This is a followup post to A Case for a Convergence-Divergence Spectrum, so if that terminology is new to you, start there.
Previously, I explained convergence and divergence as a gradient, a subjective judgement, and a matter of degree. For example, I’d map myself on the divergent end of the spectrum — with a narrow, specific orientation rather than more broadly-encompassing one. However, that also comes with a few caveats.
[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image: Spiral Selfie by Howard Ignatius, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.]
Introducing “convergence” and “divergence” might seem like introducing unnecessary jargon into an already jargon-heavy ecosystem, but whatever you want to call it, a concept like this is necessary in order to address a certain lexical gap. This is a subject that people are already talking about — and without a dedicated term for it, they’re being hobbled by terminology that wasn’t designed for the purpose.
In this post, I explain into the nature of the problem, where it might’ve came from, and a possible solution. Written for the January 2022 Carnival of Aces.
[Crossposted to Pillowfort.]
An infographic based on the post Don’t Make Me Choose, where I talk about different parts of my identity & experience being pitted against each other in a false binary. Much thanks to all my PF mutuals who helped with feedback and revisions.
These images are free to repost and distribute. If you do so, I would prefer if you would also link back to this post, which includes a transcript below the cut.
[Crossposted to Pillowfort, and reposted to Twitter.]
This post is just a summary of some ideas introduced in a previous post, now with a diagram and more in-depth use of examples. Because I have qualms about the reclamation of the term “split attraction model” to categorize people as SAM vs. non-SAM, I’ve put together some alternative scales to introduce more nuance. This post is simply an explanation of those scales (and can be considered a culmination of the conversations held here, here, here, and here).
Edit 2/28/2022: This post is now getting linked in a way that misrepresents what it’s saying, so allow me to state this as bluntly as possible: the term “split attraction model,” which comes from outside the ace community, is a wrong and harmful way of describing ace language, and I object to the term’s use entirely. There is nothing wrong with identifying with a romantic orientation or more than one type of orientation; there is nothing wrong with describing different types of attraction; there is everything wrong with calling any of that by this bogus name.
Featured in this post: the coinage and meaning of wtfromantic, the subsequent coinage and meaning of quoiromantic, some discussion over competing definitions, and a sampling of personal reflection posts on the topic demonstrating its continued relevance over the past eight years. Formatted by year, with select text excerpts in blockquotes.
[Note: this post has been crossposted to Pillowfort. Updated 8/13/22. Preview image by Darkday, CC BY 2.0.]
Going back to old, old stuff…. I’ve gotten to thinking about this more, the implications of this idea… a definition of straightness that suggests, if not requires, an explicit hierarchy of straightness. All straights are straight, but some straights are straighter than others.
That’s what comes of a working definition of straightness that depends on absences & on what is *not* experienced (re: patterns of desire, attraction, unwilled feelings, etc.), without any dependence on what *is* experienced (re: patterns of desire, attraction, unwilled feelings, etc.), deliberately shaped to include pathologized experiences off of that list, as long as they meet the given absence criteria.
I just wanna say — it might actually be workable, for all I know, but there’s a couple things I haven’t seen addressed.
This post is a response to Dragon’s model for sexual attraction and the ace spectrum, which prompted a lot of scattered thoughts that I’ll be attempting to organize here. Topics include: modeling attraction patterns, attraction vs. arousal, gray-ace vs. asexual, and issues of “frequency.” CW for brief talk of ableism and eugenics.
Yeah, that’s right: I’m sick, absolutely sick, of all these special snowflakes who think they’re omniscient. They think they know everything — literally everything, even what’s going on in your head right now, every emotion you feel, every sensation or attraction you experience, everything. I mean, it’s one thing to consider yourself knowledgeable, but this is taking things way too far.
Special snowflakes have this compulsion where, if you describe your internal experiences, they’ll pounce on you to say you’re lying and just attempting to make yourself seem more unique than you really are, because these special snowflakes are the ones who know what you’re really like, of course. How do they know? Well we’re just supposed to take their word for it. Why wouldn’t you believe them, right? They can see inside your brain or something, probably. Mind-readers. It’s a wonder they haven’t hacked everybody’s accounts by now, since they must know all existing passwords, too.
Nothing in the world exists that they haven’t already heard of before, after all. They’re too special to need to learn things. They’re so special, they’ve already collected every datapoint in existence. Yep. These kids know everything, and asking questions would be beneath them. Don’t ask where they got these wild magic powers from — they just know things, and they will be furious if you question that.
There’s nothing too implausible about a bunch of people claiming to have unlimited godlike omniscience out of the blue, right? That’s not too ridiculous or anything. Nah. These firm but benevolent shepherds are the true arbiters of what’s really ridiculous here.
Ugh. Special snowflakes.