Ace Family Resemblances: Absences & Alienation Beyond Attraction

This month, Sildarmillion selected “beyond attraction” as the theme for the Carnival of Aces. I appreciate this theme because over the past decade or so, the ace community has become saturated with what I have called attraction fixation or attraction-based essentialism. For instance, you can see a lot of this in the AVEN debates over the phrase “little or no” (note, this series is PF login-only). Other examples, while less extreme, still reflect an attempt to isolate one specific feeling or experience that aces don’t have, which I think is inadvisable as well as unnecessary. When people take this kind of approach to asexuality, it generally reflects an ignorance of the history and prior debates on this subject.

Personally, I appreciate the “attraction” framework for describing certain kinds of experiences, but over the years I’ve gotten increasingly disillusioned about centering it in definitions of asexuality or gray-asexuality. Not only does that approach contribute to identity policing, but it also leaves a lot out of the picture, including what I consider to be more salient to my own identity as ace.

[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image: 1800 Series by Weijie, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.]

Ace of Spirals

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.]

A Case for a Convergence-Divergence Spectrum

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.]

It’s a Buffet, Not a Binary (Infographic)

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.]

Relationships to Orientation Language Norms

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).

Different Aces -> Different Priorities

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?

Shortcomings of LGB Homogenization

[cw: use/discussion of “sga” as a term, which for some is experienced as a slur]

Here’s something I haven’t seen addressed yet about lgb homogenization, by which I mean defining “heterosexism” as “homophobia” and defining “homophobia,” in turn, as related strictly to punishment of what’s termed “sga,” as reclaimed by some lgb folk.

This homogenization premise — that all silencing, abuse, and violence on the basis of sexual orientation is specifically about a presence of attraction to people of the same gender as the self (homogenizers regularly shorten this to “sga”) — has this dubious major implication: that the oppression of gay, lesbian, and bi/pan people (should, hypothetically) all function exactly the same way.  That is, the things they’re punished for, as lgb people, is a list that begins and ends with so-called “sga.”

I’ve already seen bi people taking issue with that idea, right or wrong, but what I haven’t seen contested or addressed is how this premise denies certain elements of the social reality for gay folks.

That is, for example — homogenization contends that lesbians as a class aren’t punished for anything that bi women as a class are not also punished for.

What strikes me about this, most of all, is that romantic/sexual rejection of men-as-a-class — something associated with lesbians & sometimes used as half the definition of a lesbian — would not, then, be part of the definition of homophobia.  According to homogenization, any “non-sga” elements of an orientation are politically irrelevant (that is, such attributes have no relationship to the term “oppression”).

So… if you were someone beginning from a lbg homoginization premise, would you rather:

1. argue that [violence targeting people who lack cross-gender attraction or desire] doesn’t happen?
2. argue that the aforementioned violence does happen, but is not part of any axis of oppression?
3. argue that the aforementioned violence does happen and is oppressive, but is attributable to a different axis of oppression (ex. misogyny and racism, not heterosexism)?
4. argue that the aforementioned violence does happen, but only to gay people who have already come out as gay?
5. argue that the aforementioned violence does happen, but is attributable to “misdirected homophobia” (even when the targets in question are themselves gay)?

Any other possibilities that haven’t occurred to me here?

Which do you think would be easiest to make a case for?

AA: love and desireability talk

[cw: sex as a point of contention in romantic relationships]

Anonymous wrote in:

Have you seen this post? “Some people desire sex and feel like they need to have sex with their partner in order to have a fulfilling & happy relationship with them, and there’s nothing wrong with that at all.” http://theasexualityblog.tumblr.com/post/142562968716/joshnewberry-peak-bad-discourse-is-its

It reminded me of your post “equating sex with love is rape culture” and I was curious as to your thoughts.

(link to “equating sex with love is rape culture”)

No, I hadn’t seen it.

This question strikes me as the kind of message sent by someone who takes issue with joshnewberry’s post but wants someone else to address it for them.  Honestly I can’t say I have a problem with that tactic.

You might not get what you hoped for, though.

sexuality triad

Anyway.  This… thing… tumblr meme? …of positioning ace/bi/pan folk as an allied unit was cute at first I guess, but it’s making me uncomfortable at this point.

‘Cause the theme has just more and more aggressively become this implication that The Hypocritical Gay Kids are invalidating and being bigoted toward innocent blameless ace/bi/pan folk, and, uh, while that definitely happens in specific incarnations (trust me, I’ve been there), it’s pretty clearly presented as if solely gay people (as a class) are Problematic and ace/bi/pan people (as a unified class) never engage in the same vice.

Which is false, by the way.

I’ve heard aces talk like anti-gay prejudice is mostly over and aces have it harder.  I’ve seen bi/pan people get on lesbians’ case for not being into men.  Our communities/demographics are not pristine.

If you’re addressing a specific case, that’s one thing, and if you’re just talking about things that have happened, that’s one thing, but if you’re adding that up to speak in metonymy as if gay people are guilty of invalidating others’ sexualities and ace/bi/pan folk totally aren’t… you’re wrong.

🌂

If one more straight kinkster compares being kinky to being gay or compares criticism of the kink community to homophobia I will be provoked to violence.