Misrepresentation and Disinformation (probably unintentional) by AVENwiki, Wikipedia, and other online sources

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Symbols_of_asexuality

53x+m³=Ø: this equation can be read as "sex + me = no result"
Ace of Hearts and Ace of Spades: these playing cards represent asexuality because "ace" is a slang term for an asexual
AVEN triangle: the logo of AVEN is meant to be a model of sexual attraction, with asexuality at the bottom point
Black rings: many asexuals wear a black ring on the middle finger of their right hand
Cake: most asexuals would prefer cake to sex
The asexual flag: a flag consisting of four horizontal stripes, with the black stripe representing asexuality, the grey stripe grey-asexuality and demisexuality, the white stripe sexuality and the purple stripe community
Ineffable and effanineffable: these words can be understood to refer to asexuality, see the Lexicon

Most asexuals would prefer cake to sex? This implies that most asexuals are a) able to consume cake and b) like cake to a sufficient degree that sex is definitively less appealing to them. If we treat 'asexuals' as an umbrella term that includes grey-aces and demis, then under the circumstance of demis in a long-term relationship that has developed into a sexual relationship as well as romantic, this statement becomes highly suspect and misrepresentative.

http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/61519-aven-wiki/page__p__1860455#entry1860455
[quote] From Rabger on AVEN forum:

I don't know if this is the best place to put this but I was wondering who is in charge of the AVEN wiki. I randomly was looking around in there and came across my very own (old as all get out) model. But there are a ton of flaws in it, such as using words that I didn't use and inaccurate defs.[/url]

The article on AVEN wiki has since been altered to address that Rabger's model is not identical to the one represented there... and it's commendable that the edit was made...

...but the fact that Rabger was misrepresented in the first place, and for so long, and that so many people, especially demisexuals, quoted that very article, is a bit disturbing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demisexuality

From Wikipedia:
Demisexuality is the lack of sexual attraction outside of strong emotional connection. It is distinct from, but related to, asexuality, the complete lack of sexual attraction. The term comes from the orientation being "halfway between" sexual and asexual. Demisexuals do not experience casual sexual attraction to others; however, when emotionally connected to someone they may experience attraction and desire for that individual.

This is what usually gets referenced, anymore. That is the entire article.

Am I the only person who sees a problem with this? Wikipedia is the main online go-to for people wanting something explained, and its definition for demisexuals is vague and outdated, at best. It's the kind of definition that passes demis off as slut-shamers and otherwise-normative to the "feminine ideal of chastity until marriage".

I'm not a member of either wiki, and I know that I could personally go on them and start edits... but frankly, I don't feel I have the right to do that on a site somebody else started and owns. I write and edit my own 'dictionary' on the DG to my heart's content, and I trusts the members here to let me know if they feel that something in the dictionary could be better phrased, and how, and if they feel anything there is misrepresentative of them or their views.

I have a problem with the two most-referenced resources on demisexuality being fizzly-at-best, but I also acknowledge the weight of defining a group, and I acknowledge the difficulty of explaining demisexuality with precision and clarity. I am sympathetic to the people who write these articles.

*shrug*
What do you all think?
I think it's definitely an issue that deserves consideration, but as for actually signing on and editing, I doubt my energy or willingness to do that, so I'd feel hypocritical to get too noisy about flaws in the online resources, lacking anything constructive to add at the moment.

I wouldn't edit the AVEN wiki, and the wikipedia entry seems...less bad to me for some reason.

I don't feel qualified to change either though, and unfortunately, due to wikipedia needing references and there being very little material out there on demisexuality from non-wiki sources, the wikipedia entry is pretty much "as good as it gets" until demisexuality gets enough attention that additions/deletions would not count as "original research" and against policy

*nod*

You make a good point.

As for the 'pedia entry... it's main problem for me is how short and underdetailed it is, to the degree of sounding basically identical to the "chaste woman" ideal.

Arca and I do have accounts on the wiki and we've been working to get it to up to date in a million and one ways. As far as ownership goes, it really doesn't matter as long as what we're doing isn't spammy or unreasonable.

Also, I prefer to not treat asexuals as an umbrella term but to use the term "asexual spectrum" instead. I've found that by using asexual as an umbrella people tend to become more confused when the term "grey-a" or "demisexual" comes up.

Also, I prefer to not treat asexuals as an umbrella term but to use the term "asexual spectrum" instead. I've found that by using asexual as an umbrella people tend to become more confused when the term "grey-a" or "demisexual" comes up.

I agree and also prefer to use 'spectrum' over 'asexuals' as umbrella... but I also am aware that umbrella-ace is still kinda' the norm, at least in AVEN, and saying that most prefer cake to sex is inherently misleading. :-/

I think the "cake" one is the most problematic, although the math geek in me really hates the equation too.

Edit: And the word geek in me hates "ineffable" while somewhat liking the pun. The whole article reads like a joke though, not as a professional information resource.

Edit again: You also accidentally use [/url] instead of [/quote] in the rabger segement.

The problem with the cake definition is that part of how it became an asexual symbol is because of what was said there. So it probably won't be edited any time soon. It has become a huge part of AVEN culture and saying "we changed the definition" will be more harmful to them than helpful.

*nod* I understand, of course, that it's integrated by now into the community. Still, one of the slurs I've seen against aces is "cakehead". :-/
Not hard to figure out where that was derived.

I feel like it's not an "Asexual Symbol" though, really. It would be less problematic if the "Cake" thing were posed on another page in another context, had its own article (maybe even with a link on the main wiki page, something like "So what's the deal with cake?" explaining its history and its cultural significance to the community or at the very least if "most" were changed to "many".

mel wrote:I feel like it's not an "Asexual Symbol" though, really. It would be less problematic if the "Cake" thing were posed on another page in another context, had its own article (maybe even with a link on the main wiki page, something like "So what's the deal with cake?" explaining its history and its cultural significance to the community or at the very least if "most" were changed to "many".

It actually does have its own page. The thing is it IS considered an asexual symbol

Tea's post

QFT. :-/

I think the definition on the wikipedia page on demisexuality is fine - they just need to elaborate that it's not a choice, that it's a legitimate orientation and that it's not slut-shaming in any way. Because leaving the definition like it is is just going to make people think the same stuff I always get - "but that's normal" and all that.