Linkspam: June 25th, 2021

On Fridays, we will share links to news, blogs, and anything else we find interesting.  We can’t catch everything, so you are invited to self-promote in the comments!

Ace Blogging

Michele Kirichanskaya wrote about doctors still trying to “cure” asexuality.

aceadmiral explained the distinction between the unassailable asexual and asexual elitism.

aceadmiral explained why US consummation laws don’t matter.

Blue Ice-Tea wrote an ace review of The Philadelphia Story (1940).

Community Activity

TAAAP shared their presentation to the Careers in Sexuality Conference, about how aces and aros develop and embrace their identities.

News & Outreach

ABC news profiled the creator Ace Dad Advice.

The Gay Times had an article about abrosexuality.

Scholarly Work

Ipsos released a report which includes statistics on asexual people by age across many countries.

The Williams Institute released a report on nonbinary adults in the United States.

About Siggy

Siggy is an ace activist based in the U.S. He is gay gray-A, and has a Ph.D. in physics. He has another blog where he also talks about math, philosophy, godlessness, and social criticism. His other hobbies include board games and origami.
This entry was posted in Linkspam. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Linkspam: June 25th, 2021

  1. Blue Ice-Tea says:

    Thing to include this week: The AVEN Board of Directors has voted to change the definition of “asexuality” from “An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction.” to “An asexual person is someone who experiences little or no sexual attraction.”

    (The change hasn’t actually been implemented yet and seems to be still under discussion.)

    • Siggy says:


      I agree with the BoD that the change is long overdue. It doesn’t seem to be popular in the AVEN thread though.

    • Coyote says:

      Haven’t read the link, so feel free to tell me to actually go and read it, but my initial thoughts on this are confusion as to why expand to “little or no sexual attraction” instead of adding in “no sexual desire.”

      • Blue Ice-Tea says:

        A lot of people in the thread seem to be wondering the same thing.

        According to the initial post, there’s going to be a livestream Q&A session on Sunday.

        • Siggy says:

          I wouldn’t say it’s exactly the same thing. A lot of people in the thread seem to be advocating “intrinsic desire”, and it’s left unclear whether this would be in addition to the present definition or just a replacement.

          Another contention in the thread is that “little or no attraction” is unnecessary because the “little” attraction is already captured in gray-A/demi identities. I just pointed people to this data, but I’m sure it will be ignored.

      • Blue Ice-Tea says:

        They touched on the “desire” question in the Livestream. The thinking seems to be that “sexual desire” is ambiguous, since ace-identified people may “desire” sex for any number of reasons (because it feels good, because they want to please their partner, etc.)

        • Coyote says:

          What, like “attraction” isn’t ambiguous?

          • Siggy says:

            I think “sexual desire” has a particular variety of ambiguity, where many people have a clear idea in mind of what it means, but if you ask enough people you realize that the ideas are at odds with each other. Like, I’ve heard many people interpret it as basically sex drive.

            Of course, it wouldn’t be a problem if we just allowed it to have multiple definitions.

      • KaeS says:

        Do you mean “desire” as in, “wouldn’t it be fun to buy a scratch-off lottery card with my gas” or desire as in “I’ve invested thousands of dollars in bitcoin in the hopes of getting a million?” Because on one end of the spectrum, you have the kinds of thoughts that most adults don’t act on due to inhibitions, and on the other end, a commitment to actually invest real resources into the desire. Am I still a smoker because I have flights of fancy where I imagine myself smoking? Or not a smoker at all since I have no intention on following up on the action?

        The definition used there strikes me as “allosexual people want to bang on sight, but asexual people don’t” with extra steps. Attraction is defined by the desire to have sex (broadly defined) with a person. And well, that feels very much like some of the pressure that jumps right from capacity to desire, intention, and ultimately, consent.

        One way around it is to use a more probabilistic model. You might be gay if the vast majority if your sexual behavior OR ideation involves members of the same sex. You might be an addict if you habitually do 15 out 25 behaviors associated with addiction. One can have PTSD without the classic cinematic flashback scenes. But ultimately one needs to engage in self-reflection to figure out whether that model really does fit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s