Jump to content

Front page revamp - help required


michaeld

Recommended Posts

I highly recommend this (scholarly) article about asexuality. Of note, the author (Boegart) doesn't seem to support one definition over the other and merely describes what the most common definitions are and a current understanding of "asexuality" based on scholarly research. (see excerpts below) (BOLD is mine)

"a lack of sexual attraction/desire for others may be a defining characteristic of asexuality"

"the definition of asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction (or lack of sexual desire for others) does not necessarily imply that asexual people lack physiological arousal experiences. The capacity for erection and vaginal lubrication in asexual people may be fully intact"

"there are a number of definitions of asexuality, although a lack of sexual attraction (or a lack of desire for others) is, arguably, the most common definition in both recent literature and among individuals who support the most popular chat/Web site (AVEN) devoted to asexuality issues. Also notable is that a lack of attraction is, at least to some degree, independent of other facets of pyschosexual functioning (e.g., sexual desire, sexual behavior, pysiological arousal, romantic inclinations)."

"More research needs to be conducted on the complex relationship between attraction and desire, but recent evidence and theory sugest the lack of desire in asexuals may be primarily a lack of desire for others - not a lack of desire per se; thus again, a lack of sexual attraction/desire for others may be a defining characteristic of asexuality. In short, when there is evidence of a form of desire in asexual people, it is often a "solitary" desire - a desire that is unconnected to others or a nonpartnered desire. For example, there is evidence that a significant number of asexual people masturbate, and thus asexual people may not lack all forms of sexual desire."

"It should also be noted that other definitions of asexuality (e.g. no sexual desire, self identifications) have been forwarded. Moreover, given that research on asexuality is relatively recent and that phenomena of asexuality are likely diverse, it is best to construe a lack of sexual attraction as an open definition that may fluctuate over time. The degree to which the definition does change over time may have interesting implications for studying asexuality’s origins, for clinical issues, and for how we view asexuality as a unique category of sexual orientation."

"Bogaert concluded that 1% may be a reasonable ‘‘working figure’’ for the prevalence rate of asexuality, but at this point we cannot be sure of an exact figure for a number of reasons. The reasons for this ambiguity include the complication of different assessments of asexuality, reflecting the fact that there is not a consensus on a single, definitive conceptualization of the phenomenon."

I think that further explanations of "asexuality" (on the front page or elsewhere) need to be based more on research than opinion. I think it'd be helpful to cite or even link to scholarly articles about asexuality or at least have a reference list of scholarly articles available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the sentence up at the top of the page, next to the AVEN logo? If it's just a quote by an individual person, stating that person's subjective opinion, then it should have quotation marks, and that individual's name.

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.

Do you seriously not see that "defining" asexuality as "no sexual attraction" and then leaving "s.a." to be defined whatever way someone wants means that asexuality is defined whatever way you want?

Clear question, I expect a clear answer: Do you think AVEN even has/promotes/uses a definition of asexuality? If so, what is said definition?

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.

There currently is a definition of "sexual attraction = Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them." (Again: it doesn't get much more official than the general FAQ.)

You have stated that you do not think such a definition should be made, and you are in charge of the team who is in the process of changing the page that definition is on. It should be pretty obvious why that raises concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you seriously not see that "defining" asexuality as "no sexual attraction" and then leaving "s.a." to be defined whatever way someone wants means that asexuality is defined whatever way you want?

My view is that (notwithstanding the FAQ), AVEN does not and should not have an official definition of sexual attraction. That does not mean we think it's defined however someone wants. It just means we're leaving it open.

Clear question, I expect a clear answer: Do you think AVEN even has/promotes/uses a definition of asexuality? If so, what is said definition?[/font][/color]

We do currently promote the lack of sexual attraction definition, yes. So do many (most?) other asexual communities outside AVEN I think. But that doesn't mean we can't give alternatives too. I think we should have a page of alternative definitions as I've said before.

You have stated that you do not think such a definition should be made, and you are in charge of the team who is in the process of changing the page that definition is on. It should be pretty obvious why that raises concerns.

Just because I personally believe something does not mean I'm going to impose my views on the front page revamp. That's why we're having this discussion right here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you seriously not see that "defining" asexuality as "no sexual attraction" and then leaving "s.a." to be defined whatever way someone wants means that asexuality is defined whatever way you want?

My view is that (notwithstanding the FAQ), AVEN does not and should not have an official definition of sexual attraction. That does not mean we think it's defined however someone wants. It just means we're leaving it open.

Clear question, I expect a clear answer: Do you think AVEN even has/promotes/uses a definition of asexuality? If so, what is said definition?[/font][/color]

We do currently promote the lack of sexual attraction definition, yes.

This directly and inevitably means that you do not think AVEN promotes any official definition of asexuality. If the banner is merely a non-official suggestion, that should be made a lot clearer.

So do many (most?) other asexual communities outside AVEN I think.

Not even all asexual communities inside of AVEN do so. Unless you propose that AVEN.de isn't a part of AVEN.

Just because I personally believe something does not mean I'm going to impose my views on the front page revamp. That's why we're having this discussion right here.

And I repeat: That's good to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Valar Morghulis

This is an education and visibility network,a definition on what are we trying to get visibility on is,I think, paramount.

It was supposed to be a place for asexuals and allies, not for sexual people who like the asexual label and we should acomodate them to not hurt anyones sensibilities.

I would like any one of you to go into a homosexuality forum try to say homosexuality is whatever people want to think it is and that you are in love, having sex every day with your opposite gender partner and you are both homosexual.

I expect a minimum of seriousness at an education network were we are trying to obtain visibility and educate over a minority orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This directly and inevitably means that you do not think AVEN promotes any official definition of asexuality.

I think I just said the opposite.

So do many (most?) other asexual communities outside AVEN I think.

Not even all asexual communities inside of AVEN do so.
I didn't make any comment about all asexual communities inside AVEN (or all communities outside AVEN for that matter).

It was supposed to be a place for asexuals and allies, not for sexual people who like the asexual label and we should acomodate them to not hurt anyones sensibilities.

I would like any one of you to go into a homosexuality forum try to say homosexuality is whatever people want to think it is and that you are in love, having sex every day with your opposite gender partner and you are both homosexual.

As I said, we're not promoting the line that asexuality is "whatever people want to think it is". While the collective identity model does say something that could be understood that way, AVEN does not promote the collective identity model in any official way.

As I also mentioned, many LGBT+ spaces similarly disfavour questioning people's self-identification. And it's absolutely possible for a gay person to be in love with another gay person of the opposite sex, and to have sex everyday. That would be a minority behaviour sure, but orientations are not generally defined in terms of behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Valar Morghulis

As I said, we're not promoting the line that asexuality is "whatever people want to think it is". While the collective identity model does say something that could be understood that way, AVEN does not promote the collective identity model in any official way.

As I also mentioned, many LGBT+ spaces similarly disfavour questioning people's self-identification. And it's absolutely possible for a gay person to be in love with another gay person of the opposite sex, and to have sex everyday. That would be a minority behaviour sure, but orientations are not generally defined in terms of behaviour.

Yes you are saying exactly that when you say AVEN wont take a stance on an official definition.

Homosexuality is not defined by the "minority behaviour" as you call it (I would call them bisexual!), and we shouldnt be defined by that either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This directly and inevitably means that you do not think AVEN promotes any official definition of asexuality.

I think I just said the opposite.

By which you are contradicting yourself. You do say exactly what I said you say - AVEN does not offer any official definition of asexuality. To have any, you must surrender your idea that "s.a." should not be unambiguously defined by AVEN.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, which makes your argumentation logically void.

I didn't make any comment about all asexual communities inside AVEN (or all communities outside AVEN for that matter).

However, you implied that there would have to be a broad consensus in order to have a definition. By these standards, keeping the banner up there is simply not justifiable.

As I also mentioned, many LGBT+ spaces similarly disfavour questioning people's self-identification. And it's absolutely possible for a gay person to be in love with another gay person of the opposite sex, and to have sex everyday. That would be a minority behaviour sure, but orientations are not generally defined in terms of behaviour.

This is an excellent example of the ridiculous levels the inclusivity dogma is coming to on here. While behavior does not 100% inform orientation, orientation does most definitely inform behavior, otherwise it simply is not a real thing in the way we keep using the term.

So, yeah, if these example people choose their relationship and lifestyle freely, without outside pressure, in the presence of alternatives, I will take their identification as "homosexuals" with a very, very big lump of salt, and would very strongly assume that they actually are bi or hetero, not gay, despite for some reason claiming to be gay. It's not like people can't lie about their orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of asexuality is on the front page, which puts it completely under your jurisdiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not caught up on the current discussion, but am in favor of keeping the desire based definition. It makes sense as for me my sexuality is based on desire--if it were based on "attraction", I would have to say I experience none. Yet I still desire sex, with a specific gender, despite never having had it. It would be ludicrous to call myself asexual. Everyone experiences sexuality differently, but it would not make sense to say an asexual desires sex except for more outward-based reasons--wanting to please partner, children, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 agree with Mysticus. And it isn't true that "AVEN" accepts whatever definition for their assumed asexuality is stated by newcomers. We are free to, and definitely do, comment on what they've said and offer information so that they can make a better decision about their identify, if indeed they do want to make such a decision. If someone comes onto AVEN and says "Hi everyone, I've decided to be asexual because XYZ", we don't just say "Fine, welcome!" This is an educational site, in addition to support, and essentially we're the educators. Asexuality may be a big tent but it has its boundaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Plectrophenax

As I also mentioned, many LGBT+ spaces similarly disfavour questioning people's self-identification. And it's absolutely possible for a gay person to be in love with another gay person of the opposite sex, and to have sex everyday. That would be a minority behaviour sure, but orientations are not generally defined in terms of behaviour.

This, I think, is where the root of the issue lies. It is also the root of issues pertaining to gender and aesthetic/sensual/romantic attraction, but while one can accept the wiggle-room for debate in those instances, the term asexuality - considering that's what this forum is about - should be handled a lot more clearly.

AVEN needs to be clear on whether or not asexuality is first and foremost an identification or a description.

If it's primarily an identification, AVEN is doing it right. There is no officially endorsed definition, but there are informed opinions on the matter that favour informed identification over an uninformed one [to avoid complete arbitrariness]. Perhaps some placements of 'definitions' would need to be slightly adjusted to make their non-official suggestion-status more apparent, but this would at least be consistent. Whether or not it would serve asexual visibility is another question.

If it's primarily a description, it needs a clear set of necessary and sufficient conditions that make the term apply. This isn't easy, especially in the case of asexuality, and nobody is advocating for one and only one set of criteria that can never change or be discussed. But it needs at least a set of criteria, as one can't expect every individual member to just 'know' what conditions are linked to the label 'asexual' [provided it is used this way]. The simplest way to do this for AVEN would be to advocate for the least contentious and most general descriptive factor. This may be "sexual attraction" [provided it is well-defined] or "sexual desire" [dito] or even something else, but regardless what it is, it would have to openly and unambiguously be stated as [provisionally] descriptory - not a mere suggestion for identification.

The problem arises that the current phrasing, both in the FAQ and in the forum banner, is hardly distinguishable from a description of asexuality, while at the same time being not officially clarified seemingly on the basis of allowing broad [self-]identification. This is highly confusing, and I'd like to see a more clear positioning, be it towards description or identity [and have that stance clearly reflected in the layout of the site].

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Phoenix Ace

I first heard about asexuality, probably a year ago. When I found the AVEN site, my first perception of asexuality from the front page was "lacks sexual attraction". As someone who experiences sexual arousal, I immediately closed the page thinking I had a clear definition and that it didn't apply to me. In my mind, being someone that experiences very little (or perhaps no) sexual attraction, I had confused aesthetic attraction and libido with being sexual.

For some reason, I got curious about it more and came back to the site about five months ago. I started reading the FAQs in depth and then the forums, and the idea of "lacking desire" was a lot clearer. It's easy for me to understand that sex just isn't on my list of things to do.

The moral of the story here is that a front page definition that includes "lack of desire" would have snagged my attention much sooner.

But I also think that "lack of desire" might not just be a helpful descriptor. It seems to be a cornerstone of asexuality. You may find everyone sexually repulsive, but if you still desire to have partnered sex for your own gratification, then well, you're sexual.

I think this is the same point being made by both PanFicto and Mysticus. Yes, it does exclude a lot of people that currently call themselves asexual, but aren't these people really somewhere on the grey spectrum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I also think that "lack of desire" might not just be a helpful descriptor. It seems to be a cornerstone of asexuality. You may find everyone sexually repulsive, but if you still desire to have partnered sex for your own gratification, then well, you're sexual.

I think this is the same point being made by both PanFicto and Mysticus. Yes, it does exclude a lot of people that currently call themselves asexual, but aren't these people really somewhere on the grey spectrum?

Thay are sexual. They fully desire sex. It's not disqualifying anything that isn't fully sexual. There is no problem with a desire based definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Member Once Known As tqz

There is the following bug with the “LEARN MORE” button next to the statement about an asexual person, the same statement currently being discussed.

http://www.asexuality.org/en/tracker/issue-102-error-404/

I know it's been that way since at least a month before the bug was reported, at least since the beginning of July 2015. Attempting to get more information from the most obvious link gives the appearance the AVEN website has been abandoned, in my opinion. That was my impression upon my first visit.

I've mentioned this earlier in this topic, post #21, with details on how to get the actual “Overview” page instead of the current 404 error page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the following bug with the “LEARN MORE” button next to the statement about an asexual person, the same statement currently being discussed.

A website outage a few months ago knocked out most of the hyperlinks, which is part of the reason why there is this front page revamp. I think some technical issues prevented them from getting fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to identification vs. description, it looks like there is more of an emphasis on identification; AVEN does have rules against making judgments of others' identities, and when someone asks if they're asexual or not, it is discouraged to outright say that someone is or isn't, instead of informing them of possible labels that may apply to them due to the ambiguity of "sexual attraction" or "sexual desire".

Self-discovery by looking at the possibilities, leading to self-identification is encouraged, but that being said, we do correct misinformation so that a definition of asexuality, even if it is open-ended (i.e: lack of sexual attraction), isn't meaningless.

If the definition is going to stay the same, I think it'd be a good idea to add something somewhere explaining that is just one definition, but explain why that one is consistently used. There is a historical reason for it: there have been other asexual sites founded around the time AVEN was, but some used stricter definitions, and AVEN is one of the early sites that valued a more open definition from its beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

due to the ambiguity of "sexual attraction" or "sexual desire".

If the definition is going to stay the same, I think it'd be a good idea to add something somewhere explaining that is just one definition, but explain why that one is consistently used. There is a historical reason for it: there have been other asexual sites founded around the time AVEN was, but some used stricter definitions, and AVEN is one of the early sites that valued a more open definition from its beginning.

Neither of which are ambiguous because they both have clear definitions.

And no, the only reason the current definition is wide spread is because this site became the main asexual site. The whole reason it's an attraction based definition is because David Jay dictated it and didn't know there was a difference between sexual attraction and sexual desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the definition is going to stay the same, I think it'd be a good idea to add something somewhere explaining that is just one definition, but explain why that one is consistently used. There is a historical reason for it: there have been other asexual sites founded around the time AVEN was, but some used stricter definitions, and AVEN is one of the early sites that valued a more open definition from its beginning

The sexual attraction definition David Jay originally came up with was something along the lines of: ''Not sexually attracted to either gender'' which was later adapted due to trans and agender issues.

I have seen David Jay speaking in the documentary (A)sexual and he says repeatedly ''I want a relationship, I just don't want sex'' .... so it seems very clear to me that by sexual attraction, he originally meant the desire for partnered sex but didn't fully know how to put that into accurate words that would sum everything up.

Just because David Jay (and a small group of others who worked with him to develop it, I believe) originally coined the definition we have today, doesn't mean they fully understood what they were trying to define or the issues it would create in the future. They didn't have this massive community presence we have now, where people from all over the world can join in the discussion and share their experiences and knowledge. That includes sexual people from all walks of life as well as asexual people situated around the globe. I believe that due to the community we now have, we have been able to develop a far better understanding of what asexuality is, so we need to stop holding so rigidly onto the way it was originally defined by a small group of people well over a decade ago (and the other sites that adopted/adapted the definition from the AVEN one)..

Also, the people who originally coined the definition could only do so from their own limited understanding, from their own personal experience. They didn't have the ideas and experiences of thousands of others to form the conclusions they came to, nor do they seem to be people who became fully immersed in the Sexual community, learning everything they could about sexuality from people who actually experience it, in an attempt to better understand exactly what it is that separates the asexual community from the sexual one, what it is that makes asexuals ''different'' ..People have been able to do that now due to the communication benefits the world wide web provides and we should take advantage of that knowledge and use it in our asexuality education efforts.

Maybe David Jay has changed his stance on the definition now - by that I mean, he no longer intends it to reflect the underlying idea that an asexual person does not desire partnered sex, which is how he himself seems to experience asexuality based on what I saw in the documentary (A)sexual. I am aware that from the beginning he wanted the community to be as inclusive as possible, and he has been quoted as saying ''An asexual is someone who calls themselves asexual'' I couldn't find any actual proof he said that (a film with those words coming out of his mouth) but it's stated here:

''I recently got a chance to talk to David Jay about definitions of asexuality and his comments were very helpful. He said that in the asexual community, there are two ways of defining an asexual person. "A person who does not experience sexual attraction" is the definition that is primarily intended for people outside the asexual community as a way to introduce asexuality to people. "A person who calls themself asexual" is the definition used inside the asexual community, and these two definitions are framed the way that they are to steer discussions in certain directions and away from others.''

http://asexystuff.blogspot.co.nz/2008/09/youre-asexual-if-you-say-youre-asexual.html

So we are basing everything we know about the definition of asexuality and it's intended meaning on someone whose idea of the definition of asexuality inside the community is ''you're asexual if you say you're asexual'' .. And this is meant to be an informative, educational website?

(Please note: That blogger also could have just said that to support their own theory, I have no proof that they actually spoke to David Jay or that he said that)

So anyway, what I am saying is, we shouldn't take the word of David Jay as the word of God when it comes to this issue. Sure the sexual attraction definition is used throughout pretty much all of the asexual community now, but that all branched from one persons idea of what the definition should be. The current definition is not based in science, has not been ''proven'' through studies of what makes sexual people sexual, or any such thing, so it's not set in stone and doesn't have to remain what it is. It's up to us to take some autonomy back and adapt the definition to what we now know, instead of so doggedly holding onto the old, all-inclusive definition (because yes, it is all-inclusive UNLESS you take the time to accurately and thoroughly define sexual attraction as a defining factor for sexual orientation, which the AVEN powers-that-be are stating they have no intention of doing)

Let us remember that David Jay also pretty much stated in the documentary (A)Sexual that all asexuals are inherently polyamorous, as you cannot have monogamy without sex/don't need monogamy without sex (he used words to that effect). I am using this example to clarify that it is evident he does not (well, did not at the time that documentary was made) fully comprehend some very important aspects of asexuality (because monogamy can exist in the absence of sex, of course. Some asexuals *only* desire non-sexual monogamous romantic relationships) Yet we want to hold his definition of asexuality up as "the best most official definition there is"?

Let me just say quickly that we are all very grateful to David Jay for his efforts in asexaulity visibility, and for creating this community. Thank you for that David Jay and for everything you have done to enhance the visibility of asexuality in our world. While I will always be grateful to him, I am just saying that we are taking his definition of asexuality as though it's the 'word of God', when it is only ONE definition of asexuality and it is not by any means unanimously agreed upon let alone understood. It was coined by the creator of AVEN back when no one knew about asexuality, and he seems to see that definition as an "outside alternative" to the definition that "anyone who calls themselves asexual is asexual'' if what that blogger I quoted previously says is true.

So, on to my main point. If AVEN insists on refusing to take a stance as to what sexual attraction is, and refuses to adapt the definition of asexuality to our current, broader, better understanding of sexuality as a whole, then the people working on the front page have a responsibility to the entire asexual community to state (clearly where everyone can see) that the definition of asexuality is based solely on David Jays ( be clear to include that he is the original webmaster of AVEN) original ideas and personal interpretation of the definition of asexuality and is not accepted by everyone in the asexual community. Also, make it clear that AVEN refuses to take a stance on a single definition of sexual attraction, as it wants to be as ''inclusive as possible'' the way David Jay originally intended and seems to intend to this day. Be clear to state that David Jay is not the ultimate authority on asexuality as a sexual orientation, he is merely the person who first coined the current, widely used definition, and the person who created AVEN as a means for people identifying as asexual to meet and communicate.

If you can make the points that I (and others here) have outlined clearly visible on the front page of AVEN, then visitors to this site will know for a fact this is a site for asexuality speculation, not asexuality education. Many people come here expecting to find education about what asexuality is, but that is clearly not AVENs main prerogative as a website, despite having the word ''Education'' in the title. This will be a site of theorizing, forming ideas, opinions, and speculations.. but not a site of fact. You need to make that absolutely crystal clear, and in a place where it is visible to everyone.

Here is an example:

''AVEN takes no official stance on the definition of sexual attraction. The definition of asexuality was coined by the original site creator, and not everyone in the asexual community agrees with or condones this definition. We here at AVEN prefer this to be an all-inclusive environment that favors that facilitation of ideas and thoughts regarding asexuality, as opposed to the education of asexuality itself, as we feel it would be detrimental to the community to take a stance on the matter of education. We here at AVEN are of the opinion that it is up to every individual to decide for themselves whether or not they are asexual.''

Either that, or just leave the current definition of sexual attraction on the main page as-is (only move it to somewhere were everyone can see it) because that definition is actually correct in defining asexuality and at least you'd be taking a stance on the matter.

(Side-note regarding sexual attraction as the defining factor for sexual orientation)

When you see 'official definitions' like ''A homosexual person is sexually attracted to people of the same gender'' the underlying factor in homosexuality is that for various reasons, a person desires/enjoys/prefers partnered sexual relationships with people of the same gender. It's not about how people of the same gender look (many people in the asexual community mistakenly believe sexual attraction is about experiencing sexual feelings based on another's appearance) that 'appearance-based'' idea may actually be the generally accepted definition of sexual attraction in dictionaries and Wiki articles, but it is not the defining factor in an entire sexual orientation. For many sexual people appearance just doesn't matter. It's other factors that cause them to select the people who they have sex with. It's the underlying desire for sex (under certain circumstances) however, that drives them, that's the one thing that all sexual people have in common: Under some circumstances, they desire partnered sex. Or to put it more bluntly, would prefer to have partnered sex than not have it (ie: when in the throws of new love, for example)

Remember, the original definitions for terms like sexual orientation and sexual attraction were designed by people based on their understanding at the time of what these things were (and without asexuality in mind). As understanding develops, so too should words and definitions to accommodate the far greater knowledge that we now have about what these things actually mean, and what ideas they are attempting to convey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to identification vs. description, it looks like there is more of an emphasis on identification; AVEN does have rules against making judgments of others' identities, and when someone asks if they're asexual or not, it is discouraged to outright say that someone is or isn't, instead of informing them of possible labels that may apply to them due to the ambiguity of "sexual attraction" or "sexual desire".

Self-discovery by looking at the possibilities, leading to self-identification is encouraged, but that being said, we do correct misinformation so that a definition of asexuality, even if it is open-ended (i.e: lack of sexual attraction), isn't meaningless.

If the definition is going to stay the same, I think it'd be a good idea to add something somewhere explaining that is just one definition, but explain why that one is consistently used. There is a historical reason for it: there have been other asexual sites founded around the time AVEN was, but some used stricter definitions, and AVEN is one of the early sites that valued a more open definition from its beginning.

If you are going to do that, then I think you should remove the definition from the top altogether and just put it all on one page giving each one equal billing. Maybe instead of having:

An asexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction: Learn more

You could replace it with

A website for the education and improved visibility for those who identify as Asexual: Learn more

And the learn more part could link to a page called Definitions of Asexuality. There at the top you could say:

There is no one universally agreed upon definition of what defines an asexual. So, in the interest of inclusion we are going to list some of the most popular ones below. Please note: just because you or your family member or friend might not fit one definition does not mean you won't find one that does fit!

  • An asexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction
  • An asexual is a person who does not experience desire for sex with others.
  • An asexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction and/or desire for sex with others.

And so on. No numbers or anything to suggest one is "more correct" than any of the others.

Just, if you are dead set against adding an and/or definition I implore you not to keep the current definition at the top of the page.

For instance, I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that people could come in see the header and instantly come to a wrong conclusion. Post #73 said that is exactly what he did and had he not come back he would have left thinking he was non-asexual. If you leave up the current definition in its current form you will be promoting others to make the same mistake or misleading family members/friends coming to this site. They would then think their ace family member/friend isn't really an ace and discourage them from considering that identity, thus further contributing to identity policing, ace erasure and our own marginalization.

If anything, wouldn't that mean that ALL your aims and goals have been defeated? I would think that as an education and visibility network that should be considered the worst case scenario. Why would you want that?

So, if you won't consider using the and/or definition, and want to be inclusive, to encourage asexuality as an identity, prevent identity policing, increase education and increase visibility; please consider just removing the definition from the front page altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, we're not promoting the line that asexuality is "whatever people want to think it is". While the collective identity model does say something that could be understood that way, AVEN does not promote the collective identity model in any official way.

As I also mentioned, many LGBT+ spaces similarly disfavour questioning people's self-identification. And it's absolutely possible for a gay person to be in love with another gay person of the opposite sex, and to have sex everyday. That would be a minority behaviour sure, but orientations are not generally defined in terms of behaviour.

Yes you are saying exactly that when you say AVEN wont take a stance on an official definition.

AVEN does have an official definition of asexuality. (Which does not mean we're not open to alternatives - it's quite right alternative definitions get coverage too.) It does not (IMO) have an official definition of sexual attraction.

Homosexuality is not defined by the "minority behaviour" as you call it (I would call them bisexual!), and we shouldnt be defined by that either.

As I just said, orientations are not defined by behaviour - period.

And it isn't true that "AVEN" accepts whatever definition for their assumed asexuality is stated by newcomers. We are free to, and definitely do, comment on what they've said and offer information so that they can make a better decision about their identify, if indeed they do want to make such a decision. If someone comes onto AVEN and says "Hi everyone, I've decided to be asexual because XYZ", we don't just say "Fine, welcome!"

I would certainly hope that we do! We are free of course to say that "the standard definition of asexuality is ___" and that "if ___ then by the standard definition, such a person would/would not be asexual." However we cannot tell people they are not asexual, and we cannot tell people they're not allowed their own definition, no matter what we personally believe. That has always been against the ToS.

This directly and inevitably means that you do not think AVEN promotes any official definition of asexuality.

I think I just said the opposite.
By which you are contradicting yourself. You do say exactly what I said you say - AVEN does not offer any official definition of asexuality. To have any, you must surrender your idea that "s.a." should not be unambiguously defined by AVEN.

That's not correct. AVEN defines asexuality as lack of sexual attraction. The words "sexual attraction" already mean something - they are used by the outside world, long before there was any kind of asexuality movement. If AVEN defines a "wuxel" as being a "red car" but doesn't define the words "red" or "car" then that doesn't mean AVEN has no official definition of a "wuxel". It just means we're taking some things for granted.

I didn't make any comment about all asexual communities inside AVEN (or all communities outside AVEN for that matter).

However, you implied that there would have to be a broad consensus in order to have a definition.

Not to have a definition - to change or add a new definition. My standards for making radical changes are very different than those for retaining that which is already well established. (And yes that includes the definition of sexual attraction in the FAQ, even though I disagree with it being there, as that appears to be important to many people.)

As I also mentioned, many LGBT+ spaces similarly disfavour questioning people's self-identification. And it's absolutely possible for a gay person to be in love with another gay person of the opposite sex, and to have sex everyday. That would be a minority behaviour sure, but orientations are not generally defined in terms of behaviour.

This, I think, is where the root of the issue lies. It is also the root of issues pertaining to gender and aesthetic/sensual/romantic attraction, but while one can accept the wiggle-room for debate in those instances, the term asexuality - considering that's what this forum is about - should be handled a lot more clearly.

AVEN needs to be clear on whether or not asexuality is first and foremost an identification or a description.

It's both. There is an orientation and an associated identity. The relationship between those is complex and there's no consensus here, and certainly not one I'd like AVEN to officially endorse. Some (especially more activist / academic types) believe the collective identity model. Others (including myself) think that asexuality is something objective, and that it's quite possible for someone to misidentify as asexual (even though it wouldn't be appropriate to point it out on AVEN). There's any range of opinions on this matter.

I'd like to add that while this is an interesting discussion, I think we're getting sidetracked. The front page revamp is not about the definitions. The intention is NOT to make any radical changes as far as AVEN's official line on anything goes. (That even includes the FAQ definition of sexual attraction - while I disagree with it being there, altering it would be a separate discussion and debate if it came to that.)

I will start a new thread shortly to try to bring together where we need to go with the revamp from here. At some point I plan to make a detailed thread on why I support the standard definition (personally, not an official PT opinion) but that will take a bit longer: I'd prefer to concentrate on one thing at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not correct. AVEN defines asexuality as lack of sexual attraction. The words "sexual attraction" already mean something - they are used by the outside world, long before there was any kind of asexuality movement. If AVEN defines a "wuxel" as being a "red car" but doesn't define the words "red" or "car" then that doesn't mean AVEN has no official definition of a "wuxel". It just means we're taking some things for granted.

Still contradictory. As someone who values honesty and logical consistency, I vehemently disagree with this stance of yours. Flaws of this argumentation have been repeatedly pointed out in other places.

But, seeing as we have a public statement from you that the definition in the FAQ will not be changed by this revamp project without community input and broad consensus - which is the entire point of contention here, despite what some people try to imply, as usual (you know who I am talking about) - I can agree that further debate about this here would, indeed, be sidetracking.

The front page revamp is not about the definitions. The intention is NOT to make any radical changes as far as AVEN's official line on anything goes. (That even includes the FAQ definition of sexual attraction - while I disagree with it being there, altering it would be a separate discussion and debate if it came to that.)

Noted and agreed. This is a clear, unambiguous statement you/the team working on the revamp can and will be held to. (Ahhh.... checks and balances, and all. Don'tcha love democracy. ;))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Plectrophenax

AVEN needs to be clear on whether or not asexuality is first and foremost an identification or a description.

It's both. There is an orientation and an associated identity. The relationship between those is complex and there's no consensus here, and certainly not one I'd like AVEN to officially endorse. Some (especially more activist / academic types) believe the collective identity model. Others (including myself) think that asexuality is something objective, and that it's quite possible for someone to misidentify as asexual (even though it wouldn't be appropriate to point it out on AVEN). There's any range of opinions on this matter.

Naturally it's both. But I would say AVEN can't help but prioritise one over the other, if only slightly. If AVEN considers asexuality to be a clearly defined orientation that allows for misidentification, then AVEN puts or should put greater value on description. If AVEN consders asexuality to be first and foremost an identify, then naturally it would demonstrate valuing identification more. Presently, I feel as though AVEN is doing both at the same time, the utility of which I would question.

You're right that this is a rather different [though still related] discussion. How adequate the community considers the front-page to be when it comes to the conceptualisation and communication of asexuality should not be a topic that is delayed. In that sense, I'm in anticipation of both the revamp, and the thread where you elaborate on your personal stance on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Phoenix Ace

Just to reiterate some of the above discussion. If I make the statements "Sapient Pearwood is octarine" and "I can't give a clear definition of octarine" then I haven't really given a clear definition for Sapient Pearwood. That's just logic folks.

Anyhow, I look forward to any future discussions about the definitions, especially the one on the front page. You should keep in mind that a lot of people visiting the site are probably not yet comfortable questioning their sexuality. This can make them a bit skiddish and they may not stick around long. So, first impressions are key.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to reiterate some of the above discussion. If I make the statements "Sapient Pearwood is octarine" and "I can't give a clear definition of octarine" then I haven't really given a clear definition for Sapient Pearwood. That's just logic folks.

Anyhow, I look forward to any future discussions about the definitions, especially the one on the front page. You should keep in mind that a lot of people visiting the site are probably not yet comfortable questioning their sexuality. This can make them a bit skiddish and they may not stick around long. So, first impressions are key.

No one said that AVEN has a clear definition of asexuality. What has been said is that AVEN has an official definition of asexuality. It was also never said that sexual attraction can not be clearly defined; rather, it was said that there are various ways it can be defined and no consensus on how to define it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I make the statements "Sapient Pearwood is octarine" and "I can't give a clear definition of octarine" then I haven't really given a clear definition for Sapient Pearwood. That's just logic folks.

As I haven't said (or denied) that a) "I can't give a clear definition of sexual attraction" or that b) "AVEN has a clear definition of asexuality", your point, while possibly logical, has limited applicability here.

So what's my actual view? If I define asexuality as lack of sexual attraction but don't define sexual attraction then... that definition is neither completely clear nor completely arbitrary. It's not completely clear because the words "sexual attraction" (as used outside the asexual community) are not completely clear. But it's not completely arbitrary because the words "sexual attraction" are not completely arbitrary either. They already have meaning, albeit imprecise, fuzzy one(s).

Anyhow, I look forward to any future discussions about the definitions, especially the one on the front page. You should keep in mind that a lot of people visiting the site are probably not yet comfortable questioning their sexuality. This can make them a bit skiddish and they may not stick around long. So, first impressions are key.

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Member Once Known As tqz

I'd like to add that while this is an interesting discussion, I think we're getting sidetracked. The front page revamp is not about the definitions. The intention is NOT to make any radical changes as far as AVEN's official line on anything goes. (That even includes the FAQ definition of sexual attraction - while I disagree with it being there, altering it would be a separate discussion and debate if it came to that.)

I will start a new thread shortly to try to bring together where we need to go with the revamp from here. At some point I plan to make a detailed thread on why I support the standard definition (personally, not an official PT opinion) but that will take a bit longer: I'd prefer to concentrate on one thing at once.

Perhaps for your new thread you can make it more explicit than “Front page revamp”. Like “additions but no changes”.

I realize your first post pretty much declares this in its 1-2-3 bullet list, but it doesn't outright say: “no changes to current content, not even removal”. It could imply that, but that probably seemed too incredible for members to believe you implied that, especially when stated in the prior paragraph: “many parts are somewhat out of date and do not reflect modern ace discourse”. It would seem many agree with that assertion in regard to the tagline, but you (including whoever else you might be representing) don't. I think I understand why, or at least have the gist.

In your new thread, perhaps something that helps keep focus on what you seem to be asking,

for example:

Additions and new content are to meet the following requirements:

  • no conflict with current content;
  • no modifications to current content
  • no replacements for current content;
  • no removal of current content (not even transferring to another page).

I think something like that would quell suggestions about the tagline, as well as any other parts you (including your volunteers) don't want affected. I think that also seems to fit with the feel of the master document linked (to Google Docs) at the top of your first post. It seems to me most of the suggestions in that master document are for additional documents beyond the front page that will be linked from the front page.

I'm understanding the additions are expected to be supportive of the foundation already there, thereby “reflect modern ace discourse” by clarifying with more of the same, but not differently and certainly not less. Does that seem about right? That's easy enough to do, I've seen lots of examples elsewhere.

EDIT:

Am I also to understand that “reflect modern ace discourse” is more to do with outside discussions than AVEN discussions? In that way help set the direction for further discussions at AVEN from outside influences rather than be a reflection of AVEN in its current (i.e. modern) state?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michaeld, why don't you retitle this something like "Front Page Additions Invited". I certainly was misled by the current title -- "revamp", to me, usually means either a graphic/aesthetic redo or a content redo, not an enlargement of content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this site should add something on normal sexuality. Not everyone is hypersexual or looks at someone and wants to bang them. Wanting intimacy with someone is normal. I know this sounds like the definition of Demisexual however I personally can't think this far ahead. I need a specific person in the picture before partnered sex is something I'm interested in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this site should add something on normal sexuality. Not everyone is hypersexual or looks at someone and wants to bang them. Wanting intimacy with someone is normal. I know this sounds like the definition of Demisexual however I personally can't think this far ahead. I need a specific person in the picture before partnered sex is something I'm interested in.

Exactly. This site is in urgent need of accurate info (in a very visible place) as to what sexuality actually *is* so that people can stop making assumptions and basing their asexual identity around what they have *assumed* makes a sexual person sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...