Comparing Additive & Subtractive Constructions of Attraction

This is a metadiscursive post — a post talking about ways that people talk about “attraction” as a construct, either expanding it or shrinking it in various ways. Below the cut, I examine additive approaches in ace discourse and subtractive approaches in lesbian discourse, each used as different means toward a similar end.

Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image: Scissors by James Bowe, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Dear Bi Lesbian Defenders: Stop Throwing Me Under the Bus

If you’re out there arguing against identity policing, that’s great. While you’re at it, try making room for people like me, too.

This post explains how defenders have been lured into an essentialist framework, what the problem is, and how to fix it.

[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image: Tire Track in Concrete by Darren Hester (GrungeTextures), licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.]

The Irony of “the SAM” as a Failed Critique of Essentialism

In light of how “the split attraction model” (the term) emerged, this post delves into how its associated critique overlooked preexisting efforts, neglecting to fully disentangle itself from prescriptivism, and at this point, the term is getting used to perpetuate the selfsame problem it was originally devised to combat.

[Reposted to Pillowfort. Preview image by Peter Thoeny, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.]

An Actual History Of The Term “Split Attraction Model”

The term “split attraction model” originated in 2015 with Tumblr users criticizing the ace community. In this post, I rehash why this is relevant to explain and then link specific sources that demonstrate the nature of its origins.

[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image by Cement, licensed under Public Domain.]