Definition discussion.

[Guest]

Just now, Memento1 said:

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?

The benefit to actually asexual people, as a whole, infinitely outweighs the cost to those who misinformedly claim to be asexual, yes. That is how education works.

 

Besides, to those misinformed non-asexuals, even this "making them feel worse" has benefit - it encourages them to go look for their actual orientation instead of wasting time spent identifying with the wrong label. Not supporting their error is a form of helping them, even if it hurts for the time being.

[Guest]

I'm finding a distinction here: having a clear-cut definition of asexuality could still promote inclusivity community-wise. Forums?

 

To be honest, before I read this topic I had no idea how "sexual attraction" was confusing to so many people.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, butterflo said:

I'm finding a distinction here: having a clear-cut definition of asexuality could still promote inclusivity community-wise. Forums?

 

To be honest, before I read this topic I had no idea how "sexual attraction" was confusing to so many people.

Just because somone isn't asexual doesn't mean they should be kicked off the forum. We even have the For Sexual Partners Friends & Allies subforum, for goodness sake - and IMO, that is often the subforum with the highest concentration of actually reasonable viewpoints expressed, due to people talking from actual experience instead of out of their ideological arses (much as the best sexual allies are starting to flee over all the nonsense. Yes, talking about Skulls, again. Geo also has long since disappeared from view. It's a freaking shame.)

 

However, what they should be is to no longer get validated/supported/reinforced when they wrongly claim to be asexual. Because doing so runs directly counter to AVEN's stated mission of education about asexuality.

[Kai99]

18 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.

Because not everyone who thinks they are asexual is asexual Memento.  There has to be some form of difference that separate an asexual from a sexual. Why call for any distinction at all if there isn't any difference between us? Why not just call it the sexuality forum if you just want to make a forum that help out everyone? If there is nothing that disqualifies a person from asexuality than anyone can be asexual. We want to make clear what is and isn't asexual with the definition change. AVEN can still be inclusive with a more stricter definition.

[Memento1]

40 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

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.

I'll grant you that having "Education" in the name does imply a priority of truth over support.  Maybe we need to have that discussion of which is actually our priority - you unequivocally state which you prioritize, but your priorities are not everyone's priorities.

 

"Clarity and truth should always take priority over community and support" is not a statement I can support.  Neither should the opposite be true (support ALWAYS take precedence over truth).  I generally have a very buddhist mindset concerning the middle way - in this case, prioritizing one over the other based on the circumstances.  If your world is all black and white and no gray, it must be very stark indeed.

 

The definition of ethics: "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity."  It says nothing about there being one correct set of principals to value.  To say something is "more ethical" is simply to say it conforms more to one unstated set of principles - your own.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

3 minutes ago, Memento1 said:

I'll grant you that having "Education" in the name does imply a priority of truth over support.  Maybe we need to have that discussion of which is actually our priority - you unequivocally state which you prioritize, but your priorities are not everyone's priorities.

 

"Clarity and truth should always take priority over community and support" is not a statement I can support.  Neither should the opposite be true (support ALWAYS take precedence over truth).  I generally have a very buddhist mindset concerning the middle way - in this case, prioritizing one over the other based on the circumstances.  If your world is all black and white and no gray, it must be very stark indeed.

 

The definition of ethics: "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity."  It says nothing about there being one correct set of principals to value.  To say something is "more ethical" is simply to say it conforms more to one unstated set of principles - your own.

The name of the site is asexual visibility and education network, there is no priority to discuss.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Memento1 said:

I'll grant you that having "Education" in the name does imply a priority of truth over support.  Maybe we need to have that discussion of which is actually our priority - you unequivocally state which you prioritize, but your priorities are not everyone's priorities.

 

"Clarity and truth should always take priority over community and support" is not a statement I can support.  Neither should the opposite be true (support ALWAYS take precedence over truth).  I generally have a very buddhist mindset concerning the middle way - in this case, prioritizing one over the other based on the circumstances.  If your world is all black and white and no gray, it must be very stark indeed.

 

The definition of ethics: "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity."  It says nothing about there being one correct set of principals to value.  To say something is "more ethical" is simply to say it conforms more to one unstated set of principles - your own.

It's hardly unstated when education is right there in the site's name.

 

AVEN has exactly three ethically defensible options:

a) do what's neccessary to educate (i.e., dial the inclusivity way down), or

b) change its name (i.e., dropping the "E" in AVEN), or

c) openly admit that it has betrayed and/or abandoned its mission, and is committing false advertising.

 

If neither a nor b nor c is done, this site is suffering from such blatantly unethical mismanagement that nobody should put any trust in it.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

However, what they should be is to no longer get validated/supported/reinforced when they wrongly claim to be asexual. Because doing so runs directly counter to AVEN's stated mission of education about asexuality.

I fully agree on this, though as long as the definition is put in better words, changes regarding the self-identification principle would be unnecessary. From what I've read here at least two problems are mixed here: 1) self-identification has the most priority, 2) the definition is not straightforward. Since 2) precedes 1), clarifying 2) would absolve the need for telling someone they are not asexual. (besides, I find it's not "effective" to tell someone that)

 

Although the reason for sticking with the current sexual-attraction-based definition is given at the other topic, I don't quite understand how the desire-for-partnered-sex-based definition is taken as describing an entirely different thing. They're the same but the desire-for-partnered-sex based one is more straightforward. The desire-based definition is not even about libido.

 

So some of the given reasons, that the attraction based definition is most widely used, or there is no universal agreement yet, seems unsupportive towards their decision to keeping the current definition. The "sexual attraction" concept is still there in the desire-based definition but in different words.

[Memento1]

14 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Why call for any distinction at all if there isn't any difference between us?

I am not calling for distinction, YOU are.  You "want to make clear what is and isn't asexual."  For what purpose?  Obviously not to be inclusive, or make someone feel better.  And that's fine if not, but then stop using that as the justification.  Then say "categorizing people into boxes and educating people on our box system" is our goal.

 

I think the biggest reason why AVEN even exists is because most of us felt ostracized and shamed by a society that doesn't acknowledge our feeling as real.  We clung to AVEN because it VALIDATED OUR FEELINGS.  I am a big fan of validating feelings, but not necessarily the thoughts attached to them (if the attached thoughts are unhelpful or harmful).  If someone ISN'T asexual but identifies as such, how is it harmful?

[Memento1]

18 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

It's hardly unstated when education is right there in the site's name.

 

AVEN has exactly three ethically defensible options:

a) do what's neccessary to educate (i.e., dial the inclusivity way down), or

b) change its name (i.e., dropping the "E" in AVEN), or

c) openly admit that it has betrayed and/or abandoned its mission, and is committing false advertising.

 

If neither a nor b nor c is done, this site is suffering from such blatantly unethical mismanagement that nobody should put any trust in it.

I STATED you had a point on the education front, stop trying to convince me of something I agreed to, it just makes you look self-aggrandizing.  I personally would advocate for B, but everyone doesn't have to feel as I do.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Memento1 said:

I am not calling for distinction, YOU are.  You "want to make clear what is and isn't asexual."  For what purpose?  Obviously not to be inclusive, or make someone feel better.  And that's fine if not, but then stop using that as the justification.  Then say "categorizing people into boxes and educating people on our box system" is our goal.

 

I think the biggest reason why AVEN even exists is because most of us felt ostracized and shamed by a society that doesn't acknowledge our feeling as real.  We clung to AVEN because it VALIDATED OUR FEELINGS.  I am a big fan of validating feelings, but not necessarily the thoughts attached to them (if the attached thoughts are unhelpful or harmful).  If someone ISN'T asexual but identifies as such, how is it harmful?

Because AVEN pretends to educated about a "legitimate orientation", and aims for inclusion into LGBT+. 

 

"Asexuality", following priorities as yours (and the BoD's) is definitely not a valid and legitimate orientation. "Asexuality" is 100% a conscious choice. If "asexuals" feel ostracized by society, they should first check whether they brought that "ostracism" on themselves; before anything else, choose not to "be asexual" for a while. 

 

"Asexuals" function more on the level of a fandom or similar hobby club. they are a danger to LGBT+, and should never be tolerated in their spaces, except (maybe) as allies, but to even qualify as allies, they must first cease to pass off "asexuality" as an orientation.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Memento1 said:

I STATED you had a point on the education front, stop trying to convince me of something I agreed to, it just makes you look self-aggrandizing.  I personally would advocate for B, but everyone doesn't have to feel as I do.

Tone down the arrogance and accusation, or you lose the privilege of talking to me. You tried to lecture me on ethics, I answered to that, in particular.

 

Accept it or get out of this discussion.

[Memento1]

2 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Because AVEN pretends to educated about a "legitimate orientation", and aims for inclusion into LGBT+. 

 

"Asexuality", following priorities as yours (and the BoD's) is definitely not a valid and legitimate orientation. "Asexuality" is 100% a conscious choice. If "asexuals" feel ostracized by society, they should first check whether they brought that "ostracism" on themselves; before anything else, choose not to "be asexual" for a while. 

 

"Asexuals" function more on the level of a fandom or similar hobby club. they are a danger to LGBT+, and should never be tolerated in their spaces, except (maybe) as allies, but to even qualify as allies, they must first cease to pass off "asexuality" as an orientation.

I see no point is continuing this conversation since you refuse to see any kind of nuance.  I SAID I didn't agree with going extreme in either direction, but you insist that is what I am advocating.  You seem to have an extreme distaste for any kind of gray area.  That seems like a miserable way to live, so I'll leave you to your misery.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

However, what they should be is to no longer get validated/supported/reinforced when they wrongly claim to be asexual. Because doing so runs directly counter to AVEN's stated mission of education about asexuality.

 

You mean exactly now things are now? There is no rule requiring that people be validated, just that they can't be invalidated and it's still perfectly possible to challenge their views without invalidating them. 

 

I've said this before. but the only feasible way for mysticus version of this forum to exist to start mass banning and censorship. The entire thing would destroy the community and make what's left too afraid to actually do any education. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago,  skit said:

You mean exactly now things are now? There is no rule requiring that people be validated, just that they can't be invalidated and it's still perfectly possible to challenge their views without invalidating them. 

We should be allowed to invalidate their choice of identity. That is an important tool of education, it should not be withheld from us by some misguided "incluisvity" ideal.

 

 

9 minutes ago,  skit said:

I've said this before. but the only feasible way for mysticus version of this forum to exist to start mass banning and censorship. The entire thing would destroy the community and make what's left too afraid to actually do any education. 

You've said it before, and I've answered before that this isn't true. Since you just repeat it nonetheless, it is blatantly obvious that this nothing but a strawman argument. 

 

So, no you're wrong. End of story. Next caller, please.

[Kai99]

Quote

I am not calling for distinction, YOU are.

What I meant was why use separate terms for sexual and asexual if there is no distinction? If anyone can be asexual than why call it asexuality? Just call it sexuality and forget AVEN as a place for asexual education.

 

Quote

 For what purpose?  Obviously not to be inclusive, or make someone feel better.  And that's fine if not, but then stop using that as the justification.  Then say "categorizing people into boxes and educating people on our box system" is our goal.

Because AVEN is a ASEXUAL community. What exactly is and isn't asexual should be known for a community made FOR us. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

Quote

I think the biggest reason why AVEN even exists is because most of us felt ostracized and shamed by a society that doesn't acknowledge our feeling as real. We clung to AVEN because it VALIDATED OUR FEELINGS.  I am a big fan of validating feelings, but not necessarily the thoughts attached to them (if the attached thoughts are unhelpful or harmful).  If someone ISN'T asexual but identifies as such, how is it harmful?

It is fine if the most sexual person in the world wants to identify as asexual. No one can tell anybody what to do. But there should be a difference between someone who chose to call themselves asexual and those who actually are. Why? Because asexuality is an orientation that you are born with which means you have people who will and will not be asexual. That can not be denied. If you want asexuality to be a choice than you are undermining it as a valid sexuality. That is the harm! It is not bad to acknowledge that AVEN is a haven for asexuals, people on the asexual spectrum, people who want to learn about asexuality, and those who relate to asexuals( not asexuals). To argue that everyone who comes here should be able to ID as asexual throws away the purpose of an asexual identity in first place. It throws a wrench in asexuality as a valid orientation. If there is no distinction, nothing that bars a person from IDing as asexual, than there is no point in asexuality. Just call it sexuality.

[Guest]

Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

We should be allowed to invalidate their choice of identity. That is an important tool of education, it should not be withheld from us by some misguided "incluisvity" ideal.

 

 

You've said it before, and I've answered before that this isn't true. Since you just repeat it nonetheless, it is blatantly obvious that this nothing but a strawman argument. 

 

So, no you're wrong. End of story. Next caller, please.

 

So in your version of AVEN,

 

How do you deal with the people who say asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction?

How do you deal with people who identify based on that?  

How do you deal with people who tell people they are asexual based on the "wrong" definition?

How do you deal with people who tell people they aren't asexual based on the "wrong" definition?

 

If your answer to all these questions are "tell them they are wrong" then what do you do if they reply 'nah, I'm right, you're wrong" and maintain that position no matter what? If your answer to that is just "tell them again" then education isn't really improving, it's just become more argumentative. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Yes, you indeed tell them over and over again, authoritatively, that they are wrong, and that their idea of asexuality does not fit the supported definition, and therefore they are not asexual, and no faith should be put in their identifications of others as asexual or not.

 

You do that over and over again, until they either stop stating their wrong ideas, leave the board out of their own choice, or break the ToS (in ways already included - spam, personal insults, etc.) and get banned.

 

There is no need whatsoever of making statement of wrong ideas, in itself, a warnable/bannable offense.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

 

You do that over and over again, until they either stop stating their wrong ideas, leave the board out of their own choice, or break the ToS (in ways already included - spam, personal insults, etc.) and get banned.

 

 

 

And if they do none of those things...?

[Pramana]

2 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

What I meant was why use separate terms for sexual and asexual if there is no distinction? If anyone can be asexual than why call it asexuality? Just call it sexuality and forget AVEN as a place for asexual education.

 

Because AVEN is a ASEXUAL community. What exactly is and isn't asexual should be known for a community made FOR us. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

It is fine if the most sexual person in the world wants to identify as asexual. No one can tell anybody what to do. But there should be a difference between someone who chose to call themselves asexual and those who actually are. Why? Because asexuality is an orientation that you are born with which means you have people who will and will not be asexual. That can not be denied. If you want asexuality to be a choice than you are undermining it as a valid sexuality. That is the harm! It is not bad to acknowledge that AVEN is a haven for asexuals, people on the asexual spectrum, people who want to learn about asexuality, and those who relate to asexuals( not asexuals). To argue that everyone who comes here should be able to ID as asexual throws away the purpose of an asexual identity in first place. It throws a wrench in asexuality as a valid orientation. If there is no distinction, nothing that bars a person from IDing as asexual, than there is no point in asexuality. Just call it sexuality.

The claim that you have to be born that way for it to be a legitimate orientation is an ideology, not a fact. I identify on the asexual spectrum; I don't feel that I was born that way. I experience my asexual identity as a complex interaction of biology, personality traits, mental health issues, and choices I've made over the course of my life.

I think what some of the other recent posters in this thread are getting at is that making a rigid distinction between who are real asexuals and who are not excludes many people who feel left out of mainstream sexual society and who as result identify with asexuality and who could benefit from using the terminology. That experience is why people started talking about asexuality in the first place, and so definitions of asexuality should be flexible enough to encompass its various manifestations. It is worrisome to try to make distinctions about who the asexual community is for and who it is not for, based on one's personally favoured image of what asexuality should look like. Probably the biggest problem with this ideology is that it simply isn't very likeable, which is probably why it lacks support within the BoD and the wider community.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago,  skit said:

 

And if they do none of those things...?

Then they're a nuisance that must be tolerated, but at least they will no longer be in any way validated in their views, neither actively nor passively.

 

As Worf called it on Star Trek - glop flies. Making annoying sounds, but with no sting.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

Knowing human psychology, the group who would do none of those things will be very small indeed. Most will either start trolling, or leave over "feeling invalidated", or a combination of those two.

 

But as long as there's even one single person who actually learns to accept that they're not asexual, that they have misidentified, and can now go and search for their actual orientation - then that one person has been completely worth it, and justifies the change.

[Pramana]

18 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Yes, you indeed tell them over and over again, authoritatively, that they are wrong, and that their idea of asexuality does not fit the supported definition, and therefore they are not asexual, and no faith should be put in their identifications of others as asexual or not.

 

You do that over and over again, until they either stop stating their wrong ideas, leave the board out of their own choice, or break the ToS (in ways already included - spam, personal insults, etc.) and get banned.

 

There is no need whatsoever of making statement of wrong ideas, in itself, a warnable/bannable offense.

The problem is that doing so is contrary to building an amicable, congenial, supportive community. People don't want to act like that, which is why this view lacks popular support.

I also don't think most people believe there is such a strict dichotomy between education and support, whereby one has to first determine if one is asexual according to a formal definition before one can access support from the asexual community. Rather, if one finds that one can gain support through the asexual community as someone who feels disconnected from mainstream sexual society, then that in itself is evidence that one might be asexual. That seems like a far more natural view, connected as it is to the interests which lead people to want to identify as asexual in the first place.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The problem is that doing so is contrary to building an amicable, congenial, supportive community. People don't want to act like that, which is why this view lacks popular support.

So what? If they join a site that aims to educate, they either learn to adapt to act like that, or tough luck for them.

 

I still see your values as weaknesses we should strive to overcome, not virtues to aim for.

[Kai99]

15 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The claim that you have to be born that way for it to be a legitimate orientation is an ideology, not a fact. I identify on the asexual spectrum; I don't feel that I was born that way. I experience my asexual identity as a complex interaction of biology, personality traits, mental health issues, and choices I've made over the course of my life.

I think what some of the other recent posters in this thread are getting at is that making a rigid distinction between who are real asexuals and who are not excludes many people who feel left out of mainstream sexual society and who as result identify with asexuality and who could benefit from using the terminology. That experience is why people started talking about asexuality in the first place, and so definitions of asexuality should be flexible enough to encompass its various manifestations. It is worrisome to try to make distinctions about who the asexual community is for and who it is not for, based on one's personally favoured image of what asexuality should look like. Probably the biggest problem with this ideology is that it simply isn't very likeable, which is probably why it lacks support within the BoD and the wider community.

 

Explain to me why describing AVEN this way is negative? Who is AVEN excluding by changing the definition if the forum is still available for all?

 

Quote

It is not bad to acknowledge that AVEN is a haven for asexuals, people on the asexual spectrum, people who want to learn about asexuality, and those who relate to asexuals( not asexuals).

 

[Guest]

The other thing is that anyone would be able to tell anyone else they are wrong. So a group of people who believe that asexuality is defined based on attraction can go around to every thread and tell every person who uses the desire based definition that they are wrong. Non-libidoists can tell those that have a libido that they aren't asexual. Anti-sexuals can tell sex-positive people they aren't asexual. It would actually make education worse because you would have all these factions going around telling all the other factions that they are wrong and muddying the waters even further. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago,  skit said:

The other thing is that anyone would be able to tell anyone else they are wrong. So a group of people who believe that asexuality is defined based on attraction can go around to every thread and tell every person who uses the desire based definition that they are wrong. Non-libidoists can tell those that have a libido that they aren't asexual. Anti-sexuals can tell sex-positive people they aren't asexual. It would actually make education worse because you would have all these factions going around telling all the other factions that they are wrong and muddying the waters even further. 

Complete nonsense. When you have a clear, official definition, none of this can happen. The admods will point to it and say "you, group A, are right. you, groups B, C, D, are wrong. What A describes is actual asexuality."

[Pramana]

37 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Explain to me why describing AVEN this way is negative? Who is AVEN excluding by changing the definition if the forum is still available for all?

As I've explained before, it matters whether or not people can use the terms which they think best describes them. People want to be able to express their identity; the ability to do so conveys agency. Telling people that there're not really one of us but that they can still associate with us is not sufficient, because it doesn't take their concerns seriously.

I, for one, feel excluded by your claim that someone can't be a real asexual unless they are born that way, regardless of whether or not I can still participate under your version of AVEN. How would I describe myself in public if I can't use the language which best reflects my experiences and interests?
 

43 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

So what? If they join a site that aims to educate, they either learn to adapt to act like that, or tough luck for them.

 

I still see your values as weaknesses we should strive to overcome, not virtues to aim for.

I don't have much more to add on this point, expect to reiterate that basic human decency with respect to how we treat and talk to people is a value. I find it's only a small group of people who advocate changing AVEN in the way you suggest, and there's probably a good reason for that.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Complete nonsense. When you have a clear, official definition, none of this can happen. The admods will point to it and say "you, group A, are right. you, groups B, C, D, are wrong. What A describes is actual asexuality."

 

So what if the Admods say that? Group B, C or D can keep on going even if Admods tell them they are wrong and tell people that the official definition is wrong and that it needs to be changed.

 

I mean, you're saying that if AVEN's official stance is made clear, people wouldn't argue against it, while arguing against the official stance AVEN just made clear. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago,  skit said:

I mean you're saying that if AVEN's official stance is made clear, people wouldn't argue against it, while arguing against the official stance AVEN just made clear. 

Oh, that would be AVEN's official stance that there will never be a clear and supported definition? You're comparing apples and oranges here.

 

3 minutes ago,  skit said:

So what if the Admods say that? Group B, C or D can keep on going even if Admods tell them they are wrong and tell people that the official definition is wrong and that it needs to be changed.

The huge change for the better would be that the views of groups B-D will be officially invalidated.

[Sally]

3 hours ago, Memento1 said:

  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.  

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.

As far as I can see, AVEN came about  as a community of people who wanted support for being asexual.  It was not, and is not, a community that has as a goal to be "supportive, inclusive, and validating".  Supportive of what?  Inclusive of whom?  Validating of what?  Asexuality.   There are plenty of supportive communities on-line and IRL, for all sorts of things.  This is an asexual community.  That's why we're here.

 

I'm an asexual who has never experienced the desire to have partnered sex.  I don't think I'm in the minority here.  And as an asexual, I don't experience any "truth" or "support" from people who  sometimes want sex but other times don't want sex, or always want sex but don't always feel attracted to who they have sex with, or decide they're asexual because they used to want and enjoy sex but they had a difficult relationship and now they've decided to be celibate.  That, to me, is NOT  asexuality.   It's variants of sexuality.   And if AVEN's members decided that all those variants were part of asexuality, I wouldn't belong here.  That would leave me as an asexual without support or validation.