#Mogai relationship model

[blood-moon-night-coining]

Hellove (Hell Love)

Hellove, a relationship model that can be described as someone who goes all out in their queer identity when it comes to their own relationships due to past religious upbringing and or in religion to it. This can be someone who has was religous and was told being queer was sinful so out of a form of spite or to take back their life they go all out With their queerness in their relationship. But it can technically be a multitude of reasons, as long as it connects to queerness in relationships and religion.

(I am willing to clarify anything if things are confusing, also please ask to tag)

[ID: None yet]

[Flaming Hearts ID: None yet]

[Tagging] @radiomogai & @cocajimmycola

[protean-sys-mogaicoins]

new terms+flags coined on July 1 2024.

Tendferic/Tendferoic.

Queertendferic relationship/partner.

carrd made in depth about them it will also have various other flags that I will add to this post over time.

→→info link here←←

flags:

_please credit if used_ -🎃

[anti-endo-aspec-space]

welcome to the anti endo aspec space!

[pt: welcome to the anti endo aspec space! /end pt]

we've seen a lot of pro endos in general aspec spaces & have felt insecure because of it, so we decided to create space for anti endo aspecs specifically. feel free to share your aspec experiences, thoughts, joys, vents, whatever you want to! every aspecs, not only aros and aces, are welcome here. your experiences may be related or unrelated to being a system / having a cdd.

about us

[pt: about us /end pt]

pronouns it/void. use we/us and i/me interchangeable. we're autistic cdid system with avpd, ocpd, and other physical and mental disabilities. we're loveless / heartless aromantic, asexual, and aplatonic. may sometimes post our aspec experiences here too.

what is aspec?

[pt: what is aspec? /end pt]

aspec is an umbrella term for having little to no attraction or gender feeling. aspec includes asexual, aromantic, aplatonic, anaesthetic, afamilial, analterous, etc. lack or absence some type of attraction. usually, aspec is used for orientation labels, but some agender people consider agenderness being part of aspec too. some people use split attraction model where types of attraction (sexual, romantic, platonic, alterous, familial, aesthetical, sensual, etc.) are seen as separated from each other. some people don't use split attraction model to describe their attraction or lack of it. both ways of describing own experience are valid.

dni (do not interact)

[pt: dni (do not interact) /end pt]

bigots (racists, sexists, queermisist, ableist, and other discriminations supporters), terfs, transmeds

endogenic / nontraumagenic systems and supporters

amisists, aspec exclusionists

radqueers, transids

pro-contact paras

anti-xenogenders, anti-neopronouns, anti-"contradictory" labels, anti-mogai

anti self-diagnosis

personality disorders abuse believers (narcissic abuse, etc.)

tagging things

[pt: tagging things /end pt]

#aspec space ask - for your asks

#aspec space [relationships] - for explicit and detailed descriptions of relationships and attraction. (ie, #aspec space sex, #aspec space romance, #aspec space friendship, #aspec space qpr, etc.)

#aspec space vents - for vents

#tw [insert trigger] - for triggering topics (ie, #tw amisia, #tw queermisia, etc.)

please try to put trigger warnings in your asks if they contain potentially triggering topics. i will try to find and tag triggers too. if i miss something, feel free to ask me to tag it.

[colorisbyshe]

i fucking hate to make an ace discourse post in 20 fucking 20 but it really needs to be said and i KNOW this is gonna come off as a smarmy “i told you so post”

but i’ve been on twitter recently and there is a fucking DELUGE of people promoting the idea of “bisexual lesbians” (never bisexual gay men but like... that’s a tangential dialogue for another time). this idea that you can be bisexual and a lesbian at the same time is a direct product of the split attraction model.

this is the EXACT shit i was talking about when I said rhetoric from ace community is not compatible, at all, with the LGBT community.

sexualizing the -sexual suffix so “bisexual” SOLELY means “SEXUALLY attracted to the opposite gender” so someone can be bisexual and “homoromantic” is ACTIVELY harmful to lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. it sexualizes bisexuals without consent and COMPLETELY redefines what gayness is so it can include attraction to the “opposite” gender.

and this is just one example of how ace inclusion--not just the inclusion of cisgender, straight aces but also the prioritization of ace ideals--hurts the LGBT community. the rhetoric that you can have sex with people you aren’t attracted to to “make it work” romantically is conversion therapy rhetoric. Ace inclusion makes it seem like the LGBT community is about our relationships to sex when that just isn’t true. Ace inclusion means “desexualizing” LGBT spaces so as not to upset asexuals. All this shit AND MORE is happening in real time and I’ve watched it get worse and worse, hand in hand with the commercialization of LGBT pride and the liberalization of LGBT activism.

ace rhetoric is eroding LGBT identities. the idea of the “bisexual lesbian” and other mogai microidentities where you parse every single aspect of your identity into a different label is actively harming vulnerable LGBT people.

and, no, this isn’t me saying “even LGBT aces have to go,” but this is me saying that putting ace identities at the forefront of ANY LGBT discussions leaves a lot of space for harm for LGBT people. and that any fucking ace rhetoric besides “it’s okay to not feel sexual attraction or want to have sex” comes at the expense of LGBT identity.

genuinely, the concept of “bisexual lesbian” is a direct product of the ace community and it has caused lesbians and bisexual women irreparable harm. and aces should be ashamed of this because this is what they have been defending for years.

this is the EXACT shit we said would come out of the split attraction model and now we have TEENAGERS telling strangers and adults “i’m sexually attracted to [x genders] but only romantically into [y]” and y’all think this is okay. even if it weren’t fucking INSANE to say lesbians can be attracted to men or that bisexuals can be half gay or half straight, you’d STILL be out of fuckng line having KIDS center identities around SOLELY sexual attraction.

i’m ripshit pissed

[fictiveheavy-systim]

DNI LIST ( ꈍᴗꈍ).｡*♡

Here's our full DNI! We block those who fall under this criteria when we find them (either before they find us or whenever they disregard our boundaries). Some of these are big things, and some are personal things that we're uncomfortable seeing. Thank you in advance for reading through this and respecting our boundaries.

System List ;

Non-traumagenic systems and those who support/interact with them (including demo systems and western tulpas), those who use the terms 'sysmed' or 'traumascum', those who don't believe in system accountability, those who believe persecutors are bad people, those who use the term 'malicitor' (not including those who reclaim it for themselves), anti-fictives, believe in system hopping, believe that systems must have the end goal of final fusion, believe introjects can pick their source, blame introjects for their sources

-philes ;

Pedophiles, DDLG and variants, ageplay, sexual age regression, zoophiles, pro-contact, neutral-contact, trans-age, trans-species, paraphiles (not including those who are in therapy), pro-shippers, anti-antis, MAPs, NOMAPs, radqueer, or anyone neutral or in support of these things, or interact with people who are

Ableist ;

Thinspo/pro-ED/pro-ana, support Autism Speaks or NEXTAUTISM, support eugenics, trans-abled (excluding those with BIID), trans-autism, trans-adhd, believe in narcissistic abuse, romanticize mental illness, romanticize self-harm, demonize mental illnesses, infantilize mental illnesses, fakeclaimer, reality-checker, support subreddits such as r/fakedisordercringe or r/didcringe, believe roleplaying disorders you do not have is acceptable, believe autism has a cure

Anti-queer ;

Anti-queer, terf, radfem, trumeds/truscum/transmeds, nonbinary exclus, intersex exclus, pan exclus, bi exclus, against gender nonconformity, against pronoun nonconformity, "super-[label]"s, those who are against the split attraction model, "drop the T", aspec exclus, anti-mogai, anti-xenogenders, anti-neopronouns (including anti-nounself and anti-emojiself), anti-microlabels, anti-neurogenders, call queer relationships "sin" (including in fandom spaces), support the Don't Say Gay bill in Florida, "gender critical", "a is for ally"s, purposefully misgender people without their consent

Racist/Xenophobic/Antisemitic ;

Anti-BLM, ALM, white lives matter, blue lives matter, pro-cop, anti-acab, believe in reverse racism, believe in white oppression, trans race (not including adoptees), islamophobic, believe in black-washing, anti-stop asian hate, believe poc cannot cosplay white characters, Nazi/Neo-Nazi/Nazi sympathizer, holocaust denier, believe alters in white systems can be a poc

Miscellaneous ;

Support NFTs, cryptbro, SWERF, classist, anti-selfdx, anti-furries, anti-scalies, believe in cringe culture, anti-harm reduction, send or endorse anon hate, believe in Christian oppression, blogs with the sole purpose of bullying/harassing others, those who bring religion into unwanted spaces, support missionaries, believe in art style theft, anti-property is theft, know us IRL

DNI for comfort reasons ;

NSFW/18+/Minors DNI blogs, singlets under the age of 13, blogs with Harry Potter, TBATF, Your Boyfriend, Yandere Sim, or Aphmau content (not including blogs that have had those things in the past due to requests), anyone who tags NSFW fandom content under the main tags for that fandom, roleplay blogs, Christianity-centered blogs, blank blogs (default avatar, default name, default desc, default header- anything that makes you look like a bot. Bots obviously won't read this, this is more an announcement to people with those blogs that I block em). Endo neutral systems listen up: all I ask is that if you interact with endos do not reblog our posts. Otherwise, feel free to interact.

Thank you for reading!!

I especially appreciate it with how long this one is (๑•﹏•)

[asexual-means-no-attraction]

I got confused by your recent posts about sexuality, so could you please be so kind to explain a bit, what do you mean by "attraction without sexual desire"? I've thought that if a person is attracted to someone but wouldn't have sex with them, it's just liking them as a person, which has nothing to do with sexuality and is just people being people, and which can lead to being close friends. I have to say I also don't understand all this "queerplatonic attraction", for me it's just the good old friendship.

So if a girl likes other girls as people but doesn't like being intimate with a female body, I'd say she is straight and just is a good person who sees other women as interesting good people, and that's great. No one has to be bi or gay because it's right or whatever, and friendships are as important as any romantic relationship. But maybe I don't get something?

I'm not talking about someone who is misunderstanding what friendship is. Cuz what you said above is right. Queer platonic is dumb, y'all are just friends. And I have posts talking about how that concept is harmful. I am also not saying that sex is seperate from sexuality. But rather, that we tend to consider them synonyms instead of things that play off each other.

Ex: someone might not be ready for sex. They don't have any actual desire for sex at this moment. That doesn't change their sexuality.

Ex: someone might not EVER want sex because of trauma (or literally any reason at all). This also does NOT change their sexuality.

Ex: someone might not like the idea of sex with anyone cuz of a million and one reasons. I'll use myself for this example. I didn't like the idea of sex with anyone until I started to transition into a man. This is cuz gender dysphoria made the idea of sex repulsive. I didn't like it at all when I was a women. Now that I'm a man, and can actually see myself as a man, the idea of sex is appealing. But I still knew before I realized I was a man that I liked women. I didn't have to have sex with them to know I like them. I felt comfortable dating them, knowing we'd never have sex. And I just made sure who ever I dated was also ok with that. One women I dated had medical issues that made sex painful, so she was completely comfortable with me not wanting it either. Us not having sex in our relationship didn't change that we were in fact a couple. There was nothing "queer platonic" about it. It wasn't friendship.

All my rant was talking about is that you don't need to have the actual act of sex in order to know you find someone, or just a gender attractive. Nor do you need it to have a full filling relationship. Whether or not you do or don't have sex does not change your sexuality.

This is important when you have literal middle schools that come out (I know people who came out as young as 12). And they know for a fact that they are gay/bi. There are middle schools that know they're straight. They don't need to have sex or even be thinking about sex to say "they're attractive." And that goes into high school as well. You don't have to be thinking about sex in order to find someone attractive. And when you're in high school you get a big mix of kids who do and don't think about sex. It just depends on the kid.

It's important for kids to know they don't need to be thinking about sex right now. They don't need to be ready or want it yet-- if at all. They can just be kids. They can just enjoy dating someone and not have sex. Sex is not a pre req for attraction. And it doesn't need to be the biggest thing on your mind.

I feel like if we can get people to understand that sexuality isn't inherently about the act of sex (sexuality isn't sexual in nature) then you'd get a lot less confusion when it comes to people discovering who they are. Less people using the split attraction model, and less people using mogai or mspec labels. Cuz the fluffy "vanilla" side of sexuality is just as important as the sexual side. And I feel like people only focus on the sexual side when it comes to LGBT relationships and what defines them.

[mueritos]

agh tbh it’s a little disheartening to see u against mspec gays :[ i’m aspec, nonbinary, and a ply gay man, and the points u were makin don’t really say much? like, u used the recycled argument of “oh [microlabel] will make our oppressors hate us more so don’t use it,” if i read that right??

and bi lesbians aren’t a new thing, and they aren’t a singular phenomenon; pan lesbians, omni gay men, abro lesbians, etc though small in numbers we do exist. and as someone who uses the SAM in relation to being aspec, all the points u made against non-aspecs using it actually support them using it imo? (although not all mspec gays use the SAM at all), sexuality can be just as nuanced, complicated, fluid, and personal as gender. i get it doesn’t make much sense to you just lookin at it, but the same could be said of men who are also women, or people who are agender and pangender.

and ofc, just because some people using a label could be uninformed or “wrong” about themselves, doesn’t mean the label itself should be dismissed as a whole. you end up casting doubt on anyone who self-identifies in that way, which leads straight to identity policing. again, a lot of these arguments are the exact same ones used in anti-trans, anti-nonbinary, and anti-apsec circles. (and sorry if this is worded rudely, or just incomprehensible, writing isn’t always easy for me.)

hey! honestly thanks for this message, it has helped me sort thru my thoughts a bit. I will say that I never said that I think certain microlabels or identities will make our oppressors hate us, in fact thats the exact sort of rhetoric I work against. I also do want to say that I do understand and support folks like you mentioned, like those who are agender (I ID'd as agender for a time!), pangender, he/him lesbians, and she/her gays!

I suppose most of my hesitance for non-aspecs to use SAM to describe their experiences comes from what I have heard from fellow aspecs and even non-aspecs, and what I've heard mostly is that non-aspecs using the SAM model could perpetuate a lot of transphobia and homophobia, whether that is internalized or projected. I've listened to folks' experiences being non-aspec using the SAM as a way to justify comp-het (folks dealing with internalized homophobia), and also experiences of uncomfortable trans people being pursued by individuals who were non-aspec using SAM as a way to also display their attraction (examples I've heard were pan lesbians, a transman being pursued by one may feel particularly uncomfy because he may wonder if she views him as a woman). These are the examples of why I've just been hesitant for non-aspecs to use the SAM, and even then I do recognize that lots of. peoples' attractions and genders are complex, but I also feel they are all connected, and I'm just not completely convinced that one cannot influence the other. I am aromantic, but I am also gay and trans, and my attraction and perception of gender would not be the same if all 3 of these identities were not acknowledged. My attraction to men is heavily influenced by my aromanticism, and thus also influences my gender.

The thing is not that I don't understand it, I really do! The SAM is a great way to describe a complex relationship with attraction and sexuality and gender, I just worry that the need to label every single aspect of discomfort/comfort in terms of sexuality and attraction can lead to MORE confusion...I love that we have terms and labels to name what we are feeling as queer people but...I also worry it may just complicate people's journey with their gender/sexuality/attraction. There's a great video essay that explains what I mean better and uses mogai as an example. This is not me saying folks shouldn't use it, because to be honest, at this point I don't care. It's not affecting me so its like whatever. But I won't deny these are the thoughts I have when in context to non-aspecs using SAM.

This discussion in general is just also. A chronically online discussion and I doubt in IRL queer spaces it would be a problem because when you're IRL and queer no one gives a fuck what you do. So I use that to put this all into perspective and can just say now that I don't care what non-aspecs do, but again, I won't deny my hesitance as someone who is aspec and uses the Split-Attraction-Model, and who recognizes that it is something that mostly exclusively is used and created by aspecs. But yea, thanks for the ask! helped my brain work thru stuff <3

[gendieanonsideblog]

my dni and boundaries [ but its a separate post :O ] dni !! - racist , against equal rights movements [ blm , acab , sah ] , you make racist jokes that arent yours to make , support movements that are racist in nature [ bluelm , alm ] , xenophobic - islamphobic , antisemetic , against religion / arent critical of your religion [ ex : christian and homophobic ] - white suppremist , nazi , fascist , classist - use slurs you cant reclaim - lgbtphobic [ lesbiphobic , homophobic , biphobic , panphobic , transphobic , exclusionist , etc ) , you believe dysphoria is needed to be trans , against good faith identities - anti mogai , anti xenoidentities / neopronouns / nounpronouns / emojipronouns , anti neuroidentities , trans exclusionary radical feminist / t(w)erf / swerf / any branches that are against trans people , super straight / gay / lesbian etc - aspec exclusionist / aphobe / arophobe / acephobe , believe that aspec means acespec , aspec / arospecs inherently cant feel any attraction whatsoever , lump all aromantic people in with asexual people - think only acepecs can use the split attraction model , that the split attraction model is inherently harmful / useless / etc - pronoun policer [ against he / him lesbians , she / her vincians ] - mock terms like " aplatonic " " queerplatonic " etc - pedophile , map / no map / aam , zoophile , lolicon / shotacon , etc , supporters of these - fujoshi / fundashi , fetishize any lgbtq+ relationships / pairings / etc , romanticize abuse / toxic relationships / mental illnesses - ableist , against researched self - dx , demonize mental disorders , you fakeclaim/invalidate did/osdd or any other disorder/mental illness , believe in the ideal that plurality is a disorder and not a structure - anti anti whether it be ship / sys / etc course - arent critical of the content you consume - dont disconnect paraphiles from their disorder , you think theyre all bad because of their disorder , demonize them [ explaination : im not necessarily full on pro para , i just hate seeing beings believe that being a paraphile makes the being bad its like saying beings with npd are bad ] - pro shipper , believe fiction doesnt affect reality , cosang / incestuous , etc , supporter [ if you are a para and use proship to cope i do understand that however i dont want to see any 18+ x minor so itd be better if you didnt interact :[ /lh ] - have a history of causing drama -  against the use tone indicators [ if you cant use tone tags for any reasons like neurodivergency then you can still interact , just be weary i might ask /lh ] - under 13   - danganronpa/yandere simulator/genshin impact main [ unless i interact first ] - anti furry - talk a lot about discourse [ unless i interact first ] - you don't like pineapples on pizza /j - nsfw account , nsfw littlespace / agereg acc / supporter - use or support terms like transrace / transabled [ hesitant on transage , preferred to use a different term /lh ] boundaries !! - i dont mind compliments as long as it applies to my enpronouns !! - please utilize the ask me / anon when talking to me !! - blatantly asking me " can we be friends ?? " is something im very uncomfortable with - that being said only dm for business purposes or if were close - i dont use the tw tags only cw 

[woman-loving]

“The SAM” and its critics

I guess I won’t make it a whole thing, but here are my thoughts on the “split attraction model.” (NB: This perspective is based on my own recollections and interpretations, but I don’t know all things. Different versions of the story may exist.)

To begin with, the term “split attraction model” was coined circa May 2015 by critics who were trying to name a phenomenon they took issue with. Going forward, “critics” will refer to this group who first coined the term, but they are not the only ones who criticize the language, components, or universalism of the “split attraction model.” (Example from theacetheist with lots of links.) The particular criticisms I’m concerned with developed around the time that monosexism discourse was dying down, and a group that had been critical of “monosexism” was exploring new topics to complain about. (I was one of the complainers, to be clear; that is not a disavowal.) Here are a couple sample posts from May-July 2015: one, two, three, four. Note the anons mentioning they can’t find anything about the “split attraction model”--that’s because there was nothing else written using that language!

Grumblings were eventually arranged into the sequence of words, “split attraction model,” and that term took off among critics who used it as a vague gesture toward a set of grievances. As I remember it, one of the primary targets was the paired sexual-romantic identity format, e.g. naming one’s orientation as --sexual --romantic. Also as I remember it, criticisms were primarily concerned with its use beyond ace/aro people, focusing on what might be considered bi-range “mixed orientations” like “bisexual heteromantic�� or “homosexual biromantic.” It wasn’t too uncommon to see people say that these paired identities could work for ace or aro people, but didn’t otherwise make sense.

I believe connections were also made between these identities and the creation and cataloguing of specialized identities that detailed to whom/what and how/whether one experienced attraction. The people who advanced or approved of these projects, and the approach to sexuality/gender that seemed to motivate them, were scorned as “mogai.” Although I too scorned “mogais,” I never looked too closely at any “mogai” blogs; “mogai” was a category based mostly on impressions. The use of other subtypes of attraction (e.g. sensual, aesthetic, platonic, which may have been previously popularized among ace/aro people) as the basis for orientation-like labels such as “heteroaesthetic” or “homosensual” also provoked consternation, although I couldn’t tell you if these labels were ever seriously adopted by a significant number of people. As I understand it, “romantic orientation” was also popularized among aces, although this and other concepts that took inspiration from it were being used on tumblr by a mixed and overlapping group of ace/aro/lgbtq people.

Sometimes when critics invoked the “split attraction model,” they were imagining all of this as a single model of orientation, in which (they presumed) a “complete” orientation (as they were used to thinking of it) would entail listing out --sexual --romantic --sensual --aesthetic and whatever other dimensions people created. But I think that often times critics would be thinking mainly of the paired sexual-romantic identity format, which was more commonly used.

The objections were many. A lot of these revolved around the way “sexual orientation” and --sexual terms were defined by people who also used “romantic orientation,” --romantic terms, and other parallel dimensions of orientation and identity.

Critics were used to “sexual orientation” and “sexuality” naming something that encompassed erotic/sexual, emotional/romantic (e.g. being “in love”), and social/kinship (e.g. dating, marriage) elements. Likewise, they understood terms like “bisexual,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual,” as well as “gay” and “lesbian,” as inclusive of all these elements. And, in fact, this is the typical way in which these terms are used by gay/bi people and activists and by almost anyone writing about these subjects in a serious way. Gay/bi people have often had to demand recognition for the emotional and social aspects of their relationships and desires, or (alternately) for the sexual aspects, and so there was some significance attached to affirmation of their integration. Critics didn’t believe that all elements always occurred together, however. There's general recognition that sexual interest can occur apart from being “in love.” And while there’s more social skepticism over this possibility, many of these critics would have also agreed that you could be “in love” without sexual interest. (Some critics identified as ace and/or sex-repulsed.)

Critics sensed that when “sexual orientation” and --sexual terms were being paired/contrasted with “romantic orientation” and --romantic terms (and others), the meaning of the former were narrowed to only refer to specifically sexual and not emotional/social components. And I think you can, in fact, see that reflected in how "sexual orientation” is explained by some people who use both orientations (and others). A while back I compiled a sample of definitions of “sexual orientation” from a few college LGBTQ groups and compared them with a few definitions from AVEN and AVENwiki, and the difference is apparent. (Some of those entries have sense been edited in response to my post.)

So I think there was a real difference in how people were using “sexual orientation” and --sexual identity terms. The critics were using them in the broader, mainstream sense, while others were using them more narrowly. For record, I don’t think the narrower version is objectively “incorrect” or anything like that, and I can understand why some people would like to use it. But it is different from how the terms are usually used, and how a lot of gay/bi people and others would like to see them used. And reading “sexual orientation” in the narrower sense when it was intended to be used in the broader sense can result in a very loaded misunderstanding. The same is true for words like “bisexual” and “homosexual.” There was a lot of concern that calling oneself “bisexual” would be interpreted as exclusively sexual-related information.

The use of “homosexual” itself was also criticized. This was (with reason) identified as a stigmatizing term that a lot of gay people didn’t want to be called. But within the “split attraction model,” this term, in its narrower re-sexualized sense, seemed to be the “correct” term for gay people.

There was also concern about who was adopting “homosexual.” Critics who were coming from anti-monosexism circles tended to value solidarity between lesbians and bisexual women and didn’t see either group as privileged over the other. But they also accepted that there was a fairly clean boundary between these groups, and that keeping this boundary unambiguous was important. The “mixed” sexual-romantic identities such as “homosexual biromantic” blurred the distinction between gay and bi, and were thus unintelligible until they were translated as “just a gay person” or “just a bi person.” This translation could go either way. When translated as “just a bi person,” “homosexual biromantic” was perceived as bi people appropriating a gay identity, and a disrespectful one at that. 

A clear division between “oppressed” gay/bi people and “privileged” straight people was also a key point in critics’ social-political worldview, and this mixed identities also blurred this divide, resulting in potential “just a (homophobic) straight person” readings. A “heteromantic bisexual” could be a straight person who just used gay/bi people for sex, and was further obscuring their privilege and homophobic by presenting themselves as non-straight.

Unprocessed internalized homophobia and biphobia were seen as explanations for the adoption of these identities (for either “just gay” or “just bi” translations). The use and promotion of these terms (among advice blogs or through LGBTQ glossaries, for example) was also seen as limiting the ability for young gay/bi people to work through internalized homophobia and biphobia. Having doubts about whether one could have a sexual or emotional relationship with someone of the same gender were seen as common uncertainties among young and newly-out gay/bi people, resulting from the suppression of same-gender possibilities by a heterosexist society. There was a perception that questioning people were being actively encouraged to accept these uncertainties at face value as natural, enduring aspects of their orientation. Even simple exposure to these identities could set people back in their self coming out process, and some people reported how adopting these identities had been a roadblock on their own journeys.

In conjunction with all this, there was a perception that these models of orientation were gaining ground and displacing the models they favored. It seemed easy for current and past broader uses of “sexual orientation” to be overwritten with the narrower version, and thus have the speaker’s meaning completely distorted. I think part of this sense of threat was due to the paired sexual-romantic identities--and other specialized identities that were being developed--following a very empirical-sounding format. It seemed easy to read these terms as a cutting-edge classification of newly observed patterns of human “attraction” and “orientation.” Models that didn’t include them could easily be read as lagging behind and incomplete, their omissions attributed to ignorance rather than an alternate vision of what was meaningful and important to name. This all seemed to lean hard on on a “scientific,” essentialist model of sexuality. And actually, critics themselves sometimes drew on a similar model of sexuality to justify the divisions they saw as important (e.g. between gay and bi). Unfortunately, although critics saw these paired and specialized identities as a clear folly of “going too far,” I think they found it difficult to explain why these terms that sounded even more “sciencey” and comprehensive (= authoritative), were actually wrong.

Anyway, I guess that’s about all I have to say on it for now. Feel free to let me know if you think this story is accurate or inaccurate.

[brostateexam]

While any attempt to delineate mogai micro labels via the split attraction model makes me roll my eyes a bit, it also makes me sad. I can only assume that feeling like the way you experience relationships is fundamentally different from those around you is lonely and isolating, and that the proliferation of models built on the internet serve as both a hopeful paean to those who feel similarly and a dense thicket meant to ward off further rejection. I assume this because I definitely remember feeling all alone in the world vis a vis my sexuality, and how distinct I felt both from the heterosexuals and from The Gay Community(TM) as I knew it. For anyone who isn't cisgendered and heterosexual, there is a lot of painful soul searching to be done (typically in the late teens through midtwenties, but it really starts whenever someone is coming to terms with the ramifications of their identity), both about how much they deviate from a perceived norm, and about how to reconcile that with a society bent on reinforcing that norm at all costs.

I just don't think the answer lies in making up a new model of attraction. I think it has to be grounded in some sense of community, preferably with people you know in real life. If you're reading this, and you don't have that community in your life, I think it's worth searching for. Even if, like me, you mostly find you don't want to engage with it, it eases that feeling of being an alien trapped on earth.

[radicalandmathematical]

MOGAIs writing fanfiction is wild. Like they pair two characters together, then tag one as ace and the other as aro. Even if you accept the split attraction model, how the fuck does that work? The characters are not capable of a purely sexual relationship or a purely romantic relationship? What kind of relationship can they have besides a platonic one, in which case why are you tagging the relationship??

[exclusi0nist]

opinions

cisgender heteroromantic asexuals and cisgender aromantic heterosexuals are not members of the LGBT community and are not entitled to our resources or spaces. period.

gay can be used as a self descriptor or a community descriptor by anyone in the LGBT community. bisexual people can use it to describe themselves. however, cishets should not refer to the LGBT community as the "gay community".

queer is a slur and should not be used as a blanket term for the community. unless you are L, G, B, or T, you have no business reclaiming it, and it should only be reclaimed by an individual, not used to describe a whole community.

LGBT is the full acronym. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgender people are the entire community. Nonbinary is included under the Transgender label.

Pansexual is an invalid, biphobic, transphobic label. Bisexual has always meant attracted to similar and different genders and attraction not dependent on gender. That being said, there is nothing wrong with attraction being dependent on gender.

"Hearts Not Parts" is a biphobic phrase painting bisexuals as purely sexual.

bi women should be allowed to speak about their experience in relationships with men in LGBT spaces. PERIOD. bi women have nowhere else to talk about the disproportionate amount of abuse they face at the hands of men. a bi woman in a relationship with a man is not a heterosexual and deserves access to LGBT spaces as they still face all the same oppression even in a relationship with a man.

i am anti truscum and anti transmed.

he/him lesbians are valid.

MOGAI sexuality labels and the split attraction model are inherently harmful.

people can use whatever pronouns they want

being demisexual is just being a normal person.

i am neurodivergent and therefore will not tolerate being called "allo", a term stolen from neurodivergent communities.

reclamation of a slur is for the group in which that slur is intended to harm

my other blogs:

@jewinprogress: a blog based on my study of Judaism and Jewish culture and aspiration to convert to Reform Judaism.

@leiasbabe: a general blog with some political elements.

@seraphsoftie: a mainly cottagecore/princesscore aesthetic blog.

[irl-dogboy]

ok so idk if this really counts as a vent post? its my relationship and history with tucute/trumed discourse and it has a lot of my feelings in it and could be seen as a vent, but not really?? make ur own judgement i guess lol!

ok so like i said this is about tucute/trumed discourse so if that’s not your thing, feel free to move along!

obviously it’s a very trans-centric debate, so i hate to be the barer of bad news, but cis ppl.... it ain’t ur battle. in the nicest way possible, shush. be quiet lol. obviously you’re allowed to have opinions, everybody is entitled to that, but when you actively start participating in this discourse, i will ignore you. not your fight. never will be.

so, personally, i have been on both sides of this whole mess. early 2019 i was a complete “truscum”, followed flop accounts, anti-nb, you need dysphoria to be trans, whatever. i’m not gonna go into detail, but looking back i’m genuinely ashamed of the way i acted back then. i’m currently on the less-extreme side of tucute- i dont really understand and therefore dont reeeally support mogai, i dont think dysphoria is necessary, i frickin adore nb people with my whole heart, im actively trying to get used to using neopronouns, etc etc etc. and something i realised recently really made me look at my history with this debate and these communities.

i am so much happier now than i was compared to last year. the trumed community is so full of hatred and judgement, and there are so many rules and requirements in order to be seen as a “real” trans person. thinking that anyone that doesn’t fit this cookie cutter model of hating their body, being ashamed of being trans, being ashamed of their identity, is a “faker” or somebody “going for attention” and therefore doesn’t deserve support. it’s a absolutely horrid and disgusting ideology to spread, and it has genuinely messed up my perception of myself and my body and gender identity.

to this day, i’m still trying to get trumed ideas out of my thinking pattern, because they mixed so easily and so well with my own insecurities and issues. ill see a picture of a transmasc person wearing a dress and be like “i would literally die for you” but the moment that i wear something that isn’t jeans and a hoodie this dumbass brain goes trumed mode on me and tells me that im faking it. that my identity is a joke. an ideaology that mixes so well with common insecurities, common issues, schemas, whatever should not be so fucking widespread. i am willing to bet a million dollars that i am not even close to the only trans person who has in this specific scenario. it’s dangerous.

trumeds are always talking about how “cis people will never understand ___” when talking about nonbinary genders and neopronouns and anything even slightly different from the norm, but they’re either ignorant to the fact or choose to ignore the fact that if we listened to cishet people, we wouldn’t be where we are today. the lgbtq community has never been about what cishet people want, and it never will be. it’s not a club, you don’t get to pick and choose who you want in it. (only exception to that rule is pedos, die mad about it!)

lgbtq spaces are places that you’re free to feel safe no matter how you want to express yourself, or gender, your sexuality. this new group of kids that want to split this community apart is really scary to me and many other people. and it’s exactly what transphobes and homophobes want.

this is a big mess of words and thoughts and feelings but its all very real. sorry if this makes no sense, but this was quite helpful for expressing my feelings and sorting out my opinions haha

And

[philosophiums]

i don’t fully agree with the way the op talked about this but a) there is lgbtq as identity and then there’s lgbtq as a political coalition. neither you nor op made any distinction between them and of course there’s overlap but that’s part of the issue with this whole argument. second not all ace people are straight obviously but a cisgender heterosexual person is what people are referring to when they talk about straight people. i don’t think that’s about exclusion it’s about being honest >>

about privilege imo plus the split attraction model is deeply problematic for a lot of reasons, namely that it assumes that “””allosexual””” lgbtq people somehow don’t experience atypical attraction or have complicated relationships with sex. that may not be the intention but it’s a problematic way to frame the conversation. like mogai culture has a lot of problems and if this is about community those concerns should be taken seriously. idk op was not wording things well but i think > >your response didn’t necessarily address some of the actual issues with mogai and/or the aro/ace discourse. like i think this has devolved into a “who can be in the club” argument and that’s not the point either “side” is trying to make. idk i just think this is an issue almost exclusively on the internet and it would be more productive for us all to discuss solutions bearing in mind historical and social context. i am really sorry some fuck sent you death threats over this though wtf

oh hey look an actual reasonable discussion. i’m going to break this down into a numbered list to stay a bit organized and try to address things as you brought them up so please don’t think the list is my way of being like... snappy or something

100% agree. lgbt as an identity vs lgbt as a political coalition are different but not mutually exclusive. lgbt+ is a looooong acronym and includes a broad range of alignments and identities, and it’s great that so many people can find comfort and community in that identity, and i think that anyone who feels like they’re not solidly cishet is welcome to try on some identities or keep themselves as “questioning” and educate themselves further about different identities and the community history, and no one should be held back from exploring because - shocker - identities and our understanding of them change frequently, especially in relation to ourselves

genuinely i think the split attraction model is the biggest problem here. and place the blame for this wherever you like (media, society, the church™, whatever). like i hate that our options are I Have/Want Sex All The Time vs Maybe I’m Acespec. that’s not.... how attraction works. that’s not how people work. the ace spectrum is.... so strange to me because “ace” as in “actually asexual” can not, by default (in my opinion) be cishet, because the “ace” replaces the “het.” they would be cis ace. unfortunately, i think a lot of the ace spectrum is full of sexuality modifiers (demi is probably the most popular one). demi isn’t actually.... a sexuality. i think it’s a valid identity and i think it should be allowed in the community, but we circle back to, then, the difference between lgbt as an identity and lgbt as a political coalition

i am 100% with everyone on the whole “some acespec people are cishet” thing. a cis girl who IDs as demi (i’ve already used it once i’ll keep going with it) but who is pretty sure she’ll only ever be attracted to cis guys is welcome to use lgbt as an identity, but shouldn’t have a say in lgbt as a coalition. she’s still cishet, because even though demi is “ace” in the absolute loosest of terms (because it’s on the spectrum), it’s a modifier. the reason i get so worked up about ace discourse posts is that no one who makes them bothers to differentiate between asexual and the rest of the spectrum - they just say “ace” and refuse to acknowledge it as its own sexuality. asexuality is, by default, not cishet. and like... i’m saying this as someone who ID-ed as demi for a long time because i was still convinced due to social expectations that “surely i have to want to have sex i just need to find the right person” 

however, of course, you then get into the complications of “some people who were cishet but who were abused are now ID-ing as asexual and should they be allowed to ID as lgbt as a coalition.” well... no. they have always been cishet. if they want to actually ID as asexual then i think they can use lgbt as an identity, but the other side of it isn’t open to them

also please don’t get me started on romantic attraction i’m not even sure it’s a super real thing i honestly think it’s something (western) society more or less made up by uplifting the ideals of marriage and more or less banning close physical contact between friends because honestly how do you even define romance as an attraction it’s bonkers 

i didn’t touch on this stuff in my initial reply to the post because every time there’s ace discourse it always seems to boil down to “we can’t be adults and understand that there’s nuance and complications to all of this so we’re just going to hate all acespec people and try to ban them from ID-ing as lgbt and they’re only valid if they also hastily say that they’re trans or wlw/mlm but they’re on thin ice.” and that pisses me off because if you think you’re in a sound enough place to start dictating who is and isn’t allowed to say “i fit into the lgbt political coalition” then you need to be less line-in-the-sand about it and more understanding to the fact that some people who identify as ace actually aren’t cishet Even If They’re Still Cis And Not Bi/Gay/Pan/Etc. because asexual is. literally. a sexuality and you can’t be het if you’re not. attracted to people?

but yeah like......... no one can really be the Identity Police and say that someone who thinks themselves to be something other than the social standard of cishet isn’t allowed to identify as lgbt (allies can fuck off they don’t get to be in the acronym but like.... it’s open ended with a + for a reason). and i think that anyone who wants to identify as lgbt needs to start doing some research on different identities and on the history of lgbt as a political coalition and it’s evolution as an identity as well. and you’re right - none of this actually exists in the real world, because it typically happens that getting into discussions in the real world results in learning instead of tightening your grip on your beliefs (which is how tumblr discussions always go; everyone gets defensive and no one actually learns anything)

and i’m not saying that even i’m 100% right. everything is so dependent on minute details and individual identities. we get so used to binaries that i think it’s difficult, sometimes, to remember that no two people are in the same exact place on the spectrum. no one experiences their sexuality the way another person does. sometimes even the definitions of terms and identities are different for different people, and they change so damn frequently

thank you for being a reasonable human being and please feel free to keep up the discussion if you want to ♡♡♡

[sapphic-pals-unite]

Hey, here’s my DNI/DNF, please give it a read before interacting! Thanks!

you’re into or support ddlg, cgl(re), ageplay, “sfw” littles or anything similar, think those kinks are okay and not literal pedophilia, or think pedophilia in general is okay.

you’re a map or nop or other bullshit labels for ‘pedophile’

you think pedophilia is a mental illness or disability

you think pedophiles belong in the lgbtq+ community

you think shipping pedophilia, incest, and abusive relationships is okay to do

you’re an nsfw blog

if you follow with an nsfw main blog but plan on reblogging to a sfw stim blog you need to tell me what the sfw blog is, otherwise I’ll assume you’re gonna reblog to the nsfw blog and block you on sight. (and, again, if the main nsfw has any ddlg or anything similar then you’re getting blocked)

you’re a dick to lgbtq+ people/exclude people, examples being:

you’re a terf, radfem, or “gender critical”

you think you need dysphoria to be trans, that being trans is a mental illness, only trans people that pass are valid and that “transtrenders” are a thing

you don’t believe in nonbinary genders, call feminine/gnc trans boys “cis girls” or masculine/gnc trans girls “cis boys”

you’re against he/him lesbians and she/her gay guys

you think pansexuality and bisexuality are the same thing, think bisexuality is transphobic, call bi/pan/ace people straight or claiming they have “straight passing privilege”,

you think people aren’t allowed to reclaim queer, call us freaks/weirdos, or use the literal terf slogan “__ not queer!” (such as lesbian not queer, gay not queer, trans not queer, etc.) bonus points if you shit on people who reclaim queer while you literally have d*ke, f*g or tr*nny in your url

you’ve ever said you hate any orientation or gender in general, or have made fun of any orientation or gender

you’re anti-mogai

you don’t believe in the split attraction model and think only people on the ace/aro spectrum can use it, and call people who do use it “homophobic” for the way the express their identity

you use autism as a insult, support autism speaks, think autism is a disease or think it needs to be cured.

you don’t support self diagnosis

You have a thinspo blog (even if you’re not reblogging to it, if you have one at all go away)

you think “narcissistic abuse” is a thing/ think all narcissistic people are abusive/ try to just diagnose people who are remotely abusive/mean/shitty with npd.

ALSO if you think all people with borderline personality disorder are automatically abusive and manipulative. plot twist that’s pretty ableist :/

you use “psychotic” in place of “bad/evil”, call people psycho, or use the r slur

you’ve ever sent anon hate or death threats/suicide baits in your life (it’s a different story if you did it a very long time ago and now regret it and have apologized, though. or if it was towards, like, a nazi or something asdghsg)

You’re an anti sjw or anti feminist

you like/support trump or are anti-immigration

you’re a republican or conservative in general

[stimblogboi]

Before You Follow For Mobile

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE THING!

Do not follow if:

you’re into or support ddlg, cgl(re), ageplay, “sfw” littles or anything similar, think those kinks are okay and not literal pedophilia, or think pedophilia in general is okay.

you’re a map or nop or other bullshit labels for ‘pedophile’

you think pedophilia is a mental illness or disability

you think pedophiles belong in the lgbtq+ community

you think shipping pedophilia, incest, and abusive relationships is okay to do

you’re an nsfw blog

if you follow with an nsfw main blog but plan on reblogging to a sfw stim blog you need to tell me what the sfw blog is, otherwise I’ll assume you’re gonna reblog to the nsfw blog and block you on sight. (and, again, if the main nsfw has any ddlg or anything similar then you’re getting blocked)

you’re a dick to lgbtq+ people/exclude people, examples being:

you’re a terf, radfem, or “gender critical”

you think you need dysphoria to be trans, that being trans is a mental illness, only trans people that pass are valid and that “transtrenders” are a thing

you don’t believe in nonbinary genders, call feminine/gnc trans boys “cis girls” or masculine/gnc trans girls “cis boys”

you’re against he/him lesbians and she/her gay guys

you think pansexuality and bisexuality are the same thing, think bisexuality is transphobic, call bi/pan/ace people straight or claiming they have “straight passing privilege”,

you think people aren’t allowed to reclaim queer, call us freaks/weirdos, or use the literal terf slogan “__ not queer!” (such as lesbian not queer, gay not queer, trans not queer, etc.) bonus points if you shit on people who reclaim queer while you literally have d*ke, f*g or tr*nny in your url

you’ve ever said you hate any orientation or gender in general, or have made fun of any orientation or gender

you’re anti-mogai

you don’t believe in the split attraction model and think only people on the ace/aro spectrum can use it, and call people who do use it “homophobic” for the way the express their identity.

you use autism as a insult, support autism speaks, think autism is a disease or think it needs to be cured.

you’re neurotypical or allistic and like slime, paint mixing videos and glitter jars but mock autistic and mentally ill people for things like rocking or hand flapping, etc.

you don’t support self diagnosis

You have a thinspo blog (even if you’re not reblogging to it, if you have one at all go away)

you think “narcissistic abuse” is a thing/ think all narcissistic people are abusive/ try to just diagnose people who are remotely abusive/mean/shitty with npd.

ALSO if you think all people with borderline personality disorder are automatically abusive and manipulative. plot twist that’s pretty ableist :/

you use “psychotic” in place of “bad/evil”, call people psycho, or use the r slur

you’ve ever sent anon hate or death threats/suicide baits in your life (it’s a different story if you did it a very long time ago and now regret it and have apologized, though. or if it was towards, like, a nazi or something asdghsg)

You’re an anti sjw or anti feminist

you like/support trump or are anti-immigration

you’re a republican or conservative in general

you’re the kind of person to use “anyone can interact” banners or allow everyone to interact in general.

you’re reblogging for the sole purpose of aesthetic

You can follow if:

you’re allistic or neurotypical as long as you don’t see stimming as an aesthetic and accept stims that aren’t “pretty” like rocking, flapping, etc.

if you’re neutral on ace discourse then I don’t mind if you follow because that’s still better than actively being an exclusionist. But when I say neutral i mean you genuinely don’t give a shit at all and you don’t participate in the discourse even a little tiny bit.

besides killing stalking and pewdiepie, if you enjoy things listed in my “things i won’t take request for” section of my byr, you’re fine to follow. i won’t block you for watching voltron or riverdale or anything lol.

thank you for reading! :)