Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

For discussion of general issues pertaining to asexuality.
PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:44 am

I want to start this out with it being clear this is not an attack on David Jay persay but given he is a prominant figure head for asexuality, is the direction he seems to be going in..the right one and will we benefit of suffer..this also applies to those who proclaim themselves as "activists" for the asexual movement

certianly when i hear the term activist..i generally think..there bored so have thrown themself into a project.. I see many of them actually not entirely being active for that one goal but put over that one goal as genuine whilst having another agenda to drive it

In this case for me anyway..those who proclaim to be activists for asexuality almost all..tend to be pro and active within the lgbt community and see the lgbt as a welcoming body for asexuality rather than what do asexuals actually want

again not anti lgbt they serve a purpose..as does my toilet..but i wouldn't align with my toilet, although to be fair my toilet is probably more asexual/non sexual than the lgbt...so why is the lgbt so prominent within asexuality?

my personal feeling is that those who do so, like DJ and such activists are the stereo typical lgbt activists so will tell you tell they are blue in the face and then some..that asexuality is or should be part of the lgbt

why is that worrying?..most of these activists..rarely are involved in the day to day asexual communities that they claim to represent..some not all ..so what makes them the mouthpiece for asexuality???

So I worry, with none of these activists and public faces having ever been selected or chosen by the asexual community..how is it they are seen as representitives of the same asexual community and given most of the lgbt bias is there..are we being sold down the river by non involved faceless unelected and unapproachable individuals?

if we are to be visible..shouldn't it be by elected representitives who dis[play a more even, rounded and independent view of asexuality in all it's forms?

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby Dargon » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:36 am

First, with regards to the lgbt, this is a double edges sword. The lgbt groups often already have a visiable foothold in their area, and as such, allying with them allows asexuality to take advantage of that foothold without ever having to carve its own. (aside: my opinions on asexuality being part of lgbt stuff varies from group to group. Some lbgt groups are moreso activist / support / social groups welcoming of anyone who is or supports non-heteronormative lifestyles, and those are fine to ally with. Others are pretty much specifically lgbt issues only, and those are detrimental to try to join).

However, it also means that asexuality becomes a small subset of the glbt movement, rather than an independent thing. Guilt by association comes into the picture too, so religious conservatives might not be too fond of asexuals.

My biggest issue here, and you at least used to see this a fair bit on AVEN, is that I am of the opinion that a group that is activist in some way, shape, or form, should remain so exclusively in their field. Branching out into activism in other areas begins to alienate people who would otherwise fit it, and buys just as many new enemies as it does new friends.

For instance, AVEN is highly liberal (and seems to, at least unofficially, get involved in many liberal movements), and as such more conservative or libertarian asexuals feel unwelcome (and have even been driven off). Perhaps this may win them some non-asexual allies on the left, but it pits conservatives (even conservative asexuals) against them.


In the end, we're at this interesting point. I think allying with certain lgbt groups is good for visibility, since asexuality is still not very heard of; however I think in the long run, in order to truly achieve proper acceptance, asexuality needs to become an independent movement.

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby KAGU143 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:13 pm

If you define asexuality, or any other sexual orientation, by a person's day-to-day behavior instead of by what they would prefer to do, in an ideal world, (as the asexual elitists usually do), then it would be reasonable to assume that any alliance with the LGBT movement is contrary to our best interests, because our behavior, for the most part, has little or nothing in common with theirs.

However, if you define asexuality by what asexuals would prefer to do, in an ideal world, then the connection between asexuality and the LGBT movement is easier to understand.
Because an asexual's desire for a sexual partner (ie: none!) is NOT in keeping with the heterosexual mainstream's ideal, we are NOT, and can never be, included among the sexual majority. That makes ours, by default, a minority (aka: deviant) sexual orientation.

As for whether I think that DJ's particular brand of activism is doing asexuals more harm than good?

I have mixed feelings about some aspects of it, but I would say, at this stage of the game, that I believe he has done more good than harm.

Asexuals are simply too few in number and much too easy to marginalize as "damaged" and needing treatment, rather than as legitimate, and deserving of respect.

By associating asexuality with the LGBT movement, DJ took advantage of the partial progress that they have already made toward having their less ccommon sexual orientations accepted as natural variations in human sexuality, rather than demonized as consciously chosen, perverted behaviors.

Whether the association with the LGBT movement should be our primary focus in the future, I honestly don't know. I think it would be very wrong to abandon them completely, because many of them have been extremely supportive and helpful to us, and the inclusion of asexuality with the LGBTs helps to further discomfit the religious right, because it points out that some minority sexual orientations cannot legitimately be classified as sinful. (I see anything that forces the religious right to face their own hypocrisy as being a GOOD thing!)

It's interesting to consider the stereotypical view that many people have of LGBT activism. For instance, what do all of you think of when you imagine a Gay Pride parade?
I know that I envision a lot of scantily clad men in outrageous costumes, carrying signs and probably also doing some very outrageous things. The women are harder to stereotype, but I would also expect to see some very "butch" women as well as some very feminine types, all probably carrying signs.
Oddly though, I know quite a few gay people, both male and female, and not one single one of them has any desire to be associated with that scene. In fact, it makes them very uncomfortable. They are reaping the benefits that have been won by those activists, such as legal protection from persecution based on their orientations and some grudging (in the US) recognition of their committed relationships, but they have not taken nearly as many personal risks as the individuals who put themselves out in front of the news media, in the one way that they KNEW would get attention, and then used that attention to make their demands known.

I think that the majority of gay people, as well as those of other minority orientations, including asexuals, would prefer to stay quietly on the sidelines and simply have fair and equal treatment and recognition handed to them, for no other reason than because it would be the right thing for a civil society to do.
If only .... !!
But the reality of the situation is that civilized society is anything BUT civil, and equal treatment for any kind of minority, sexual or otherwise, has never happened without a battle.
In the fight for recognition of sexual minorities, as in any other battle, it helps to have as many allied troops in the field as possible, and I believe that that is where we stand at the moment. In the future, if/when the battle is ever won, then I expect that we will be able to establish ourselves as a distinct sexual orientation that is independent from all others.
____________________

OMG, that was a WALL o' text ! *collapses*
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

apsaf
New Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:28 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby apsaf » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:54 pm

OMG, that was a WALL o' text ! *collapses*

And I enjoyed reading and agree to every bit of it! Thank you for expressing what I never could so eloquently :)

I consider myself an activist but not specifically for asexuality and I can't separate my causes in different compartments; somehow they're all related. All I know is that I'm a feminist, a queer rights' activist, a human rights' activist because I'm asexual. However, asexuality in itself is unheard of here. If it hadn't been for asexual activists, I'd have NEVER learned that I wasn't alone, I'd never been able to move on beyond the feeling of being broken and allowing people to try and "fix" me and finally be happy for who I am.
And if it weren't for the queer/LGBT community here (I can't form an opinion about other LGBT groups around the world), I would have never been given the chance to feel normal within a group of people, to share the same struggles and the same aspirations.
The fact that those people are sexual or not is irrelevant in the face of a society who doesn't accept any "deviance" from the norm, be it sexual or otherwise.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:29 pm

for me it's much more simpler than the lgbt..in fact i would say that if anything..the lgbt are not a risk to us as such but possibly the biggest distraction to us standing on our own two feet

in that yes i can see the opportunist style of dj and some activists..but if we are to convince others we are genuine..we need to be seen as such..and not limpets on other peoples legs of visibility

so perhaps all the known asexual websites need to talk to each other and via elected officials convey a message about what asexuality is and what it is not and why we as asexuals are unique and just as valid as any sexual body..within our own right

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:10 pm

PiF wrote:In this case for me anyway..those who proclaim to be activists for asexuality almost all..tend to be pro and active within the lgbt community and see the lgbt as a welcoming body for asexuality

And that is the critical point.

The real question is why aren't the people who are AGAINST inclusion in LGBT putting themselves out there more, and reaching out to other, non-LGBT groups?

It is not within your power to stop DJ and the rest of us associating with and reaching out to LGBT. It IS within your power to reach out to other groups, or to help and encourage others to do this. The latter I feel would be a more constructive use of time than complaining about what the existing activists are doing.

PiF wrote:if we are to be visible..shouldn't it be by elected representitives who dis[play a more even, rounded and independent view of asexuality in all it's forms?

Anyone is welcome to put on their own visibility activities. You don't need to be elected. You don't need the permission of anyone else. Feel free to just do it, or to encourage and help organise others if you are unable to personally.

KAGU143 wrote:It's interesting to consider the stereotypical view that many people have of LGBT activism. For instance, what do all of you think of when you imagine a Gay Pride parade?
I know that I envision a lot of scantily clad men in outrageous costumes, carrying signs and probably also doing some very outrageous things. The women are harder to stereotype, but I would also expect to see some very "butch" women as well as some very feminine types, all probably carrying signs.
Oddly though, I know quite a few gay people, both male and female, and not one single one of them has any desire to be associated with that scene. In fact, it makes them very uncomfortable.

And then there are asexuals (and even repulsed, sex = absolute-no-go ones such as myself) who feel VERY at home in that scene, and are quite comfortable. In fact what better way to dispel the notion that being asexual or repulsed is about an aversion to the concept of sex?

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:43 am

flergalwit wrote:
PiF wrote:In this case for me anyway..those who proclaim to be activists for asexuality almost all..tend to be pro and active within the lgbt community and see the lgbt as a welcoming body for asexuality

And that is the critical point.

The real question is why aren't the people who are AGAINST inclusion in LGBT putting themselves out there more, and reaching out to other, non-LGBT groups?

It is not within your power to stop DJ and the rest of us associating with and reaching out to LGBT. It IS within your power to reach out to other groups, or to help and encourage others to do this. The latter I feel would be a more constructive use of time than complaining about what the existing activists are doing.?


not so much a critical point but a real one..have you ever thought that the only people trying to associate us with the lgbt are in fact the lgbt biased people? who probably have more lgbt association that asexual?

and there is the other important point..many asexuals apart from the forums for community..aren't out there in peoples faces because they don't feel asexuality needs to be....this mantra of we must form a body..that no one is elcted to to fight for asexual justice, against opression yayaya..blablabla..and finally..yawn

most asexuals do not align with the lgbt because they do not want too, most asexuals hide what they are out of the internet because most asexuals..are not asexuals..and of those that are..we are mostly comfortable in our own skin without the need and bleeding hearts telling us we need the lgbt

in fact look at those who are trying to push us that way at it very nicely ties in within the title..are the activists and dj trying to sell us down the river despite not a single one of them having ever being selected to represent asexuality..the answer can only be yes

User avatar
ghosts
Regular Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby ghosts » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:11 am

I'm really not sure what you guys mean when you say "asexual activist." What does that mean? Are we talking about people who do media interviews & such? Or is it just people talking to LGBT organizations?

If that's the case, I guess my feelings are that people who choose to do all the visibility work are helping make asexuality more widely know, & I think that's a good thing. A lot of people wouldn't have heard about it otherwise - I wouldn't have. Sometimes I disagree with the venue or whatever, but that's their business. I've kind of talked to a couple LGBT organizations as well in the past, & I don't think I was doing anything bad.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:45 am

And I think ghosts thats where the missconception of visibility stops

look at the activists..almost all are lgbt supporters or lgbt sympathisers..how is that a fair representation of asexuality?

in truth it says more about lgbt infiltration into asexuality than asexuals need to be involved with the lgbt

most asexuals that are non lgbt..just plod on..spreading the word without the need for conferences, pride marches, seminars.yadda yadda yadda

dj and the lgbt biased sicofants are taking ..or attempting to..taking asexuality into a cesspit of wrongfull direction with a SEXUAL body

so you see it isn't so much the lgbt but..alignment with a sexual body by those who are never been elected to represent asexuality

they ride this self indulgent low level media gravy train with levels of self importance that those with napolean sydrome would gasp with admiration

The asexuals I have met seem to be more grounded and less "you must like us and we are entitled to equal rights as long as we are more equal" than those within the lgbt

for most asexuals..as I suspect most within the lgbt..thier particular branch of humanity is part of who they are

unlike the activists and attention seekers who want to push it in peoples faces under the banner they are doing it for the greater good

certianly outside of the uni share the love bubble..the real world often see's wrongfull associations that do permanent damage by those who think they are with good intention but when asked..who asked you to do they..they know no one ever did

asexuality isn't an in your face orientation..it really isn't..it's a slow drip feed of understanding, awawreness and doing it at our own pace on our own and certianly without non elected people taking us down a dead end

dj, bloggers, activists and the ilk are and have never been voted in to be asexuals representitive body..they need to remind themselves of that on occasion

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:00 pm

PiF wrote:look at the activists..almost all are lgbt supporters or lgbt sympathisers..how is that a fair representation of asexuality?

And yet again: the people who are responsible for this situation are the non-LGBT people. If the non-LGBT people are not stepping up to the visibility plate in the same way the pro-LGBT people are, how is that the fault of the latter?

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:25 pm

That certianly appears to be the mantra of pro lgbt asexuals flerg.. However it's the same type of nonsense that gets boringly inaccurate as it is quoted more often

Lgbt are in your face... Lgbt asexuals are in your face.. Both require the master petting them saying good doggy then requires an audience to go.. Ooo good dogy doing tricks for us

Most non lgbt based asexuals are still as effective increasing public visibility but tend to do it in the real world on a daily basis and don't need the "look at my blog because it's the only way" mindset

To continually claim that unless you are promoting asexuality according to the lgbt cookbook then you aren't promoting .. Is pure hogwash

It does highlight for me anyway.. Why it is important that possibly we as asexuals should be linking our forums and having elected officials for the sole purpose of promoting a more rounded and representitive perspective of asexuality... Rather than self appointed non elected biased individuals portraying asexuality in line with thier own bias

of course there maybe a happy medium somewhere..but..my experience of those certianly pushing asexuality to be a franchise of the lgbt is that happy mediums only exist on thier terms

so ..basically individual bloggers and site owners and are not representitives of asexuality.. even though some attend events as "asexual representitives" even though they represent no one other than themselves as they have never been asked or selected by the majority to do so

at the momment we do not have i feel.. any asexuality elected by the majority representastives at all..so with no captians on the helm we do seem to be very wishy washy zig zagging the visibility ocean

so we can either keep links open and become more organised as a collective of asexual forums/bloggers with a uniformed,consistent and correct message or we will always be confusing others about asexuality because individual non elected people are trying to represent asexuality despite never being asked too

SlightlyMetaphysical
New Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:46 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby SlightlyMetaphysical » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:50 am

Of course, that's what we're doing wrong! Not having elected officials for our visibility movement! I feel so stupid. It's that time in every visibility movement's life when it has to decide that the previous system of just having lots and lots of people doing as much or as little as they can, in the spheres in which they feel they can personally contribute, is a silly system and instead, we need a massive bureaucracy to hold an almost insignificant number of presumably unwaged activists accountable for all visibility. And these people get to censor anyone who doesn't send out the right message! That's such a common tactic for grass-roots identity movements that asexuality really sticks out!

And I'd really like to hear some clarification on what "lgbt asexuals" are doing, exactly, and why it's bad. I can think of only two things that asexual activists do which conflate the two groups:
1. Asking LGBTQ groups to accept asexuals as members. That is, providing genuine, non-internet safe spaces and interaction for asexuals, many of whom find lgbtq spaces have much, much healthier attitudes towards sexual variety than the mainstream. These LGBTQ groups can then create a way of publicising information about asexuality to a wider group, and often facilitate non-internet asexual meetups and events that couldn't otherwise have happened. LGBTQ support is really important for a lot of individual asexuals, and really healthy for the movement as a whole.
2. Identifying asexuality as a sexual orientation. It's too late to change this now, and, even if we could, I'd argue really strongly against it. It seems to me that the world isn't ready to embrace difference. If asexuals want to be taken seriously, you unfortunately have two options. You can couch your language in that of sexuality, saying you have autonomy and rights, and pride, or you can couch your language in that of disease, pathology and disability, saying that you are different is automatically going to get you labelled as non-functioning, and framing asexuality as an orientation is the only way around that.

Also, stop saying 'But lgbt is a SEXUAL body.' Firstly, whatever your intention, it makes you sound homophobic, and secondly, it's not true. LGBTQ supports trans people, a good number of whom are asexual, and its impossible to deny that homoromantic asexuals aren't also in the LGBTQ remit. LGBTQ is not a 'sexual' body in that not everyone there is sexual as opposed to asexual. In fact, it's probably a more asexual body than pretty much any other, and if the asexual movement can't ally itself with non-asexual movements, then it can't logically ally itself with anything. It's also not a 'sexual' body in that its members aren't uncontrollable perverts with nothing else in their lives but degenerate lusts; my experience of lgbt movements is that they are friendly, sociable and civilised, but I'm going to give your posts the charitable interpretation and assume you didn't mean this.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:11 am

SlightlyMetaphysical wrote:Of course, that's what we're doing wrong! Not having elected officials for our visibility movement! I feel so stupid. It's that time in every visibility movement's life when it has to decide that the previous system of just having lots and lots of people doing as much or as little as they can, in the spheres in which they feel they can personally contribute, is a silly system and instead, we need a massive bureaucracy to hold an almost insignificant number of presumably unwaged activists accountable for all visibility. And these people get to censor anyone who doesn't send out the right message! That's such a common tactic for grass-roots identity movements that asexuality really sticks out!.


it's also the mantra of people too big for thier boots saying..trust us we know what we are doing and you lot are to simple to understand

as asexuality expands..and it is..it is only right to review regulary if we are to avoid sending out the wrong signal about what asexuality is and isn't..i'm sorry that doesn't give you carte blanche mr blatter but there it is

SlightlyMetaphysical wrote:1. Asking LGBTQ groups to accept asexuals as members. .


erm we need to ask now? I thought individual members were welcome without having to be asked..you see met..you don't even see..we are who we are and do not need to ask anyone or anyones approval to be who we are..we certianly do not need a permissionm note from the lgbt or some dilluded activist/blogger insinuating we do..and that is why lgbt or any other sexual body is not a right place to align with given on that one defining asexuality definition..we have nothing in common

SlightlyMetaphysical wrote:2. If asexuals want to be taken seriously, you unfortunately have two options. You can couch your language in that of sexuality, saying you have autonomy and rights, and pride, or you can couch your language in that of disease, pathology and disability, saying that you are different is automatically going to get you labelled as non-functioning, and framing asexuality as an orientation is the only way around that..


wutt? :shhh:

or if we want to be taken seriusoly we organise ourselves properly, put forward a accepted and given definition and not let individual activists/bloggers pretending to be the face of asexuality run off half cocked like they are on an acid trip

SlightlyMetaphysical wrote:Also, stop saying 'But lgbt is a SEXUAL body.' ..


ermmm..nope..they are a sexual body that is fact..unless as a lgbt blofgger activists facts are irrelevant?

SlightlyMetaphysical wrote: Firstly, whatever your intention, it makes you sound homophobic..


which is the predicatble don't question the lgbt or you are homphobic bullshit card that some play when they know they have been challenged and shown to be wrong..boring and predictable and even more so shows why we shouldn't resort to those kinda tactics


SlightlyMetaphysical wrote:, it's probably a more asexual body than pretty much any other, and if the asexual movement can't ally itself with non-asexual movements,..


eureka we have found one..i say eureka because most of the lgbt clubs, meetings and the like i've been to are heavilly sexually based and active..very sexually active..but if you say you have found a completely non sexual lgbt club then of course i will believe you but i maintain my toilet is less sexual than the lgbt so i am now tempted to start an allianace with my toilet

your post met..and thank you for joining in..is the example i needed to show why activists/bloggers are completely blinkered when it comes to doing things on our own and at our own pace believeing we are useless at visibility preferring the quick fix facebookie style of a franchised lgbt outlet

the assumption that we are a quite movement and work at our own pace is wrong..is absolutely wrong and it's why bloggers,activists and site owners need to be sure of what they project out and that they are actually representitive

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:32 am

PiF wrote:Most non lgbt based asexuals are still as effective increasing public visibility but tend to do it in the real world on a daily basis and don't need the "look at my blog because it's the only way" mindset

Ah cool. There is no problem then: the non-LGBT viewpoint is being represented just as well as the pro-LGBT one, by your own statement.

And yeah: LGBT are not a sexual body. They are a body most of whose members are sexual, but by no means all. But this has been pointed out to you many many times before.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:47 am

flergalwit wrote:And yeah: LGBT are not a sexual body. But this has been pointed out to you many many times before.



I'm glad you finally agree with what most people already know flerg..good lets move onto the next bit then

okay to those people like dj, bloggers, activists etc and lets be honest most DO have a lgbt bias..

when your asked or volunteer to go to conferences, be interviewed , volunteer to do speeches etc

given you have never been selected as a representitive for asexuality but do know you are seen as that when you do such things ..why do you speak for all of us and if you feel you are not then why do you still go ahead?..i'm interested

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:59 am

PiF wrote:
flergalwit wrote:And yeah: LGBT are not a sexual body. But this has been pointed out to you many many times before.

I'm glad you finally agree with what most people already know flerg..

You are a little confused.

PiF wrote:when your asked or volunteer to go to conferences, be interviewed , volunteer to do speeches etc

given you have never been selected as a representitive for asexuality but do know you are seen as that when you do such things ..why do you speak for all of us and if you feel you are not then why do you still go ahead?..i'm interested

I speak for myself. If asked about the relationship between asexuality and LGBT I would say (a) some asexuals consider themselves part of LGBT and some don't, and (b) in MY view there are very good reasons for associating with LGBT.

If you want to volunteer for conferences and interviews, and proclaim that YOU see no good reason to associate with LGBT, you're more than welcome to.

Incidentally, I don't think the concept of "selected representatives" of asexuality really makes sense. But the nearest thing I can think of is the AVEN Project Team, which as it happens I *have* been elected to. Twice.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:35 am

flergalwit wrote:
PiF wrote:
flergalwit wrote:And yeah: LGBT are not a sexual body. But this has been pointed out to you many many times before.

I'm glad you finally agree with what most people already know flerg..

You are a little confused..


Not really..I was attempting to show you that saying the lgbt is not a sexual body is like saying the colour black is actually white

flergalwit wrote:If you want to volunteer for conferences and interviews, and proclaim that YOU see no good reason to associate with LGBT, you're more than welcome to...


there also lies a good point and thank you for mentioning it..other than lgbt based biased activists and bloggers..most asexuals i feel would not even go to a a lgbt conference let alone claim to be representing asexuality

flergalwit wrote:Incidentally, I don't think the concept of "selected representatives" of asexuality really makes sense. But the nearest thing I can think of is the AVEN Project Team, which as it happens I *have* been elected to. Twice.


can I ask why you left the first time and I pressume the second also?

it does highlight more than ever..that as long as we allow activists, bloggers, site owners to drag us down a road many do not want..until we find a common ground amonsgt all sites relating to asexuality and then seek a uniformed way forward..we are very much in danger of the charlatans taking us in a direction that is thier personal bias and not..what is best full the fullest membership of asexuality

User avatar
Olivier
Regular Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:19 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby Olivier » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:52 pm

Pif, regarding SM's suggestion that asexuals ask to join LGBT groups, you said:
we are who we are and do not need to ask anyone or anyones approval to be who we are..we certianly do not need a permissionm note from the lgbt or some dilluded activist/blogger insinuating we do.

but everywhere else in your rants you want to stop people who are doing visibility work using the framework of LGBT activism, effectively suggesting that rather than just speak about who they are, they get permission from some elected asexuality representatives (whatever they are). People are going to speak their minds regardless, and if you want to make asexuality visible through non-LGBT avenues, then as many people have pointed out, nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing so. Also, I think that if you did so, you'd have the total support of those working within LGBT avenues.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:38 pm

Fair point Oliver but not quite correct

We seem to.. Through poor organisation.. Portraying ourselves poorly and incorrectly because we do not have a central information share but.. Seem to be relying on those kind of activists who are more in your face which is a recognised trait if the lgbt

Now.. As i pointed out earlier the "you do it then" retort from the semiprecious lgbt activists always happens .. Why are they like that ? Simply because that's the only way they know so when others do visibility still by volume but in a more discreet way then It's seen as doing nothing because it's not the lgbt way

Of course as you say individuals will rightly have thier own say and that has not been challenged however ... Some of these activists are going beyond individual thoughts and knowingly putting themselves forward as spokes people for asexuality and within that representing small sections as asexuality as a whole

I like many dompromotecasexuality on a daily basis but don't seek the look at me stile of a personal blog to tell the world how good I am at trying to sell fridges to Eskimos ... ie aligning a non sexual body with a sexual one then selling it as the emperors new clothes

Yes as we expand we do need a central information resource and elected visibility body I feel if we are going to stop the bias bloggers and activists trying to push us backwards rather than forwards

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:58 pm

PiF wrote:
flergalwit wrote:You are a little confused..


Not really..I was attempting to show you that saying the lgbt is not a sexual body is like saying the colour black is actually white

Then it's somewhat odd that what you actually said is "I'm glad you finally agree with what most people already know flerg.."

PiF wrote:there also lies a good point and thank you for mentioning it..other than lgbt based biased activists and bloggers..most asexuals i feel would not even go to a a lgbt conference let alone claim to be representing asexuality

I've never said you should go to an LGBT conference.

PiF wrote:
flergalwit wrote:Incidentally, I don't think the concept of "selected representatives" of asexuality really makes sense. But the nearest thing I can think of is the AVEN Project Team, which as it happens I *have* been elected to. Twice.


can I ask why you left the first time and I pressume the second also?

What makes you think I left?

PiF wrote:it does highlight more than ever..that as long as we allow activists, bloggers, site owners to drag us down a road many do not want..until we find a common ground amonsgt all sites relating to asexuality and then seek a uniformed way forward..we are very much in danger of the charlatans taking us in a direction that is thier personal bias and not..what is best full the fullest membership of asexuality

Oh good. So we just need to get all asexuals to agree with each other on everything. And then we can be visible. Gotcha.

PiF wrote:Now.. As i pointed out earlier the "you do it then" retort from the semiprecious lgbt activists always happens .. Why are they like that ? Simply because that's the only way they know so when others do visibility still by volume but in a more discreet way then It's seen as doing nothing because it's not the lgbt way

Wrong. You are the one who said "those who proclaim to be activists for asexuality almost all..tend to be pro and active within the lgbt community and see the lgbt as a welcoming body for asexuality".

If you're correct, the only people who have the power to change this situation are the non-LGBT people. And there's nothing stopping them.

Seriously, Olivier is correct. As I keep saying on AVEN, "should we be involved with LGBT?" is the wrong question to ask. I'm sorry you don't like it, but many of us are going to be involved in LGBT groups regardless. The real question is: how can we better reach out to non-LGBT groups AS WELL AS (not instead of) LGBT?

User avatar
Olivier
Regular Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:19 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby Olivier » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:19 pm

Ironically, of course, the biggest visibility boosts have been through non-LGBT avenues anyway, such as Paul Cox's piece in the Guardian and the Montel episode, which David Jay himself appeared on, and on which he didn't take a "we're just another part of the LGBT" angle that I recall.

fridayoak
Regular Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby fridayoak » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:45 pm

Question to the AVEN activist hit-squad (not PiF, he relinquished his membership I think ;) ): Do you see asexuals teaming up with the LGBTQ as a short-term thing, a way of piggybacking up the ladder to get a share of their visibility but with a view to remove the link once asexuality is out there enough to potentially become "mainstream" or is this a long-term permanent association with them that you are hoping for?

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:48 pm

fridayoak wrote:Question to the AVEN activist hit-squad (not PiF, he relinquished his membership I think): Do you see asexuals teaming up with the LGBTQ as a short-term thing, a way of piggybacking up the ladder to get a share of their visibility but with a view to remove the link once asexuality is out there enough to potentially become "mainstream" or is this a long-term permanent association with them that you are hoping for?

Good question. I see it long term. Ideally, I hope to see asexuality having a strong presence both inside and outside LGBT groups - in the long run.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:02 pm

Olivier wrote:Ironically, of course, the biggest visibility boosts have been through non-LGBT avenues anyway, such as Paul Cox's piece in the Guardian and the Montel episode, which David Jay himself appeared on, and on which he didn't take a "we're just another part of the LGBT" angle that I recall.


I remember the montel and the view interviews Oliver both were some years ago

Since then we have had more visibility at pride marches and lgbt associations unfortunately giving the impression that asexuality is nothing more than a subset of a sexual gay organisation and that.. Is to be laid firmly at the feet of lgbt activists/offers and dj

I remember quite recently this subject was raised in aven and one of the pt was honest enough to admit that aven was and is created/run with a one sided direction ie lgbt

As long as we are dragged further down that road these dillusionists run the very real risk of dividing the asexual community who feel we are being sold out to the lgbt for the quick fix of wrongfully aligned visibility

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:28 pm

PiF wrote:Since then we have had more visibility at pride marches and lgbt associations unfortunately giving the impression that asexuality is nothing more than a subset of a sexual gay organisation and that..

You've actually been quite supportive of the asexy presence at UK Pride marches up till now, which I appreciate. Did you change your mind?

And sigh: no. (a) LGBT != Gay, (b) Once again, LGBT is not a sexual organisation.

PiF wrote:I remember quite recently this subject was raised in aven and one of the pt was honest enough to admit that aven was and is created/run with a one sided direction ie lgbt

I think you're talking about me, and if so you're misremembering slightly.

It was actually a fluidity debate, which turned into a debate about Post of the Week. I get someone different to choose PoTW every time. That week's chooser picked a somewhat controversial post: someone speaking about their own experience of fluidity. I in turn, somewhat controversially, accepted this nomination for PoTW. This made some people - including yourself - unhappy, because it seemed like I was taking a side in a controversial hot topic. It also made some others unhappy because the post gave (allegedly) a not-too-complimentary picture of sexual fluidity.

Anyway I made the point that AVEN - by design - is always biased in favour of accepting self-identifications. The two positions "I am fluid" and "no you're not; fluidity is not real" are not in any sense on equal footing on AVEN.[1] They are not treated equally by the moderating team. They are not treated equally by the membership. And there is no reason the PT should treat the two positions as deserving of equal respect when judging PoTW either.

This has little really to do with LGBT per se. Incidentally, if you're still interested in debating fluidity, I think apositive would be a far more suitable place for it. I have repeatedly made the point that "safe" is not the same as "correct", and questioning self-identifications can be entirely valid in some contexts. But not in places where this is a no-no by design, such as AVEN.

PS. It occurs to me you could also be talking about Lord Happy Toast. If so, ignore this.

[1] And you could replace "fluidity" with any other label here.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:27 am

reading some of your posts flerg as i was unaware who you are on aven..I'm now guessing you are Michael? in which case Hiya

and yes happy toast..if ever there was an a oxy moron that is one :lol: ..yes happy toast did say aven was constructed in a certian way for a one direction bias and it was clear by the comments that it was lgbt

lgbt is not a sexual organisation?? funny..i have been to several lgbt meetings,clubs etc and i can absolutely assure what the topic of the day was on most occasions and those occasions have been lgbt fund raisers..so no..the lgbt IS a sexual organisation and always have been

supportive of asexy presence ..i think your seeing just one bit of those debates we have had michael..I am incredibly supportive of those individuals who have a foot in both camps and of those the incredibly small number who actually wish to be visible

i am and have never been supportive of any kind of body alliance between the lgbt and asexuality....i know you know this

you would also know that whilst some favour fluidity I do not..my own personal feeling in that todays world everyone wants an anser right now so quickly latches onto a label to feel better only later through lifes journey to discover the early label was a mistake..but that is going off topic and i'm having to discuss this in another thread

when you have non elected people telling you the arrogant approach of listen we know whats best for you..then going to other bodies saying yeah we are with you brother..look at the latest polls in aven..we are not..then you run a high and very real risk of isolating the very people you say you are trying to promote visibility for..and that is happening as we speak

I do agree apositive is the better place for 2 reasons..long term goals are not being diverted by 6 month asexuals as they are in aven and 2 I stopped posting in aven and asked to have my account closed but rather than face awkward questions by seeing guest pif..they suspended it till august 2014..as per usual when it comes to effective decisions..aven should never be relied on to be the best voice for asexuality

we say we want visbility..we don't lets be honest..most asexuals are not long term asexuals and because of that they do not declare asexuality at all other than imaginary friends on the internet

our current visibility is and always has been the slow dripping tap..in this day of in your face those..and lets be honest michael it is a pound to a penny of horseshit always a lgbt member or sympathiser..is trying to make us go to fast and in your face..asexuality just isn't the same as lgbt never was and never will be..we do have two very styles and for good reason

lgbt or not..the thread was about some individuals who have never been elected with a world wide direction and cohesion..are going forward and trying to push us in directions that are not universally agreed

in the rush to appease those wishing lgbt alignment..those people by being lgbt asexuals are forgetting to put asexuality first and are very much placing asexuality second all for the glitz and glamour of a wrongfully aligned media message fix

User avatar
Olivier
Regular Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:19 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby Olivier » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:21 am

PiF, do you actually have any examples of visibility work that you believe puts asexuality second that we could discuss specifically?

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby flergalwit » Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:07 am

PiF wrote:I do agree apositive is the better place for 2 reasons..long term goals are not being diverted by 6 month asexuals as they are in aven and 2 I stopped posting in aven and asked to have my account closed but rather than face awkward questions by seeing guest pif..they suspended it till august 2014..as per usual when it comes to effective decisions..aven should never be relied on to be the best voice for asexuality

There is a rule against deleting accounts except in extreme circumstances. This was partly due to people asking for their account to be deleted and then returning, which tends to create a mess.

(Of course I was not involved with the decision to suspend rather than delete in your case; it's outside my remit.)

PiF wrote:our current visibility is and always has been the slow dripping tap..in this day of in your face those..and lets be honest michael it is a pound to a penny of horseshit always a lgbt member or sympathiser..

Previously you said that the non-LGBT people were doing visibility work just as effectively as pro-LGBT people. Now you're saying the opposite (again). Here was what you said previously.

PiF wrote:Most non lgbt based asexuals are still as effective increasing public visibility but tend to do it in the real world on a daily basis and don't need the "look at my blog because it's the only way" mindset

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby PiF » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:51 am

Firstly apologies for the delay in replying..had a few days work and replying with limited internet on a itouch was too hard to do

Olivier wrote:PiF, do you actually have any examples of visibility work that you believe puts asexuality second that we could discuss specifically?


Pride marches Oliver are an excellent example..brand by association..if the most visible parts of asexuality are only seen as a franchise of the lgbt then that is all that people will see when it comes to asexuality and it will be forever seen as nothing more than a gay way of life..like it or lump it..I am correct

I've seen some then justify this with..it's not the activists fault it's the non activists fault at not pushing the non lgbt side..possibly..but that weak exscuse fails to acknowledge the lgbt driven activists have no sense of impact or wish to put over a balanced view of asexuality and they care not what the view of asexuality is as long as the lgbt are served because as I have said before..we have many asexual promoters ..but only those with the lgbt association seem to be in your face at all costs even if the biggest cost..is to asexuality


Michael..very much the answer is the same as above really..Most asexuals..certianly in aven..are not and will never be long term asexuals..so who is the visibility for? well the long term asexuals very many DO promote asexuality in the real world to thier partners, loved ones, work colleagues and they do so without the need to attend a pride march or write a blog about it or..well lets be honest..do something that has a look at me aren't i cool..kinda approach

i'll give you another damaging example

recently pedophillia has raised it's ugly head within aven and the backroom refused to have a stand point or curtail it's creeping into aven..i said the lack of input in discouraging this will show aven promotes pedophillia..some disagreed..we have now as we speak more threads of a pedophillic nature creeping in..one currently about is by a member they banned only weeks ago who has now set up a new account to promote it again..but we know how slow the backroom is..depending on the person

why is this an issue..well i won't say the particular word they are currently using because type the word into google and in the search..a third of it's mentions..are on aven

now lgbt like pedophillia..calm down you tree huggers before you get all red faced..if you say something and align somethingoften enough with something..it sticks..no one can deny that

aven backroom refuses to protect those who have been victims of pedophillia by allowing a continued increase of pedophillia in aven..the biggest asexual resource site

the owner and the pt acknowledge aven is created with a lgbt bias..from that it would not be unreasonable to say

asexuals maybe pedophiles or/and all gay...of course the association would be incorrect

but..how many times can activists of the lgbt say we are part of the lgbt and people outside of that rose coloured bubble not think asexuality is nothing more than gay by another name?

how many times can the largest asexual site not ban pedophillic inputs but then insist asexuals are not pedophiles?

brand association is why we have to be consistent, correct and create understanding about who and what we are..the activists do not give a shit about asexuality unless it is on the lgbt menu..pure and simple

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Are David Jay and the activists doing more harm than good?

Postby KAGU143 » Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:16 pm

flergalwit wrote:
PiF wrote:
flergalwit wrote:
As I keep saying on AVEN, "should we be involved with LGBT?" is the wrong question to ask. I'm sorry you don't like it, but many of us are going to be involved in LGBT groups regardless. The real question is: how can we better reach out to non-LGBT groups AS WELL AS (not instead of) LGBT?



This. :thumb:
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.