1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
demi-romantics

Don’t change us. Write better.

actuallyasexual

I feel like a big reason why people change an aromantic asexual character’s identity for “shipping” reasons, is that they don’t know how to navigate those ships when one of them is (canonically or coded) aromantic asexual…

However, changing a character’s canon or coded aromantic asexual identity isn’t a solution to that “problem.” Doing so is pretty hurtful too, considering how limited our representation is in our popular media. 

So, here are a few things to remember:

An aromantic asexual person in a same gender relationship is still an aromantic asexual person, if that’s how they identify. Being aromantic asexual doesn’t make their relationship less authentic, just different. 

An aromantic asexual person in a different gender relationship is still an aromantic asexual person, if that’s how they identify. Being aromantic asexual doesn’t make their relationship less authentic, just different. 

There are relationship challenges that are specific to an aromantic asexual person that should not be ignored, especially how a partner being aromantic asexual shapes conversations about consent.  

An aromantic asexual person does not experience (sexual and romantic) attraction, but they may still participate in sexual or romantic acts for reasons outside of attraction to their partner. 

Performance also does not absolutely determine one’s identity. Performing sexual or romantic acts doesn’t invalidate one’s aromanticism and asexuality, especially when “expressing attraction” can feel compulsory.  

This is not an excuse to put aromantic asexuals in unnecessary sexual or romantic situations. We are still less likely to participate in sexual or romantic acts, compared to people who are not aromantic asexual.

How romantic attraction is expressed is socioculturally specific. For example, a kiss on the cheek can be a platonic greeting, or it can be a romantic gesture depending on the context of the character’s society or culture. 

Consent is a relevant issue to every “ship,” but it’s also important to understand that discussions around consent need to be conscious of aromantic and asexual experiences and why we may or may not want something. 

If you’re uncertain of how to approach consent when one of the characters is aromantic asexual, please consult an aromantic asexual person first. Please let us read over what you intend to write first. 

I’ve read far too many aromantic and/or asexual characters put in situations where their boundaries weren’t respected and they were pressured into doing things they did not want in order to be “good partners.”

Know the difference between aromanticism and emotional abuse. Being aromantic does not make someone an emotional abuser, and being romantic doesn’t make someone less abusive. 

Be conscious of the fact that just like no one owes you sex in a relationship, no one owes you romance in a relationship. This goes for your characters too. No one should be punished or villainized for not returning romantic feelings. 

Stop using and misusing tropes like these to change or “cure” aromantic asexuals: The Power of Love, What Is This Thing You Call Love?, Love Redeems, Good People Have Good Sex, Sex is Good, and more. 

The majority of aromantic asexual characters are villains, monsters, aliens, and/or robots. If you choose to write an aromantic asexual character who is one of these things, subvert the stereotype through nuanced representation. 

So, what’s the take away here?

Don’t change aromantic asexual coding or canon representation just because you think it’s inconvenient for you. If you are that interested in seeing aromantic asexuals in relationships, make the effort to understand how they work. 

Source: actuallyasexual
demi-romantics

What Kind Of Attraction? A History Of The Split Attraction Model

historicallyace

The split attraction model, or SAM, has been viciously attacked over the course of the past couple years, based on claims that it is homophobic, sexualizing, etc. In order to understand where these claims break down, it’s important to consider the history of split attraction as a model for orientation.

Disjunctive Identities: The Original SAM

Long before the split attraction model was conceived, before even the popularization of gay and lesbian as identity words, there was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. By 1879, Ulrichs had published twelve books on the subject of non-heterosexual attraction. Though the language he used is not modern sexuality language, the various classifications of orientations that he eventually came up with are fairly similar to modern LGB+ identities, with some exceptions.

Most notable among those exceptions (at least for the purposes of this post) is the fact that he identified two distinct categories of people who would today be considered bisexual (which he then called uranodioning in men and uranodioningin in women): konjunktiver and disjunktiver. (In English, conjunctive and disjunctive bisexuality.) The first described a person with both “tender” and “passionate” feelings for both men and women. The second, however, described a person who had “tender” feelings for men, but “passionate” feelings for women (if the person was a man - the inverse if the person was a woman).

Though Ulrichs’s model was never widely popularized, due to its complexity (he also recognized “man who has sex with men in prison but is otherwise straight” and “man who has been through conversion therapy” as distinct sexualities, among others), it remains the first historical model of orientation to account for split attraction.

Limerance: Separating Love From Sex

The next instance of a model accounting for split attraction was published almost exactly a century after Ulrichs’s works. Psychologist Dorothy Tennov’s studies of attraction and love in the 1960′s led to the publication of her book “Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love” in 1979.

Limerance encompassed what would now be termed a crush, or infatuation with someone - the kind of attraction that would lead to the formation of a relationship, and which could lead to a longer-term, stable experience of love. Although Tennov viewed limerance as essentially including sexual attraction, she acknowledged that sex was not the focus of limerant attraction.

In and of itself, therefore, limerance would not be considered a split attraction model. However, it is worth mentioning because of later use of “non-limerant” as a precursor to today’s “aromantic.”

Affectional Attraction: The First Modern SAM

It is unclear when, precisely, the term “affectional orientation/attraction” first came into popular use. I have seen its coining attributed to Curt Pavola, a gay rights activist from Washington, and to Lisa Diamond, a psychologist. However, the term seems to predate both of these individuals, with the earliest use I can find being from a 1989 paper on education about gay and lesbian identities, wherein the authors use affectional attraction as a term which they do not feel the need to define, indicating to me that its origin must be earlier than that.

Affectional attraction/orientation was used, as a term, to indicate that simply using sexual attraction/orientation was reductive - that it implied that a relationship or feeling of attraction was entirely or mostly about sex. A large body of writing about orientation from the 90′s and early 2000′s uses “affectional/sexual orientation” or similar phrasing for exactly this reason.

Haven For The Human Amoeba: Today’s Split Attraction

Finally, we trace split attraction to a form that is familiar to all of us today.

An attempt on AVEN to trace the origins of romantic orientations as we know them leads to the Yahoo email group Haven For The Human Amoeba (the name of which was derived from the article “My Life As A Human Amoeba”). In that group, in 2001, there were a series of posts about the term "hetero-asexual”.

The idea of split attraction as used today, however, was developed about four years later, in 2005, on AVEN. Terms were hashed out, and the structure of the language that we use today was born. By 2007, the modern language of split attraction was in common use in asexual circles, and was also tentatively suggested to non-asexual people who were questioning their identities.

Conclusions

What can we conclude from this information? I would summarize what I’ve found with the following points:

1) That split attraction, or the potential for split attraction, is not a modern concept, but has been something we have been aware of for centuries.

2) That split attraction is not an exclusively asexual concept, but up until very recently was an integral part of orientation studies in general.

3) That the modern language of split attraction originated within the asexual community.

4) That anyone who blames asexual people for any perceived horribleness of the split-attraction model is flat wrong.

Further Reading & Sources

On Ulrichs’s Uranian model of orientation: one, two, three, four, five

On Limerence: one, two, three

On Affectional Attraction: one, two, three

On The Modern SAM: one, two, three

avenpt

This is great because our next AVENues issue talks about the SAM! We’ll have some opinion pieces regarding it.

Source: historicallyace SAM split attraction model
demi-romantics

Ace Week Is  Approaching!

redbeardace

Do you have your ace swag on hand for a proper celebration?

If not, the Seattle Aces & Aros Shop can help!

image

Buttons!  Stickers!  Shirts!  Pens!

BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE!

image

We’ve got your Demi Pride needs covered, too!

AND THAT’S NOT ALL!

image

Get some Gray-Ace Gear, too!


And it looks like Zazzle is having a 25-50% off sale on most items, ending the 11th, so act now!

https://www.zazzle.com/store/seattleaces?rf=238545785965645485


ONE MORE THING…

image

We also have a Redbubble Shop with different designs!

https://www.redbubble.com/people/SeattleAces/shop


Proceeds go to support the Seattle Aces & Aros!

Source: redbeardace
fuckyeahasexual

Anonymous asked:

I don’t care if you think that kids shouldn’t know what asexuality is because it will ‘confuse’ them. Teach them it’s ok not to want to have sex. I don’t care if you don’t teach them the word!! Just make sure they know it’s normal to not want to have sex!!! Don’t you dare leave them ignorant and then they’re 14 years old crying bc they had sex & they didn’t want to & they don’t know what to do. /ACE AF guidance counselor

fuckyeahasexual answered:

Anonymous asked:

Does ace mean asexual? Because since the flag meanings and this abbreviation, gray-asexuals and demisexuals are considered as asexual as suptilic black area omniasexuals (suptiliasexual) in Brazil, also known as assexuais estritos (strict asexuals). We don't use "aspec" nor "acespec", just say asexual/ace, at least it's uncommon and considered to be an anglo-spheric jargon. Asexuality is an umbrella itself here.

Yes, “ace” is short/abbreviation for asexual. I have not heard of suptiliasexual…so that is how it is said in Brazil? Aspec and acespec are used as short version of “a-spectrum,” which includes the asexual and aromantic spectrum, and acespec is for just the asexual spectrum.

Top Photos