This seems like a good time to remind everyone to go read a very relevant post from two years ago (during another ace controversy flare up) about different types of aces valuing different parts of their identity differently. What Queenie talks about there was true then and is still true now, and I could stand to see more acknowledgement of the fact.
Go read the full post for Queenie’s take on four (4) distinct groups of aces divvied up by how they each prioritize their romantic and sexual orientations:
- Group 1: Aces who consider their romantic orientation more important than their sexual orientation.
- Group 2: Aces who consider their sexual orientation more important than their romantic orientation.
- Group 3: Aces who consider their sexual and romantic orientations equally important or who prioritize different orientations at different times.
- Group 4: Aces who don’t identify with a romantic orientation and thus consider this whole categorization system boring and pointless.
Fun fact: a lot of the bickering I’ve seen made 200% more sense to me once I realized that it was a lot of mainly Group 1 vs. Group 2-3 (with Group 4 mostly disregarded — hi! we’re here too!).
Listen, it’s fine to be in any of these groups. It’s fine if one part of your identity means more to you than another, and it’s fine if it doesn’t, and it’s fine if different people with the same nominal identity prioritize different parts of it for themselves.
It makes sense to me to argue interpersonal policy, what hurts people, etc., but it doesn’t make sense to me to argue that romantic or sexual orientation should/shouldn’t be the bigger deal to someone personally, and that’s actually a significant share of what I’ve seen people doing. So check out Queenie’s words, yeah?
[cw: sexual coercion]
Okay I know this was several days ago which is like years in internet time, but I keep going back to this post where anon approaches redbeardace about their boyfriend, and. I. *abstract hand motions*
After having seen this:
…and now this:
…I have to wonder what’s going through people’s heads, that they’d position “stone butch” and “soft butch” at spectral poles, as if stone butch is just the extreme end of butch expression and doesn’t mean anything else beside that. It would almost make me doubt my sense of the term was grounded in anything after all, if I hadn’t managed to read what little I did of Stone Butch Blues. Has the meaning shifted, since then? I hope it hasn’t.
Cuz, look. Out of the unintelligible soup of gendersense in my mug, I’ve picked out a kind of loose connection with butchness — that I feel hesitant naming that way, because I feel like I don’t have the skill set or hardness or the qualifications to claim it. So the concept of partial/medium butchness, or soft butch, is appealing for that reason. Meanwhile, I feel kind of stone, too. Not stone as in sexually giving or whatever, but stone as in “don’t touch me, gtfo.”
And so, seeing them positioned as mutually exclusive like this? Is… confusing. Like apparently I must be reading myself wrong, one way or the other, or both.
But you know what, forget that, suck it. Softstone is a viable combination and I’m not ready to let anyone take it from me.
Yesterday I got a message in my ask inbox — zero context — that consists solely of this one sentence: “So how is a sexual wife supposed to get her needs met?”
*throws up hands* I can only assume it has something to do with this.
So help me out here. I know plenty of y’all have had run-ins with the “straights don’t have any problem with asexuals” crowd. I know plenty of y’all have had run-ins with the “you shouldn’t bring up your asexuality to anyone but your partner” crowd.
Can we bring some of this to their doorstep? Maybe round up some volunteers? To put their heads together, and devise an answer, in their infinite wisdom, to make sure this question gets interpreted and addressed correctly?
[text: Instead of saying “There are aces who have been abused for being ace!” what if we started saying “If you don’t believe abuse survivors who are ace, you don’t support abuse survivors.”]
tfw you go hunting for some actually-decent kink politics posts via links from a known-okay blog, bracing yourself for the standard obstacles of porn, nudity, radfem-vs-libfem natter, etc., and instead encounter… someone complaining about aces.
I mean, it’s a common enough thing on it’s own, but it’s kind of jarring to see someone whine, “How come people let aces ID as queer but not me?”
Did I just step into a Salvador Dali painting or something? Where am I?