Jump to content

Front page revamp - help required


michaeld

Recommended Posts

I'm interested in helping with #2 and/or #3. I'm actually a graphic designer (or will officially be when I graduate on March next year) and one of my interest areas is motion graphics, so I think I could help if you need an animated infographic or anything of that sort. I have a video I previously made for a class, unfortunately the audio and some text is in Spanish only, but I could PM you a link so you have the grasp of what I can do (wouldn't want a video done with MS Paint graphics on Windows Movie Maker, would we? XD)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone! If you wish to join the Skype group, please message me or mic (or someone) with your skype name and we can add you to the group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding #1, what I find the front page lacking is a description of what sexual attraction is / what it feels like. I was having trouble identifying whether I'm ace because I didn't know if I'd ever felt sexual attraction before. After I read forums / blog posts from allosexuals about what it feels like, I immediately was able to say, "Huh. I definitely have never felt that before. I must be ace!"

I've received a lot of emails saying the exact same thing. Confused because they don't know what sexual attraction is in the first place. Even if its not front page (although that would be ideal) we need to have this addressed somewhere.

There is; it's in the General FAQ; a few scrolls down the page past the links. The FAQ also needs to be more visible and maybe on the forum page too. The initials FAQ pop out vs "about asexuality" doesn't, so it seems "Asexuality FAQ" would be the best option to distinguish it's not site FAQ.

Truth be told, I think one big reason it's not addressed is that there is no agreed definition of sexual attraction. We can give some possible ideas though, and remark it's not agreed upon.

There may not be an agreed definition, but there is an agreement on what an asexual is; someone who does not desire sex.

In fact, the sexual attraction definition is inaccurate because asexuals both don't have sexual attraction and don't have a desire for sex (sex-drive). An attraction is a pull (e.g. directed pull to be sexual with someone), a drive is to act in a certain way and can exist alone (e.g. an undirected desire for sex), as well as not exist while having sexual attraction. This difference obviously wasn't visible when the definition was coined. Sexual arousal is also separate (allosexuals and sex doctors agree; all three are just typically together in most people, but even occasionally separate for them too). And sexuality is defined as desiring sex; there's not even anything about arousal in it. This distinction needs to be made because of Cupiosexuality; someone who acts on their sex-drive while not finding anyone sexually enticing/sexually attractive (different from enjoying sex; they actually desire it; Cupio means desire). They're either going by asexual (do i have to explain the allosexual backlash that would cause on the orientation?) or putting asexual in the definition of the term. I don't mean to bring a rant on this thread, but this is a problem that needs to be adressed, and it can be easily fixed by making the definition of asexuality clear. AVEN says they don't want to define it further because they don't want to invalidate anyone, but that's a people pleaser mentality that gets you nowhere. We can say all these things that it is, but we can never say what it isn't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 1: More variety in the color scheme. The purple is great but it's very bland. It would be awesome to spice it up and make it more 'official' and legitamate by adding some photos.

Point 2: I love doing editing work, I could definetly help out with proofing.

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

I was supposed to post this about a week ago, but got distracted and have only since remembered to do so.

Anyway, (as discussed in the Ace Community Town Hall) I am in the process of developing an API for Asexual Outreach's event finder so that the AVEN front page can always display the next few upcoming community events (and then link people back to the comprehensive event/group finder on Asexual Outreach's website).

When a developer/multiple developers are selected, I would be more than happy to help them implement this on the AVEN front page. (Additionally, I will probably be developing a wordpress plugin, so if you go with Wordpress that will be an even easier process.)

I will publish the api specifications when it is finished as well.

- EDIT -

You can take a look at Asexual Outreach's event finder API specifications at http://dev.asexualoutreach.org

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

I support the migration to Wordpress. What is in use today? Drupal? Wordpress is definitely easier.

Also, I have a question. To time in time, it will be needed to update the code base or fix something. Server Access rights are a sensitive thing so they are centralized in Coleslaw (as member of #Webmasters) but development is not. In theory we may collaborate as developers and push our changes in a code repository, let's say Bitbucket or Github. From there a webmaster may review and take the latest changes and deploy them in the server. There is something like this in use right now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Sorry for letting this slide - I've been really busy. As it's AAW, I think it's time for getting on top of this. Therefore I'll be contacting people individually over the next few days to assign particular things. I think we have a lot of good ideas from the skype group and it's time to get writing and coding. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's too late to throw my hat in the ring, but I can help with #3. I'm a graphic designer with some basic web design experience and basic web coding (basically, I can tweak it, but I rely on Dreamweaver to do the heavy lifting).

Link to post
Share on other sites
diconstruction

I'm studying web development right now, so for any of your tech needs, let me know!

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

Regarding #1, what I find the front page lacking is a description of what sexual attraction is / what it feels like. I was having trouble identifying whether I'm ace because I didn't know if I'd ever felt sexual attraction before. After I read forums / blog posts from allosexuals about what it feels like, I immediately was able to say, "Huh. I definitely have never felt that before. I must be ace!"

Are we sticking with Drupal or is Cole switching to WordPress?

I would like to see the urls be reverted to how it was before, since the current structure with /?q=page.html looks weird, is unnecessary, and breaks all previous links. If anything, we can use clean urls with just /page

These are really questions for Coles, our tech admin. I've pinged her. :)

I'd very much like to proofread. I sent a PM as well.

Thank you!

8. Personally, I actually prefer not giving a clear definition of sexual attraction, since there likely really isn't a clear universal definition, and trying to make one usually causes a lot of problems for various groups.

With #8 I we can keep it vague while also giving different ideas. For example some people define sexual attraction as "an innate desire for partnered sex" and some disagree with that definition. Some (such as myself) prefer to define as "directed libido"; however there are some people who say they experience sexual attraction without any kind of libido. (Of course there are many more in the ace community who are the other way round: libido but no sexual attraction.)

And then some people do not agree with the lack of sexual attraction definition at all: I think there should be some coverage of the alternative views, even though the lack of sexual attraction definition will remain our "official" definition of asexuality, to the extent we have such a thing. I think that as long as we give several different ideas, and further links if necessary, we'll get across the point that there is much diversity of opinion on what sexual attraction is.

What would be a big mistake is to declare "sexual attraction is ___" as if it's an open and shut case. We won't be doing that.

Another thing we can do to keep the site fresh is have a "definition of the day (or week)". More generally, we need volunteers for keeping the front page up to date consistently, week by week. That's a task I'd be exceptionally bad at. Cicero is great at it, but it can't be down to one person to do everything. I think it would be reasonable for one person to keep it up to date in one particular way - e.g. the list of news articles in the last week, definition of the week, perhaps a revived post of the week, etc - just one of these per person. So if anyone thinks they could do this kind of thing, at least for a period, let us know!

Regarding #1, what I find the front page lacking is a description of what sexual attraction is / what it feels like. I was having trouble identifying whether I'm ace because I didn't know if I'd ever felt sexual attraction before. After I read forums / blog posts from allosexuals about what it feels like, I immediately was able to say, "Huh. I definitely have never felt that before. I must be ace!"

I've received a lot of emails saying the exact same thing. Confused because they don't know what sexual attraction is in the first place. Even if its not front page (although that would be ideal) we need to have this addressed somewhere.

There is; it's in the General FAQ; a few scrolls down the page past the links. The FAQ also needs to be more visible and maybe on the forum page too. The initials FAQ pop out vs "about asexuality" doesn't, so it seems "Asexuality FAQ" would be the best option.

Btw, i sent you a message about something else but you haven't replied.

Truth be told, I think one big reason it's not addressed is that there is no agreed definition of sexual attraction. We can give some possible ideas though, and remark it's not agreed upon.

There may not be an agreed definition, but there is an agreement on what an asexual is; someone who does not desire sex.

In fact, the sexual attraction definition is inaccurate because asexuals both don't have sexual attraction and don't have a desire for sex (sex-drive). An attraction is a pull (e.g. directed pull to be sexual with someone), a drive is to act in a certain way and can exist alone (e.g. an undirected desire for sex), as well as not exist while having sexual attraction. This difference obviously wasn't visible when the definition was coined. Sexual arousal is also separate (allosexuals and sex doctors agree; all three are just typically together in most people, but even occasionally separate for them too). And sexuality is defined as desiring sex; there's not even anything about arousal in it. This distinction needs to be made because of Cupiosexuality; someone who acts on their sex-drive while not finding anyone sexually enticing/sexually attractive (different from enjoying sex; they actually desire it; Cupio means desire). They're either going by asexual (do i have to explain the allosexual backlash that would cause on the orientation?) or putting asexual in the definition of the term. I don't mean to bring a rant on this thread, but this is a problem that needs to be adressed, and it can be easily fixed by making the definition of asexuality clear. AVEN says they don't want to define it further because they don't want to invalidate anyone, but that's a people pleaser mentality that gets you nowhere. We can say all these things that it is, but we can never say what it isn't?

Btw, you haven't replied to my message either.

First of all, I really wish I had seen this sooner. I subscribed to this forum, however, I must have done so after this thread creation. I definitely think the definition of "asexuality" is important as there are many people who visit this site and continually ask "Am I asexual?" "No sexual attraction" has numerous meanings and therefore is an unclear and difficult to understand definition; it's also unhelpful to those discovering "asexuality" and whether or not it applies to them. I think it's important to have a clear and concise definition for visibility and education efforts, especially those targeted at the medical community. I'd really like to follow or be involved in the changes that may be made to that particular section on the front page, however, I don't know how to do so. "Asexuality" (as the current definition stands) doesn't really mean or explain or say anything about a person at all, except that they identify with the label and choose to use it, and I think it's really important to address that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most sexual people who you speak to really in depth about this particular topic agree that what makes them sexual is their undrelying desire for partnered sexual contact with other people. The reasons they choose who they choose to have sex with differ greatly from person to person, but often have nothing to do with the other persons appearance. It is a common misunderstanding here that sexual people develop sexual feelings about another person's appearance, ie "he's hot I want to have sex with him" or whatever, and this is what makes them sexual. In reality, only Some sexual people experience this, there are a myriad of reasons why sexual people have sex, and they all vary greatly. What all Sexual people do have in common however is that to some extent or another, they all desire partnered sexual contact with other people. It is the lack of this experience that makes asexuals "different" from sexuals. Sexuals desire partnered sexual contact. Their sexual orientation (ie homosexual) defines the gender/s their desire for partnered sex is directed at. Homosexual = desires partnered sex with people of the same gender as yourself. A-sexual = without a desire for partnered sex.

Taking all of the above into account, I would like to see AVENs definition of sexual attraction (''the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them'') remain 1) unchanged: Don't go dicking around with it or removing it because it actually is a very clear and accurate definition, and 2) made more visible(ie by putting it near the top of the front page so that anyone who goes to the page can see the definition without having to go hunting for it)

Can't link on my phone, but anyone who has issues with the idea that asexuality is a lack of desire for partnered sexual contact, or wants to learn more about this idea, needs to go to the "defining asexuality: a better definition" thread in the Census Forum and read the last few pages of comments if they want to see my thoughts on the matter, as well as heaps of other interesting info shared by other members on why the current definition of asexuality is inaccurate UNLESS you define sexual attraction as the desire for partnered sex. You can also see a sexual persons thoughts on the matter, which obviously are invaluable if you ask me. There are sexual people on AVEN who see the current definition as a joke and know from personal experience that what makes them sexual is their desire for partnered sex with other people and that's the only defining factor. It's THEM we should be listening to when trying to define what makes sexual people sexual (and therefore what makes us asexual) because they certainly have a far better idea of what it means to be sexual than most asexuals do. Lets stop ignoring them.

The thread is pinned in the Census Forum so easy to find. Also don't bother with the definitions in the poll, that was made by someone a long time ago who wasn't expecting the definition issue to be discussed to such an extent. The people who have been active in that thread for over a year now are slowly coming up with better, clearer definitions than the ones given in the poll.

And just to be clear regarding the definitions of asexuality debate, I would prefer the definition be changed to a desire-based one to more accurately depict what it is that makes someone asexual, but due to the amount of resistance that idea faces, I don't so much mind the definition remaining 'sexual attraction' as long as the definition of sexual attraction (as the desire for partnered sexual contact) is visible to everyone.

Cheers :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given up on the "sexual attraction" thing because too many people have trouble with it.

I haven't seen anyone cavil at "no innate/inherent desire for partnered sex" and I'd like it to be the actual definition of asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There definitely are objections to desire based definitions (even with the "innate" qualifier).

As far as 'the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them' - this is not actually AVEN's definition of sexual attraction, because AVEN doesn't really have an official definition of sexual attraction. There are several candidate definitions. The above is one. Another is "directed libdo". We are not likely to promote any one of these as "the" definition, but we can give a page outlining the different possibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There definitely are objections to desire based definitions (even with the "innate" qualifier).

Wow -- maybe it's because the "desire" word hangs people up. But if it's qualified by "for partnered sex", I just can't figure out why it's not favored -- because with that qualifier, it has nothing to do with libido.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given up on the "sexual attraction" thing because too many people have trouble with it.

I haven't seen anyone cavil at "no innate/inherent desire for partnered sex" and I'd like it to be the actual definition of asexuality.

Yeah I agree, but someone told me that the revamp team was considering removing the definition of sexual attraction (''the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them'' from the front page. This would be a massive (and very disappointing) step back for AVEN, so I just wanted to make my opinion clear on the matter. I definitely want that definition of sexual attraction to remain, and be made more visible than it currently is. I know many people on this site want the same thing.

Ah, they replied while I was writing this comment.

There definitely are objections to desire based definitions (even with the "innate" qualifier).

As far as 'the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them' - this is not actually AVEN's definition of sexual attraction, because AVEN doesn't really have an official definition of sexual attraction. There are several candidate definitions. The above is one. Another is "directed libdo". We are not likely to promote any one of these as "the" definition, but we can give a page outlining the different possibilities.

Like I said, it would be a huge step back for AVEN to remove that definition from the front page. AVEN (being the main asexuality resource) has a responsibility to have a clear definition of asexuality and sexual attraction, as opposed to just confusing people as to what asexuality is even more.

Again, listen to the sexual people here. If the one thing that all sexual people have in common is that they desire partnered sex (who they desire it with, why they desire it with them, and how often they desire it are all variable) then it's the lack of that experience that makes someone a-sexual.

It's a really big copout to refuse to take a stance on sexual attraction. What is the point on calling it the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network if you cannot educate anyone on what asexuality actually is on your own website? (sure the 'definition' is up the top there, but you need an explanation of that definition, for anyone to be able to accurately understand it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Panficto.

Removing the desire part the definition would be a horrible decision. I said this many time on AVEN, but when I first learned of asexuality I spent months trying to figure out what sexual attraction was, and just got more and more confused. It was only after I removed the term "attraction" and say to myself I had no "desire" to ever have sex did the term asexual feel right to me, and I have only felt that it fit me all the more since then.

If anything I would prefer to see the banner at the top mention both attraction and desire as not to exclude anyone, but I am convinced that to include "sexual attraction" and not mention desire at all will only leave more people drifting in a sea of uncertainty and self doubt that I experienced. No one should have to endure that if they don't have to.

Please don't remove the term "desire."

Link to post
Share on other sites

There definitely are objections to desire based definitions (even with the "innate" qualifier).

Wow -- maybe it's because the "desire" word hangs people up. But if it's qualified by "for partnered sex", I just can't figure out why it's not favored -- because that qualifier, it has nothing to do with libido.

It's because there are so many people here who say they desire and love partnered sex but don't find anyone attractive in a way that makes them want sex, so (according to them) they are asexual. This is just a total misunderstanding of sexuality and not actually anything to do with asexuality.

Believe me, not all sexuals want sex purely due to finding aspects of another person ''attractive'' in a ''special way''. Plenty of sexuals desire sex as an intimate experience they can share with someone they love, some are driven to seek sex just because they enjoy it and it doesn't really matter who it's with, there are all sorts of reasons. The idea you can desire and love having partnered sex and be asexual, as long as you don't find anyone attractive in a way that makes you want to have sex with them (so you have sex for the sex itself, not out of desire for the person you have it with) is actually very offensive to many sexual people, because its pretty much saying that all sexuals are shallow, horny beasts who only want sex based on finding others attractive in certain ways. What a load of garbage.

The other argument against a desire-based definition I see often here is: ''I love having sex with my partner because it is such an intimate act for us both, and I definitely love the sex when we have it, I just don't find my partner attractive in a way that makes me want to have sex with him/her, so I am asexual'' Again, a massive misunderstanding of sexuality. Yes, sexual people can desire sex purely for the intimacy they experience from it, and it can have nothing to do with ''looking at their partner and being turned on'' or any other such thing.

So that's where a lot of the angst against the desire-based definition comes in: A massive (and rather offensive) misunderstanding of sexuality, which in turn leads to a massive misunderstanding of asexuality.

Just to be clear for everyone, a desire based definition isn't trying to say that asexuals cannot have sex (and even enjoy the sensations of sex) it's just making clear that if faced with celibacy for the rest of their life, an asexual would live very happily with that because they don't desire partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. They aren't going to miss something they don't desire.

I am just saying that the current desire-based definition of sexual attraction needs to remain, and needs to be made more visible than it already is. It's the only way anyone can get any real understanding of what asexuality actually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about removing any definition of sexual attraction. All I'm saying is that we should not IMO promote one definition of sexual attraction as "the" definition. There simply isn't the level of consensus in the ace community for that, again IMO.

Although the vagueness of the term sexual attraction can be annoying, it has its advantages too. It gives people more scope to decide for themselves if the term asexual fits them, given the lack of sexual attraction definition. The downside is that maybe some people will identify as asexual when others think they are not asexual, but that's generally considered a Type II error. Our aim is to be as inclusive as possible within reason. A bit of vagueness seems a reasonable price to pay for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about removing any definition of sexual attraction. All I'm saying is that we should not IMO promote one definition of sexual attraction as "the" definition. There simply isn't the level of consensus in the ace community for that, again IMO.

Although the vagueness of the term sexual attraction can be annoying, it has its advantages too. It gives people more scope to decide for themselves if the term asexual fits them, given the lack of sexual attraction definition. The downside is that maybe some people will identify as asexual when others think they are not asexual, but that's generally considered a Type II error. Our aim is to be as inclusive as possible within reason. A bit of vagueness seems a reasonable price to pay for that.

If you are trying to be as inclusive as possible why not use some form of the "and/or" definition?

An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction and/or does not desire to have sexual intercourse with others

Because the vagueness of sexual attraction almost made me make the opposite mistake, thinking I was a sexual when I wasn't because I couldn't figure out if the attractions I experienced were sexual or not. False positives are not a big deal I agree, but in my opinion false negatives are huge problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of asexuality as lack of sexual attraction is very well established now, and most of the community seems to agree with it IMO. It would be very difficult to change at this point, and I just don't think such a change has enough support across the community. That being said, it's completely right that we should highlight alternative definitions too such as the and/or definition you mention. Another is to replace "no sexual attraction" with "little or no sexual attraction".

I totally agree we need to say something about sexual attraction to reassure people in cases such as your own. I just don't think promoting one particular definition of sexual attraction is the way to do that. I think it's better to give a list of possible definitions as that's more reflective of the diversity of opinion out there. We can also give a list of examples or mini-testimonials - people of various types who describe their experience and why they consider themselves asexual. I hope that would reassure people appropriately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Plectrophenax

There definitely are objections to desire based definitions (even with the "innate" qualifier).

As far as 'the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them' - this is not actually AVEN's definition of sexual attraction, because AVEN doesn't really have an official definition of sexual attraction. There are several candidate definitions. The above is one. Another is "directed libdo". We are not likely to promote any one of these as "the" definition, but we can give a page outlining the different possibilities.

I agree that the desire-based definitons are not perfect either. My last few posts on the "Defining asexuality" thread have been entirely devoted to fully grasp the notion - perhaps even addressing some of your concerns.

Even so, surely the desire-approach is less ambiguous [or even just more basic and general] than the attraction-approach. I find it hard to dispute that. Just check the amount of threads devoted to carifying the notion of attraction vs the ones devoted to clarifying the notion of desire.

And "the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them" is not AVENs definition of sexual attraction [how could it be, the connection isn't made clear at all] but it is AVENs conceptualisation of asexuality. Or, at least, one of them that could [and probably should] be made more prominent. And if it's actually considered to be a clarification of sexual attraction, that would just further indicate that 'desire' is closer to the 'essence' of asexuality than 'attraction' is - which would seem to make it a better candidate for a proper conceptualisation.

Also, regarding your latest post, having a comprehensive list of possible alterations to the definiton of asexuality would be great, and making it easily accessible would be too. However, whichever shorthand 'definition' is going to be used as a banner [or whichever one will be seen first] will naturally be taken to be either the most suitable or at least the most popular one, let alone the one AVEN favours or utilises most. This is a good thing too, since we won't get very far when we have a table full of differing definitions to offer. So the best option would be to pick the most general and most stripped-down notion [which would ideally encapsule at least an aspect of all other definitions] and use that one. This may be the current attraction-based definition, but it may well not be. Perhaps a project team [or a forum-wide vote] would be in order?

Link to post
Share on other sites

<_< Told ya they'd still just make excuses; still singing an opera out their butt.

I could come up with dozens of examples why misconceptions (i.e. a misconceptioned definition of asexuality with the word sexual attraction) shouldn't continue reguardless of how long they've been around, especially when something like an orientation needs to be run on facts, not opinion. One such being that homosexuality was put in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1952 and removed in 1973. The current asexual definition has been around since 2002 i think; making the term 13 years old. Homosexuality was misconceptualized for 21. The sexual misconception of Furries happend around the same time as asexualities current definition, and a ton of people still have that misconception, does that mean we should just let the fandom completely become perverts exclusive? (no disrespect to any who are)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If my wording seems to suggest that we get rid of the term "sexual attraction" let me apologize because that was not my intention at all. Nor am I asking that we redefine "sexual attraction" or give emphasis to a different definition. Like you say, giving a variety of definitions for that term sounds good.

I just would like to see desire added with an "and/or" at the end of the definition given at the top of the page. Just a short phrase to be more inclusive and clear.

In regards to the ace communities opinion, how can support for such an addition ever materialize if it is never given a chance? Maybe the lettering on the and/or should be smaller or something like that till it catches on?

Putting little or no sexual attraction would be great for the gray-aces but it still would not help the aces with no desire learn and understand that they are just as asexual. And shouldn't that be the main focus? Helping improve education and visibility? Shouldn't educating people that they (or their friends/family members) are not broken but simply different be the number 1 goal of the site? Further, wouldn't increasing the number of false negatives decrease the number of self identified asexuals and decreases our visibility.

Again, I completely agree that adding a list of definitions and testimonials would be great, but I fear that a large number of people won't get that far in and might just see the message at the top and be might end up becoming a false negative or telling said friend/family member that they aren't asexual. I feel that if we want to be inclusive that something needs to be added about lack of desire to the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

At first I supported the sexual attraction definition but after a long time I changed my mind. I do feel a desire based definition or a definition that includes desire would be better. It's more clear and it explains what sexual attraction is, at least to me it does.

If the definition includes lacking sexual attraction then that should be explained for educational reasons. Why should Asexuality be whatever someone wants it to be? Homosexuality and Bisexuality for example are understood better because there's a clear definition for them.

I would support an and/or definition or having desire posted somewhere.

Edit: Ok I still see sexual attraction mentioned in searches for sexual orientations, but I still think sexual attraction should be explained somewhere so people can understand better. I also just looked up Sexuality and saw desire mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about removing any definition of sexual attraction. All I'm saying is that we should not IMO promote one definition of sexual attraction as "the" definition. There simply isn't the level of consensus in the ace community for that, again IMO.

The only consistent way to go then is to make crystal clear that AVEN simply does not have a stance on what "asexuality" is, and does not support any definition of "asexuality". This would mean that your job is to remove (or at the very least, amend and modify) the banner at the top of the page as part of the front page revamp, as it clearly implies the exact opposite.

If you take the "we don't promote one definition" easy way out, then keeping the "asexuality = no sexual attraction" bit is blatant false advertising. Miseducation, because AVEN's stance is inherently dishonest. Asexuality, according to your view, is the state of calling oneself asexual. Nothing more, nothing less. AVEN owns it to the world to be honest about that, if the V&E in the page name isn't supposed to be full on People's Republic of Tyranny-style propaganda. And on these grounds of "you're asexual if you call yourself that (and use the magic word)", AVEN simply doesn't have a foot to stand on pretending that "asexuality" were a legitimate orientation instead of an internet club/socializing site for people with a common interest. You can't freely cater to "everyone is in if they want" snowflakery, and at the same time be seeking to jump onto the LGBT+ bandwagon while complaining about it when LGBT+ folks refuse to let "asexuals" into their midst. They are fully right to show "asexuals" the door, because they don't let cishet Trekkies in, either.

Adding a definition to the FAQ was a huge step forward, and one that was decided through open input of the community. And please don't try to call that "one candidate" of definition - it simply doesn't become much more "official AVEN stance" than putting something into the site's general FAQ. Don't undo that. Don't pretend it wasn't huge when it happened. And don't hide something that basically boils down to "we've decided the FAQ makes us not snowflakey enough" under the title of front page revamp. The fact that I only noticed this scandal - and make no mistake, it is scandalous - through Star Bit's comment in a completely different thread shows that apparently the PT has taken a road away from transparency and community input since the FAQ revamp happened. That is bad. Very, very bad.

I expect the full wording of any changes in the revamp to be put up for discussion and modification publicly before it is allowed to go live on AVEN's actual front page. It is obvious that we cannot and should not trust an independently acting small group with this amount of redefinatory power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only consistent way to go then is to make crystal clear that AVEN simply does not have a stance on what "asexuality" is, and does not support any definition of "asexuality". This would mean that your job is to remove (or at the very least, amend and modify) the banner at the top of the page as part of the front page revamp, as it clearly implies the exact opposite.

What I said is that IMO we should not promote one definition of sexual attraction as being "the" definition. I haven't said the same about the definition of asexuality.

One difference is that 'sexual attraction' as a term is in use by the wider population often in contexts that have nothing to do with asexuality. On the other hand, we can absolutely say that sexual attraction can mean __, __, __. We can even say that in the asexual community we generally mean ___ by sexual attraction (if there is such a consensus, which I don't believe there is at present).

Asexuality, according to your view, is the state of calling oneself asexual. Nothing more, nothing less. AVEN owns it to the world to be honest about that,

That is only one view of asexuality, known as the collective identity model. It is not in any way AVEN's official definition.

What is true is that on AVEN, we accept people's self-identification as far as sexuality goes. That's not the same as saying that someone identifying as asexual makes them asexual. It means they are in a better position to know their sexuality than anyone else, and even if they're wrong about it according to some objective criterion, the harm caused by invalidating someone's identity far outweighs any possible benefit.

Many LGBT+ groups have exactly the same norm: if someone says they are gay or lesbian then that is accepted. That doesn't mean they believe that saying you're gay or lesbian makes it so. It's to avoid "more gay/lesbian than thou" wars, whose harm can outweigh possibly letting in some people who don't belong according to a more objective definition.

Adding a definition to the FAQ was a huge step forward, and one that was decided through open input of the community. And please don't try to call that "one candidate" of definition - it simply doesn't become much more "official AVEN stance" than putting something into the site's general FAQ. Don't undo that. Don't pretend it wasn't huge when it happened. And don't hide something that basically boils down to "we've decided the FAQ makes us not snowflakey enough" under the title of front page revamp. The fact that I only noticed this scandal - and make no mistake, it is scandalous - through Star Bit's comment in a completely different thread shows that apparently the PT has taken a road away from transparency and community input since the FAQ revamp happened. That is bad. Very, very bad.

I expect the full wording of any changes in the revamp to be put up for discussion and modification publicly before it is allowed to go live on AVEN's actual front page. It is obvious that we cannot and should not trust an independently acting small group with this amount of redefinatory power.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This thread is not hidden in any way. The front page revamp is just what it sounds like. It was never my intention to change any definitions. It was to bring the entire front page up to date. I wouldn't even have brought the definitional issue up for discussion - but many others on this thread have as it's clearly an important issue to many.

And I don't see how discussing this in public is anything other than an open and transparent approach. In fact I fully expect most of the heavy lifting regarding the front page revamp to be done by members who are not PT or staff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said is that IMO we should not promote one definition of sexual attraction as being "the" definition. I haven't said the same about the definition of asexuality.

One difference is that 'sexual attraction' as a term is in use by the wider population often in contexts that have nothing to do with asexuality. On the other hand, we can absolutely say that sexual attraction can mean __, __, __. We can even say that in the asexual community we generally mean ___ by sexual attraction (if there is such a consensus, which I don't believe there is at present).

There isn't such a consensus about defining asexuality as "lack of sexual attraction", either, nor to define orientations in terms of attraction, in general. If this argumentation is valid, the top of site banner must go.

That is only one view of asexuality, known as the collective identity model. It is not in any way AVEN's official definition.

Yes, it is. Defining asexuality as lack of s.a., but letting people define s.a. whatever way they want is the exact same thing as letting people define asexuality whatever way they want. Making it clear that AVEN does not have any official definition of asexuality, and de facto goes solely by the collective identity model, would be the honest and transparent thing to do.

What is true is that on AVEN, we accept people's self-identification as far as sexuality goes. That's not the same as saying that someone identifying as asexual makes them asexual. It means they are in a better position to know their sexuality than anyone else, and even if they're wrong about it according to some objective criterion, the harm caused by invalidating someone's identity far outweighs any possible benefit.

I disagree, and I think that is one of the things where AVEN is on a very wrong course. Refusing to exclude anyone harms the goal of visibility and education. AVEN has a problem with trying to be too inclusive.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This thread is not hidden in any way. The front page revamp is just what it sounds like. It was never my intention to change any definitions. It was to bring the entire front page up to date. I wouldn't even have brought the definitional issue up for discussion - but many others on this thread have as it's clearly an important issue to many.

And I don't see how discussing this in public is anything other than an open and transparent approach. In fact I fully expect most of the heavy lifting regarding the front page revamp to be done by members who are not PT or staff.

As long as it continues that way, and any definitory change will continue to happen with input from the entire AVEN community, that's good then.

I hope you do understand why a PT member only starts stating after the prompt of other people voicing there concern that there is an intention of changing definitions in the FAQ that were arrived at by open community input starts ringing all kinds of alarm bells in terms of transparency?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. Defining asexuality as lack of s.a., but letting people define s.a. whatever way they want is the exact same thing as letting people define asexuality whatever way they want.

We do let people define asexuality in whatever way they want. We can't stop people having their own preferred definitions - nor would anyone want to I hope.

That's not the same as saying we define "asexual is the state of calling oneself asexual" as you originally said. It means that anyone that calls themselves asexual is allowed to (as far as AVEN is concerned). There is a difference.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This thread is not hidden in any way. The front page revamp is just what it sounds like. It was never my intention to change any definitions. It was to bring the entire front page up to date. I wouldn't even have brought the definitional issue up for discussion - but many others on this thread have as it's clearly an important issue to many.

And I don't see how discussing this in public is anything other than an open and transparent approach. In fact I fully expect most of the heavy lifting regarding the front page revamp to be done by members who are not PT or staff.

As long as it continues that way, and any definitory change will continue to happen with input from the entire AVEN community, that's good then.

I hope you do understand why a PT member only starts stating after the prompt of other people voicing there concern that there is an intention of changing definitions in the FAQ that were arrived at by open community input starts ringing all kinds of alarm bells in terms of transparency?

I am not aware of stating we are intending to change definitions in the FAQ. When I started this thread, it was not something that I was considering in any way. If we do end up changing something like that it will be done by consensus following an open discussion here.

Again, the front page revamp is about refreshing the look, feel and information on the front page and bringing it up to date generally. It really isn't about changing definitions or making any other high level decisions. Of course the latter may well have an effect on what goes on the front page, but it's a separate discussion IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...