual and gay. One can love a man and be a man. That doesn't make or define one as being gay. One needs to be void of physical attraction to be asexual.

Yang is right. In a world where everything is being interchanged people confuses the meanings and uses of certain words. For example take the word "nationality" and "ethnicity." I get asked what I am by people all the time (as I live in a not very diverse city in the US). These two words get used interchangably from most people. There's a huge difference. I'm a very proud person meaning I take pride in what I recognize as an explanation or part of my identity. Whenever people ask me what my nationality or what my ethnicity is I tell them. When they ask about my nationality I say American. Ethnicity? <insert Ethnicty aka race and creed> (I'm very private about this matter whenit gets combined with my gay identity... not because I'm ashamed of being gay, far from it. It's difficult to explain). Some people get pissed off at me but for me they are two very different quesitons. I have been yelled at for being not patriotic enough and for being too Asian (and to those people who says as such, you just lack a sense of personal identity... so shove it) and so I learned distingush the difference of the two and when I explain my reasoning these days people are like "Oh that makes sense" and I don't get accuse of being too white washed or Asian anymore. Tangent big time. But Yang is correct in his reasoning. Asexual lacks sexual desires and attraction. Asexual and gay at the same time is not technically correct.

An anonymous name for me.

I just want to say that I'm an art major (photographer and graphic design) and I use a PC. I don't like the feel of mac. I have a sony vaio (2k) and it works great. Or it did, but then the wonderful house over surged and destroyed my laptop. I'm buying a new one in August and I'll be spending about 3k this time (yay for government grants). And I'll be buying a vaio again. As always though I get mine custom made to my specifications. I think the art world's usage of the mac kinda has to do with that something stuck up their *ahem* and thinking they are artsy. Programs work equally on both, and then add in the factor that I do some gaming and the PC has te edge for me. Really a person should use somethng they are comfortable with. I haven't tried Linux and I really want to though. I've always told my friends to stay away from Dell (though they aren't as bad anymore) and I figured your friend would have went with a Dell. They are price friendly as always.

I have never read the books.... but I wish I had because the movies are awesome and the books can only be better. But unfortunately, saw the movies first and once that happens for me it gets really hard for me to pick up the book. But I'm excited anyway...

Yep. We get radiation from the sun and the applicances we use. If only I can get super powers from them and be a super hero. Though I'm not going to lie, if I have super powers and was about the only one with super powers, I may lean towards the naughty "not so good side" at moments. PLus radiation isn't all bad. Chemotherapy is just that.

Well at least I can alwasy rent What a Girl Wants anytime.... that is her in that movie right?

Thank you Thank you! I will start from there.