Jump to content
Mackenzie Holiday

Should there be a definition discussion forum?

Recommended Posts

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

I understand what you're saying, but I really strongly object to the use of the words "normal sexuality". I think it is, unintentionally from you I'm sure, a dangerous wording that gets people to think some people are "normal" and everyone else is "weird". Again I know you didn't mean it, but that's the same wording homophobic people use to create opposition to LGBT folks (for being "abnormal"). I guess this is just personal feedback, you can do what you want with it :)

Didn't I reiterate later on the same comment that what I mean by normal is that it's all normal, that's the point. There is no one-box-fits all, or one thing that's more normal than the other. It's literally all 'normal'. Which is in opposition to the idea that the only defining factor to be sexual is that you get horny when you see attractive people.

 

You can read it how you want, but I think I made myself pretty clear :)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
1 hour ago, ithaca said:

I understand what you're saying, but I really strongly object to the use of the words "normal sexuality". I think it is, unintentionally from you I'm sure, a dangerous wording that gets people to think some people are "normal" and everyone else is "weird". Again I know you didn't mean it, but that's the same wording homophobic people use to create opposition to LGBT folks (for being "abnormal"). I guess this is just personal feedback, you can do what you want with it :)

We shouldn't be afraid to be abnormal, because we are. Abnormal in and of itself has no moral judgement. I'm a complete weirdo, doesn't mean I should be treated any worse than John Smith with 2.5 kids and a white picket fence.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker

I think we SHOULD have a permanent forum for definition debates, that way people who come here and don't quite understand or agree with how asexuality is being defined can duke it out with people who DO understand/agree, so that they can get a firm grasp on what asexuality IS and decide for themselves if the label suits them, and how much/what kind of interaction they want to have with the asexual community. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THESE PEOPLE, no matter how CLEARLY asexuality is defined in the FAQ, so why not make a place JUST FOR THAT? It's pretty much a rite of passage, questioning what asexuality IS the moment one hears of it, so why not even ENCOURAGE people to engage in this first step?

 

Also, @Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) and @Anthracite_Impreza are RIGHT... sexuality as experienced by sexual people NEEDS to be described on the definition page. People very, VERY MUCH do come here with negative and incorrect ideas on how common sexuality is experienced. But not ONLY that... sexual activity needs to be clearly defined and described. Because some people come here still defining "sex" as PIV only and identify as asexual based on THAT. Oh, Lordy!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl

I'm a member of the probably-minority which explicitly enjoys definition debates to some extent. And yes, in my opinion we need a definition debate forum. Although, I would like to comment on technicalities.

  • I have nothing against splitting off a part of a topic when it derails. When a topic becomes another definition debate, relevant posts should be split off with a link in the original topic.
  • However, I don't like merging topics because it destroys continuity and can become very confusing. So we shouldn't be afraid of having several topics on the same issue in the definition debate forum rather than sticking posts from a completely different topic to a preexisting topic on the same issue.
  • On the other hand, if a topic starts derailing, a moderator could post a link and remind that there is already a topic on this particular issue on the definition debate forum and that they would advise participants to move there.

But yes, we need a place to debate all the basics, because recently I have seen debates on several issues: what is sexual attraction, is sexual attraction without desire possible, what constitutes "sex", what is sex-favourable asexuality, what terms should we use for people disgusted by everything sexual and for people who only have intense negative feelings about personally having sex...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karret
4 hours ago, ithaca said:

I understand what you're saying, but I really strongly object to the use of the words "normal sexuality". I think it is, unintentionally from you I'm sure, a dangerous wording that gets people to think some people are "normal" and everyone else is "weird". Again I know you didn't mean it, but that's the same wording homophobic people use to create opposition to LGBT folks (for being "abnormal"). I guess this is just personal feedback, you can do what you want with it :)

That seems like a bit of a nit picky comment. A) sexuals are the majority, therefore that's what qualifies as "normal" because normal means " conforming to the standard or the common type" and being sexual is the most common type of human existence. It's okay to be abnormal or weird; abnormal and weird don't mean bad, evil, or lesser than. They mean out of the ordinary. Gotta get over that psychological hurdle. B) if that specific wording could bother people, the specific wording could be altered if/when the plan could be put into action. The point was to explain the typical experience of the sexual majority because that's something we here at AVEN don't really have. Just because Pan used that wording when proposing the idea doesn't mean that's the wording that would have to stick. Jumping the gun a little on that front.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ithaca

Eeeeh, maybe I was nit picky, and sorry it came across that way. I know too many people (ace, LGBT, etc.) who have worked on linguistic and also on themselves, on things such as this. I think it's important to challenge our views and our use of language. Even if unconsciously, our use of language affects our perception of the world. "Normal" should be every single individual on the planet, in my opinion. Asexuality is normal, LGBT people are normal, straight cis people are normal, etc. It's off topic so might be best to drop this, I know Pan didn't mean it this way anyway. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

"Normative" seems a much better word than "normal".  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook

yes but all posts get replaced with pictures of kittens

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone
2 hours ago, Sally said:

"Normative" seems a much better word than "normal".  

Snaormative

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
9 minutes ago, pook said:

yes but all posts get replaced with pictures of kittens

 

 

Cat Box? :D 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook
5 minutes ago, daveb said:

Cat Box? :D 

tenor.gif

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
9 hours ago, daveb said:

Cat Box? :D 

I prefer teegees! :wub:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
17 hours ago, Sally said:

"Normative" seems a much better word than "normal".  

That means something different, though.

 

(No pun intended, though I see the obvious irony.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl

Is there any official administrator decision on a definition debate forum? To be honest, I'm looking forward to it. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob

I think it would at least be kind to have a debating about the definition guidelines, something that describes the different perspectives that have been brought up, and how to argue outside of subjective/objective understandings, but this would require people giving up swords for plowshares maybe, and that sort of cooperation aside from competition might be hard to accomplish =^,^=

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderne Jazzhanden

When the apple fell off the tree and hit Newton on the head that was because of the way gravity operates - according to Newton the apple was attracted towards the centre of the earth by a centripetal force. Although Einstein later redefined gravity and argued the apple behaved the way it did because of the curvature of space. So gravity is still gravity. Or is it? 

 

A forum dedicated to definitions would be great. 😎 It'll never happen though because there are too many people here who worry too much about other people's view of why they are who they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pook

a quarantine forum for definition debates sounds great

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

There'd be no need for a definition debate thread if everyone would simply accept the only logical definition of asexuality:

 

Not having an innate desire to have partnered sex.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
On 10/28/2019 at 11:36 PM, Mackenzie Holiday said:

I just feel like I'm playing with fire with this particular topic, so I'm being much more of a stickler than normal, just to make sure no one gets burned and this thread doesn't last any longer than it needs to.

^ Something I (the OP) said 19 days ago. I personally don't see any value in continuing to discuss this particular option for addressing the number of definition debates that have been happening lately. The definition discussion forum is not going to happen, and I understand and agree with why that is. There have been 3 pages of productive discussion, but I don't think any additional discussion on this topic at this point will be productive, and I'm going to nip things in the bud and say that I do not want my thread to become yet another place for people to vent their frustrations with the invalidation policy, which is the only direction I can see a 4th page of discussion in this thread going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...