These are notes from the Seattle and Surrounding Aces Discussion Group meeting of February 13th, 2016. These are notes about what we talked about, relevant links, and other information about discussion topics. This is not meant to be a transcript and is not necessarily even meant to be a coherent recounting of the discussion.
Privacy of group members and keeping that room a safe and open place is important to me. I will try my best to not post personal information or individual stories without permission. If I write something that you’d rather not have on here, please let me know immediately and I will remove it.
We were in the auditorium today! No stairs! More space, more air, more seats! Also, a light with a terribly placed motion sensor…
Stories of Self
Much of the meeting today was people telling personal stories about how they came to identify as asexual or how it manifested itself in relationships. For reasons of privacy, I will not repeat those stories here. (This also means the notes this time around are a bit light.)
Some common themes were feeling alone and not having the words to describe how we feel. A lack of information can also lead to asexuality being seen as something that’s “wrong” and not something that’s just “different”.
Other people talked about how medication can cloud the issue. Decreased libido can be a side effect of certain medications, so it’s hard to tell whether someone is asexual or if it’s just the pill. Some medications can increase libido, which can be tough to navigate.
“What’s Your Type?”
Aesthetic attraction came up. Aesthetic attraction is where a person finds someone pleasing to look at or notable in some way, but not with any kind of sexual component. It’s often described as liking the way someone looks the same way you like the way a painting looks: It’s pretty, but you wouldn’t want to sleep with it.
From aesthetic attraction, the conversation turned to “What’s your type”. Many of the people in the room who have experienced aesthetic attraction said they found the concept of a “type” somewhat strange. Several said that past attractions were not necessarily a predictor of who they might find aesthetically attractive in the future. Others said that the concept felt like a limitation, like if you say that redheads are your type, what happens if an interesting blonde comes along?
2 thoughts on “Discussion Group Notes 2/13/16”
What is the specific reason for Rachel Maddow being included under “other bits”? Has she said or done anything related to asexuality?
She was just mentioned a couple of times and some of the people didn’t know who she was. As far as I know, she hasn’t done anything about asexuality. (Although I can see it be something she’d cover, if there were the right political angle to the story.)