Jump to content

AVEN Wiki


Rabger

Recommended Posts

I don't know if this is the best place to put this but I was wondering who is in charge of the AVEN wiki. I randomly was looking around in there and came across my very own (old as all get out) model. But there are a ton of flaws in it, such as using words that I didn't use and inaccurate defs.

Also, does anyone on here know who the Asexual Sexologist is? I came across the blog on wordpress and its made me rather curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't the admods/project team going to revamp the avenwiki?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rabger,

I believe Henrik is currently in charge of the AVENwiki project.

If you look at the Rabger's Model article history, I think you'll find that it's been that way from the very first time it was written up, in 2006. I'm afraid that over the years it's effectively been solidified as stated in the wiki. It's out of your hands. Nobody knows Rabger's model as Rabger originally proposed it anymore.

I don't know what to say. I've been complaining about Rabger's model, as stated on the wiki, for some time. I come from a different perspective from you; I don't really like the model you originally proposed either. But I think neither you nor I can do anything about it, since the model has so much inertia now. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know there's one thing I hadn't appreciated about Rabger's model, as stated on the wiki, until just now. Asexuality is defined in terms of primary sexual desire not attraction. Seriously? This is no doubt utterly at odds with how the ace community uses the term now.

The one useful point I have always extracted from the model is the separation between primary and secondary (sexual) attraction. This is the only way I've ever been able to understand demisexuality (as someone who is very far from demisexual myself). OTOH, for all I know these terms predate the model.

I agree with Siggy though. Rabger's model now means what it's generally been understood to mean for years - whatever that is*. Sadly, the original views of Rabger (let alone the current views) are not what defines it any more.

* And I don't think that this is necessarily what's on the wiki either, even if it's been like that for years. I'm more thinking of how the AVEN population generally understands the model.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

The page on Rabger's model has been there from the beginning, it seems. Much of the revampting of the wiki was about getting rid of unnecessary pages, cleaning up the front page, and adding some new pages.

Rabger, if you have problems with what is claimed to be your model, feel free to modify it, although the fact that this has been up there so long means that the term "Rabger's model" has come to mean what is on that page, regardless of what was originally meant, and this fact (and any possible misrepresentations or changes in your thought since then) would greatly improve the page. If you could make an account on the wiki, and update that page, that would be really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could make an account on the wiki, and update that page, that would be really helpful.

I may just do that. The fact of the matter is I don't think it ever should have been put up there to begin with. I wasn't consulted, though I really didn't care the first time I heard about it. My first posts on the subject were not anywhere near a concrete hypothesis, but meerly me talking about some aspects of sexuality I'd come across by talking to people. I even said it needed a lot of work and it still does. Of course, it needs even more work if you look at it from what is in Wiki, since that's so very wrong in many ways even from what I had first stated. I really dont care how the AVEN community understands it now. It has my name on it and it came from my thoughts, even if misunderstood, so I'm going to decide to revamp it or remove it altogether.

In terms of demisexual, I hate that term. I think it is so unnecessary, like people are just trying to add more and more catagories until there are 7 billion terms to match each of the 7 billion people on earth. There are so many different "types" of heterosexual but you don't see that needing to be broken down to personality type, yet now it seems like "demisexuals" aren't asexuals. I say they are.

Michaeld, I know, most asexuals use the standard AVEN def of asexuality. The standard def of asexuality was already flawed. I came up with my defs by first asking the question, what IS sexual attraction? No one could tell me. So here we were using a def that we didn't understand to begin with. Still are, except maybe after all this time people have a clue what it means. The current AVEN def is limiting and not thorough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont care how the AVEN community understands it now. It has my name on it and it came from my thoughts, even if misunderstood, so I'm going to decide to revamp it or remove it altogether.

Only indirectly relevant but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

Michaeld, I know, most asexuals use the standard AVEN def of asexuality. The standard def of asexuality was already flawed.

I had always thought that Rabger's model was a clarification of the standard definition, not a rival to it. Seems I was wrong.

I came up with my defs by first asking the question, what IS sexual attraction? No one could tell me.

Really? Seems surprising to me. I've seen a number of threads asking precisely this question, and many people have answered. What would be much less surprising is if you failed to get a consistent answer from those you asked.

It's possible to argue (though I'm very wary of this line of thought myself) that the lack of precision in the definition of "sexual attraction" is a point in favour of the standard AVEN definition, as it gives people a lot more room to interpret asexuality as they see fit, and thus decide for themselves whether it is expedient to use the label asexual.

The root of the problem of the definitions, which I've been concerned about for a while, is that there are (at least) two different objectives people have when it comes to defining and characterizing asexuality - and they're often at odds. One is to define asexuality as something real, objective, precise - and to then stick to this definition. Another is to make the definition as flexible and fuzzy as possible so that no-one ever feels left out, and so that as many people as possible can benefit from the asexual identity, as long as it is useful to them.

The former appeals to people who put a high priority on having their facts straight, and it's also a more helpful approach from the point of view of promoting asexuality as 'not a choice'. The latter is fuelled by a (completely understandable) desire to help people, and is in part a reaction (maybe an over-reaction?) to the asexual elitism in the history of the movement.

There are those who favour both approaches simultaneously. The idea being, we should include as asexual anyone who wants to be so considered, but when talking to outsiders we should promote asexuality as a rigid, unchosen orientation - as though it had a precise, objective meaning that was agreed on. This "double approach" may work for a while, but I cannot support it on principle as I don't think it's wholly honest. I think history will find us out anyhow if we try this sort of thing. I think it really is one approach or the other, ultimately.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm in the former category - the "objective" camp - on this matter. I do oppose asexual elitism but on epistemic and pragmatic grounds - NOT because the "whatever it means to you" approach is how I actually think of asexuality. I expect this to be controversial however.

[Anyway, sorry, that was a bit of a tangent. I hope that added something vaguely relevant. I need some sleep.]

Link to post
Share on other sites
AndrewGyne

In terms of demisexual, I hate that term. I think it is so unnecessary, like people are just trying to add more and more catagories until there are 7 billion terms to match each of the 7 billion people on earth. There are so many different "types" of heterosexual but you don't see that needing to be broken down to personality type, yet now it seems like "demisexuals" aren't asexuals. I say they are.

So ... do you think the concept of demi-quartosexuality has any merit? :lol:

I have recently come to the same conclusion with regard to demisexuality ... I think the emphasis should be on asexual similarities rather than on asexual differences.

It might be more appropriate (and perhaps less potentially divisive) to refer to demisexuality as a particular expression of asexuality rather than as a discrete orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am indeed the current wikimaster. However, as is the nature of wiki's in general, I am in charge of the technical and administrative aspects of the wiki. The content is a joint effort of the entire community, so please do correct any erroneous information or direct us to it, as you have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is I don't think it ever should have been put up there to begin with. I wasn't consulted, though I really didn't care the first time I heard about it. My first posts on the subject were not anywhere near a concrete hypothesis, but meerly me talking about some aspects of sexuality I'd come across by talking to people. I even said it needed a lot of work and it still does.

I'm under the impression that the original editors of the AVENWiki did this a lot. For example, in the Gray-A article, they listed a bunch of synonyms for Gray-A which I had never heard. Further investigation revealed that many of them had only been used once in the history of AVEN, in a 2006 thread which was proposing new terms. The editors just took a bunch of speculations without much regard to whether they would still be around years later. I removed these terms.

Of course, it needs even more work if you look at it from what is in Wiki, since that's so very wrong in many ways even from what I had first stated. I really dont care how the AVEN community understands it now. It has my name on it and it came from my thoughts, even if misunderstood, so I'm going to decide to revamp it or remove it altogether.

I am afraid to revamp or remove the article. I think people might complain. If we really want to be professional, we'd add a new section called "Criticism of Rabger's Model".

The root of the problem of the definitions, which I've been concerned about for a while, is that there are (at least) two different objectives people have when it comes to defining and characterizing asexuality - and they're often at odds. One is to define asexuality as something real, objective, precise - and to then stick to this definition. Another is to make the definition as flexible and fuzzy as possible so that no-one ever feels left out, and so that as many people as possible can benefit from the asexual identity, as long as it is useful to them.

This is an interesting topic that I'd like to discuss, but you should make a separate thread for it in the appropriate forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of the problem of the definitions, which I've been concerned about for a while, is that there are (at least) two different objectives people have when it comes to defining and characterizing asexuality - and they're often at odds. One is to define asexuality as something real, objective, precise - and to then stick to this definition. Another is to make the definition as flexible and fuzzy as possible so that no-one ever feels left out, and so that as many people as possible can benefit from the asexual identity, as long as it is useful to them.

This is an interesting topic that I'd like to discuss, but you should make a separate thread for it in the appropriate forum.

Well you could always start it if you're interested in discussing this. :) I probably will start a thread on this kind of topic sometime if no-one else does, but I can't promise it'll be any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me aven wiki has lost it's way

it concentrates more on scientific analysis, theories, some ones model of this and another thesus on that but is forgetting its core message of simplicity

Most looking for asexual discovery wouldn't give a rats ass about anothers theory or model..they seek the basic definitions for them to go on and discover more themselves.

Sometimes aven wiki looks like a scientists/phsycologists/debaters club rather than a resource for all..there needs to be a better balance to assist it's wider audience and not just the debaters with a gay tinge

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me aven wiki has lost it's way

it concentrates more on scientific analysis, theories, some ones model of this and another thesus on that but is forgetting its core message of simplicity

Most looking for asexual discovery wouldn't give a rats ass about anothers theory or model..they seek the basic definitions for them to go on and discover more themselves.

Sometimes aven wiki looks like a scientists/phsycologists/debaters club rather than a resource for all..there needs to be a better balance to assist it's wider audience and not just the debaters with a gay tinge

Most don't give a rat's ass? Speak for yourself, PiF.

Speaking for myself, I don't care for Rabger's Model. I disagree with the very idea of making such a detailed model. Like PiF, I think basic simple definitions are better.

But I can't speak for everyone. Just because I personally don't like Rabger's model does not mean it is a good idea to completely remove it. And you can't just appeal to the "wider audience". For one thing, we don't actually know that this is what the wider audience wants. And even if only a small minority got something out of Rabger's model, that might be worthwhile; it doesn't inconvenience the majority to simply ignore the article.

Better to add more information explaining Rabger's Model's history, so that it's immediately clear to people like PiF that it's the sort of speculation they are uninterested in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

The former appeals to people who put a high priority on having their facts straight, and it's also a more helpful approach from the point of view of promoting asexuality as 'not a choice'. The latter is fuelled by a (completely understandable) desire to help people, and is in part a reaction (maybe an over-reaction?) to the asexual elitism in the history of the movement.

In some ways, it predates asexual elitism and even predates participation in asexual communities. The inclusive-as-possible approach was a reaction to LGBT infighting, queerer than thou, who's a real lesbian? who's a real trans-whatever? type things. Also, AVEN's front page definition is not the most inclusive one out there. You can find more inclusive ones from the two people I regard as the most formative in the early asexual community--the founders of the two biggest asexual communities (AVEN and LiveJournal Asexuality).

From LJ:

This is a community for asexual people to discuss living without sexuality. We welcome anyone with no or very little sexual attraction to others, people with low or no libido, and their allies.

From the AVENwiki:

Under [the collective identity model] an asexual person is anyone who uses the term "asexual" to describe themselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The former appeals to people who put a high priority on having their facts straight, and it's also a more helpful approach from the point of view of promoting asexuality as 'not a choice'. The latter is fuelled by a (completely understandable) desire to help people, and is in part a reaction (maybe an over-reaction?) to the asexual elitism in the history of the movement.

In some ways, it predates asexual elitism and even predates participation in asexual communities. The inclusive-as-possible approach was a reaction to LGBT infighting, queerer than thou, who's a real lesbian? who's a real trans-whatever? type things.

Right. I was lazy and didn't include that. This type of infighting is by no means restricted to queer groups either, occurring quite often also in political and religious groups. There's nothing more boring than watching no-true-Scotsman accusations being flung about the place. My favourite Christian discussion forum has actually banned disputing the Christianity of anyone who so identifies, and I think it's improved things by an order of magnitude.

To be completely clear, I'm fully in favour of AVEN's rule that no-one's asexuality is to be questioned here. Where I part company with those who hold the strong form of the self-identity criterion is that I don't think calling oneself asexual actually makes it so. I think it is perfectly possible, in principle, for one's asexual self-identification to be false.

Also, AVEN's front page definition is not the most inclusive one out there. You can find more inclusive ones from the two people I regard as the most formative in the early asexual community--the founders of the two biggest asexual communities (AVEN and LiveJournal Asexuality).

From LJ:

This is a community for asexual people to discuss living without sexuality. We welcome anyone with no or very little sexual attraction to others, people with low or no libido, and their allies.

In fairness, this does not even seek to define asexuality. A statement of who is welcome and who might benefit from a community is a very different thing to a definition.

From the AVENwiki:

Under [the collective identity model] an asexual person is anyone who uses the term "asexual" to describe themselves.

And it's precisely this kind of thing that makes me so uncomfortable, especially given that advocates of this approach would never promote asexuality in this way to outsiders. The whole "say one thing inside the community and another outside" approach bothers me greatly, especially having observed this behaviour in other groups. Seems like a bait-and-switch to me.

I kind of like the compromise we have on AVEN, though it's not perfect and leaves some issues unresolved. We use asexuality to mean the lack of sexual attraction, which could potentially form the basis of an objective definition. However, in practice we allow anyone to decide for themselves what having no sexual attraction actually means. Hence, the standard definition is operationally equivalent to the definition you quoted (as long as people who want to define as asexual don't mind being characterized as having no sexual attraction anyway) while not giving up on the notion that asexuality is objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better to add more information explaining Rabger's Model's history, so that it's immediately clear to people like PiF that it's the sort of speculation they are uninterested in.

I'm not sure what sort of "people" you think I am? Siggy

My point was, wiki, like aven, over analizes so much that it breaks it down so minutely and scientifically it forgets it is dealing with people and not robots

Sometimes wiki looks more like the big bang theory fan club for scientists and phsycologists discussing the infinites with no definates..than real life and that needed to be said

Asexual elitism is a bad term..mostly it is used when someone disagrees about something in the same way if someone dared have an opinion on immigration then the tree huggers would throw the racist term around..asexual elitism is used more by the few..to try and supress others views than it is to encourage open debate..and not in the way some believe

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

front page wiki and fluidity

As for sexual fluidity; it has been proven time and time again that it is not bull. Hundreds and thousands of people are the example of this;

really so execute has definitive numbers on this and can I see them? otherwise it's just gobble dee gook and using aven to promote something that not everyone in aven agree's with

or has the gay tinge I've so often mentioned forgottent what they want and promote what they can?

by making that the post of the week you have gestured that this is totally correct and supported by aven which it is not

Link to post
Share on other sites

front page wiki and fluidity

As for sexual fluidity; it has been proven time and time again that it is not bull. Hundreds and thousands of people are the example of this;

really so execute has definitive numbers on this and can I see them? otherwise it's just gobble dee gook and using aven to promote something that not everyone in aven agree's with

or has the gay tinge I've so often mentioned forgottent what they want and promote what they can?

by making that the post of the week you have gestured that this is totally correct and supported by aven which it is not

Discussion split off to new thread in site comments - michaeld (AVEN PT).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...