Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

A place for discussing real-life community building and media engagements.
Disjointed

Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby Disjointed » Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:52 am

Basically I see the screems and stamping of fists saying people should accept us but they fail to ignore our size..it's claimed we are 1%...Honestly based on places like aven I would say it's closer to 0.1% are genuine lifelong asexuals

With that in mind how should we progress? my own personal feeling is that the slow dripping tap of authenticity is a far more accurate and genuine than the open doors of vagueness with the "spectrum" of asexuality" that some push in the hope it will get asexuality nnoticed but not confuse people by the wishy washy what is and isn't?

some ideas are welcome?

User avatar
jmb
Established Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby jmb » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:59 pm

I've been rather silent the past nearly two months - as my job became OMG so busy I can't see straight - but this post brought me out. First: Welcome, I see you're new.

The more I'm seeing of the "Asexual Community" the less and less I want to identify with it - at all. (As you say 0.1%) And I think there is going to be a fractioning of the community at some point, because right now - the meaning has been so welcoming and watered down that I don't think it has any meaning at all.

"How should we progress?" I think it's time we each decide how to talk about our orientation (or lack thereof) on our own terms and stop using terms that others invented. "Asexual" doesn't describe me. And in some ways, the fight they put up to become the "Fourth Orientation" is misleading.

I used to describe myself as not having an orientation. But all those cursed biology and psychology books say we MUST have an orientation. So, "asexual" is 'safer' because it gives people an orientation that isn't like any of the others, but still let's them be 'normal' by having an orientation.

That doesn't describe me. I don't think it ever has. If a new 'ticky box' should be added, it should say, 'none.' I'd much rather check a box that says 'none' than check a box that says "asexual" knowing that the definition of that term is convoluted at best.

From my perspective, even those with romantic inclinations have more orientation than I do.

(I know I've got a strong opinion about this. The thing is, it's MY opinion, I can claim it, unlike some of the stuff I see being spouted in the 'name of the Ace Community.')
"He won't be your assistant" - Greg Lestrade
"But I need an audience" - What Sherlock Holmes meant to say.

Disjointed

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby Disjointed » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:33 am

I agree with you that asexual is not an orientation and I feel it is trying to be pushed as such to "be seen as giving asexuality a genuineness" which of course would be fake.

It would be like...A lesbian asexual is a double orientation...please do not mention that to aven members as I can see new classes within kinsey being created..you know how they like to make shit up lol...it's also why I value Apositive so, it deals more with real and honest than fake

My orientation is straight but i rarely have a need in real life to state that, as I rarely have a need to say I am asexual..we seemto just get on with life without the need for a crap flag or badge but will inform the uninformed if asked

I do feel the dripping tap is the best way to promote accurately what asexuality is

User avatar
jmb
Established Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby jmb » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:47 pm

I think the biggest damage AVEN has done is the notion that those of us who don't have sex - and who would not have sex in general - ever, get yelled at and ostracised "But, asexuals can and do have sex!" Ummm, sure they can (the act of sex is physical and biochemical, even the animal kingdom has shown it doesn't have much to do with orientation). Sure some do. But do you really need to yell at me because I don't and pretty much wouldn't? (There would need to be a major shift in planetary aliment for that to happen. Not saying it's impossible, just highly improbable.)

Why are all the other "asexuals" accepted and allowed to talk about their sexual activities without being ridiculed and attacked, but I'm not allowed to talk about my total and complete disinterest in the topic?

And this doesn't mean I'm anti-sex. If you want to have sex, fine - don't do it around me and don't talk to me about it. It's not that I find it gross or anything - it's just profoundly BORING. (A friend tried to 'cure' my lack of orientation by introducing me to porn - it put me to SLEEP! Yes, I get porn films aren't meant to have a plot, but Maths books are more interesting to me - and I actually do hate Maths :P)

Also, is it fair to say, "I wish I had an orientation?" (You said you identify as Straight) I mean, it's odd isn't it? Everyone else (Even most 'asexuals') seems attracted to people SOMEHOW, but I have about as much attraction to other people as I do to my pup - which is to say none. Well, not none, but it stops with "I like having you in my life." or "Yay, a fellow creature on Earth!"

Finally, I agree with you about the flags, badges, etc. It's an (or lack of) orientation. If you don't choose it, why do people need to promote it like it's some kind of fan club? (Don't get me wrong - there needs to be work done with various laws, and recognition gained. But I've been involved in getting several state laws changed and I didn't need a badge or a flag (or even a supportive group in one case) to accomplish it.) People don't have banners or badges to fly that says "Hey, I'm part of the 'Black Person's Club.'" Or "Yo! Green-eyed peoples group here."

Can you explain with more detail how you see the dripping tap as "the best way to promote accurately what asexuality is" because I think I know how I'm interpreting it, but since it's your idea, I'd rather get your intentions first :)
"He won't be your assistant" - Greg Lestrade
"But I need an audience" - What Sherlock Holmes meant to say.

Disjointed

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby Disjointed » Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:42 am

Hi JMB

The difficulty I feel is that your feelings on ..sex? whatever has been largely painted as anti sexual and as always the largest asexual forum resource has sought to welcome all apart from..asexuals. They have struggled to get a balance of sex positive and sex negative members making it look like all asexuals either want to shag or are positive towards it...that is definately a balance thjat needs to be addressed I agree and non sex positive asexuals should be listened to and respected as an alternative view rather than a dangerous one

Not one to make assumptions but can I ask jmb if you are also aromantic? I only ask because of your description of comfortable within your own skin-ish and without the need for others in a personal scenario...it makes no difference on your opinions I was just nosey

I feel the need to promote is/has largely been taken over by those who long term will never be asexual and as such the continual miss mash of confusion is perpetuated in a 6 month cycle. That does mean that long term/correct asexuals have some blame for this as for far too long we have felt overwhelmed by the confusing camp and have largely given in.

There is also an element where we have sought to correct an incorrect assumption/definition...we have been singled out as elitist and some would have been banned from those type of forums for having the correct to simply say no to incorrect labelling.

That's why I feel all the project teams/public forums in the world mean nothing if they are projecting a incorrect explanation. Personal information in smaller and personal explanations is far more accurate and positive in our future as a dripping tap method.

a simple 5 point asexual explanation would help with the first one being the definition of an asexual is.....and if this is not you then your probably not asexual

User avatar
jmb
Established Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby jmb » Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:02 pm

Disjointed wrote:Hi JMB

The difficulty I feel is that your feelings on ..sex? whatever has been largely painted as anti sexual and as always the largest asexual forum resource has sought to welcome all apart from..asexuals. They have struggled to get a balance of sex positive and sex negative members making it look like all asexuals either want to shag or are positive towards it...that is definitely a balance that needs to be addressed I agree and non sex positive asexuals should be listened to and respected as an alternative view rather than a dangerous one


See, this is where I get confused - if I don't give a damn what others do - (as long as they understand if they bring me into it, I'll be bored to tears) how is that "sex negative?" Seriously. I don't care - if you get off with people, animals, or mechanical - It doesn't change my opinion of you. I don't understand how my having no interest in talking about it/witnessing it suddenly makes me "sex-negative."

Disjointed wrote:Not one to make assumptions but can I ask jmb if you are also aromantic? I only ask because of your description of comfortable within your own skin-ish and without the need for others in a personal scenario...it makes no difference on your opinions I was just nosey


I thought I had said, so you're not being nosey at all :) You can use that term. These days, I'm back to saying what I did in college: "I have no orientation." It just seems to be more accurate now. (People have to identify both their sexual and romantic orientations.). It's simpler to say "none." *shrugs*

Disjointed wrote:I feel the need to promote is/has largely been taken over by those who long term will never be asexual and as such the continual miss mash of confusion is perpetuated in a 6 month cycle. That does mean that long term/correct asexuals have some blame for this as for far too long we have felt overwhelmed by the confusing camp and have largely given in.


It is difficult to try to have any compelling voice when one is a minority of a minority...

Disjointed wrote:There is also an element where we have sought to correct an incorrect assumption/definition...we have been singled out as elitist and some would have been banned from those type of forums for having the correct to simply say no to incorrect labelling.


The whole "Elitist labelling" just needs to stop in general. I find it thick with hypocrisy: "OMG You MUST include all these people in your definition or you're being elitist and we'll alienate you from the group and shame you for eternity if you don't stop." Right, because alienating/shaming people isn't elitist at all... :roll:

Disjointed wrote:That's why I feel all the project teams/public forums in the world mean nothing if they are projecting a incorrect explanation. Personal information in smaller and personal explanations is far more accurate and positive in our future as a dripping tap method.

a simple 5 point asexual explanation would help with the first one being the definition of an asexual is.....and if this is not you then your probably not asexual


Ahhh, I understand the drip method now: 1 on 1 contact, explaining one's own experience of - whatever word they opt to use - to one other person. Sort of like the "circle of influence" method. Well, that's pretty much what I've gone back to - when I do talk about it. Places like AVEN have made my experiences feel pretty invalid, though, so I don't talk much in mixed company (IE: "outside of here.")
"He won't be your assistant" - Greg Lestrade
"But I need an audience" - What Sherlock Holmes meant to say.

Harmony
New Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:46 pm

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby Harmony » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:27 am

I believe Dis is using a different definition of "sex positive" and "sex negative" than you are. Speaking of definitions ...

Dis, what is your definition of an asexual? If it mirrors the definition of other sexual orientations and you don't view asexuality as a sexual orientation, then does your definition reflect that?

And no, JMB, I do not believe everyone has to have a sexual orientation regardless of what the sociology and psychology books say. And what definition of "sexual orientation" are they using as I note that it varies depending on the sources? Anyways, if you are not into "pair bonding", as you put it, then why would you need an orientation? And even if you were into "pair bonding" but the gender/sex of the other party is of no relevance, then again you would not have or need an orientation.

I don't think we will ever know what the percentage of the population is "asexual" (whatever definition you use) by observing AVEN. Regardless of how it is advertised, that forum seems to be more of a support board than anything else. People who carry on with their lives and are pretty happy and busy with all that is going on are not looking for any kind of support. They may or may not stop by, but feel no need to stick around. They aren't looking for an online community to belong to as they already belong to their real life community of friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc.

Disjointed

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby Disjointed » Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:40 pm

My definition os an asexual is the widely recognised one of a person who does not experience sexual attraction...I would add to that that I favour a lifelong experience meeting that qualification rather than ...I don't fancy a shag in the next five minutes one.

I agree under the internet/text comment in that pair bonding requires no orientation. I have been close to a gay man, even flirted but in the type of a very good friend comfortable within my own skin and sexuality rather than a desire to bond sensually with a man. I have also had numerous sexual partners that obviously were sexual and apart from the act of sex I saw the person rather than the need for sex.

Agreed aven is rarely an effective benchmark other than this is what asexuals are not so a figure is always going to be difficult to attach to it. I will attend to my feelings that avens accuracy ends on the front page and then when you walk into the forums it is more an online community rather than an asexual forum

User avatar
FalconEagle
Established Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby FalconEagle » Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:16 pm

The community is pretty much shooting itself in the foot really, in multiple ways. All these media articles portray asexuality as some kind of disinterest in sex, while the community tries to beat down that association with all of its spectrums and definitions

It's kinda funny really, our current definition of asexuality (not experiencing sexual attraction) is intentionally vague... it's intentionally vague to avoid that association with disinterest (at least, that's how I've interpreted it)

User avatar
SuperAwesomeSpammer
New Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:42 pm

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby SuperAwesomeSpammer » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:03 pm

Asexualz ned mo viz n luvin yo.

(N mayb a good shaggin.)

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby PiF » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:18 am

SuperAwesomeSpammer wrote:(N mayb a good shaggin.)


Why wud I need a carpet?

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1260
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby KAGU143 » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:19 am

I don't want a shag.
Sure, they look okay when they're new, but all of those layers of hair are too high-maintenance for me. I just let mine grow until it stops by itself.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Is our visability trying to punch above our weight?

Postby PiF » Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:06 pm

I would have to say, seeing the state aven is in with next to nothing being about asexuality, let alone the place is full of pretend asexuals....I hope our visibility is low or our cause is fucked.