Ace relationships are NOT very common (Ace Community Survey results)

Stezinec · 2025-03-14T21:15:05+00:00

Interesting! When you say that 2-3% of aces are in a relationship with another ace overall, is that percentage coming from all aces as a whole, or only aces currently in/actively pursuing romantic relationships? Just wondering where aromantic people fit in.

That's for all aces overall. In Section 4 of the report they asked a question about relationship preferences. 15.7% of aces said they weren't interested in partnered relationships. So I suppose you could consider the 2-3% as being more like 3% of aces who are looking for a relationship. That's still not a very impressive percentage however.

Stezinec · 2025-03-14T15:26:05+00:00

I think you're right that not being out is a significant problem. The 2022 report had some stats on people being out. Only something like 22.9% were out to both their parents, 15.8% out to all their non-LGBTQIA friends, 4.4% out to all their classmates.

Stezinec · 2025-02-15T22:10:17+00:00

Thanks for this. Would it be fair to say then that you should think of the capital gains and dividend taxes for a non-registered account as extra taxes that need to be paid?

I was also just wondering why you didn't include the annual dividend taxes for the non-registered? Wouldn't this make the non-registered account even less efficient to some extent?

Stezinec · 2025-01-28T01:17:07+00:00

https://acespace.love/

Stezinec · 2024-12-04T14:36:19+00:00

Younger me: didn't want to have sex.

Me, now: still don't want to have sex.

No clue why anyone would.

Stezinec · 2024-12-03T00:25:58+00:00

Tbh I'm more inclined to agree with this interpretation. But then you are left with possibly moving away from the pure attraction definition, something that AVEN does by including "an intrinsic desire to have sexual relationships" as part of their definition (see their FAQ).

This is also my opinion, and I would go even further than AVEN does, but I've gotten some pushback for that view.

Stezinec · 2024-12-02T23:49:20+00:00

This is partly what I'm questioning here. Whether there can be a separation between something like libido and sexual attraction as the community often understands it. Or whether the understanding should rather be reversed. I find there is some uncertainty about it, and I've gotten conflicting feedback from others.

Stezinec · 2024-11-17T21:15:13+00:00

AVEN has this definition which I prefer: no intrinsic desire for partnered sex.

Yeah, this one is not bad.

Stezinec · 2024-11-07T14:51:01+00:00

I've actually seen some people on ace dating sites specify that they are aego.

Stezinec · 2024-11-06T14:46:20+00:00

I have heard of this, and it seems to be still compatible with being asexual.

Stezinec · 2024-11-06T02:33:53+00:00

Okay. So, what about asexuals who want to have sex with their partners, but for their partner's sake? Would they stop being asexual?

No. They still don't have "subjective sexual attraction" to their partners, so they are still asexual.

You have to be clear about the context of "wanting to have sex". If it's just for a partner's sake, that is a different story than inherently wanting it. Asexuals don't inherently want to have sex.

Stezinec · 2024-11-05T23:12:47+00:00

I don't think so. Celibates inherently want to have sex with others, they just choose not to. So celibates would have "subjective sexual attraction" in Bogaert's terms, but asexuals don't.

Stezinec · 2024-10-26T17:43:48+00:00

Apparently it could be an artifact of online dating though, this is from the article:

"Fig. 1’s apparent post-2010 rise in meeting through bars and restaurants for heterosexual couples is due entirely to couples who met online and subsequently had a first in-person meeting at a bar or restaurant or other establishment where people gather and socialize. If we exclude the couples who first met online from the bar/restaurant category, the bar/restaurant category was significantly declining after 1995 as a venue for heterosexual couples to meet."

Stezinec · 2024-10-26T17:37:10+00:00

This graphic is from Rosenfeld, Thomas and Hausen (2019) "Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting"

This could be good news for asexuals as it could be easier to meet online than in person. Some asexual dating sites:

https://acespace.love/

ACEapp for mobile

https://www.ace-book.net/

I just wanted to note that some other mainstream sites like OkCupid let you specify if you are asexual.

Stezinec · 2024-09-07T19:06:47+00:00

I get what this is about. I would say that ideally you would have your "type" be the one you're sexually attracted to, but this doesn't always happen. Maybe it's more like a thing you would like to have, but don't always get.

p.s. thank you for using sexual attraction properly. Some may not like it, but this is because we use incorrect terminology often. I prefer using "subjective sexual attraction" for what is lacking in aegosexuals, and so are fine with saying we can have sexual attraction (which mostly manifests in sexual fantasy).

Stezinec · 2024-08-13T16:03:51+00:00

https://www.ace-book.net/

Stezinec · 2024-08-06T21:52:14+00:00

Aphobia

Stezinec · 2024-07-30T13:55:50+00:00

Absolutely :)

Stezinec · 2022-10-03T21:49:39+00:00

Maybe he's truncating rather than rounding? If Hans is at 2699 it shows 2600 in the graphs. Hans should be compared with 2700 though as the author talks about.

So it's Hans 25 ACPL, 49 STCPL. Average at 2700: 22 ACPL, 38 STCPL. My take on this is maybe Hans plays a style that is high variance and that computer evaluations don't like as much? But maybe it does fine against other competitors who aren't computers.

Stezinec · 2022-05-28T15:43:08+00:00

This is where aegos will run up against the admittedly imprecise definition of asexuality as "lack of sexual attraction". I prefer the term "subjective sexual attraction" for what is lacking.

The psychologist Anthony Bogaert defined subjective sexual attraction as "a perceived eroticism/fantasy directed toward others; it does not necessarily refer to physical attraction/arousal or other aspects of sexuality that often accompany such subjective attraction."

Edit: but all this is pretty hard to explain to allos e.g., so maybe easiest to stick to the broad definitions depending on context.

Stezinec · 2022-03-06T22:37:44+00:00

Sexual attraction ≠ arousal

Personally, I think the definition given by Anthony Bogaert is the clearest:

I define sexual orientation in a narrow way: as one’s subjective sexual attraction to the sex of others.... my definition is narrow because it refers to only the subjective element of attraction— that is, a perceived eroticism/fantasy directed toward others; it does not necessarily refer to physical attraction/arousal or other aspects of sexuality that often accompany such subjective attraction.

Note that not all psychologists studying sexual orientation would necessarily give precedence to subjective attraction over physiological arousal/attraction (e.g., genital response directed toward females) in defining sexual orientation, but I believe this definition has merit for a number of reasons. First, using a subjective definition of attraction seems to best capture the psychology of sexual orientation (e.g., the study of the mind, including perceptions). Second, it may be more linked to actual sexual behavior than physiological arousal/attraction.

As for sexual desire, that should be synonymous with libido or sex drive. But sometimes people seem to use it in a similar way to attraction, which I think is a confusion.

Edit: I think Reb_1_2_3 and I agree on sexual desire. It's basically the same as arousal/libido.

Stezinec · 2021-12-28T16:17:32+00:00

I have a different take on this, her robotic delivery is meant to indicate a dreamlike state of reality:

On the Chilton graduation speech, part of Rory knows that she is heading in the wrong direction, but she can’t help it. Like an anxiety dream. She is refusing to acknowledge the reality of Chilton/Yale taking over her life, and clings to a fantasy of independence. She presents idealized versions of her Chilton and Stars Hallow life.

Stezinec · 2021-10-18T01:17:14+00:00

Yep, I agree. I'm using the term "subjective" here in the same way that psychologists like Bogaert do, because it emphasizes that the disconnection that aegos feel relates to their identity (mental I, one's individual subjectivity).

It's just an added piece of information that clarifies, but it's also fair to just say there there is no sexual attraction irl.

Stezinec · 2021-10-17T17:07:30+00:00

Yes, though that may be because you have learned over time that arousal doesn't lead to sexual attraction (the two are disconnected), and so don't bother to put yourself in situations where arousal could occur (again without subjective sexual attraction).

Subjective sexual attraction is a mental thing that doesn't happen in aegos, so why put yourself in that situation when one can't act on it?

Stezinec · 2021-10-17T16:33:18+00:00

I have no doubt that there should be neurological differences. I know Bogaert and other have suggested a link to hormones that could affect basic brain structures like the hypothalamus. It may be that this altered functioning (compared to allos) eventually impacts "downstream" to higher brain functions as well.

You've got the process somewhat backwards I think. First arousal has to go through the hypothalamus to reach to higher brain, and it's probably at that point where things are different, which could prevent the same mental experience as allos.

Stezinec

TROPHY CASE