UBC Asexuality Presentations

[Coleslaw]

Hi everyone!

Oh boy, I don't even know where to start with this... I'll be doing two, back-to-back Asexuality presentations to my university! The first one is about 30 minutes in length and is to a class of about 150 psychology students. The second will be a hour-long presentation, open to anyone. I am STOKED.

Basically, I have a draft presentation, found here, to share with you. I am looking for feedback on this, specifically in regards to using it for the hour-long lecture. Anything I should be expanding on? Also, just as a note, most of the content will be spoken, so I don't intend for this to be seen as totally, 100% complete. I'll be explaining, through personal experience and through board-wide commonalities, the variations of most of those general points.

Anyway... Yes! If anyone has any suggestions/comments/critiques, please let me know! :D

Coles

[Coleslaw]

C'mon, people! Don't be afraid to add your thoughts here... I am extremely interested in hearing other sides.

[Forensic]

I think part of the reason you've not gotten many responses is that it's a very good presentation. :)

I do prefer the triangle to the square, graph-wise, but that's me. :)

[asexual1976]

C'mon, people! Don't be afraid to add your thoughts here... I am extremely interested in hearing other sides.

Ok, here we go with a few random remarks :

Page 1 : I'd take out the "On" on the title page. It doesn't really make much sense to me.

Page 4 : The sentence "The asexual community defines asexuality...." begs the question : And why do other not agree with that ? I'd strike the introductory comment altogether, or use more general wording such as "Asexuality is commonly/often/etc. defined as ..."

Page 5 : Page 5 is probably to early to introduce people to the nuances of asexuality. Remeber people have just been told what asexuality is - something the have likely never heard of before. Now your making it even more complicated. It's probably better to leave demisaxual/grey-asexual for pages 15+.

Page 6 : "All asexuals are celibate, and vice versa" Even though I immediatly understood what you meant, a person not familiar with asexuality may not get the "and vice versa" part. So you might rephrase it stlightly to make it more clear that you mean to say that not all celibates are asexual.

Otherwise : Great presentation ! Hope it goes well !

[Coleslaw]

Well, thank you, but I consider it incomplete... It needs to be a bit longer for an hour-long presentation. Any ideas on what to add?

[Lord Happy Toast]

With respect to the definition of asexuality, maybe you could say something like, "In the asexual community, the most common definition is 'an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction.'" (On my blog, four of my last five posts have been on the subject of defining asexuality, and it looks like there will be at least three more to come. It's proving to be a much more complicated topic than I had thought.) I like saying the this is how the asexual community defines it because it suggests that we have the right to define asexuality how we want, rather than having some outside group telling us how we ought to define ourselves (i.e. people who say that asexuals who masturbate are autoerotic, not asexual; considering asexuality a sexual dysfunction rather than a sexual orientation, etc.) Also, although 'a person who does not experience sexual attraction' is the most common definition, it isn't the only one that's used.

I agree with Asexual 1976 that including info about "gray A's" right after defining asexuality probably isn't the best idea. I think that what would be best there is to briefly go over some of the diversity that exists in the asexual community and maybe explain some of the vocab that's used. For example, that some asexuals masturbate and some don't, that some asexuals feel non-sexual attraction to others and can be homo/hetero/bi/aromantic. I know that you deal with these later on, and it may be good to cover these twice--once briefly when introducing asexuality to give an idea of who all is included in the definition "people who don't experience sexual attraction," and then again when you have a chance to go into these in more detail. Explaining these can help fill-out the definition and give an idea of what sorts of people can be asexual. Also, if you do this, it may be okay to include mention of gray-A's toward the beginning (right after explaining the diversity that exists in the asexual community.) But I'm not sure.

Also, I'd recommend removing the part about "the state of being unmarried" from the definition of celibacy. I know that it's in the dictionary. (Before defining asexuality on my blog, I had three posts on the relationship between asexuality and celibacy, the third of which was devoted to defining celibacy.) However, it is an something of an obsolete definition.

Also, with regard to asexuality and Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder, the standard asexual soundbite is that it is only a disorder if the person is distressed about it and since most asexuals are fine with being asexual, for them, it's not a disorder. The reality is actual a bit more complicated. What the DSM says it that to be diagnosed with HSDD, the person's lack of interest in sex must cause "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." This means an asexual's asexuality can be diagnoses as a disorder if any of the following three apply: a.) the asexual is distressed about being asexual, b.) the asexual has a sexual partner who is distressed about not getting laid as often as they would like, or c.) the asexual wants to form a romantic relationship with someone but doesn't want sex, and so finding someone becomes very difficult. I think c.) can probably be ignored (since the diagnosis seems to be used almost exclusively for people with a sexual partner who wants more sex). However, b.) worries me a lot. Here you have a choice to make. You could ignore this, using the standard soundbite, which helps the audience think that the DSM doesn't consider asexuality a disorder (and isn't too far from the truth.) On the other hand, you could bring it up, raising the unfairness of the current diagnosis.

Overal, I think it does look like a very good presentation. If you want to add more, maybe you could do a short history of the asexual community.

[Shaggy]

Well, thank you, but I consider it incomplete... It needs to be a bit longer for an hour-long presentation. Any ideas on what to add?

Perhaps, with the assistance/input of AVEN Members, you could add a slide in the "Criticism, Challenges and Goals" Section.

After your "Social Concerns" slide, a "Commercial Costs" Slide (Costs that occur because of the lack of support for the idea of asexuality).

You could lead into "Commercial Costs" through a discourse on the Societal implications of this paucity of support within the Medical / Allied Health Services.

"Individual Costs"

Many AVEN posters have commented on therapy sessions and drug prescriptions that have failed them in one or more (or many) ways.

Yes, this has social costs, but there are also hard $$ Costs. For asexuals, their families, (possibly their colleagues), certainly their employers, & National Economies.

"Community, State, and National Economic Costs"

For how many AVEN Members, has their confusion over sexual identity impacted on their productivity in the workforce?

In my case, I know I was less than fully productive during both deteriorating relationship, & post-relationship 'doldrums'.

There are estimates of the 'costs to industry' of unhappy / depressed employees, promulgated by psych professional bodies.

You could include these Hard Dollar estimates in your presentation, perhaps.

Nothing like quoting figures back to those who've prepared them & believe them ... to get a group on side :) .

Come on AVENites, How much has your confusion over sexual identity COST?

[Coleslaw]

Page 1 : I'd take out the "On" on the title page. It doesn't really make much sense to me.

Done and done... That's been the working title for a while, and I actually want to think up a new title. Also something catchy that I can put on posters so that people walk by and go, "A-wha?!" and actually come to it. Any ideas in that regard?

In regards to pages 4 & 5:

My reason for doing page four and five the way I have them is so that I can generate a lot of discussion at this point. When the slide for "What is Asexuality" pops up, I intend to ask the audience for their ideas, and highlight that there can be many ways to define it, then have the blurb pop up that says "The asexual community defines it..." blah blah blah to get that last viewpoint in there.

Before moving to the next slide, I intend to say, "Notice that this definition is not precisely defined. What constitutes sexual attraction? What about words like "desire" or "drive", where might those fit in? What if you have someone who has a sex drive and no desire to act on it, but is sexually attracted to people? What then?" and then dive right into the fact that, because there isn't a precise, black-and-white definition, there are other groups that might fit well in the asexual community, and discuss demisexuals and grey-As.

I do like the idea of putting perhaps one more slide between them, on which to discuss some terms I'll be using (like drive, desire, attraction, , but I want the presentation to flow with an open idea of the label in mind. I figured that, if I start with an open label, things like masturbation and having sex to please others won't be such a big deal.

Page 6 : "All asexuals are celibate, and vice versa" Even though I immediatly understood what you meant, a person not familiar with asexuality may not get the "and vice versa" part. So you might rephrase it stlightly to make it more clear that you mean to say that not all celibates are asexual.

Again, this is just in short form for note taking purposes. I'll be saying the whole sentence out loud.

Also, I'd recommend removing the part about "the state of being unmarried" from the definition of celibacy. I know that it's in the dictionary. (Before defining asexuality on my blog, I had three posts on the relationship between asexuality and celibacy, the third of which was devoted to defining celibacy.) However, it is an something of an obsolete definition.

Aww, but I wanted to be a cheeky dork! :P I've removed it.

Also, with regard to asexuality and Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder, the standard asexual soundbite is that it is only a disorder if the person is distressed about it and since most asexuals are fine with being asexual, for them, it's not a disorder. The reality is actual a bit more complicated. What the DSM says it that to be diagnosed with HSDD, the person's lack of interest in sex must cause "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." This means an asexual's asexuality can be diagnoses as a disorder if any of the following three apply: a.) the asexual is distressed about being asexual, b.) the asexual has a sexual partner who is distressed about not getting laid as often as they would like, or c.) the asexual wants to form a romantic relationship with someone but doesn't want sex, and so finding someone becomes very difficult. I think c.) can probably be ignored (since the diagnosis seems to be used almost exclusively for people with a sexual partner who wants more sex). However, b.) worries me a lot. Here you have a choice to make. You could ignore this, using the standard soundbite, which helps the audience think that the DSM doesn't consider asexuality a disorder (and isn't too far from the truth.) On the other hand, you could bring it up, raising the unfairness of the current diagnosis.]

Here's my issue with this... I know nothing about the DSM. I do not want to try and learn anything about the DSM for my presentations, and the reason is simple: I will be giving this presentation to a class full of psychology students. The professor who has invited me to do this lecture will be present a bunch of numbers and figures and article components on sexuality in general, and really, I do not want to present a bit of information about something that I will have no way of supporting, should a question be asked. I can and will mention that, news wise, we have people working to get the DSM changed in it's next revision because HSDD can be used as a wrong diagnosis for someone who is asexual, but I can't push myself further than that. Perhaps David could handle explaining the specifics on it if people in the class ask, so I'll ask him if he might want to handle that part of the presentation, but if it's all me? I am stickin' clear. :redface:

Thanks for the comments, guys, and if you have suggestions on how to write up a slide that would help with the transition between slide 4 and 5/a witty title for the presentation, I'd appreciate it greatly!

[SlightlyMetaphysical]

Am I too late? I was just wondering about your use of the word 'autosexuality' on page 8, and it doesn't strike me as the right definition.

To me, autosexuality is like any other -sexuality, it's about who you're sexually attracted to. Therefore, autosexuals are sexually attracted to themselves. Someone who is sexually attracted to themself would experience sexual attraction, and therefor not, in my definition, be asexual.

Masturbating asexuals, however, are not autosexual since they, like the majority of the population, don't feel sexual attraction to themselves while masturbating. It's the fundamental divide between orientation and behaviour.

Just a thought.

[Carsonspire]

Perhaps David could handle explaining the specifics on it if people in the class ask, so I'll ask him if he might want to handle that part of the presentation, but if it's all me? I am stickin' clear. :redface:

Is this a joint-presentation? If so, what would David be presenting? That would have a great impact on what you would then choose to present.

Thanks for the comments, guys, and if you have suggestions on how to write up a slide that would help with the transition between slide 4 and 5/a witty title for the presentation, I'd appreciate it greatly!

Is the transition you're talking about between "definition of asexuality" and the "grey areas"? I don't think you necessarily need more of a transition here? Are you actually referring to different slides?

~Carsonspire

[ily]

Yay! That's exciting! I like your Powerpoint, it's structured well. You asked for it, so here I go! ;) Some random thoughts (mostly minor things):

I agree with the comment on definition; if you're going into depth, I think it's important to note that this is the AVEN definition, but that not everyone uses it.

I like the little chart about the different attitudes about sex.

Listing cities that have had meetups (even if they're not large/frequent) would probably be of interest, since there are a lot of them (although I'm obsessed with meetups so I'm biased )

Under "relationships", you may want to include polyamory.

I'll PM you a link to a site that has a graph of the Kinsey scale (from the sexuality of the human male book) that includes X. That may be useful?

Is it accurate that autism causes temporary asexual behavior? (I'd guess that since autism is lifelong, it would cause lifelong asexual behavior, if it caused it at all?)

[Coleslaw]

Am I too late? I was just wondering about your use of the word 'autosexuality' on page 8, and it doesn't strike me as the right definition.

Nope! Not too late! However, I haven't DEFINED autosexuality on my slides. I've left a bullet for "asexuality vs. autosexuality" so I can explain the exact fundamental difference that you just brought up. Instead of defining it on the slide, I intend to do so verbally.

Perhaps David could handle explaining the specifics on it if people in the class ask, so I'll ask him if he might want to handle that part of the presentation, but if it's all me? I am stickin' clear. :redface:

Is this a joint-presentation? If so, what would David be presenting? That would have a great impact on what you would then choose to present.

It is a joint presentation, and he and I haven't discussed the breakdown of who-presents-what yet. I am going to be sending him my slides and having him make his own edits and add his own content. We probably won't know who does what till we hash it out the night before. I will, however, have him present anything on the DSM.

I agree with the comment on definition; if you're going into depth, I think it's important to note that this is the AVEN definition, but that not everyone uses it.

I like the little chart about the different attitudes about sex.

Listing cities that have had meetups (even if they're not large/frequent) would probably be of interest, since there are a lot of them (although I'm obsessed with meetups so I'm biased )

Under "relationships", you may want to include polyamory.

I'll PM you a link to a site that has a graph of the Kinsey scale (from the sexuality of the human male book) that includes X. That may be useful?

Is it accurate that autism causes temporary asexual behavior? (I'd guess that since autism is lifelong, it would cause lifelong asexual behavior, if it caused it at all?)

Thanks for the suggestions, Ily! AND, thanks for that graphic! I am most definitely using it! (Haha, I got your PM and was like, WTF? but then thought you might have been suggesting something here, checked the thread and, voila!)

I do want to expand on the meet-up thing myself, because I am also a meet-up nut. I got a great edit idea from a good friend of mine, and that was to include a little bit on media. Within media, I can expand on how visibility through the media has increased awareness and boosted numbers, and has had an impact on local meet-ups. I do want to talk (read: brag) about how many asexuals I have been fortunate enough to meet, and I do want to showcase more on the local-organizing of groups. When I have future edits up, look for that.

I didn't even think about polyamory, and I really SHOULD touch on it. Thanks for that! I added it in.

And, hmm... I will remove "temporary" from the medical concerns slide, because some of those are, yes, not always temporary.

I also caught a typo. Yay me!

Thanks everyone, so far. I am going to make a few more edits and then upload the slides again. Hopefully then I can get the last wave of edits in. :)

[ily]

Thanks for the suggestions, Ily! AND, thanks for that graphic! I am most definitely using it! (Haha, I got your PM and was like, WTF? but then thought you might have been suggesting something here, checked the thread and, voila!)

wOOt! I like that graphic. Let us know how the talks go! (Although I'm sure everyone will find them illuminating.) :vis:

[Coleslaw]

wOOt! I like that graphic. Let us know how the talks go! (Although I'm sure everyone will find them illuminating.) :vis:

The talks went SO well! The psychology class was really engaged and asked a lot of questions in the end, and we got the class's two grad students really psyched about the asexuality-inclusive research they're helping out with. Then the Thursday lecture, we had a great little discussion group going on for an hour in the hall, and then a three hour-ish potluck. Everything went so much better than I was hoping for, so. I'm reaaaaally happy with everything.

Thank you, everyone, for your input! I'll put our final presentation up here for anyone to use later.

[Tanwen]

Coles, sorry I didn't put in my 2p's worth, it wasn't because I wasn't interested, just that I didn't have anything constructive to add. I'm really pleased it went well in spite of (or maybe because of) my non-input.

Tan

[Lord Happy Toast]

It's great to hear that it went well and that you had so many interested people to talk to afterwards.

[Shaggy]

The talks went SO well! The psychology class was really engaged and asked a lot of questions in the end, and we got the class's two grad students really psyched about the asexuality-inclusive research they're helping out with. Then the Thursday lecture, we had a great little discussion group going on for an hour in the hall, and then a three hour-ish potluck. Everything went so much better than I was hoping for, so. I'm reaaaaally happy with everything.

Fanbloodytastic :D

Wanders off singing, "From Little things Big things grow, ... from little things Big Things Grow" ♫♪♫♫♪♫ .

[jaybird721]

I must say, Cole, this looks pretty fabulous. I'm going to bump a copy to the president of our queer group - he's interested in doing some sort of asexuality visibility/education event, and I'm a bit short on what to do that would engage people. I think a talk is a bit formal for our group [they suggested a movie/documentary, but I can't think of any off the top of my head] but it might help us get some ideas.

[Quelly]

wOOt! I like that graphic. Let us know how the talks go! (Although I'm sure everyone will find them illuminating.) :vis:

The talks went SO well! The psychology class was really engaged and asked a lot of questions in the end, and we got the class's two grad students really psyched about the asexuality-inclusive research they're helping out with. Then the Thursday lecture, we had a great little discussion group going on for an hour in the hall, and then a three hour-ish potluck. Everything went so much better than I was hoping for, so. I'm reaaaaally happy with everything.

Thank you, everyone, for your input! I'll put our final presentation up here for anyone to use later.

I just got done speaking to a professor of mine and I am going to speak in his class. I was wondering if I could get your permission to use your slideshow. I think it is well do and illustrates the what needs to be said.

[Coleslaw]

Absolutely, Quelly! It can be found here: http://cid-3d8543852bf141fb.skydrive.live....exualityPPT.ppt

If you have any questions, feel free to PM me and I can help you with it. :)