AVEN's policy on invalidation

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, nineGardens said:

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

Yep that's definitely an issue that's happening right now unfortunately.

 

The thing is, a few of us do know exactly what is being discussed and what it was that drew the board's attention to this matter in the first place. We are well aware of who is involved and how things have been twisted to try to make it seem like there's this massive, aggressive invalidation problem here when actually all the vast majority of us have been doing is exactly what I outlined above (ie a sympathetic approach where we try to share our own experiences with sexuality to shed light on the matter, while always clarifying that everyone is welcome here and everyone is free to identify in a way that feels most comfortable to them).

 

The people who are aware of what's happening here include the lifelong sexuals, the aces, and the ace-to-sexuals who have been involved in all these recent threads that caused this matter to come to the board's attention.

 

We of course aren't naming names or specifying threads or anything, but a lot of us do know what has caused this and know the situation has been grossly misrepresented, hence the general sense of outrage among members who are very, very active in the threads pertinent to this discussion. : / 

 

Then you get all the people who aren't really aware of what's been going on, so they are making responses based on this idea that there are all these aggressive bigots running around shouting at everyone who dares to have sex or whatever... Because all they have to go on is the post made by the OP and the comments of others here who aren't fully aware of the situation.

 

So some of us are arguing from the perspective of knowing exactly what's been going on, and knowing exactly how we conduct ourselves, and exactly who has made these claims of invalidation, whereas others are arguing from the perspective of just assuming there is a really bad problem here on AVEN that needs to be dealt with. 

 

So yeah, pretty much you're completely correct in your assertion that people are getting their wires crossed a bit and that's where a lot of this confusion is coming from. : /

 

it's 2.30am now, I need sleeeeep

[NickyTannock]

Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

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

I ask questions because I want to understand where people are coming from even if I disagree with them. Does that sound like someone who will never listen?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

I ask questions because I want to understand where people are coming from even if I disagree with them. Does that sound like someone who will never listen?

I have the inalienable right to decline to answer your question. Threads like these teach us to learn to take the fifth when the BoD are ominously hovering above.

 

You will have to learn to just take a no, and do the mental footwork on your own. It's clearly laid out who is speaking out against this policy; you can search our post histories for all the answers you'd even need, and then some.

[LeChat]

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

...it's 2.30am now, I need sleeeeep

Thanks, for taking the time to post!

 

17 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

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

6 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

...You will have to learn to just take a no, and do the mental footwork on your own...

 

I just think it's important to point out a reminder that some members, including @MichaelTannock, have Autism, which they've said does, sometimes, make communication difficult for them to understand. So, it's not as though they're purposely trying to not understand others' viewpoints; its just that the Autism makes it difficult to understand, sometimes.

[nineGardens]

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

So some of us are arguing from the perspective of knowing exactly what's been going on, and knowing exactly how we conduct ourselves, and exactly who has made these claims of invalidation, whereas others are arguing from the perspective of just assuming there is a really bad problem here on AVEN that needs to be dealt with. 

I mean....

 

I'll be honest, I DON'T know what is going on, or which thread ETC are being referenced to.

... But I've seen some plenty unwelcoming things here. Enough that a gentle reminder from the Powers That Be to be gentle with newcomers doesn't seem out of line.... which is what the OP's post seemed like, although by the sounds of it there's more to it then that. 

 

Its possible that these others "assuming there is a real bad problem", are simply people with different opinions, or who have seen different things, and they feel there's a mildly bad problem that maybe should be pushed back against.

 

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

 

it's 2.30am now, I need sleeeeep

Have a good sleep!

I hope you wake up rested and refreshed.

 

[Kimmie.]

When team members are arguing with each other as strongly as it seems here then it clearly is something that brings up many emotions for people. 

Which is really interesting and in a way positive because it shows that the team is diverse. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, LeChat said:

I just think it's important to point out a reminder that some members, including @MichaelTannock, have Autism, which they've said does, sometimes, make communication difficult for them to understand. So, it's not as though they're purposely trying to not understand others' viewpoints; its just that the Autism makes it difficult to understand, sometimes.

Adding rehash 47375 of the same discussion won't make that problem any better.

 

"No, you're wrong, do the research on why, yourself" is a very clear answer that should not confuse someone on the autism spectrum.

 

 

 

As an aside... I, myself, have been suspected by psychiatric/psychotherapeutic professionals over the years to possibly be on the spectrum, though never officially diagnosed... and it's pretty obvious that my argumentation is rather Sheldonesque at times (and I know it has driven lots of people up the wall over my years here). It is one of the symptoms that led psychs to suspecting this in the first place. "Be mindful of autistic people" isn't a valid answer to the problem at hand.

[Philip027]

Quote

To those questioning the E in AVEN...I think something that a lot of people forget is that AVEN, while much of what we see and do is on the forums, is not 100%, purely a forum. We do a ton outside of AVEN, the forum. The educating in Asexuality Visibility and Education Network happens frequently outside of the forums, in interviews, on social media, research, articles, meetups, pride events, speaking events, etc. It's important here on the forums, and it happens continuously, even if there's disagreements about definitions or questioning how a few people identify.

The thing is, the forums are the "face" of AVEN to the vast majority of people that know of its existence.  Most people are not going to be part of these interviews, the meetups, the prides, etc.  Most are just going to be casual internet-goers that will hear of the site, check out the site, maybe see its forums.  Sure, it isn't 100% of AVEN, but it's a significant chunk that you can't really downplay like that.

 

Quote

Education can happen without invalidation.

When you spend so much effort to safeguard against "invalidation" to the point where you're not able to tell someone that they are wrong about something, then no, I would say proper education has failed at that point.

 

Quote

No one sees the irony of the fact that this thread has kinda turned into a definition debate?

What you see as irony, I see as yet another attempt of sweeping the purple elephant under the rug.  You're not going to get rid of it that way.

 

Quote

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 a lot of words to say what still essentially amounts to "you're wrong"

 

The verbal gymnastics apparently expected by staff just to avoid "invalidating" people is a fucking joke.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

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?

I'm sorry I missed the original comment you made earlier. I've been on mobile for the past few hours so missed quite a few comments but I'll try to clear things up properly here, the best that I can.

 

Yes that is my concern because I've seen it happen so many times over the past few months.

 

I'm sorry this will be long but I want to try to accurately describe what's happening and what this has started from. Hopefully I can help shed some light on this situation.

 

For example:

 

Someone new comes to AVEN asking "what's sexual attraction?" And we reply something like "at the most basic level, sexual attraction is a desire to connect on a sexual level with another person for pleasure. Many sexuals experience it in all kinds of different ways, and with different triggers, but the one thing they all have in common is that desire for sex with someone else. And they prefer this to masturbation because it's not just about the orgasm (which they could give themselves), it's about the partnered sexual connection"

 

Then that person might ask for experiences and examples, which we all happily give. Serran, me, Mysticus, Snao, Sally, Chihiro, Glamrocker, Skullery, CBC, Philip, Nowhere Girl (and everyone else sorry it's late and I can't remember everyone right now), we all give our own personal and varied experiences with past sexual partners, with our own sexuality (ace-to-sexual in some cases), with asexuality, etc. All these experiences have the one thing in common that for the aces, they don't innately desire sexual intimacy (even though some may be having sex or have had sex in the past!) and for the sexuals, we describe that we desire sex in some way to varying degrees (with examples)

 

We are all using variations of the exact definition you quoted before from the FAQ (all meaning the same thing, just worded slightly differently) that: sexual attraction is the desire for partnered sexual contact/the desire for sexual contact with someone else.

 

THEN: (this is where the invalidation starts) Someone who identifies as asexual but says they are unhappy without sex will join the discussion and get very upset and hurt and claim that everything we have said invalidates them,  and that the way we are defining sexual attraction invalidates all asexuals who love and need sex to be happy. Others who feel the same as them will join, and accuse us all of claiming they don't exist and of saying they aren't welcome here etc. If I had the time tonight (I have to sleep sorry) I could actually find you many examples of threads where this has happened

 

So anyway, now what was a discussion about sexual attraction (or whatever else the original person asked) becomes a debate, where we are all trying to tell the new people who just joined the thread that they're still welcome here, but that what they're describing (needing sex to be happy etc) doesn't really align with the generally accepted definition of asexuality. 

 

This has happened time and time and time again over the past few months, where we have been having a general discussion about sexual attraction or innate desire or whatever, and a few specific disgruntled sex-desiring asexuals join and start saying we are invalidating their entire identity and stuff. Then they start their own threads actively inviting debate or whatever, and the threads end up getting locked because they get so heated and yes by that point some people (on both sides) have become aggressive and snarky because it's relentless, never-ending, and no one can agree. There is nowhere now that we can't use the definition of sexual attraction that you used earlier (the one from the FAQ) without these people claiming their identity is being invalidated BY that definition, and starting yet another argument about it which becomes yet another debate thread.

 

So what I'm getting at is that the definition of sexual attraction itself we use (and you yourself use) is literally perceived as invalidating by a certain group of people here. This has come to the attention of the board clearly, and it's evolved into the situation we see before us now.

 

I really hope that clarifies where myself and others here are coming from. I'm so tired and wrote all this on my phone, and I'm really annoyed that I missed your earlier comment which could have cleared all this up earlier if I'd just responded then! Sorry again about that.

 

I just need to reiterate though this isn't a one-off thing. These discussions have been happening over, and over, and over again over the past few months where they start with someone asking a simple question, the regulars here respond with our knowledge and sexual experience etc, then people swoop in and claim we are invalidating the identities of asexuals who desire sex by using the definition from the FAQ. Tensions rise, debate breaks out, thread gets locked.

 

it's the definition we use though (and the one you used too from the FAQ) that is actively causing certain members to feel invalidated here, because they DO actively desire sex and feel they need it to be happy, yet they also ID as asexual. So the generally accepted definition here is perceived as offensive, invalidating, and cruel to people who identify that specific way.

 

So if they say "I adore sex, it feels amazing and I'd feel like something special/important/fun is missing from my life without it" then our accepted definition of sexual attraction (desiring sexual contact) just completely invalidated their entire identity (and they are quick to let you know that). Even though like with the apple/banana thing before.. if you love sex and need sex to be happy, well, isn't that a banana (more sexual) and not an apple (more asexual)? : / 

 

edit: and I'm sorry about how grumpy I got  before, I was just assuming literally everyone knew exactly what's been happening. A few members here have been neck-deep in this for months now and I think for us it feels like everyone must know about it. Whereas actually these conversations are often many pages long so a lot of people wouldn't even have the time or patience to read them, let alone have the energy to actually join in Y_Y No wonder I've been having heart palpitations!!! heh. It's now 3.30 and I *definitely* must sleep 😧

 

 

[Snao Cone]

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

Someone who identifies as asexual but says they are unhappy without sex will join the discussion and get very upset and hurt and claim that everything we have said invalidates them,  and that the way we are defining sexual attraction invalidates all asexuals who love and need sex to be happy.

This is the crux of the problem of people feeling invalidated when there's no invalidation going on. Like Michael Tannock said, admods are aware of it and try to evaluate reports on whether something invalidating was actually said rather than what hit a third party right in the feels, but that doesn't stop the conversations from spiralling out of control because of a couple people jumping in to claim invalidation. It's very frustrating. Helpful discussions veering off course is an issue. Grudges being formed and fed is an issue. It's not necessarily the rule against invalidation that does it, though. It's that not everybody is following it, or if they're skirting it they might not be doing so in good faith. Wanting to help a person understand the diverse range of sexual experiences so they can put their own in a realistic context as they explore themselves and seek to grow as a person is usually fine and doable (depending on communication skills and styles). But wanting to be right, or for others to be wrong, introduces maddening toxicity. I'm very tired. 

[Whore*of*Mensa]

1 hour ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

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. : /

The problem is that new people won’t read through your thousands and thousands of posts... They’re new and dealing with their own issues...And don’t expect to get hit with angry comments. 

 

And they do do get hit with angry comments. It might be useful just to read comments under some newbie posts putting yourself in the shoes of someone who hasn’t read anything else on the site yet.

 

I was genuinely trying to make a helpful suggestion in regards to tone when approaching new members. 

 

I dont have have time to read back over the whole history of the site, I’m busy dealing with a job and being a single parent and trying to work out what’s going on in my own head. So I have another suggestion, could you maybe just create a post with your story/an explanation or summary of your position, and then link to it in the comments?

 

There is  another member called Marlowe who does this and I think it’s a good idea. 

[nineGardens]

29 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

 

"No, you're wrong, do the research on why, yourself" is a very clear answer that should not confuse someone on the autism spectrum.

 

It seems like there is two parts of confusion here:

A lot of your past answers felt very much "Nope I'm not engaging with this" WITHOUT saying to do their own research. Often just a "No, I have the right not to justify myself to you", or just "No"... which doesn't transmit as much information as might be hoped.

 

... and that's fine. Everyone has the right to nope out of a conversation.

Its just confusing afterwards when you are still engaging in the conversation. Noping out is fine. Engaging is fine. Saying Nope while continuing to engage is... confusing.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

The problem is that new people won’t read through your thousands and thousands of posts... They’re new and dealing with their own issues...And don’t expect to get hit with angry comments. 

 

I was was trying to make a helpful suggestion in regards to tone when approaching new members. 

 

I dont have have time to read back over the whole history of the site, I’m busy dealing with a job and being a single parent and trying to work out what’s going on in my own head. So I have another suggestion, could you maybe just create a post with your story/an explanation or summary of your position, and then link to it in the comments?

 

There is  another member called Marlowe who does this and I think it’s a good idea. 

I think you missed the point I was making. I am also a working single parent (of two darling girls) so I understand time limitations. I just meant that every time I'm in a discussion, I share my story and experiences as opposed to just yelling at people as some seemed to be claiming. Marlowe and I both do that, as does everyone else involved in these discussions. I didn't mean people need to read my past posts to learn my story, I meant that whenever I'm in a discussion I use my own experiences (and those of others I know on AVEN) to help give examples of what I'm talking about (which seems to be exactly what you were suggesting above. We all do that already).

 

However my most recent comment here has clarified everything I need to say on the topic. I covered the whole situation and explained how it has become what it has so hopefully that clarifies this situation for everyone. 🍰

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, nineGardens said:

Its just confusing afterwards when you are still engaging in the conversation. Noping out is fine. Engaging is fine. Saying Nope while continuing to engage is... confusing.

I'm repeating nope when trying to get dragged into the discussion, to prevent misrepresentation to have the last word and being seen as fact.

 

I'll keep saying "no, period" as rejection of the game being played, while not being portrayed as having lost the game. It's simply a game for losers.

[Guest]

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) Please just go to sleep, overexerting yourself on an issue that will 100% still be a mess in the morning helps no one and just harms you. You've already done more for this site than many, many others. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I'm repeating nope when trying to get dragged into the discussion, to prevent misrepresentation to have the last word and being seen as fact.

 

I'll keep saying "no, period" as rejection of the game being played, while not being portrayed as having lost the game. It's simply a game for losers.

I think almost everyone here is trying to have an earnest discussion of a very complex issue. It certainly isn't a game and the people discussing it are certainly not losers.

[Guest]

Just now, Road said:

I think almost everyone here is trying to have an earnest discussion of a very complex issue. It certainly isn't a game and the people discussing it are certainly not losers.

Don't invalidate my opinion.

[Guest]

Just now, Road said:

and the people discussing it are certainly not losers.

I feel like a bit of a loser right now if I'm honest Almost 4am, my shirt has coffee spilled all down it, I've been lying in bed typing on my phone for the past 3 hours so my fingers have all gone stiff, and I have to be up in a few hours to walk my kids to mum's for a family breakfast. Yep, I definitely feel like a loser right now at this point in my life, lol. Now I shall definitely sleep.

[Janus the Fox]

Aces who want sex are still valid.  Sex in the end can go further than sexual attraction, the act want and desire for sex can be disconnected from sexuality and thus can become a pleasure seeking mechanism only instead, hence many aces can be sex-desirable for the pleasure seeking.  It can be connected to romance or other reasons naturally.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Janus DarkFox said:

Aces who want sex are still valid.  Sex in the end can go further than sexual attraction, the act want and desire for sex can be disconnected from sexuality and thus can become a pleasure seeking mechanism only instead, hence many aces can be sex-desirable for the pleasure seeking.  It can be connected to romance or other reasons naturally.

[LeChat]

@Mysticus Insanus I hope everything's going okay, at home; I've never seen you this upset, when chatting with others on the forums.

[Philip027]

Quote

Aces who want sex are still valid.

How so?  What separates them from sexuals at that point?

 

This is literally saying anyone who wants to be ace can be.  All you aces who thought that they were just born that way and it can't be changed?  You're clearly just not trying hard enough!

[Guest]

Just now, LeChat said:

@Mysticus Insanus I hope everything's going okay, at home; I've never seen you this upset.

Oh, I've been far more upset in the past, including the last time around that this stuff was a topic (and led to a hiatus of over a year, on my side). I'm pretty calm right now, to be honest... because I've completely given up on trying to change the minds of the BoD and the part of the staff that agrees with the BoD policy.

 

I'm just giving a crystal clear statement to everyone outside of that group who reads this, that their opinion is not objective truth, and will not go unchallenged.

 

 

(Thanks for worrying through, I do sincerely appreciate that part.  )

[Snao Cone]

imo, a statement like "being asexual has nothing to do with not being into sex" is pretty invalidating

[Philip027]

Quote

imo, a statement like "being asexual has nothing to do with not being into sex" is pretty invalidating

And that there is precisely why this whole Thing just comes off as a big farce.  The staff doesn't even seem to realize that by going so far to avoid stepping on toes, they're just stepping on others.

[NickyTannock]

@Mysticus Insanus What can I do?

 

You obviously think that I'm playing games, and that I think my opinion is more than an opinion, how do I convince you that I'm being sincere?

[Iam9man]

There’s a big difference between:

 

1. Someone feeling invalidated by someone else identifying as asexual under a definition they don’t agree with.
 

2. Someone being told they’re not asexual because someone else doesn’t agree with their definition, or their understanding of a definition, of asexuality.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

@Mysticus Insanus What can I do?

 

You obviously think that I'm playing games, and that I think my opinion is more than an opinion, how do I convince you that I'm being sincere?

Just listen to those here who are still trying to explain the same thing we've explained dozens, hundreds of times. Ficto, Phillip, Snao, Ceebs, Skulls, etc..

 

Don't sit back and expect us to say it all yet again. There's a point where asking to have it all laid out for you for the umpteenth time instead of just going and reading up on things is nothing but entitlement. Incredible amounts of tireless work has been done over the years, and it all still gets dismissed with reactions like yours. We have done so much for AVEN, and not only is it never enough, but the work we have done gets dismissed as a problem by The Powers That Be, just because a fresh batch of the usual suspects has thrown another tantrum.

 

We have every right to be fed up with that. We don't owe you more than we have already given, in abundance.

[daveb]

I want to try to clarify a mistaken assumption (as far as I can see); this statement by the Board of Directors was not prompted by any single report or thread. It is something they felt has been building up over time and something they considered for a long time, discussed among themselves and with the admod team. We all had opportunity for as much input and questioning as we wanted/were able to do, and of course in the end the final decision was theirs. Some of us support the decision, some of us not so much. But it is their right to make such a decision and to follow up with it as they see fit. Part of my job as mod, as I see it, is to respect their decision and uphold it. 

 

I do understand some of the objections people raised/are raising. I understand some people feel very passionately about this, too, and I think that is good. I know many of you are also very intelligent and I would like to think you could find ways to channel that passion into upholding your points of view without trampling on other people. I know how difficult that can be in the heat of a discussion. Sometimes I find it helps to take a step back, remember there are human beings on the other end and most likely they are decent people with their own views and experiences, and hopefully I try to listen to them and respond to them accordingly.

[Philip027]

Quote

There’s a big difference between:

 

1. Someone feeling invalidated by someone else identifying as asexual under a definition they don’t agree with.
 

2. Someone being told they’re not asexual because someone else doesn’t agree with their definition, or their understanding of a definition, of asexuality.

It's funny to me how you're apparently trying to suggest #2 is the actual problem, yet #1 is the example for which you actually used the term "invalidated"

 

It's funny, but in a very telling sort of way.