20/20- official page

[a-d]

ok, again i'm always tangential, new membership after 20/20 airing is now up to 260.

Sweet. How do you keep track? Looking at the latest objective numbers, I only see 50 over the highest number from when that segment aired. However, admins have been hard at work pruning spam accounts, so I'm sure the real number is more than 50. Are you just manually counting accounts created after 23 March?

[Goonie]

I just click on the memberlist and go over pages until I reach 3/23/06

[a-d]

That would put it at 260. Still seems like there might be some spammers, though.

[Goonie]

Not of the new members--yet. Many just haven't posted yet. They might use the account as a lurking account.

I know several people on the admod team keeping an eye on the new accounts :)

[Rae]

My 2 posts on the 20/20 discussion forum were removed. Mwuh? Perhaps it was because I called the post from a person who knew that all the asexual guys who appeared on 20/20 were gay and that an asexual woman who appeared was abused just from looking at them was the most moronic thing I had read in quite some time. I explained my own situation (quite politely), but ended by saying I couldn't wait to see his psychic abilities put to use on my own post.

Obviously I was a little too, erm, blunt in my evaluation. Heh heh.

Rae

[a-d]

I remember not long ago, some people, or more likely one person, registered multiple accounts and never posted with them. While there was no discussion, the profiles had a bunch of links to different porn sites. I guess it depends on how spammy the linked sites in the profile are.

[Goonie]

yup we those were our Kiev spammers

if the link in their profile is offensive they get deleted... otherwise they are regular posters until proven spammers

[yam]

my 260 (which is now up) is based solely on newly registered on memberlist back to 3/23. if people joined twice then they get counted twice. so it may be inaccurate but that's our only count here.

Alexa.com also tells us that for every 1 million websurfers, 30 will visit our site today, as compared to 3.6 for the last three months. However, our page views are down (7.8 pages for each surfer versus three month average at 24.5). Interestingly, though I have no hard numbers for it, viewership of this site yesterday and today will be about as good or better than the uk tv deal awhile back. it's currently better than the cnn articles, etc. a few months ago.

[a-d]

That said, I wonder how many HTTP requests we've gotten since the TV segments first aired. We must have a kick-ass server powering this site.

[Goonie]

Yeah.. luckily we have a good provider.

Dj notified them ahead of time :D

and we still have a google bot on us..

[Rae]

Now that's a webhosting bill I wouldn't envy.

Rae

[a-d]

Come to think of it, how is this site funded?

[Dixie]

Come to think of it, how is this site funded?

Good question...donations?

[Goonie]

As far as I know, AvenGuy pays $25 a month. If it goes over that then we go to donations.

[Cate Perfect]

DJ just pays for it--I don't believe it's a huge bill.

[Nugan]

As far as I know, AvenGuy pays $25 a month. If it goes over that then we go to donations.

Sounds right. Dykal only costs about $5 a month, but DJ needs much, much more bandwith than we do.

[Jesh]

Well, if we needed to raise money to pay for bandwidth, we would only need four cents a year from each member ;)

(that's just based on the memberlist numbers, though, and not discounting people who aren't around.)

[starrysky]

Does David Jay have any kind of paypal or whatever where you can donate a few bucks to thank him for running the site?

[deebrad58]

As one of the sexuals who watched the show, I agree with Sphinx about the overall presentation. And technically I think the segment was just that... a presentation, a jumping point to let others come to their own conclusions. I am, for those who don't recognize me, Greybird's sister. During the segment I received a phone call from my step son, who, having recognized my sister, required a quick, simple explanation and was then told to watch the show and research this website when he was able. Two hours later, I got an entirely different type of call when the show aired on the west coast. My son was proudly proclaiming his aunt was a celebrity. Although their reactions were different, neither of these 30ish young men questioned the authenticity of asexuality. For those people who might find the thought of asexuality as "unnatural", the show presented the viewpoint from the "painted lady". For those who may be curious or those who are relieved to know they are not alone, the show presented a doctor who had actually researched the topic. The show did not present a balanced viewpoint, but it did put the subject in front of a lot of people. Those who want or need to follow up will not have a hard time finding the support they need. And personally, I would rather have the doctor on my side instead of the sex therapist.

[Cate Perfect]

*frantically waves to g-bird's sister!!*

Hey! I'm Victoria--the redheaded one on the show!

G-bird is so lucky to have such a supportive family! (And she's a big sweetie, too!)

[Hu]

Hey deebrad, we love your sis!

[LostPenguin]

*tiptoes around* Seems like I'm a day or so late for the actual discussion of the actual show, but what do I care? I have things to say! :lol:

I still liked this segment better than The View. I think they actually managed to cover more things in The View and with less doubt attached, but I hated the way the women seemed to nearly be attacking DJ and running him over all the time. My biggest complaints, of course, were the sex therapist and the ending. I wasn't aware that K had left, but I knew that Victoria had posted that she would be leaving or at least visiting far, far less frequently and as well as I could remember, it had nothing to do with a change of sexuality. The show implied it so deeply, however, ("Victoria and Karl have since left the AVEN site") that even I was confused and trying to remember if I had it right. People have said it before, but it seems like they really did try to twist the phrasing around to make it sound like they were leaving because they no longer considered themselves asexual. Peh.

I'm not crazy about the whole thing, but it's just a stepping stone. Gotta start somewhere, after all, and hopefully shows like this and the View will lead to more comprehensive and thorough studies.

By the way, I read a couple references to Good Morning America, but nothing in-detail. What happened there?

[Cate Perfect]

I wasn't aware that K had left, but I knew that Victoria had posted that she would be leaving or at least visiting far, far less frequently and as well as I could remember, it had nothing to do with a change of sexuality. The show implied it so deeply, however, ("Victoria and Karl have since left the AVEN site") that even I was confused and trying to remember if I had it right. People have said it before, but it seems like they really did try to twist the phrasing around to make it sound like they were leaving because they no longer considered themselves asexual. Peh.

This bit came from a conversation Gail and I had in December. I explained precisely why I left (not due to not being asexual, as we have sexual people on the site) and then we chatted about whether Karl and I had had sex yet.

I don't mind them having sex therapists on or asking shallow questions--it's the sort of things Joe Public would want to know so that's where you have to start. First you explain to people what you are and then you get into details about how it works and breaking stereotypes, etc. Not unlike the gay rights movement. You have to begin by getting people over their confusion and fear then you can have a more rational dialogue.

[LostPenguin]

I don't mind them having sex therapists on or asking shallow questions--it's the sort of things Joe Public would want to know so that's where you have to start. First you explain to people what you are and then you get into details about how it works and breaking stereotypes, etc. Not unlike the gay rights movement. You have to begin by getting people over their confusion and fear then you can have a more rational dialogue.

Yes, I agree. Though sadly, it will take a while to get through to even the more open minded lot, let alone those who will never go along with it. I momentarily browsed the 20/20 discussion site regarding the show and was rather let down and annoyed that the first two posts I saw were 1) "You guys just need to own up and admit that you're gay and stop fooling yourselves" and 2) "Yes, I agree, the poor fools, I'll pray for them."

Oh boy. They're praying for us. *cough* Anyway, the responses from the asexuals were certainly pleasing, but... eh, I just hate small-minded people. Plain and simple.

[Cate Perfect]

What about the people who've been in gay relationships. *cough cough*

What's wrong with us?

Oh yay! They're praying for us!

[Rae]

Yes, and the line "there's definitely nothing at all wrong with being gay, but do yourself a favor and allow yourself the dignity of seeming sane by fessing up to the fact" implies that we're insane. I find that quite funny, considering that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until just a couple of decades ago, and is now being held up as the "sane" option to asexuality. People just can't compute things they don't understand, so they come up with theories they do understand, regardless that they're completely out to lunch.

I'm asexual, and I'm perfectly sane.

The voices in my head told me so.

Rae

[ghosts]

Hm... Where did you find that comment about someone praying for us? There's one that I found, and if it's the one you're referring to, I think you may have misread the "praying" comment...

You're probably right on. I mean, people that find it cute to use thier name and the name of their significant other as a pen-name are obviously dependent personalities that really don't know enough to govern themselves as individuals. I will pray for them.

I read that as the poster referring to people in romantic relationships, in general, who are overly dependent on their partner- basically to the point that their identities start to merge into one. I don't think the person was saying anything negative about asexuality, since his/her other posts stated that she was asexual.

[cait]

I don't label myself "asexual", but neither do I label myself "gay", "straight", or "bi". I just don't label myself, and I live my life the way my brain and body want me to at the present time. I know that most people looking from the outside in would call me "asexual", but I've had sex with both men and women, because I wanted to learn, to know myself better, and when I met someone I cared about and sex was a part of their lives, I wanted to give them pleasure because I cared about them as people, and not because I wanted sex myself. I've not been particularly responsive at all when I've done it, and I haven't had much sex at all as a whole, going a decade without any and not even noticing. It's through those experiences that I've come to realize sex just isn't really in me - right now.

People who've been happily straight for years have met someone of the same sex who so bowled them over that they entered a gay relationship. The same is true in reverse. That's why I find labels difficult to pin to myself or to anyone else, including this one. Is the person who's been straight all their lives but falls in love with someone of the same sex now gay? What if they still have sexual responses to the opposite sex? Bi? What if that gay relationship lasts the rest of their lives? What if someone who's asexual finds sex with one person actually enjoyable, but still has a low libido and doesn't feel the same drive as the average human being, where sex between them is enjoyable, but not an integral part of the relationship? Are they still asexual? Does any of it really matter?

The thing that gets me is the general human desire to pigeonhole, to find answers, preferably clean, simple, cut-and-dried answers. Life's not like that. Sexuality isn't a pigeonhole system. I see it more as a psychedelic 3D graph. People can be anywhere on the x axis of sexual preference, and anywhere on the y axis of sexual drive. What's more, they're not stuck there for the rest of their lives, thereby moving their place on that graph in time, making it multi-dimensional. It moves and shifts as our lives and experiences move and shift. Labels can be peeled off, and the person underneath is still exactly the same human being at their core, regardless of what they do with their body parts and other people's body parts at one small, specific point on that graph.

Oh, and - hi there. Pleased to meetcha.

Rae

^_^

Your opinions make sense. I say that because they are basically my opinions. I am not one sexuality and don't have to conform to one. Though I certainly identify with people who are asexual more than anyone else in the world. Sexuality is very ambiguous no matter what sexuality you are. (I am rather fond of the term "ambisexual")

Lovely graph analogy, by the way; I like "psychedelic 3D graph".

The point of this site is for people to be true to who they are and do (or don't) whatever they truly feel is right for them.

Excellently put. I think these two views go hand in hand.

Anyway, in other news, I don't have a television set, and know nothing about where I would find a 20/20 show. But judging from what other people have seen, I get the feeling it's done more good than bad, and I trust those who were interviewed to give good honest and accurate opinions. It looks like you guys did a great job!

[ghosts]

cait- check out this thread: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/14808-in-case-you-missed-it/

You can watch the 20/20 segment that Lady Heartilly posted.

[yam]

oh stats are up. today, for every 1 million web surfers, 60 will visit asexuality.org. this surpasses the uk news awhile back for sure. we hit in the 20 to 30 for every 1 million then.