AVEN's policy on invalidation

[NickyTannock]

3 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You're free to interpret it whatever way you want. Your belief is one thing, reality is another, and I already told you I'm not going to do your work for you.

When you're making an argument, it's your responsibility to defend it, no one else's.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

When you're making an argument, it's your responsibility to defend it, no one else's.

I don't owe you anything.

[NickyTannock]

Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

I don't owe you anything.

You owe it to yourself if you want to convince others of your point of view.

[Homer]

This is a picture of an apple.

 

Spoiler

 

You can't tell me that I'm wrong because that would be "invalidation".

 

 

One would think that "X doesn't happen" is about the most clear-cut statement to base any discussion on, but apparently that's not the case...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

You owe it to yourself if you want to convince others of your point of view.

No.

[NickyTannock]

1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

No.

Then you must not care about the argument you've been making then.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Homer said:

This is a picture of an apple.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

You can't tell me that I'm wrong because that would be "invalidation".

 

 

One would think that "X doesn't happen" is about the most clear-cut statement to base any discussion on, but apparently that's not the case...

That looks like a Banana to me, since a banana is defined as "an elongated usually tapering tropical fruit with soft pulpy flesh enclosed in a soft usually yellow rind" whereas an apple is defined as "The fleshy, usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family".

 

You don't need to invalidate someone in order to give them information they can use.

[WünderBâhr]

I think this is a good time for people to maybe take a step back and have a breather, or re-assess their approaches, bc it seems to be going in circles and ending up in definition debate territory.

 

Still catching up with the thread (so many rapid-fire posts!) but I hope people can take a moment and respect the differences of opinion, here. If it's not going to add anything productive to the discussion, it probably shouldn't be posted in this thread. Also, a reminder (for anyone who needs it) that knocking each other down does nothing for any cause. 

 

I recognize that this thread puts the teams at a disadvantage bc while this is a board announcement, they are the ones having to enforce/help explain it. However, as Mic has already stated, this comes from the BoD. If there are issues, concerns, questions, please direct them to us and remember staff are members, too.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, œddy said:

This is why I think I should find another forum to talk with other sexual people how they experience sexual attraction.

I have asked in other forums (I'm sure we even made a thread here where a few of asked people in Yahoo answers what it's like for them)

 

For some: it's getting horny when you see a hot person then wanting to have sex with them

 

For some: it's having a desire for sex, and wanting to find someone to have it with (like a guy visiting a brothel. He often doesn't care so much about the appearance of the girl as he does about actually just having sex)

 

For some: it's a feeling that develops with an emotional bond. A desire to connect on a sexual level as a result of that bond (I experience that one)

 

For some: it's literally just enjoying sex and needing to feel comfortable enough with someone to have it with them (be that a friend, or even a stranger in some cases)

 

For some: it's mostly about the emotional aspect of sex. The comfort and validation that comes from mutual shared desire.

 

For some: it's wanting to give another person pleasure and not even caring about being stimulated yourself (I've known quite a few sexual people like this and experience this myself)

 

For some it's a mix of all those things at different times. For some it's none. But those were the most common answers.

 

Also practically every sexual person we ever asked (including polls here on AVEN and the Yahoo ones) said they'd rather have partnered sex without orgasm for the rest of their life, than masturbate with orgasm but no sex. Their preference for partnered sex was so strong that they were willing to forgo orgasm forever if it meant they could still enjoy partnered intimacy (ps I personally would take the orgasms but I'm a minority among sexuals on that one).

 

As a sexual, my desire for sexual intimacy comes with an emotional bond. It's not about the appearance of that person. The feelings come first and they make me want sexual intimacy with that person, even if they're someone completely aesthetically unappealing to me when the feelings aren't present.

 

If you ask sexuals (and can find a varied enough bunch ie not just a group of teen boys or whatever, lol), their answers will be pretty much what I've described above. Demographics are important though, because 30 year old women generally desire something very different than 16 year old boys do, and 50 year old men usually desire something completely different from both the other groups. And so-on and so-forth. But yeah, hope that helps.

 

(Ps No purple text for now as I'm typing this on my phone which makes editing a nightmare with the black on white, hope it makes sense) :c

[Homer]

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

That looks like a Banana to me, since a banana is defined as "an elongated usually tapering tropical fruit with soft pulpy flesh enclosed in a soft usually yellow rind" whereas an apple is defined as "The fleshy, usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family".

But I define it as an apple, therefore I am right.

[Guest]

Just now, MichaelTannock said:

Then you must not care about the argument you've been making then.

Again - your assumptions about what I must feel are completely irrelevant to anyone outside your own mind. Your belief is not reality.

 

It's amusing, really, in sight of what policy you're supporting here, but it won't be me who has to live with that bit of cognitive dissonance.

[nineGardens]

5 hours ago, Chihiro said:

I also do not understand why greys are ashamed to be grey, why can't they proudly call themselves greysexual?

 

6 hours ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

The label 'grey' exists for a reason: because some people don't exactly fit the definition of asexuality OR 'regular' sexuality. Why is that label demonized to such an extent that people literally would rather twist the definition of asexuality than just say 'yeah, I fall in the grey area'... What's so wrong with that?

 

I mean..... I think the grey area is a really useful Idea, so kind of agree with both of you on this. But in answer to your question, there are plenty of times around this forum where I've seen people posting to claim that the asexual spectrum doesn't exist, or is nonsense and similar rather less friendly claims.

There may be an argument that it should be named that "sexual-asexual spectrum" for the sake of clarity, but yeah, its not actually uncommon to be told it doesn't exist, so it ain't hard to see why people don't go for that labeling, even when it would be more appropriate, and possibly contribute to less confusion elsewhere.

 

Also, when people first hear about an idea, sometimes they don't hear all the nuances and stuff, and so if they go "Well I feel closer to Ace than Allo", they might just try to simplify the story. no one means any disrespect to Ace with it, they just find a label that feels like it fits BETTER than what they had before, even if they later realize it doesn't fit entirely.

 

 

 

EDIT: oooopppp, never mind, conversation has moved on. No longer relevant.

Gosh, lots of posting.

 

 

[Iam9man]

3 minutes ago, Homer said:

But I define it as an apple, therefore I am right.

Fruit are not subjective like colours and orientations.

[NickyTannock]

1 minute ago, Homer said:

But I define it as an apple, therefore I am right.

And?

 

 

Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

Again - your assumptions about what I must feel are completely irrelevant to anyone outside your own mind. Your belief is not reality.

 

It's amusing, really, in sight of what policy you're supporting here, but it won't be me who has to live with that bit of cognitive dissonance.

Whether my belief is reality or not is also irrelevant, as I don't make the assumption that all of my beliefs must be true, and even gave you the opportunity to show me that they're not.

And defending invalidation doesn't prevent anyone from giving correct information, so there's no need for cognitive dissonance on my part.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

Then you must not care about the argument you've been making then.

 

 

That looks like a Banana to me, since a banana is defined as "an elongated usually tapering tropical fruit with soft pulpy flesh enclosed in a soft usually yellow rind" whereas an apple is defined as "The fleshy, usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family".

 

You don't need to invalidate someone in order to give them information they can use.

That's the problem though. Again. What you did is no different from what any of us do when we say "you can totally call yourself ace if you want, but desiring partnered sex with other people solely for the pleasure and intimacy of sex is something that many sexual people experience. Many sexual people don't actually base their sexuality around looks even though that's a common misconception in the ace community. For many sexuals, their desire for sex really does stem from their pleasure of it. But yeah you can totally call yourself whatever you're most comfortable with"

 

That's literally what we do. No different than what you did with the banana just now. Yet when we do it, it's called invalidation. Why is it okay for you to do it, but not us? (and we use a definition you yourself literally posted a few hours ago, I might add. The one that AVEN itself uses)

 

To be honest, I'm wondering if maybe you have misunderstood the issue here? You seem to not really understand what we are actually upset about, because you have reiterated our own definition (the AVEN one) saying that's not invalidating. But this thread was literally made because certain people see our definition (the one you already used) as invalidating...  

 

Then what you've said about the banana just now kind of proves our point. If you did that same thing with a banana but with someone who is saying they're an ace who is miserable without sex instead, they'd literally claim you're invalidating them. That's the point. We AREN'T invalidating anyone, we are just identifying the banana as a banana instead of an apple. : /

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

Whether my belief is reality or not is also irrelevant, as I don't make the assumption that all of my beliefs must be true, and even gave you the opportunity to show me that they're not.

And defending invalidation doesn't prevent anyone from giving correct information, so there's no need for cognitive dissonance on my part.

Feel free to keep talking, my answer still remains - No, you're wrong.

 

And you're not entitled to any more elaboration than that, especially after the equivalent of books have been written in posts about the subject.

[nineGardens]

Hmmm... We use words with different degrees of precision in different places.

 

"Silicon" and "seventeen" are words with sharp objective definitions, as is "Africa" (but probably not AS sharp).

These words are sharp because it is USEFUL for them to be so- yes?

 

"Love" "Right" and "Party" are words with softer definitions, which everyone agrees we don't all agree on (I think).

 

 

And then there are things like "Depression"(or is it grief? Or sorrow?), "Tall" and "Sexual orientation" where I find myself confused and tied in knots, and I'm not really sure how sharply we define words there.

[Galactic Turtle]

Wow comments are coming in so fast. @__@ 

 

46 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

I asked another staff member for examples of what lead up to this, and they said that there are examples in the archive, which they are now looking for.

Thanks!

 

I think something was mentioned earlier as well along the lines of people feeling threatened by asexual people who are ok with having sex.

 

While I don't doubt that those people exist, I do not think that is what people are talking about here or most of the time.

 

The situations I encounter, at least, are of people who ID as asexual, seek out sexual relationships or desire their relationships with certain people to become sexual, view sex as a good or even important way to connect with people on a physical and/or emotional level, but would nevertheless be ok if they were not allowed to have sex anymore... even if it is their preference to keep sex as part of their intimate relationships for the reasons mentioned previously.

 

(The other most common situation is people who seek out and enjoy sex not because of how their partners look, but because their partners make them feel comfortable enough to have sex with... so because it's based off of how the person makes them feel rather than how the person looks they must be asexual.)

 

So in these cases people tend to view non-asexual people as those who feel like they would perish if for some reason they were not allowed to have sex again or they view non-asexual people as those whose sexual interest is always traced back to solely the physical appearance of someone which I think is not an accurate viewpoint of non-asexual people. This in turn has asexuality covering anyone who doesn't think sex is the end all be all of life. When this stance is taken I do think of all the instances in which my clearly heterosexual friends felt pressured to have sex when they were younger because people felt the need to treat sex like it was the end all be all of life, that since they weren't having it with the first person who offered there was something wrong with them. I think all of this is the main negative impact that comes from sexual freedom/positivity and really slants the way we think about the spectrum of sexuality.

 

While I also don't doubt conversations can get heated on AVEN regarding all of this, I think the source of that is the same group of people having the same argument over and over again for literally years that seems to naturally grow on the post of a newbie who doesn't know they stepped on a land mine. The reason this argument has been happening for several years is because I assume at some point someone felt like they were being invalidated.

 

[Chihiro]

18 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

That looks like a Banana to me, since a banana is defined as "an elongated usually tapering tropical fruit with soft pulpy flesh enclosed in a soft usually yellow rind" whereas an apple is defined as "The fleshy, usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family".

 

You don't need to invalidate someone in order to give them information they can use.

I hope this isn't the way you would teach kids. In fact, I hope you do actually become a teacher or a parent, I would love to see how well those kids do. Calling a fact, a fact isn't invalidation.

[Snao Cone]

There is an attitude problem that leaves individuals bitter and determined to display that bitterness throughout AVEN with no consideration for what people might be going through.

[NickyTannock]

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) The problem is in how a definition is given, rather than in giving a definition. The example you gave would probably be fine, though it comes off as sarcastic in parts probably because it was written as an example?

 

@Mysticus Insanus I could say you're wrong, and point to all the posts written in relation to the argument I've been making as well, but that's unhelpful in a discussion.

 

@Chihiro Am I wrong about the definitions of a banana and an apple?

[Whore*of*Mensa]

I have spent a lot of time reading through these forums and I am actually quite interested in those people who came here thinking they were asexual and then after some time decided they were actually sexual.

 

These seem to be the most vocal group on the site but the ones who tend to express opinions in an authoritative fashion rather than sharing experiences, and to comment on other posts rather than making their own posts for others to comment on.

 

I read the OP as stating clearly and repeatedly that there are ways to discuss things and ways to approach this question. Instead of saying ‘you’re not asexual and it makes me angry when people like you say that you are asexual’ couldn’t the sentence begin ‘ I used to think I was asexual and I changed my mind because...’ ?

 

I would be interested in those stories, how that process happens, and it might be more educational than reading angry comment after angry comment.

[Janus the Fox]

How I see it it is a language tool and nothing more, everyone has their definitions, the OP is a beacon on such tool, all cultures, languages and societies whatever the persons limits of understanding are all different.  Disagreements can invalidate, debating such disagreements can invalidate, this is a non-issue almost anywhere else, LGBT invalidation happens almost anywhere and a forum like this should be the shelter for any (a)sexual identity stuck out in the rain of constant invalidating.  Everybody has their tolerations to being wet and cold in the rain, so do too people who have been invalidated.

[Guest]

Just now, MichaelTannock said:

I could say you're wrong, and point to all the posts written in relation to the argument I've been making as well, but that's unhelpful in a discussion.

You could say a lot of things. None of them change the facts of the matter.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Homer said:

This is a picture of an apple.

 

  Hide contents

 

You can't tell me that I'm wrong because that would be "invalidation".

 

 

One would think that "X doesn't happen" is about the most clear-cut statement to base any discussion on, but apparently that's not the case...

Sexuality and psychology is more compllicated and nuanced than fruit though.

 

You label fruits in kindergarten. You get to label people after going to school for the better part of a decade.

 

It's hard to take the people who seem so confident about sexuality seriously when the science isn't definitive yet.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MichaelTannock said:

Asexuals who are willing to have sex as an existential threat to Asexuals who are not,

wait wait wait. I just saw this. 

 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ACES WHO ARE WILLING TO HAVE SEX. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT ACES WHO ARE WILLING TO HAVE SEX 😮

 

Not ONE of us has said anything (ever) about aces willing to have sex.

 

We are talking about the people who say "I can't be happy without sex in my life. I really do love and adore sex and do prefer it to masturbation. The thing is though, I only want to have sex with men I respect, that makes me asexual". That's an ACTUAL example of the type of situation we come up against here. Then we answer: "well in the General FAQ, AVEN defines sexual attraction as a lack of desire for partnered sexual contact and really, that's what it comes down to. You are free to ID however you want of course, and everyone is welcome on AVEN, but what you are describing sounds like a lot of the sexual people I have met in my life, myself included!" The answers are always something to that effect. To which all the sex-loving people here automatically scream invalidation.

 

No one is saying ANYTHING at all about aces being willing to have sex though. Heck, the vast majority of aces have had sex at some point or another and many are even still having it now. EVERYONE knows, accepts, and understands that. No one is claiming aces can't choose to have sex and can't be willing to have it. 

 

I missed this comment of yours before, but at least now I see where the misunderstanding has come from. If you literally thought that that's what we believe and stand for then I understand why you're upset. But  believe me, it's literally nothing to do with aces choosing to have sex, or even enjoying sex when they do have it. We are talking about people who are UNHAPPY without sex and actively seek out partners to enjoy sex with because they feel that without sex, something in their life is missing. That's why the definition you gave before does automatically invalidate their identity: they say they love and need sexual contact but that they're still asexual. You using AVENs definition automatically invalidates them. Just as us using AVENs definition automatically invalidates them. That's the issue.

[Galactic Turtle]

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) Yes that's the one! I knew I saw it somewhere which is why I mentioned it above lol.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

I read the OP as stating clearly and repeatedly that there are ways to discuss things and ways to approach this question. Instead of saying ‘you’re not asexual and it makes me angry when people like you say that you are asexual’ couldn’t the sentence begin ‘ I used to think I was asexual and I changed my mind because...’ ?

 

The problem is, no one here automatically just gets angry and just starts shouting that someone isn't asexual without trying to share knowledge and experience. We literally all share our own sexual experiences, our experiences with past sexual partners, our discussions with other sexuals we've had here, everything we can to be helpful and informative. We kindly and calmly explain what it feels like now that we know we are sexual (when we previously thought we were ace) if we are in that boat (I myself am in that boat and have written hundreds of very long comments on what it feels like in an effort to try to help people understand, as has @Serran and others in our ace-to-sexual shoes). That's WHY we are all taking so much issue with this. Because we already bend over backwards to be kind, accommodating, and to educate based on our own experiences with our own sexuality and the sexuality of past sexual partners and stuff, while following the ToS. That's very important to ALL of us. So this thread (the OP of which makes it sounds like AVEN is full of bigoted assholes) is actually just a massive slap in the face and your post here proves that point. You've assumed we are all jerks who refuse to try to help anyone and just shout nasty stuff or whatever, whereas if you actually went through all of our thousands upon thousands of posts you'd see that we actually DO exactly what you just said we should be doing. We have always done that, for years and years. Yet precisely BECAUSE our experiences fall outside of (or contrary to) the experiences of those individuals who actively seek and love sex yet identify as asexual, our experiences and carefully-worded posts are automatically labelled as invalidating. That's why we are all so upset about the opening post here. : /

[nineGardens]

I feel like the policy clarification is trying to draw attention to a specific problem, but maybe the OP didn't want to give specific examples of it because that would feel like attacking individual people.

 

But without specific examples of "This is the kind of talk we are talking about that maybe isn't very welcoming" it leads to a sense where LOTS of people think that they are being called out for things they might still stand by, and sort of... people defending things they've said because they feel like things they said MIGHT be over the line, or unclear where the line is drawn.

 

There can be use in not specifying the line too clearly (For example, if a rule is very precise, a person might push themselves right to the edge of it, breaking the spirit without breaking the letter, as I've heard of on other forums).... but at the moment it feels like people don't actually know what they are meant to be agreeing/disagreeing with.

 

It feels like there's a sense of confusion in the discussion, as if no one really knows which things we are discussing.

[NickyTannock]

25 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

I missed this comment of yours before, but at least now I see where the misunderstanding has come from. If you literally thought that that's what we believe and stand for then I understand why you're upset. But  believe me, it's literally nothing to do with aces choosing to have sex, or even enjoying sex when they do have it. We are talking about people who are UNHAPPY without sex and actively seek out partners to enjoy sex with because they feel that without sex, something in their life is missing. That's why the definition you gave before does automatically invalidate their identity: they say they love and need sexual contact but that they're still asexual. You using AVENs definition automatically invalidates them. Just as us using AVENs definition automatically invalidates them. That's the issue.

I wish @Mysticus Insanus had said that instead of dodging the question when I asked them directly if that's what this is about.

 

Okay, so this is about people who experience Sexual Attraction or intrinsically desire sex with someone. And you're concerned that giving AVEN's definition of Asexuality would be automatic invalidation under this policy since it excludes such a person's identity entirely?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

I wish @Mysticus Insanus had said that instead of dodging the question when I asked them directly if that's what this is about.

It's been said hundreds of times before. The usual suspects never listen.