Jump to content
HikaruBG

Yet, another evidence that you guys do not belive in your own definitions.

Recommended Posts

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

Genuine question here: If someone is saying "I'm asexual and I love and desire sex, I can't be happy without sex. But I don't care what people look like, I have sex with them because I just love sex" (which is quite a common example of someone calling themselves 'sex-favourable'), can we post all those definitions like you just did, and say "you can call yourself whatever you want, but this is the accepted definition of sex-favourable, sexual attraction, and asexuality on AVEN" ? 

 

Yes they will yell and shout about invalidation, gatekeeping, elitism etc, but it's not our fault if the actual definitions AVEN uses (the accurate ones) are different than how that person is personally defining them.

I'd rephrase "you can call yourself whatever you want, but" as that still sounds like judgement, but yes.

 

When I think that someone might be something other than how they identify, I usually phrase it as a suggestion.
For instance: "You could be X rather than Y since the definition for X or Y is Z".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone
9 minutes ago, CBC said:

And I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with the definition of sex-favourable given there. Why are some people confused about what it means then? Is there an issue with members not accessing any other part of the site besides the forums? Certainly not blaming you for anything.

This is a newer page that people can't get to easily at this point because of permissions issues with what I can edit. People are free to link to it as an example of how "sex-favourable" is typically used. Unfortunately based on how it appears these debates are going (based on how folks have described them in these types of threads, as I don't have the time to read through most of them in the forums themselves) I doubt it's going to help curb arguments from spiraling out of control, but at least you have something concrete to show that you've done your bit and the burden is now on the other person to take in the information like a rational person genuinely exploring themselves.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm a failure like I've caused any of this or I'm to blame for what's happening. This has been going on since long before I joined. But I'm bitterly saying it was naive for me to think I could help quell things by providing better information, because the instinctual need for people to succeed and/or suffer through persistent struggles to believe that they're fighting hard enough to survive is going to lead people to argue no matter what.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonman
2 hours ago, HikaruBG said:

But somehow AVEN because here everyone can believe in whatever the hell they think asexuality is and sexual attraction is, and everyone is asexual if they claim so.

Have you, or anybody else, even considered what the alternative is? Have you considered what policing the alternative would do to this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HikaruBG
7 minutes ago, CBC said:

And I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with the definition of sex-favourable given there. Why are some people confused about what it means then? Is there an issue with members not accessing any other part of the site besides the forums? Certainly not blaming you for anything.

I think that's the case too because I don't see "Attitudes" in the menu where it should be listed. You can't even access the menu from that "Attitudes" link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone
3 minutes ago, HikaruBG said:

I think that's the case too because I don't see "Attitudes" in the menu where it should be listed. You can't even access the menu from that "Attitudes" link.

As I replied to CBC, it's a new page and not linked to yet because of limited permissions i have to editing things. I'll poke the people who are able to add it again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HikaruBG
1 minute ago, Snao van der Cone said:

As I replied to CBC, it's a new page and not linked to yet because of limited permissions i have to editing things. I'll poke the people who are able to add it again.

Yeah, my bad. I didn't see your new comment on page 3 (CBC's comment is on page 2 and I just quoted it from there).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone
Just now, HikaruBG said:

Yeah, my bad. I didn't see your new comment on page 3 (CBC's comment is on page 2 and I just quoted it from there).

That's what I thought. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puck
27 minutes ago, Snao van der Cone said:

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm a failure like I've caused any of this or I'm to blame for what's happening. This has been going on since long before I joined. But I'm bitterly saying it was naive for me to think I could help quell things by providing better information, because the instinctual need for people to succeed and/or suffer through persistent struggles to believe that they're fighting hard enough to survive is going to lead people to argue no matter what.

I just wanna first say this is the Biggest Mood I've ever seen about my feelings about becoming a member of AVEN staff.

 

 

 

But I also want to say that I honestly believe @Snao van der Cone to be one of the most positive influences on AVEN and that her work will provide countless help to countless people. Even if some things must be tweaked and edited as time goes on, the foundation is strong, sound, and 10x more helpful than anything that has come before it.

 

Thank you for your service, I could only wish to be half as effective as you.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone
2 minutes ago, Puck said:

Thank you for your service, I could only wish to be half as effective as you.

Thank YOU for YOUR service (as well as the other Answering Team folks) with answering the Q&A emails that people send when they don't want to ask questions on the forum. Thankfully we have that option so people can get information they need without it exploding into a definition debate. :) 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puck
3 minutes ago, Snao van der Cone said:

Thank YOU for YOUR service (as well as the other Answering Team folks) with answering the Q&A emails that people send when they don't want to ask questions on the forum. Thankfully we have that option so people can get information they need without it exploding into a definition debate. :) 

Actually, whenever I answer questions, I'm sure to exclude some kind of 10 page document that just has a bunch of forum definition fights and shitposts so they don't miss out on the fun.

 

But the memes are quality so I'm sure they are always grateful :P

 

3gkz06.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
28 minutes ago, Snao van der Cone said:

Unfortunately based on how it appears these debates are going (based on how folks have described them in these types of threads, as I don't have the time to read through most of them in the forums themselves) I doubt it's going to help curb arguments from spiraling out of control

As someone who has been balls-deep in the debates for years now, I do think it will help to just be able to link to (and quote) an 'official' definition. There just hasn't been the time or means to utilise it yet is all.

 

I didn't even know you'd updated ToS until 2 weeks ago, so haven't had a chance to 'weild' it yet :P

 

33 minutes ago, Moonman said:

Have you considered what policing the alternative would do to this forum?

The alternative is what they have in the gay community. A definition that is clear and understandable, that everyone can understand and accept. Okay so yeah, straight people are excluded from the definition of gay, but they're still welcome as allies as far as I know. Also the rest of the world (in many places anyway, not all sadly) takes homosexuality seriously as a legitimate sexual orientation. That's what we want for the ace community.

 

40 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

For instance: "You could be X rather than Y since the definition for X or Y is Z".

I do know members (maybe not staff though!) can get called out with phrasing like that, as it can come across like you're trying to tell someone how to identify which can be a slippery slope! Like if we said "based on how sexual people think and feel, it sounds like you could actually be sexual because it's not all about appearance for sexual people. Some don't care for appearance at all!!" ...well.. that's liable to get you yelled at :P

 

When I say "you can call yourself whatever you want" I more mean "you are free to use any label you want, however these are the definitions AVEN uses" (or something similar), if that makes sense?

 

But I do understand what you are saying, thanks for the reply :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimmie.
10 minutes ago, Puck said:

Actually, whenever I answer questions, I'm sure to exclude some kind of 10 page document that just has a bunch of forum definition fights and shitposts so they don't miss out on the fun.

 

But the memes are quality so I'm sure they are always grateful :P

 

3gkz06.jpg

It is a honor to be at your service. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix the II

5dad0e48fd9676c47c06d156d4d5d51f4eebc7fc

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonman
7 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

The alternative is what they have in the gay community. A definition that is clear and understandable, that everyone can understand and accept. Okay so yeah, straight people are excluded from the definition of gay, but they're still welcome as allies as far as I know. Also the rest of the world (in many places anyway, not all sadly) takes homosexuality seriously as a legitimate sexual orientation. That's what we want for the ace community.

 

But being gay and being ace have little in common. Gays are mostly definitely a part of the LGBT community whilst I feel as an ace that I am mostly definitely not. So steering asexuality towards the same standards accepted there is making the asexuality community less representative of itself and more representative of something else.

 

Besides, this has nothing to do with how people feel on exclusion or inclusion, it has far more to do with what inclusion or exclusion looks like in terms of what is communicated by Staff and what action is actually taken. I feel like a lot of people are simulatenously against AVEN's invalidation policy because they feel like they aren't being spoken for, and yet they are seemingly for giving AVEN more power and more control over other matters such as what the teachable, 100% certain definition of asexuality is and isn't. It all feels paradoxical and contradictory to me.

 

AVEN might not define clearly what asexuality isn't, but I don't think anybody is quite grasping the consequences should AVEN make it crystal clear and should public discourse be steered towards what AVEN's official definition is. What about the people whose experiences aren't entirely representative of the definition? What happens to people who choose to identify as asexual despite their experiences being seemingly different than the hive-minded majority that decide, today, what the definition of asexuality 100% isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
1 hour ago, Puck said:

But I also want to say that I honestly believe @Snao van der Cone to be one of the most positive influences on AVEN and that her work will provide countless help to countless people. Even if some things must be tweaked and edited as time goes on, the foundation is strong, sound, and 10x more helpful than anything that has come before it.

I see what you're saying, Snao. I agree with Puck. You have done a lot for AVEN and for anyone who comes here. I wouldn't discount the value of that! Maybe it seems futile in that face of some happenings, but the value is still there. You may not see that any of it has helped anyone, but I'm sure it has. And don't forget, the people who are satisfied are often not very vocal about it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
27 minutes ago, Moonman said:

But being gay and being ace have little in common.

They are both sexual minorities. It has nothing to do with the LGBT community (there have been gay people, and ace people, forever. The LGBT community was only invented recently).

 

29 minutes ago, Moonman said:

What about the people whose experiences aren't entirely representative of the definition? What happens to people who choose to identify as asexual despite their experiences being seemingly different than the hive-minded majority that decide, today, what the definition of asexuality 100% isn't?

 Not one person is saying they should be excluded from AVEN or the ace community, only that asexuality is one specific thing (a lack of sexual attraction ie no desire to connect sexually with others). There is an entire grey area to cover those who don't quite fit perfectly into that definition.

 

Then you get people like me who thought I was ace for years, and all my experiences matched that, then I found out actually I can desire some forms of sexual intimacy under the right circumstances. So I stopped identifying as ace. And no one has excluded me. No one has kicked me out. No one has said I don't belong here. Same with people like @CBCand @Serran, then all the others who are grey or some other variation of in between. No one is saying anyone should be excluded.

 

But asexuality is a specific thing (just like homosexuality is) and it's not exclusive to define that thing. 

 

If you do literally want some catch-all phrase for any human sexual experience under the sun though (as some want asexuality to be) why don't you make one? That's what confuses me. Asexuals generally have a pretty hard time in the sexual world and feel very excluded and alienated as it is among a population that places great importance on sex, without suddenly having to share their orientation with every sexual variation of person under the sun. That was WHY they felt so outcast in society in the first place. So if people want this all-encompassing umbrella that includes every variation of sexuality that is possible, they should just make their own term for it. They should not hijack a term that already exists to define a very specific (and already very alienating) experience!! 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
1 minute ago, daveb said:

I see what you're saying, Snao. I agree with Puck. You have done a lot for AVEN and for anyone who comes here. I wouldn't discount the value of that! Maybe it seems futile in that face of some happenings, but the value is still there. You may not see that any of it has helped anyone, but I'm sure it has. And don't forget, the people who are satisfied are often not very vocal about it.

Well all of us most vocal people are very satisfied, to clarify. Everything said in the new FAQ is literally everything we have been trying to educate about for years now, so it's wonderful to finally have something official we can just quote and link to, instead of having trying to convince people that what we are saying isn't being pulled straight out of our butts!

 

So the most vocal here are very grateful, we just don't see why AVEN itself (certain staff members, and the BoD) are trying to push against it with the invalidation stuff. Because yes, having clear definitions is what caused people to say they were being invalidated in the first place. It was never that people were saying "you're not asexual" (that really doesn't happen except in isolated circumstances) it was just that people were trying to give clear definitions which caused certain members to become upset (we have someone in this thread expressing said sentiments).

 

Certain staff, and BoD, seem to prefer to share the sentiments of say @Moonman, rather the sentiments of @Snao van der Cone and the rest of us, which was to create a bank of information with clearly and accurately defined terms etc. Thank heavens Snao has finally done it and that she was allowed to!!!!

 

But it confuses me that the same staff (ie you) who always strongly disliked the types of things we have all been saying all along (that asexuality is one specific thing that has a specific definition) are also expressing deep gratitude and satisfaction for Snao's work and saying that it may appear to go unappreciated etc. When it's all any of us have been asking for years and we are indeed very grateful :P Somehow you were always very against much of what we had to say, but none of it is any different than what Snao has said in the new FAQ etc, which we can now just quote and link to as an official source. We are perhaps the most grateful of all for that as it's what we have wanted for years! :o

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

what I'm trying to say @daveb is that it's the invalidation stuff that is making her work seem futile to a lot of us, and that comes from the BoD and certain staff, hence all the recent debate threads about it, the arguments, the dissatisfaction which appears to have skyrocketed recently.

 

All her work really is futile if actually asexuality is just anything you want it to be, and everyone has to stick to that, which will cause the debates to go on forever.

 

But if we can quote her FAQ and link back to it to support our own comments and ideas, then great!! That will be of great benefit to so much of the community!!!! And it will help many people who come to AVEN confused and looking for answers!!

 

...But as you seem on the side of the BoD, I am confused as to why you are so positive about that FAQ which clearly defines terms and definitions (which can lead to some people feeling invalidated, lol) .. Everyone on the other side is incredibly grateful, we just didn't even know this had happened until recently. We all view it as a huge step forward for the whole community though!!! 

 

edit: and once the new FAQ etc is all finalised and made public etc, hopefully we can have an @Snao van der Cone appreciation thread or something to show our gratitude ^_^

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock
Just now, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

All her work really is futile if actually asexuality is just anything you want it to be, and everyone has to stick to that, which will cause the debates to go on forever.

It's no secret that I'm also on the side of the BoD, and I'll tell you right now that for me, it's never been about avoiding a definition.
For me, it's always been about having a definition, but relaying it without telling someone how they must or must not identify.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
12 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

It's no secret that I'm also on the side of the BoD, and I'll tell you right now that for me, it's never been about avoiding a definition.
For me, it's always been about having a definition, but relaying it without telling someone how they must or must not identify.

And that's what it's always been about for the rest of us too!!

 

Sure, rarely some people get carried away and break ToS out of frustration (direct invalidatin has always been against ToS though so that hasn't changed) but we've never been about wanting to just yell at people "you're not asexual!!!".

 

Many of us (some who have sadly even left AVEN over this) have always spent a very long time, days even, trying to explain definitions in all different variations of wording we can think of... only to be met with cries of invalidation from the people who don't (and STILL don't) fit those definitions: the exact same ones Snao has outlined in the new FAQ.

 

So literally nothing has changed. We can keep doing what we've always been doing, in the way we have been doing it, direct invalidation is still against ToS as it has always been, and now we have a much clearer FAQ to quote and link back to to help support our education efforts. 

 

It's literally a win-win for everyone except the people who claim that clear definitions are invalidation. They were the ones who had the issue with us defining things in the first place, and nothing has changed. We are still allowed to define things, which you yourself have agreed with multiple times. And now the FAQ also defines those same things, in the same way, just more officially. 

 

So cake for everyone. :cake: :)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
7 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

But as you seem on the side of the BoD, I am confused as to why you are so positive about that FAQ

Because I don't see a conflict, like you seem to. The way I see the issue is to keep AVEN an open and accepting community and not drive away people who are vulnerable and/or unsure. To that end I don't think it is my place to tell someone else that labels they choose for themselves are wrong, that their self-identification is wrong, or to judge them. I'm all for education and I think things like the FAQ are a great resource for that. Unfortunately, as with everything else I (and several others) have said in these threads I doubt anything I can say here will do any good though.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
4 minutes ago, daveb said:

 Unfortunately, as with everything else I (and several others) have said in these threads I doubt anything I can say here will do any good though.

I don't think it's a case that what you/others say won't do any good.  It's more a case that some members disagree with that stance.  It's an honest issue-based disagreement, not something that stems from anti-authoritarianism.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
13 minutes ago, daveb said:

Because I don't see a conflict, like you seem to. The way I see the issue is to keep AVEN an open and accepting community and not drive away people who are vulnerable and/or unsure. To that end I don't think it is my place to tell someone else that labels they choose for themselves are wrong, that their self-identification is wrong, or to judge them. I'm all for education and I think things like the FAQ are a great resource for that. Unfortunately, as with everything else I (and several others) have said in these threads I doubt anything I can say here will do any good though.

Please read my above response to MichaelTannock. :)

 

Your idea of what we are is very, very different from what we are, and that's where a lot of this annoyance and frustration in the community comes from.

 

We've only ever been about education, but some have decided that based on the few times we lost our cool (out of literally thousands of times of not losing our cool) that we must all be this viscous scum who wants to force people off AVEN by screaming in their faces that they're not asexual. When it's just never actually been like that except in a few incidences where ToS was broken, and the ToS has not changed regarding that. 

 

The only people who were ever 'driven away' by us specifically (despite the fact that we ourselves vocally proclaim AVEN is welcome to all people who feel a connection with this community) were those who loudly proclaimed they loved sex but they're still ace, but only because the definitions didn't fit their beliefs and the definitions weren't changing. That's why they felt they had to leave. Now the definitions are reiterated in the FAQ. So that hasn't and won't changed.

 

I can tell you for a fact though, the amount of asexual people who have been driven away by the whole "aces love sex too thing" far outweighs the people who love sex but identified as ace anyway. But we all know that the BoD (and certain staff members) for whatever reason don't seem to mind too much about those asexuals. It's only the 'aces who love sex and are unhappy without it' that they seem concerned about. /shrug.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock

I'd prefer no one be driven away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

I'd prefer no one be driven away.

Sadly if the fact that definitions have meanings will literally drive people away (because the idea of being sexual or grey is just sooooo distasteful to them) then none of us can do anything about that.

 

The only way to prevent it is to delete the entire FAQ that Snao worked so hard on and replace it with 'asexuality is anything you want it to be!!!'

 

... But then of course ..all the (very rare) asexuals who don't desire sex will be driven away because they'll yet again be alienated and surrounded by sexual people, only this time in the community that was initially designed for them.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
11 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Your idea of what we are is very, very different from what we are, and that's where a lot of this annoyance and frustration in the community comes from.

That's what you keep saying. By the same token, your idea of what we are is very, very different from what we are.

 

I have seen accusations amounting to calling people stupid and/or lazy, of being dismissive, not caring, etc., even leveled at those who have been trying to engage and listen to the side of the debate who take issue with the BOD stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia
9 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

For me, it's always been about having a definition, but relaying it without telling someone how they must or must not identify.

Just now, daveb said:

To that end I don't think it is my place to tell someone else that labels they choose for themselves are wrong, that their self-identification is wrong, or to judge them.

How many times must we say that we aren't arguing that we should be able to tell other people their chosen label is wrong, and/or that they are not asexual. That is not the issue!

 

If someone says "Hey, I don't find people hot but I desire and love sex with others. Am i still asexual?" it is counterproductive to education for staff members to be jumping in and saying "You could be asexual, because asexuals can still desire and love sex - they just don't find people hot!" when that goes against the very definition AVEN lists in its FAQ (and further, reinforces a very misleading (and harmful) view of sexual experiences, and reinforces the "asexuality can mean anything" mentality). Instead, it would mean a lot if the response was instead to do something like give and explain AVEN's definition and allow that person to use that resource as they please. Staff members are in a unique position as staff members of a site that (seems to) advocate for education, and the fact that some aren't doing that is what is concerning.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock
1 minute ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

How many times must we say that we aren't arguing that we should be able to tell other people their chosen label is wrong, and/or that they are not asexual. That is not the issue!

I don't think I accused anyone of anything, all I did, was clarify what my position is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
2 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

How many times must we say that we aren't arguing that we should be able to tell other people their chosen label is wrong, and/or that they are not asexual. That is not the issue!

I got that. Which is part of what frustrates me. We are all saying that on all sides of this discussion.

 

3 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

If someone says "Hey, I don't find people hot but I desire and love sex with others. Am i still asexual?" it is counterproductive to education for staff members to be jumping in and saying "You could be asexual, because asexuals can still desire and love sex - they just don't find people hot!"

I haven't seen that happen, nor for anyone arguing that it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb

Maybe it would help if we talked about some of the things we all agree on? With civility. No name-calling, no impugning other people's motives, no mis-characterization of what other people are saying. Just some mutual understanding all around.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...