Musings of an Ist
A Carnival for Aces: Roundup

The January 2012 carnival roundup is now up at my blog, Confessions of an Ist. Thanks to everyone who participated despite the holidays and my lack of promotion.

The February 2012 carnival, aka this month’s carnival, is being held at quod inane vocamus and the topic is re/presentation.

euonymy:

I’d be interested to read those stories if you have links to them. (I’m not being sarcastic; I’ve literally never read anything like that in the four years since I started actively engaging in asexual communities.)

I don’t want to touch the rest of this debate with a fifty-foot pole, but I found reading the “Worst Responses to Your Asexuality” thread on AVEN eye-opening and horrifying. If you read it, you should probably consider it to have a trigger warning for conversion attempts, sexual assault/harassment/rape, and general anti-ace sentiments.

aceslutshamers:

What confuses me about the ace community here is, it’s a bit like having a community based around (to compare it to another popular Tumblr topic) ‘non-fans of Doctor Who’. Most people on Tumblr seem to be fans of it. For people who are not fans of DW, this may be rather annoying, since they don’t…

Because being asexual isn’t about having a problem with sex existing, and because being asexual tends to be an exponentially larger factor in people’s lives than one’s opinion of a single TV show.

thechronicwanderer:

I’m doing a presentation about asexuality for Spectrum, my school’s LGBTQ group. I have a bullet-point list of things that I am going to talk about. If anyone has any suggestions on other topics I should include, or how to make it more interesting than me just rambling, that would be great.

I don’t know if this falls in the category of “what different religions say about asexuality” or “what misguided followers of different religions think their religions say about asexuality,” but I’ve found a lot of reports lately of Christians condemning asexuality on religious grounds. However, St Paul’s remarks on being single are often interpreted in support of asexuality (I don’t know the verse off the top of my head, but I could find it).

coolmoniker:

DEAR ACE COMMUNITY,

So. I have. Exciting news. Potentially?

I was talking to Bob who helps run Stand Out Youth, a youth LGBTQA group in Savannah, Georgia that I’m a part of, and I asked him if he knew anything about getting spaces started because I’ve really been looking into how to start a…

That is really, really cool. I suddenly wish I lived in Savannah. Best of luck getting it up and running!

dovex:

From all the hate/discouragement I’ve received recently after coming out to my friends and family, I’m pretty positive that something’s wrong with me.

Please stop telling me that my asexuality is a product of my low self esteem. Please stop mentioning that I’m only 16, so I “can’t possibly understand sexual attraction”.

Please, stop ignoring my identity. It hurts.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you for being asexual, and the fact that your friends and family doesn’t understand this doesn’t change that.

Types of Attraction

Anyone who has spent any time in ace space knows that we talk about multiple kinds of attraction: about being romantically attracted to someone but not sexually attracted to them, about being aesthetically attracted to someone but not romantically attracted to them, etc. The ones that usually get all the noise are romantic and sexual attraction, to the point that I’ve seen people say “if you’re attracted to the same sex, you’re ___. If you’re attracted to the opposite sex, you’re ___.” (There are, of course, a lot of other things wrong with that argument. I’m picking one for the purpose of this post.) That sort of statement, or the one about “aromantic aces aren’t attracted to anyone,” always makes me stop and scratch my head, because of course I’m attracted to people, of all different genders. I’m just not romantically or sexually attracted to them.

So that long-winded preface is by way of saying, what other kinds of attraction do you all generally experience, or, what other kinds of attraction are significant to you? What other kinds of attraction do you group into separate things?

These are some, off the top of my head:

  • aesthetic attraction: people are pretty, and I want to stare at their picture
  • emotional attraction: I meet someone, and we just seem to click, but I’m not into them romantically or sexually
  • intellectual attraction: I have a massive crush on someone’s brain, and want to play with ideas with them, separate from what I think of their looks or personality

I think that middle one in particular could be expanded into all sorts of different feelings. Thoughts?

ETA: This shouldn’t be controversial, but I’m not tagging it as “peaceful ace” because I can’t control what people say on reblogs with that tag attached, obviously.

khajiiti:

greenchestnuts:

khajiiti:

Hahahah, their rant is so idiotic. “Oh, if you don’t want us to call you ‘sexuals’, then you find a word!”
How about they just write out a sentence such as, “those who experience primary sexual attraction”? What is it with their obsession to find a single-word label that encompass a part of the sexual spectrum that’s too complex to reduce into a single word?

Because some grey-as identify as experiencing primary sexual attraction.

And I understand that, but I still don’t understand outlawroad’s obsession with labeling people he has no right to label.

I’m not sure, but I don’t think outlawroad goes by “he.”
I’m also not expressing support for outlawroad’s opinions, given that I pointed out to hir that I had in fact done what zhe was suggesting had never happened. Just answering your question as to why we can’t just say “people who experience primary sexual attraction,” though it was suggested. (Someone suggested adding some modifiers to make it less erasing to grey-as and then it turned into an acronym mess, so.)

khajiiti:

greenchestnuts:

khajiiti:

Hahahah, their rant is so idiotic. “Oh, if you don’t want us to call you ‘sexuals’, then you find a word!”

How about they just write out a sentence such as, “those who experience primary sexual attraction”? What is it with their obsession to find a single-word label that encompass a part of the sexual spectrum that’s too complex to reduce into a single word?

Because some grey-as identify as experiencing primary sexual attraction.

And I understand that, but I still don’t understand outlawroad’s obsession with labeling people he has no right to label.

I’m not sure, but I don’t think outlawroad goes by “he.”

I’m also not expressing support for outlawroad’s opinions, given that I pointed out to hir that I had in fact done what zhe was suggesting had never happened. Just answering your question as to why we can’t just say “people who experience primary sexual attraction,” though it was suggested. (Someone suggested adding some modifiers to make it less erasing to grey-as and then it turned into an acronym mess, so.)

khajiiti:

Hahahah, their rant is so idiotic. “Oh, if you don’t want us to call you ‘sexuals’, then you find a word!”
How about they just write out a sentence such as, “those who experience primary sexual attraction”? What is it with their obsession to find a single-word label that encompass a part of the sexual spectrum that’s too complex to reduce into a single word?

Because some grey-as identify as experiencing primary sexual attraction.

khajiiti:

Hahahah, their rant is so idiotic. “Oh, if you don’t want us to call you ‘sexuals’, then you find a word!”

How about they just write out a sentence such as, “those who experience primary sexual attraction”? What is it with their obsession to find a single-word label that encompass a part of the sexual spectrum that’s too complex to reduce into a single word?

Because some grey-as identify as experiencing primary sexual attraction.

mumblingsage:

inspire-enthusiasm:

qualityvanillaabsolute:

I’m using either “people who aren’t ace/asexual” or “non-ace”, whatever I feel like at the time. I have my reasons for this, and it’s not entirely about arguments convincing me, not that it matters that much I suppose. And…

Yeah, I think the pronunciation is unfortunate. One of the objections to “sexuals” was that it reflects how certain minority groups have been considered “hyper-sexualized,” and using a term that sounds like “very sexual” would, I think, be a dubious choice.

I’m also concerned that it basically means “true” or “real” -sexual, because when turned into a noun, verisexuality then would be… the true sexuality, or the real sexuality. And asexuality is no less of a true or real sexual orientation than non-asexuality.