• Announcements

    • Kelly

      AVENues Holiday Special Edition is now live   08/17/17

      The new edition of AVENues is done!   See:        
    • Kelly

      New Team members Needed--Moderator and Project Team: Voting   11/01/17

      Voting has started. See:     http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163513-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163514-new-moderator-member-needed-qa-co-mod-and-gray-area-mod-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163513-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/  
    • Lady Girl

      Ace Community Census   11/06/17

      It’s time for the 2017 Ace Community Census!   see:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162675-announcing-the-2017-ace-community-census/  
    • Heart

      Help fund AVEN's servers!   11/06/17

      AVEN is doing its annual fundraiser to raise donations for server costs! See http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163251-aven-server-fundraiser/ for more details.  
Lord Happy Toast

Updating the wiki

Recommended Posts

Lord Happy Toast

In the opening post in this thread, I raised three questions. Based on the feedback that people have given, here is my summary:

Are there any pages (other than the one's linked to in Dive In) that you feel we need to keep?

No one suggested any articles that need to be kept. Lots of people agreed that a lot of things need to be deleted.

Are there any pages that you think need to be updated a lot?

Aromanticism

The lexicon in general

Are there any new topics that you'd like to see pages made for?

More/better information regarding trans issues/vocab.

Other issues people raised

What is the mission statement of the wiki/does it have one? (Answer: No, it doesn't have one.)

How important are references on the wiki? (Answer: It's complicated. The "source" information is primarily the AVEN boards. Still, having some basis for claims is typically good.)

Is there a reason there are no pictures? (Answer: Last I checked, it was impossible to upload them.)

Does a more comprehensive report of media appearances exist elsewhere, though? (Answer: There used to be some, but I can't find them anymore.)

Another issue raised concerns the open letter to the LGBT community, which I think raises a larger question--if the wiki is intended to be primarily informative, the open letters in general stand in a somewhat awkward place as these are intended to be persuasive pieces. Perhaps we should make a separate section for "AVEN documents" or something?

So, the questions that I would now like to address are how to go about updating the wiki.

First, what is the goal/purpose of the wiki? This is especially relevant with regard to things like open letters and linking documents on the wiki.

Second, how should we go about updating the wiki? Just having a couple PT members doing it doesn't seem like a good way to go. This is something that I think should be a collaborative effort. So, any volunteers to become part of a "Wiki team" of sorts? If anyone is interested, feel free to say so or PM me. The only requirements are that a) you can write clearly and objectively, and b) can and are willing to do the research necessary for drafting well-written articles that represent the range of views represented in the asexual community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSD

Second, how should we go about updating the wiki? Just having a couple PT members doing it doesn't seem like a good way to go. This is something that I think should be a collaborative effort. So, any volunteers to become part of a "Wiki team" of sorts? If anyone is interested, feel free to say so or PM me. The only requirements are that a) you can write clearly and objectively, and b) can and are willing to do the research necessary for drafting well-written articles that represent the range of views represented in the asexual community.

I'd be happy to help, but I'm not so sure of my ability to write clearly. I can always do research though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Oh, since it hasn't been mentioned, may I suggest adding an article on Storms' Model? It's at least as notable as the ABCD typology.

I think that the goal of the wiki is to accumulate valuable information and ideas that would otherwise be forgotten in old threads. It saves us from having to dig up old posts or rewrite the same answers over and over again. A lot of the wiki articles (definitions, models, documents, comments of the week) already align with this goal.

And I agree that the open letters are somewhat awkward. Putting it into a separate place for AVEN documents is a very good idea.

In fact, there's already a category for AVEN publications. There's also an article on "available visibility materials". That could be a pretty useful article! Imagine all the zines and documents and pamphlets and presentations that have been created by members over the years. We could have put all of them in one place. I don't know about anyone, but I for one would have found it useful in my visibility projects.

As is, the article is hopelessly out of date, contains not-so-useful materials, and isn't even linked from "Dive In" as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

I know I said I would shut up but something has been bothering me.

When I am logged into the wiki, pages like this or this with reference sections have several references at the end of the article. However, when I am logged out, all I see is the title "References" with nothing following it.

Seems like a bug, anyone else get this?

I'd never noticed that before, but now that you mention it, I have the same problem. I guess this is something we'll have to figure out how to fix.

Until that is possible, I put the list of references in as plain text for the ‘research’ article. They don’t link to the points in the article, the intext references still all say [1], and it’ll show up twice for those logged in, but it’s better then nothing.

As far as I know, the term "AS3" has not been used since 2005 when I created the items in the store. It was used by some as sort of stamp of approval given by asexuals to sexuals who were supportive of asexuality, hence the name "Asexuals in Support of Supportive Sexuals." However, it was never that popular and died a quick death. It really is no longer relevant. I have no objection to its removal from the wiki and the store. For reference: http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/2747-stamp-%23as3/

BTW, you can't find it with the search function because it's only three characters long, which is too short for the parameters of the software.

Thanks, Hound, I did think it was odd that it didn’t come up in the search. I still have a lot to learn about this forum...

Second, how should we go about updating the wiki? Just having a couple PT members doing it doesn't seem like a good way to go. This is something that I think should be a collaborative effort. So, any volunteers to become part of a "Wiki team" of sorts? If anyone is interested, feel free to say so or PM me. The only requirements are that a) you can write clearly and objectively, and b) can and are willing to do the research necessary for drafting well-written articles that represent the range of views represented in the asexual community.

I'd be happy to help, but I'm not so sure of my ability to write clearly. I can always do research though.

Yay! Since it's collaborative, even if you are not confident that you can write clearly, there are definitely things you can do :cake:

I’m also happy to help and have already been doing a bit behind the scenes during the past weeks. It would be really great if there could be some collaboration, even if it is as simple as people suggesting pages that should be made, or getting discussions going on AVEN about what articles should say.

So far as the purpose of the wiki goes… I agree with Siggy; by gathering that information in a user-friendly way, it could be very useful for educating both sexuals and asexuals. I have pretty strong feelings about this otherwise I wouldn’t be spending time on it when I should be studying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSD

Oh, since it hasn't been mentioned, may I suggest adding an article on Storms' Model? It's at least as notable as the ABCD typology.

Well making a page on Storm's Model shouldn't be difficult. There is already a brief mention of it on the research entry. Also, I think madrewliter's explanation of it on apostive would make a good entry on the subject. I'd create an entry for it now, but 1) I have never used a wiki before and 2) I'd want to make sure its ok if I just copy the apositive post as an entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Oh, since it hasn't been mentioned, may I suggest adding an article on Storms' Model? It's at least as notable as the ABCD typology.

Well making a page on Storm's Model shouldn't be difficult. There is already a brief mention of it on the research entry. Also, I think madrewliter's explanation of it on apostive would make a good entry on the subject. I'd create an entry for it now, but 1) I have never used a wiki before and 2) I'd want to make sure its ok if I just copy the apositive post as an entry.

If you want to provide some text content, I just coded a table for the figure, and I can make the page. Sound good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Oh, since it hasn't been mentioned, may I suggest adding an article on Storms' Model? It's at least as notable as the ABCD typology.

Well making a page on Storm's Model shouldn't be difficult. There is already a brief mention of it on the research entry. Also, I think madrewliter's explanation of it on apostive would make a good entry on the subject. I'd create an entry for it now, but 1) I have never used a wiki before and 2) I'd want to make sure its ok if I just copy the apositive post as an entry.

The piece of Apositive is, I think, too blogish for a wiki, though the information in it could fairly easily be reworked into something that, stylistically, sounds more like a wiki article. (I'll also have to get the reference again for the masculinity/femininity research that Storms was drawing on.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Storms' model page is up.

...

Low content post, low content page; to make this post less useless have an asexual-relevant excerpt from Storms' 1980 'Theories of Sexual Orientation' paper:

“Recently, Storms (1978) proposed a modification of Kinsey's unidimensional model of sexual orientation. He argued that homosexuality and heterosexuality may be separate, orthogonal erotic dimensions rather than opposite extremes of a single, bipolar dimension. This conceptual revision of Kinsey's model has obvious parallels to recent changes in theories of masculinity and femininity. Just as current sex role theorists argue that a person's degrees of masculinity and femininity can vary independently (Constantinople, 1973; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), it is possible that a person'shomoerotic and heteroerotic orientations can vary independently. Similarly, just as a twodimensional model of masculinity and femininity produces four sex role categories (undifferentiated, masculine, feminine, and androgynous), a two-dimensional map of erotic orientation produces four sexual orientation categories: asexual, heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.”

“One important advantage of a two-dimensional model over Kinsey's model is that the former distinguishes between individuals who are bisexual (those who score high on both heteroeroticism and homoeroticism) and individuals who are asexual (those who score low on both dimensions), whereas the latter combinesthese two categories. Failing to differentiate bisexuals from asexuals can obscure the results of research on sexual orientation. For example, Masters and Johnson (1979) recently studied the sexual responses and erotic fantasies of heterosexual, homosexual, and "ambisexual" (their term) men and women. Following Kinsey's model, these researchers defined ambisexuals as those individuals who show no preference for the gender of their sexual partners—a definition that could fit both bisexuals and asexuals. Because Masters and Johnson used the unidimensional Kinsey definition of sexual orientation, we cannot be certain whether their results describe bisexuals or asexuals.

In fact, it appears that Masters and Johnson's ambisexual subjects may have been more asexual than bisexual. Although their ambisexual subjects were able to respond adequately when stimulated by a sexual partner in the laboratory, they reported many fewer erotic fantasies and daydreams than the heterosexual land homosexual subjects did. Furthermore, Masters and Johnson noted that their ambisexuals had difficulty establishing longterm sexual relationships with partners of either gender—a finding that is consistent with research on the social and interpersonal problems of asexuality (Gochros & Gochros, 1977).”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

*crickets*

Sorry for the double post… I’m bumping this thread.

I have been busy with the wiki, mostly working on navigability. One major thing I changed is Dive in to make it more portal-like (previous version). It still has the same content, unless I missed something…

I’m thinking about replacing some of the category links on Dive in with more useful ones (e.g. get rid of ‘meetups’ and ‘Colleges and Universities’ and put in, I don’t know, ‘visibility’ and ‘orientations’).

All the suggestions in this thread so far have been very helpful. Any opinions on this change: good, bad, indifferent? Anything that should be added?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Okay, looking through the Dive In page...

The articles on asexual people are disorganized. There's a list of possible asexual characters in TV and movies, there's a reading list, there's a list of historical people, and there's an "asexual people" category. There must be a better way to do this.

I think it should just have one article with all possible asexual characters and people, with different sections for TV, movies, books, historical figures, and other media. I also recommend an external link to the TV Tropes article on asexuality. TV Tropes is quite informal, and the examples may not be reliable, but it's extensive and up to date.

And we can keep the reading list, because books can be of interest without necessarily containing asexual characters.

(On a side note, I learned from AVENwiki that there was a Dinosaur comic on asexuality... How did I miss that when I went on a Dino Comics archive binge four friggin' years ago!? :wacko: )

Underneath "Browse by Category", I think most of those can be removed. "Colleges and Universities", "meetups" are hopelessly out of date, and therefore useless. If they ever become regularly updated, then they should be re-added. "Media" is redundant; it's linked a total of three times in Dive In. "Project list" is also linked twice. "Asexuality" and "Community"... well I'm not exactly sure what the unifying theme of these categories are.

But the "category" category should be left in. Some other useful categories might be: "AVEN publications", "Models of asexuality", "orientations", and "visibility".

I was also going to suggest linking the lexicon, but then I saw it was already there. You should make those top three links more prominent.

Of course, the "AVEN cookbook" and all its articles were going to be removed, so we can remove that.

Lastly, I am still confused by these ASEX articles. Even though there is an article on what ASEX is, and how to get involved, I still have no idea what it is, or how to get involved. To get answers, maybe someone could pm ghosts, because ze's listed in the discussion page on ASEX, and ze's still an active AVENite.

Note that I'm not actually doing any wiki editing myself, but I hope my input is still valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

: ) very valuable

Thank you Siggy, this is exactly the kind of input that I was looking for. I was actually really hoping you would respond because you are good at this.

I’m not sure about the asexual people pages, partly because I’m inclined to keep (possible) fact and fiction separate. I’m definitely willing to combine them if this makes the most sense though. Maybe ‘possible historical asexuals’ should be renamed so it can include current famous asexuals? Could do Page: Asexual people, subheadings: possible historical asexuals, historical asexuals, contemporary asexuals?

I followed your category suggestions, however I left in ‘asexuality’ for now, just because it contains so many things that it might be useful to someone. It's really chaotic as a category, probably because the wiki is about asexuality so everything gets tossed in there.

I agree with you on the lexicon link, it was way too easy to miss. I just wasn’t missing it because I put it there. Is this better (previous version)? I made the font bigger, but I’m wondering if a more effective way would be to put some intro text into the top box to draw attention to it?

My way of dealing with ASEX has basically been that I’m not touching it until we get some ideas about what to do with it. ASEX is truly an enigma. I’m guessing that it is much like the meetup list in the sense that it didn’t get too far off the ground on the wiki because these projects can be organized on the forum. Asking Ghosts about it is a good idea, but I’m not known on the boards and frankly even find myself annoying, so hopefully someone else will do it...

(It’s strange, I also missed those Dinosaur Comics back when I read through the archives, and only discovered them through the wiki.)

I should probably also mention I did templates for navigation bars on the orientation pages and the gender pages (here are examples), so if anything is amiss on these, or if you would like to see another one made, I’d love to know. I'm thinking that having the categories at the bottom of these is really redundant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Actually, I really like the navigation bars. I say keep them, even if they're redundant.

Keeping real and fictional asexuals separate is fine. Mostly I just thought it was weird that TV and books were kept apart, while fiction and non-fiction books were lumped together.

The top three links are more prominent than before, but I think we could still do better. Maybe... put them under a separate header that says "Introductory Articles"? And keep the larger font.

It occurs to me that after adding "visibility", it's now listed twice. Once under categories, and once under ASEX. Hmmm... maybe we can leave it that way until ASEX gets figured out. I can message ghosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Yeah, I think it is fine for now that visibility is there twice, one is the category and one the page so it isn't too bad.

Keeping real and fictional asexuals separate is fine. Mostly I just thought it was weird that TV and books were kept apart, while fiction and non-fiction books were lumped together.

That is odd. Honestly, I had not noticed that there was a non-fiction section on the reading list...

So just to be sure before I change anything, first start up a Fictional Asexuals (or Asexuality in fiction) page, put stuff from the movies/TV and the Reading list there, and add the link to TV tropes

And then either:

* leave the reading list with all the current content

* or strip the fiction part from the reading list and then rename the page something like "asexuality in non-fiction".

Is this better maybe (previous version)? I'm getting the vibe that the problem is one of spacing, not placement? You can tell me flat out if it's terrible, I don't mind : P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Well it certainly draws attention to the introductory articles, so good!

I would leave the reading list as is, but copy over the fiction list to the Asexual Characters/Asexuality in Fiction/Fictional Asexuals page. Either way, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Done! Here is Asexuality in fiction; I might try to clean up the layout a bit.

And I moved ‘possible historical asexuals’ to ‘asexual people’ so the page is more general and people can add notable asexuals, living or dead, if they like.

I guess I’ll leave the layout of Dive in the way it is for now... my main concern with the change was that it would only feel better to me, and that other users might just prefer the old list format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

So far, no one on this thread seems to know what ASEX is (or have any reason to believe it actually exists), so I've started to make some inquiries among people who hopefully know something about the matter. My suspicion is that it is an idea that never got off the ground. And quite possibly, other groups have taken over the functions that it never actually did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

So far, no one on this thread seems to know what ASEX is (or have any reason to believe it actually exists), so I've started to make some inquiries among people who hopefully know something about the matter. My suspicion is that it is an idea that never got off the ground. And quite possibly, other groups have taken over the functions that it never actually did.

Oh excellent.

I tabulated the content on the fiction page, hopefully the blanks will be filled in eventually, so that the books section looks more like the TV shows section in terms of having a short description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shockwave

So far, no one on this thread seems to know what ASEX is (or have any reason to believe it actually exists), so I've started to make some inquiries among people who hopefully know something about the matter. My suspicion is that it is an idea that never got off the ground. And quite possibly, other groups have taken over the functions that it never actually did.

I have seen the term asex used in more than one way (and haven't really seen it used for a while):

1. It is sometimes used as an abbreviation of asexuality in an education and visibility context, whereas ace (originally spelled ase) is used in an identity context.

2. It has also been used as slang for non-sexual displays of affection or fondness.

But, again, it has fallen into disuse in both cases and become a bit archaic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghosts

Sorry for not noticing this! Siggy sent me a message, & I figured I'd respond here as well. Feel free to message me in the future if any other help is needed.

So, ASEX was David's brainchild, & it never really took off. It was basically going to be a way to organize projects via the wiki, if I remember correctly - you could make a page for your project, do updates there, have people sign up for it, etc. That sort of thing. But I think he lost interest in it, & no one else seemed into it (might have been a thread or two about it). You could ask him about it if you'd like, but it was a few years ago. I think you could probably delete the pages specifically about ASEX if you wanted to, but there were other pages associated with it - for example, the Dinosaur comic article that was mentioned in the thread was one of the "ASEX" projects that I had been working on - http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Tracking_asexuality_in_the_media (it was really just me keeping a list of media appearances) Maybe you'd want to keep pages like that? Definitely out of date, though, but maybe worth keeping, especially if someone wants to put some more work into it. The college articles were also part of this - so people could look up different universities, see what's going on, see how to get involved - but again, it never took off. I see no reason to keep it, if it's still there.

Also, my other suggestion if you haven't thought about it yet - if you're not sure who to ask about certain articles on there, maybe check the editing history? You can find out who started the page, who worked on it, etc.

Hope that helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Thanks! This confirms my suspicions about ASEX, so probably deleting (large parts) and reorganizing the useful bits would be a good idea. It seems that no one ever really got into the wiki, and now, if someone has a project they want to do, they just do it. And if they want feedback, they go to the vis/ed forum rather than the wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
echidna

It's good to see the wiki being re-invigorated. It is only of any value if it is kept up-to-date and that certainly hadn't been happening. In fact I think most AVEN users don't even know it's there.

In one of the posts, the open letters are mentioned. I wrote the original versions of those at a time when the front page was going to be re-designed. The idea was that we needed to cater for two types of people: 1) people happy to browse through forums and discover things in a haphazard way, enjoying the conversations etc. 2) people who wanted quick, easy-to-find information about asexuality and aven itself. The latter would include professionals working in any field where an understanding of sexuality is important. The concern was that the website was great for the former type of person but bad for the latter. AVEN didn't seem to have a voice of it's own, it was just a place where lots of individual voices could be heard. If AVEN was to become a respected organisation amongst professionals, they shouldn't just see it as a bunch of students chatting online and printing a multitude of badly edited leaflets.

The open letters were supposed to be one way that the different groups of people to whom the letters were addressed, could learn why AVEN thought they should understand and recognise asexuality as an orientation. They ended up in the wiki because the front page didn't get re-designed. As for the bigger picture, I think the anarchist approach won the day. Personally I think that's a shame but I understand David didn't want to take control of what he'd initiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Thanks Hound, Ghosts, and Echinda for giving some insight into this : )

Where do we go from here?

Regarding the open letters, is it possible that they could still go somewhere on the main page? As it is, I doubt they are being seen by scientists or health professionals, and they would have a better chance on the main page of AVEN. Also, it might be an idea to give them some information following the letter about where to go on the AVEN forums for, say, recruitment for a survey… or things like that.

Most of these articles have not been updated in several years because people use meetup mart instead. The only exceptions I can see to this are the Chicago meetups and London meetups.

None of these have been touched in a couple of years, however… maybe this page has the could be useful for those who want to do something for visibility on their campus… if it was updated?

Which leads me to this: I still see potential for stuff from ASEX to be a resource, so when someone comes to the Vis/Ed forum to build and discuss a project, they could also be linked to the wiki (more for ideas than for organizing, as the forum is a better place for the latter). I think there are articles that are salvageable, but it would be easier if the related content was shifted away from the name ASEX and towards more general names like Visibility. For example:

ASEX:Visibility

If someone could delete the redirect page from Visibility then I can move this to that title without losing the page history. That page still has valid information, it just could use some updating.

Also Get Involved still seems useful as a hub?

However, I feel that this page could go completely. It hasn’t been significantly updated in several years and like Siggy said, doesn’t really give a clear idea of what is going on (since it isn’t really going on anymore).

ETA: I forgot to say that I agree that the wiki is probably not too well known on AVEN, but it is only going to become well known if it is really useful, and it is only going to be really useful if there is work done to improve it.

I know that is a lot to wade through, and excising some of this stuff cleanly will take a little time since it is linked from other pages. I would be up for it but I can’t delete pages, so I wanted to get my thoughts out there… for some reason :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

A thought:

Perhaps the problem with the AVENwiki is that it's not advertised well enough to members. It's a single item in one of the menus on the front page. The people most likely to edit the wiki are the people who hang out in the forums, and who hardly ever visit the front page. It should be linked directly from the forums... somewhere.

Furthermore, if part of AVENwiki's goal is to be quasi-static content for new-comers, perhaps it also deserves a more prominent position on the front page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Hmm, seems logical.

I am popping in to say that I made a page, which hopefully is not grossly inaccurate, for the term 'sex-positive'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I think that providing more links to the AVENwiki would be a good idea. I am currently inquiring into ways to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

I just found that someone changed Rabger's Model on the wiki. In Rabger's model, asexuality has always been defined by lack of primary sexual desire. But someone must've assumed this was a typo, and changed it to primary sexual attraction. WTF?

I've resisted ranting about Rabger's Model for this long, but no longer. Why is it given so much respect? Because it's on the wiki. Why's it on the wiki? Because it was a hot topic around the time of the creation and solidification of the wiki. The fact that it was changed, and no one noticed for months indicates to me that people don't actually know what the model says. What it says doesn't matter, because it makes just as much sense to people either way. In fact, based on some things written by Rabger himself, the model he proposed is actually somewhat different from what has been on the wiki all this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Sounds good, Mandrewliter : )

The fact that it was changed, and no one noticed for months indicates to me that people don't actually know what the model says.

That is kind of telling right there.

One of my issues with that model stems from a very basic problem: it is unnecessarily complicated* to outsiders (even insiders?). For example if someone says “I experience secondary sexual attraction” then they are going to have to elaborate on what that is just the same as if they say “I’m demisexual”.

Actually, I recently changed the article on demisexuality for this reason. The very first sentence used to say:

“A person who identifies as a demisexual is, according to Rabger's model, a person who does not experience primary sexual attraction but yet still experiences secondary sexual attraction.”

Even though these terms are explained in the next sentence, it seemed awkward, so now it says flat out:

“A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction until they form a strong emotional connection with someone, often in a romantic relationship.”

Which I think gets to the point faster, and seems to be the way most demisexuals self-define (from threads I have read but I would love for this to be discussed further). OK now I’m off track but while I’m on this, check out this recent page

These pages bring up a difficult point: something that needs to be addressed with the wiki is its tendency to become dogma (or what is perceived to be dogma), especially when there are so few editors to catch mistakes. I’m kind of neurotic (understatement) but when I do edit something I have a definite fear that it could be my misinterpretation and that will be read later as being Fact. Hopefully this keeps me active in preventing this from happening but what is really needed is the opinions of others. Having a group of people who watch Recent changes would be good.

Back to Rabger's model, I'm going to go right ahead and change it back to ‘desire’ but then… what do you think we should do with it? Do many people find it useful? What about the ABCD types?

*EDIT: I'm not trying to say sexuality isn't complicated, but I think my point still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Because of the spread of the term "demisexual" and because the term, etymologically, is based on Rabger's model, I think that's a plausible reason for keeping that in there. One time I proposed a model on my blog and then made a page on the wiki explaining it. (Links for me, Rock on! I mean, information...yeah...) I think that ABCD types should be there because some people did find it helpful, and I think that there is something to be said for including a number of proposed models for asexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Actually, I recently changed the article on demisexuality for this reason. The very first sentence used to say:

“A person who identifies as a demisexual is, according to Rabger's model, a person who does not experience primary sexual attraction but yet still experiences secondary sexual attraction.”

Even though these terms are explained in the next sentence, it seemed awkward, so now it says flat out:

“A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction until they form a strong emotional connection with someone, often in a romantic relationship.”

Good call. The way it was before, it put Rabger's model ahead of all other ways of understanding demisexuality. You don't need to have even heard of Rabger's model to identify as demisexual!

Which I think gets to the point faster, and seems to be the way most demisexuals self-define (from threads I have read but I would love for this to be discussed further). OK now I’m off track but while I’m on this, check out this recent page

Call it what it is: vandalism. I guess you don't have the power to delete articles, but you can mark them as spam, right?

Back to Rabger's model, I'm going to go right ahead and change it back to ‘desire’ but then… what do you think we should do with it? Do many people find it useful? What about the ABCD types?

No, I don't advocate the removal of Rabger's model. It's there, and it's made its way into asexual discourse. I wouldn't complain about it if no one ever talked about it.

I also dislike ABCD, for other reasons. From what I've heard, ABCD was popular around the time of the Nonlibidoism Society, when everyone was a lot more concerned about sex drive. I've asked DJ about it, and he said it was kind of disastrous, encouraging everyone to divide themselves up into these four narrow boxes. He had to step in at some point and tell people to stop using it. And now, hardly anyone has ever heard of it.

But I would leave ABCD in, because it's good to have an assortment of models. Whatever helps people make sense of themselves.

One time I proposed a model on my blog and then made a page on the wiki explaining it. (Links for me, Rock on! I mean, information...yeah...)

LOL. I sort of wish I could do the same, proposing some sort of social constructionist model of attraction, and putting it on the wiki. But I would feel really bad if it's just my model, and it was not discussed by anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hexaquark

Because of the spread of the term "demisexual" and because the term, etymologically, is based on Rabger's model, I think that's a plausible reason for keeping that in there.

I think that ABCD types should be there because some people did find it helpful, and I think that there is something to be said for including a number of proposed models for asexuality.

I don't advocate the removal of Rabger's model. It's there, and it's made its way into asexual discourse. I wouldn't complain about it if no one ever talked about it.

I would leave ABCD in, because it's good to have an assortment of models. Whatever helps people make sense of themselves.

Oops, I hope I didn’t come off as “Delete them! THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.” This is not what I intended…

One time I proposed a model on my blog and then made a page on the wiki explaining it. (Links for me, Rock on! I mean, information...yeah...)

:lol: I’ve always liked the dual definitional model, because it seems the most up to date in terms of current discourse and because it doesn’t introduce jargon that people might not be interested in learning. It is intuitive. Also it follows the whole “you are the only one who can determine if you are asexual” attitude that AVEN was founded on – a big part of the forum’s history.

The ABCD and Rabger models feel dated but they are also part of AVEN’s history, albeit in a slightly different way… reading old threads about them, it seems that they were controversial at the time, and the wiki doesn’t stress that too much. That and they are not used much anymore. However, I never meant that they should be discarded, I’m more probing to get opinions on where they fit in currently, especially since there is an evolution towards using the terms demisexual and grey-a instead. Also I wanted to know how to edit the article if it didn't reflect Rabger's model accurately to begin with.

I sort of wish I could do the same, proposing some sort of social constructionist model of attraction, and putting it on the wiki. But I would feel really bad if it's just my model, and it was not discussed by anyone else.

Maybe you could propose one on AVEN? I’m all for more models, just please no more Types and Subtypes categorized by numbers and letters! It seems so clinical. We should become robots. I am model A8#95U.

...

Perhaps the model pages need “Limitations/Criticism” sections to give people something to gnaw on. It is good to point out limits because it promotes more balanced thinking. For example, Storms’ model (like the Kinsey Scale) does nothing for the genderqueer, doesn’t go into romantic orientation etc. Do models even exist for genderqueer sexual orientation?

OK now I’m in way over my head, I feel so ignorant when it comes to all this psychology/sexology/sociology stuff. I haven’t even taken a Psyc 101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now