Definition discussion.

[Tofer]

6 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I do not see how whom, or when/under which circumstances a person is "sexually attracted to" in any way impacts their dating style, their sex life, or anything else, for that matter. "Sexual attraction" simply isn't real life relevant in any way whatsoever.

So you're saying that anyone who claims to experience sexual attraction doesn't understand their own experience? I know that's not a quote, but if what you're saying doesn't imply that, please explain.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

So you're saying that anyone who claims to experience sexual attraction doesn't understand their own experience? I know that's not a quote, but if what you're saying doesn't imply that, please explain.

I hardly ever hear anyone claim that who can actually explain consistently what they mean by that.

 

Frankly, it's just not a term I've heard used much outside AVEN and the asexual thought bubble.

[Mermaidy]

9 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

It should indeed have been sex rather than gender. The main point is that the definition of orientations is not based on attraction.

 

While gender may not be 100% irrelevant, clearly the anatomy they have between their legs is much, much more of a relevant factor in determining whether someone fits their sex partner preference (== sexual orientation), whereas the gender they have between their ears comes in far behind that in importance.

 

Almost always, anatomy will overrule identity.

yeah.  I admit I'm not really curious about the sexual attraction topic. I was just curious what words Pan was talking about (the definitions of heterosexuality, homos, etc in german, because the ones I've always known and seen used in german media don't mention gender)--this was way earlier in this thread, like the first or second page, so my bad, i brought it up in the middle of everything else 

[Tofer]

3 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I hardly ever hear anyone claim that who can actually explain consistently what they mean by that.

 

Frankly, it's just not a term I've heard used much outside AVEN and the asexual thought bubble.

Before the asexuality community developed the discourse of "types of attraction" (sexual, romantic, sensual, platonic, aesthetic) the word "attraction" was used commonly, in a meaning that was fairly consistent at least since the 19th century, with "sexual" only implied. The reason the asexuality community added "sexual" as a modifier was to distinguish it from asexual types of attraction. Definition of the asexual types of attraction is the innovation of AVEN, not the existence of (sexual) attraction.

[Xenobot]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

Before the asexuality community developed the discourse of "types of attraction" (sexual, romantic, sensual, platonic, aesthetic) the word "attraction" was used commonly, in a meaning that was fairly consistent at least since the 19th century, with "sexual" only implied. The reason the asexuality community added "sexual" as a modifier was to distinguish it from asexual types of attraction. Definition of the asexual types of attraction is the innovation of AVEN, not the existence of (sexual) attraction.

It's actually not terribly uncommon to hear about various types of attraction in psychology. Sexual orientation is frequently defined as an often enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction. I haven't personally heard aesthetic or sensual attraction used in the field of psychology, however. I'd be curious to know if AVEN took any inspiration from psychology there, or if it was just a purely intuitive coincidence.

[Lost247365]

On 3/24/2017 at 2:05 PM, Pan. said:

I don't support and/or because it covers so much of the population depending on how you define sexual attraction. It's pretty much saying you can be asexual and desire partnered sex for any reason depending on the definition of sexual attraction you personally choose to apply to yourself, OR you can be asexual and have no desire to connect sexually with others DESPITE feeling whatever sort of attractions many asexuals do in fact experience. That's rendered the definition so meaningless by that point that it's pretty much pointless identifying as asexual at all.

I think focusing on the size of our population is mistaken.  Orientation isn't about being a minority, its about the inborn preference people have for their partners.  It can be a large population or a small one.
 

Heterosexuality is 90+% and no-one discounts it as a legitimate orientation.  If the goal is to make the asexual population as small as possible shouldn't we also add  behaviors and say that anyone who has sex for any reason, or who masturbate aren't asexual either?  Personally I would be OPPOSED to that, but if this is about making sure that we are a minority population that would do it.

And, where did anyone say that it is based upon anyone's personal definition of sexual attraction?  Words, have meaning, and using the actual dictionary definition of the word, it means attraction on the basis of sexual desire, and attraction means either something evoking liking or desire or it means it draws a person to it.  

 

So, being as anal as one can be about definitions, sexual attraction means sexual desire.  They are synonyms for each.  A distinction without a difference, if you will.  One could easily say that a person who desires and seeks out sex (the controversial cupio-sexual) is attracted to having sex with others.  That is sexual attraction.  They lack inborn preference, not attraction.

The purpose of the and/or definition (assuming people are using what these words actually mean) is two fold, one it is more inclusive thus less likely to cause false negatives, and it is clarifying in that these two words really mean the same exact thing.  
 

Quote

It's like saying a gay person is someone who desires partnered sex with people of the same gender, but can also exclusively desire sex with people of a different gender and still be gay. It's exactly the same thing. That would render the term "gay" meaningless because it can mean such different things that it suddenly applies to a vast number of heterosexual people as well as applying to homosexuals.

 

 If you got a person who is making their own definition of the word, just point out that is not what the word means.  If they refuse to accept that there really is nothing we can.  There will always be idio... special people out there who insist that words means whatever the fuck they want them to mean**, and all we really can do is roll our eyes at them.

 

**Apparently we are not the only group who have issues with definitions

 

Quote

Asexuality is even more a minority than homosexuality, so it's pretty much just taking advantage of something only a minority of people experience, and taking advantage of those people themselves because there are too few of them to really make a dent in this issue, in favour of total exclusivity for anyone who wants to be asexual.

Supposedly.  

No-one knows for sure the exact make up of asexuality or homosexuality.  There are estimates that say homosexuality makes up as much as 10% of the population, and others that put it as low as 2%.  Asexuality is estimated between 1-2%.  But no-one really knows as no-one has gone up and asked the orientation of every single person on the planet.  And then there is the problem of people lying about their orientation due to their circumstances...

 

Quote

So apparently only 1% of people are asexual, yet certain people want to push for a definition that can include as much of the population, and as many varied sexual behaviours and preferences, as possible.. People want a definition that is malleable enough that literally anyone who wants to be asexual can be depending on how they interpret the definition or what they want to pick and choose applies to them.. like a definition buffet.. ..Yet asexuality is apparently quite rare.
 
That's what baffles me most when I see people trying to push for an and/or definition.

Ignoring that the 1% number is a rough estimate at best, this is begging the question a bit isn't it?  If there is debate about what the word actually means then how can we be sure of the number?  Further, how do we know that the and/or actually increases the population beyond the 1% number?

I pointed this out before in a different thread long ago, but there are no really numbers on the number of people who "feel sexual desire but not attraction*"  All we have is anecdotes.

And even still, despite the great definition debate and the fear of sexuals getting in and undermining us as a population, very few people ID as asexual.  In fact, we are still struggling to get people to know that there is even a thing like asexuality at all.  Most polls I see still seem to think that people are either straight, gay, or bisexual.
 

*Which going by the strict definitions of the words is a meaningless statement as the two words are one and the same.

 

Either way, Pan, I have always enjoyed your posts and respect your opinion on these issues immensely.  We might disagree, but I do respect your opinion.

[Lost247365]

14 hours ago, Aqua-ace said:

I wrote a first draft for the Definition Debate page, but so far I've only included the earliest debates. I've done some more searching, and from what I've found in this thread dating back to 2012, a post describing asexuality as the lack of desire for partnered sex. I haven't seen that definition any earlier (as of yet?), but I checked again and noticed that definition start to take off in popularity starting in 2013, spreading to other definition threads.

 

Does anyone think it'd be a good idea that when writing about the current attraction vs. desire debate, to have a section in the definition debate page over why some members prefer one definition over the other? When writing the article, I'm obligated to be impartial about it, but this is an ongoing part of AVEN's history and should be documented. If anyone is interested in giving input, you can give it here:

 

I support the "and/or" definition of asexuality; but, I prefer the desire definition.

Why is that?  Because when I first learned about asexuality and it hit me that I might be asexuality the first thing I did was to come to AVEN.  Once here I started reading about sexual attraction and the more I read, the more confused I became.  One REALLY BAD SECTION IN THE FAQ* section in particular left me utterly confused.  In some ways, I was a perfect asexual.  In others, not so much.

The ultimate problem was, I have never had the desire to have sex with anyone and the very idea of it was repulsive to me.  BUT, I do experience attractions to people...but these attractions DON'T GO UP TO ME AND HIT ME OVER THE HEAD AND SAY "I AM AESTHETIC ATTRACTION NOT SEXUAL ATTRACTION YOU DIPSHIT!!!"  Physically painful as that would be that would have been helpful if they did. 

 

Attraction, as I defined it at the time, was simply a feeling of being drawn to people.  I didn't know why or what for.  And for months and months I struggled to figure it out.  In the end, I had to say to myself, "I don't feel any desire to have sex with anyone and feel that I never will, and I am certain that makes me asexual."

Since then everything just simply fits now.  

And, I really want AVEN to add sexual desire to the definition so that others like me don't have to experience the confusion and doubt that I did because of the attraction only definition.  

 

And similarly, I don't want people who say they experience sexual desire but not attraction to feel the same thing.  I don't know everything, and they very well could be right.  I mean, having looked into definitions pretty deeply since I started posting here at AVEN and I feel pretty sure that I now understand what the terms mean and how it should be defines (in which case I side with Myst/Pan/Ect pretty strongly); but, I have felt that way before and been proven wrong.

So I just feel that given the research (which uses the two terms interchangeably), given the personal anecdotes from both the people who prefer desire and those who prefer attraction, and not wanting to have any false negatives the best strategy to accommodating all of this is just to add both.  

 

If it turns out the research can eliminate one and come to a consensus then lets do that at that time.  That is how science works, you change your theory with new information.  

*Please talk to someone about removing that section.  Please, it erases every libidoist asexual.

5 hours ago, Xenobot said:

It's actually not terribly uncommon to hear about various types of attraction in psychology. Sexual orientation is frequently defined as an often enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction. I haven't personally heard aesthetic or sensual attraction used in the field of psychology, however. I'd be curious to know if AVEN took any inspiration from psychology there, or if it was just a purely intuitive coincidence.

Ummm, do you mind if I point out that you just defined sexual attraction as experiencing sexual attraction?

Most scholarly articles I can find on these subjects usually use the terms sexual attraction and desire interchangeably.  I get the feeling that they haven't given much thought to what these two words mean.

And dictionary-wise they are pretty much synonyms.

[Mundane Mesh]

Even if AVEN doesn't want to change it's official definition of sexual attraction I would argue that they should at least acknowledge the alternative in the official FAQ. Aka:

Asexual: Asexuality is generally defined as "..." another popular definition is "..."

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lost247365 said:

I think focusing on the size of our population is mistaken.  Orientation isn't about being a minority, its about the inborn preference people have for their partners.  It can be a large population or a small one.

No, the issue is that when asexuality can cover so much of the population as to include many regular heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals etc, it loses all meaning as any kind of orientation. It's not an orientation by that point, or even the absence of an orientation; it's a massively varied sexual behaviour that can apply to many, many people who choose to label themselves based on this behaviour depending on how they personally define that behaviour. It's a sexual behaviour preference, something that can apply to almost any hetero, homo, bi, or pan person (depending on how they personally want to define this term)

 

Most people (almost ALL people) desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure under some circumstances; they all have a sexual orientation based on the general direction of their innate desire for partnered sexual intimacy (and pansexual being without any exact preference, a desire in general but not directed at any specific gender) ..Then there are the extreme, extreme minority who literally just have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever - Those are the asexuals. Or do people like this need to go and make their own website and get their own label because asexuality just doesn't apply to them? (it being a sexual behaviour preference that can apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and pansexuals?) ..These people, this extreme minority - the "not asexuals", innately have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever. That's not a sexual behaviour preference, it's what innately makes up their sexual orientation (or lack of one). 

 

So suddenly asexuality is just this fad label that can apply to almost anyone (regardless of their sexual orientation) depending on how they personally want to define sexual attraction, and those people who struggle with their lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others are left the broken people in the corner that they always thought they were to start with - The ones who still don't fit in anywhere because despite the fact that many of them still desire romance/love/intimacy, they just have no desire to connect sexually with others, ever (which is so rare that many people say it's impossible unless you have severe medical or psychological issues, or can't experience love.. etc etc) ..which is technically how the term "asexual" came about in the first place: to give people like this an actual place and try to remove the stigma around who they are and why they are the way they are.

 

But that's where asexuality visibility gets us after all these years? The extreme minority of people it was meant to be representing are just pushed aside in favour of total inclusiveness? They're not even part of this anymore because they're such an extreme minority amongst this definition that applies to many, many normal sexual people depending on how one personally defines sexual attraction.

 

That's embarrassing. T_T

 

Oh and I'm not concerned about sexuals "hijacking the label" (that's already encouraged here but meh).. it's the fact that many people are identifying as asexual based on an utter misunderstanding of normal sexuality, and AVEN actively encourages this misrepresentation of normal sexuality: even endorses it by refusing to take a stance on how to accurately define asexuality in favour of inclusiveness. The other issue is that this causes asexuality to lose any real meaning as an actual legitimate innate sexual orientation (or lack of one) because, again, it can apply to almost anyone. That does nothing but harm the people with literally no desire for partnered sexual intimacy, ever, because again they're just an extreme minority among the regular sexual population (much of which now falls under the asexual label as a direct result of the extreme inclusiveness of the definition - especially if it was an "and/or" definition)

 

Edit: Again, in the same way the term "homosexual" would lose any meaning as a legitimate sexual orientation if it could apply to most heterosexual people, as well a homosexual people - so like, most of the population. Homosexual people generally desire partnered sexual intimacy with people of the same gender, but can also exclusively only desire sexual intimacy with people of a different gender. If you choose to call yourself homosexual because you like the label, that's the only requirement someone actually needs to be homosexual. It's about what word you like, and has nothing to do with the direction of your innate sexual preferences.

[Guest]

I'm trying to catch up here. So the reasons for suggesting to switch to the desire-based definition is that the current attraction-based definition promotes that those who are apparently not asexuals? Isn't that more like a problem with the self-identification comes first principle? (and also partly that when people see the term sexual attraction people go what does that mean)

 

To me the desire-for-partnered-sex based definition seems just another explanation for sexual attraction. Much better and intuitive though. The meaning of current sexual-attraction-based definition would still be there too, but in more clear words.

 

though the short term "desire-based definition" got me a little confused with libido, which is an undirected force.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Tofer said:

Before the asexuality community developed the discourse of "types of attraction" (sexual, romantic, sensual, platonic, aesthetic) the word "attraction" was used commonly, in a meaning that was fairly consistent at least since the 19th century, with "sexual" only implied. The reason the asexuality community added "sexual" as a modifier was to distinguish it from asexual types of attraction. Definition of the asexual types of attraction is the innovation of AVEN, not the existence of (sexual) attraction.

I have never heard of "attraction" being used to define orientations before I joined AVEN.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Lost247365 said:

Heterosexuality is 90+% and no-one discounts it as a legitimate orientation.

If someone goes to define heterosexuality based on "sexual attraction" (which is utterly idotic), scientific evidence has been brought forth that heterosexuality must make up considerably less than 50% of the population's orientation. Women are pretty much never heterosexual (nearly every woman is "sexually attracted" to women), and women are ~50% of the population. The most common orientation by a considerable margin is bi/pan (yes, the one treated as a red-headed stepchild even with LGBT+... ayup, that makes sense! ).

 

Oh, and it's rarer to be gay than to be "sexually attracted to" animals. Guess which one of these to has begun to become accepted first, though!  

[Arctangent]

2 hours ago, Mundane Mesh said:

Even if AVEN doesn't want to change it's official definition of sexual attraction I would argue that they should at least acknowledge the alternative in the official FAQ. Aka:

Asexual: Asexuality is generally defined as "..." another popular definition is "..."

Since it seems that changing the official definition is basically off the table, I agree with this. Then people who are questioning would be able to see the other definition more easily if they go to the FAQ, which could help if they find that one more intuitive. If that's the best we can do, it's better than nothing. I think I'd prefer that to an and/or definition since it would present the two stances separately rather that trying to combine them in a way that not everyone likes or agrees with. Putting aside my ideological objections, the and/or definition also seems clunky and partially redundant to me, which is another reason I'm not a huge fan.

 

What I do find interesting about this particular debate thread is the apparent lack of vocal attraction-based definition purists. That view was pretty common in the past. Maybe they're just not participating in the current debate for some reason (I can think of a few possibilities), but I also wonder if more people are recognizing that the desire-based definition has some utility (even if they prefer the attraction-based definition in the end). Judging by the recent polls, it seems to me that supporters of the hybrid or desire-only definitions are a large enough group to warrant recognition of the desire-based definition somewhere, even if the official definition is not changed. Is that too much to ask?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Law of Circles said:

Is that too much to ask?

Looking at how much I see the BoD as mainly ideologically motivated... I fear the answer is yes. 

[Arctangent]

9 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

If someone goes to define heterosexuality based on "sexual attraction" (which is utterly idotic), scientific evidence has been brought forth that heterosexuality must make up considerably less than 50% of the population's orientation. Women are pretty much never heterosexual (nearly every woman is "sexually attracted" to women), and women are ~50% of the population. The most common orientation by far is bi/pan (yes, the one treated as a red-headed stepchild even with LGBT+... ayup, that makes sense! ).

To be fair, some people do take the view that most people (especially women) are actually bi/pan, so not everyone would find that to be such a radical proposition. I've met a number of fans of the "most people are a little bit bi" hypothesis. But I still get what you're saying.

 

6 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Looking at how much I see the BoD as mainly ideologically motivated... I fear the answer is yes. 

I hope that's not the case, but I'm afraid you might be right.

[Xenobot]

@Lost247365 That was the definition for sexual orientation, not sexual attraction.

[Kai99]

Quote

Oh and I'm not concerned about sexuals "hijacking the label" (that's already encouraged here but meh).. it's the fact that many people are identifying as asexual based on an utter misunderstanding of normal sexuality, and AVEN actively encourages this misrepresentation of normal sexuality: even endorses it by refusing to take a stance on how to accurately define asexuality in favour of inclusiveness.

This sums it up right here. But if the mods have made their decision already to keep the old definition than continuing this discussion to me is now pointless. I mean it is has been very apparent for a while now why defining asexuality as the lack of sexual attraction is problematic. How confusing it is to many of the members here both new and old, how many people constantly have to question themselves because they don't understand if what they are feeling is sexual attraction or not, how even sexuals don't quite understand what asexuals means by sexual attraction, how even use-to-be asexuals feel that this community does a disservice to accepting any and every confused person as asexual rather than being straight forward with them. The fact that AVEN wants to continue this discourse is mindbogglingly to me because I know they see the same things we do. But whatever, I'm no longer going to take the time to help people figure out their confusion since I don't even know what asexuality is anymore. You can want sex and be asexual because asexuality is whatever you want it to be! For now on, if someone ask if they are asexual, I'm just going to tell them they are to go along with AVEN's wishy washy as all get out definition. Hopefully, more obviously sexual people will identify as asexual, than this community slogans will change from "I prefer cake" to, "I like cake, but I would like a slice of sex too!" 

 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

@Kai99; Don't give up, we need all the help we can get

[Kai99]

What is the point? They already said here that there is no real definition for asexuality so it is whatever you want it to be. They aren't going to be more specific on this. AVEN refuses to be a leader in this discussion, even though they can be. Even though if AVEN made an announcement right now on a more specific definition for asexuality, it will have a remarkable change on the community and how asexuality is discussed. Asexuality as a community is still in its infancy compared to many other communities, so any change in a major online community like AVEN will affect asexuals world wide. Yet AVEN refuses to do so, preferring to let asexuality be whatever we want it to be. What does that say about asexuality as an orientation? 

 

timewarp

Quote

 In particular it is worth noting that there is no universally agreed definition of asexuality yet, and therefore we cannot dictate which definition members should use. Consequently it is up to each member to decide which identity fits them best.

Also, since asexuality has no clear definition, I refuse to enforce my definition on others. Why would I when it isn't clear to.. anyone? If you want to be asexual, your asexual as far as AVEN is concern. I'm not going to continue with a losing battle.

[Snao Cone]

5 hours ago, Lost247365 said:

Why is that?  Because when I first learned about asexuality and it hit me that I might be asexuality the first thing I did was to come to AVEN.  Once here I started reading about sexual attraction and the more I read, the more confused I became.  One REALLY BAD SECTION IN THE FAQ* section in particular left me utterly confused.  In some ways, I was a perfect asexual.  In others, not so much.

The ultimate problem was, I have never had the desire to have sex with anyone and the very idea of it was repulsive to me.  BUT, I do experience attractions to people...but these attractions DON'T GO UP TO ME AND HIT ME OVER THE HEAD AND SAY "I AM AESTHETIC ATTRACTION NOT SEXUAL ATTRACTION YOU DIPSHIT!!!"  Physically painful as that would be that would have been helpful if they did. 

 

Attraction, as I defined it at the time, was simply a feeling of being drawn to people.  I didn't know why or what for.  And for months and months I struggled to figure it out.  In the end, I had to say to myself, "I don't feel any desire to have sex with anyone and feel that I never will, and I am certain that makes me asexual."

Since then everything just simply fits now.  

And, I really want AVEN to add sexual desire to the definition so that others like me don't have to experience the confusion and doubt that I did because of the attraction only definition.  

Yup, this is similar to my experience. It would've made a huge difference right from the beginning if the desire angle of it were covered in the basic FAQ. I remember reading through that so many times thinking how it seemed like something was missing that would provide a better context for me. It would help others in my life understand it more if there were a desire-based definition, even alongside an attraction one.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

On that note, I'd never questioned my lack of interest in sex until I came to AVEN, then I started worrying everything I felt might be 'sexual attraction'. Only when someone (probably Pan, Mysticus or Snow) mentioned 'do you desire sex?' did I finally stop overthinking it. The current definition really is terrible for your mental wellbeing.

[Guest]

I more and more think that what AVEN needs is a personnel change in the BoD... if they stick to a five-person team, then there should be at least two people in there who support a desire-based definition, and two who are critical of the idea of asexuality being included into LGBT+.

 

As long as the BoD remains an ideological monolith, AVEN simply doesn't have a chance of recovering and living up to its mission.

 

I don't have any realistic hope to see two people removed and replaced in the BoD any time soon, though. (Especially as I suspect ideological monolithism to be a main intended purpose of that crew.)

[Pramana]

8 hours ago, Law of Circles said:

Since it seems that changing the official definition is basically off the table, I agree with this. Then people who are questioning would be able to see the other definition more easily if they go to the FAQ, which could help if they find that one more intuitive. If that's the best we can do, it's better than nothing. I think I'd prefer that to an and/or definition since it would present the two stances separately rather that trying to combine them in a way that not everyone likes or agrees with. Putting aside my ideological objections, the and/or definition also seems clunky and partially redundant to me, which is another reason I'm not a huge fan.

 

What I do find interesting about this particular debate thread is the apparent lack of vocal attraction-based definition purists. That view was pretty common in the past. Maybe they're just not participating in the current debate for some reason (I can think of a few possibilities), but I also wonder if more people are recognizing that the desire-based definition has some utility (even if they prefer the attraction-based definition in the end). Judging by the recent polls, it seems to me that supporters of the hybrid or desire-only definitions are a large enough group to warrant recognition of the desire-based definition somewhere, even if the official definition is not changed. Is that too much to ask?

I believe @Xenobot has made this point earlier in this thread – I would second it here – which is that a compromise option whereby desire is included within the definition has a much higher chance of success than a desire-only alternative. A desire-only definition doesn't have enough scientific support, nor would it be sufficiently inclusive (it would alienate those who resonate more with the attraction aspect, and it leaves out sex-favourable asexuals and at least some gray-asexuals and demisexuals). There is recognition, though, that a lack of sexual desire is relevant to asexuality, and that thinking of asexuality in terms of a lack of sexual desire is more intuitive for some people. That is why I, at least, have been advocating an and/or definition, and that probably has a lot to do with why there haven't been vocal attraction-only supporters recently.

I admit that the and/or definition sounds a bit clunky, but human psychology is messy. It's not likely that there'll be one airtight logically rigid definition which can capture everything that fits within the concept. Therefore, contrary to what some have suggested, a definition that is more general and vague and that produces some overlap may well be the preferable one.

Otherwise, I also don't mind your suggestion to have parallel definitions: that asexuality could be viewed as the lack of sexual attraction or it could be viewed as the lack of sexual desire.

My reasons for keeping sexual attraction within the definition are well known; I don't wish to repeat them again. But I would support working towards a comprise as described above, if there's interest in doing so. That sort of compromise proposal has a far more realistic chance of changing the status quo.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Snow Cone said:

Yup, this is similar to my experience. It would've made a huge difference right from the beginning if the desire angle of it were covered in the basic FAQ. I remember reading through that so many times thinking how it seemed like something was missing that would provide a better context for me. It would help others in my life understand it more if there were a desire-based definition, even alongside an attraction one.

I was lucky enough to find AVEN.de before English/international AVEN. If I hadn't seen the infinitely clearer definition on the German boards ("no desire/urge for sexual interaction") beforehand, AVEN would have been utterly unhelpful to me.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Pramana said:

nor would it be sufficiently inclusive (it would alienate those who resonate more with the attraction aspect, and it leaves out sex-favourable asexuals and at least some gray-asexuals and demisexuals).

Repeating my reply as long as you keep saying this: Becoming less inclusive is a benefit, not a drawback. AVEN's current amount of inclusivity is toxic and destructive.

[Pramana]

2 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Repeating my reply as long as you keep saying this: Being less inclusive is a benefit, not a drawback. AVEN's amount of inclusivity is toxic.

And I'm left to repeat the fact that realistically, that type of claim is unlikely to change the views of the BoD, or a significant percentage of the AVEN membership.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Pramana said:

And I'm left to repeat the fact that realistically, that type of claim is unlikely to change the views of the BoD, or a significant percentage of the AVEN membership.

Which just reinforces my opinion that the BoD in its current attitude and composition is harmful to AVEN, and that I won't stay here under their current reign.

[Memento1]

One of the big disconnects for me is that people seem to think hammering down a definition will be more supportive, make people feel better, etc.  Definitions do not work this way.  What is serves to do is set a hard and fast line about who can be in our community and who can't, which seems to run counter to our goal to be supportive, inclusive, and validating.  Since it seems the majority of people here are not 100% hard and true "asexual" but some variety of ace, defining asexuality in strict terms will necessarily involve "annexing" some from the group.  In my mind it's no different from sexuals insisting we're not like them.

 

In my mind we can either be one of two things: in search of the truth, or in search of support.  The truth is not kind.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Memento1 said:

One of the big disconnects for me is that people seem to think hammering down a definition will be more supportive, make people feel better, etc.  Definitions do not work this way.  What is serves to do is set a hard and fast line about who can be in our community and who can't, which seems to run counter to our goal to be supportive, inclusive, and validating.  Since it seems the majority of people here are not 100% hard and true "asexual" but some variety of ace, defining asexuality in strict terms will necessarily involve "annexing" some from the group.  In my mind it's no different from sexuals insisting we're not like them.

 

In my mind we can either be one of two things: in search of the truth, or in search of support.  The truth is not kind.

If that is the choice to make, then support is the thing that needs to be severely toned down. This is, by its very name, an educational site. Clarity and truth should always take precedence over community and support.

 

Telling non-aces that no, they don't fit the definition and are not asexual is an unambiguously good thing. They can still remain part of the community as sexual allies; but validating their confused/misguided claims of being asexual themselves ruins this community and its stated goal. "Supporting" them in such a way is simply inacceptable and deeply misguided - it's neither logical nor ethical to do so.

[Memento1]

17 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Repeating my reply as long as you keep saying this: Becoming less inclusive is a benefit, not a drawback. AVEN's current amount of inclusivity is toxic and destructive.

Okay, I'm willing to hear your argument, though my first instinct is to balk.  HOW is being less inclusive a benefit?  As I see it, it will make a percentage of the membership feel better, a percentage of the membership feel much worse.  You're saying the benefit to the ones who remain outweighs the cost to those that don't?