⁂
No title available
Keni
Cosmic Funnies
trying on a metaphor
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
almost home
Kiana Khansmith
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Discoholic 🪩
No title available
wallacepolsom
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Mike Driver
#extradirty
One Nice Bug Per Day
Origami Around
h
Not today Justin
Stranger Things
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Poland
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Ireland
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from United States
@swankivy
Register now for Being Aro: A Conversation on crowdcast, scheduled to go live on May 27, 2026, 03:00 PM EDT.
And here's tomorrow's book tour event for Being Aro--I'll be included in the conversation on this one. You can register for free and pop in from anywhere to check out our chat about aromantic stories and their importance!
Register now for Being Aro: A Collection of Aromantic Fiction about Love, Connection, and Empowerment on crowdcast, scheduled to go live on
Tonight! I'm not a guest on this one but I'll stop by to check out my fellow authors. It's the book tour for Being Aro, an anthology of all aromantic stories!
Today on the site, I’m delighted to reveal the cover of Common Bonds 3 ed. by Claudie Arseneault, Em Ishii, and RoAnna Sylver, the third in
Cover reveal for Common Bonds 3, an upcoming aromantic stories anthology! I have a story in this upcoming volume. Wish I could tell my mom! This story was one of the only ones I ever wrote that she liked. (She thought my stuff was too weird.)
please stop saying "asexual" when you mean "nonsexual". a relationship without sex is not an "asexual relationship". not only does this imply that allosexuals who don't have sex are suddenly asexual, it also perpetuates the misconception than asexual always means nonsexual. it's like you still refuse to understand asexuality, still think it's about action rather than attraction.
the ace community doesn't really use the phrase "asexual relationship" much, but if we use it at all, we use it for a relationship where at least one party is ace, a relationship affected by aceness, REGARDLESS of whether sex happens or not. but of course those same people wouldn't understand how a relationship can be both sexual and affected by someone's aceness. oh well.
you can't just randomly apply the word asexual just because it sounds vaguely right without thinking at all about what you're saying. especially when there's a different option that is perfectly clear.
stuff like this is exactly why the ace community moved away from calling allosexuals "sexuals", because we know that aces can be sexual and allos can be nonsexual. allo people, now do the same with nonsexual and asexual.
Preliminary test reader list for sapphic YA SF?
I'm on the (hopefully) final edit of writing a YA book and wondered if any people still hanging around my blog would be interested in being part of the test reader circle. I thought it might be useful to include some new blood this time instead of just sticking with people who have read my work before.
The book: Currently titled In Bloom, a YA sapphic science fiction book by meeee.
The elevator pitch (longer description below):
The new girl in school is hot, but fifteen-year-old Kamber Valerian isn't supposed to be dating humans (or girls, of course). She's a member of the Kinfolk collective: an endangered species that almost died out 600 years ago when humans colonized their ancestral world. Her culture expects her to settle down with a local Kin boy and fulfill their race's promise to the Goddess, which is a tall order for someone who likes girls; while she treasures her spirituality, Kamber fears she's trapped in a fertility cult, with her path to maturity blocked if she refuses traditional marriage. Is the chance to date Joanne worth rejecting her sacred duties and possibly destroying her relationship with her family?
Notes:
This is my first third-person novel.
This is a science fiction story set in the distant future. The worldbuilding for it is very quiet, and I’m worrying that the reveals are a little too as-you-know-bob.
Lots of dialogue.
It’s more romantic than I thought it would be—the romance is front and center, and early.
Its first draft was 200,000 words. It's now down to about 134,000. I'm hoping to hack it down into the high 120s before sending to the test audience.
I’m not good at naming alien places. Who names a continent “Dry Lace”? It's a translation, screw you.
The aliens are really humany in this book, but they can't reproduce with humans and do have significantly different biology. I didn't put it in the book but I do think they're distantly related to humans somehow.
There's no "superpowers" exactly but the aliens do have a couple weird abilities. They can convey heat in special ways (and also therefore make fire) and can communicate with each other, animals, and trees using signals in their breath. It's weird and cool.
While it's tempting to assume a "colonizers almost wiped us out" storyline would necessarily appropriate Indigenous narratives, the protagonist's framing of it is more closely tied to the Holocaust, which I draw from through my perspective as a Jewish woman.
I am obsessed with Steven Universe, which has a lot of space lesbians in it. I am also writing about lesbians in space. And yet, it is nothing like Steven Universe.
Yes there are asexual characters in it, sheesh.
The process:
You comment or message me expressing interest
I get your e-mail details
I send you the first 2 chapters
You provide thoughts and feedback on the excerpt and let me know if you want the rest of the book
I include you in the acknowledgments (if you want) when it's published, bam
What I want:
Positive comments on what jokes, interactions, characterizations, worldbuilding elements etc. you like
"Sensitivity reader" type comments if you're worried something will be offensive or land poorly in a way I might not have thought of
Unanswered questions about the world or characters that you think should be answered
Developmental editing–type commentary if you think it needs it
Commentary on appropriateness for test audience (re: sexy content, language, language complexity)
Especially interested in perspectives from sapphic readers who grew up in a conservative or religious family
Random uncensored thoughts
Flagging confusing sentences, wording, or vocabulary (do not focus on this unless it really leaps out at you)
What I don't want:
Proofreading-level comments (please, please don't waste your time with line edits or punctuation suggestions)
Rewording suggestions based on how you would have written it
Weird judgmental/bigoted shit about how I shouldn't write gay books (obviously)
Okay, a longer description of the book for you nerds:
Kamber is your average Kinfolk teenager. She’s fifteen years old, dutifully attending classes in the human-run school outside her Kin compound, attending her after-school rune classes and her goddess rituals, praying at her altar every day like she should, and yearning for more freedom and trust from her elders as she comes into maturity. Kamber has trouble imagining herself as a mature Kin woman, because in her culture that is synonymous with motherhood, but she’s still frustrated that her family treats her like a baby.
Now Kamber’s had a falling out with her two best friends because all they want to do is talk about boys, and Kamber has realized she would much rather talk about girls.
But she can’t tell that to anyone because their race’s sacred bond with the Goddess renders heterosexual coupling as a duty, and it’s tough to ignore how important that is when the Kinfolk almost died out six hundred years ago because human colonization of their world accidentally poisoned them.
But this isn’t the old homeworld of Mayu, nor is it the human stronghold of Earth. Kamber lives on planet Telane, a more progressive settlement where their people are trying to work with humans. That’s why she goes to human school. That’s why they want the future generations to understand each other better. And that’s why there’s suddenly a very cute human in Kamber’s school.
Joanne’s arrival caused a splash, but now Kamber is drowning and she doesn’t know if she’ll learn to swim before it’s too late. Joanne also likes girls and the two quickly fall into a relationship, but the more they learn about each other, the more they worry that their future together is impossible. As Joanne learns more about Kin culture and Kamber learns more about queer history, she wonders if she will have to risk excommunication to be allowed to love how she wants. And how can she ignore how selfish it sounds to be unwilling to carry the torch forward for her clan when her own family is an endangered species?
What follows is part identity exploration and queer struggle, part spiritual quest and sacred endeavor, and part fledgling romance. Kamber finds support in strange places, learns of dancing dolls and speaking trees, and does eventually gain the courage to touch Joanne’s butt. (It was very nice.)
Kamber will have to carefully find allies while she’s still blinking her eyes in the light after leaving the closet, trying not to let the simple awesomeness of her new relationship be tainted by her struggle to be allowed to have it. This is all amidst a very real spiritual journey as she tries to find her place among her people–which is an important part of her that her human partner can never understand.
Out May 26, 2026! A book of just aromantic-centered stories.
I got to read it ahead because I was tapped to write the introduction. Can recommend! Preorder it now or put it on your TBR.
Asexuality and Certainty
I want to talk about certainty.
Anybody who's been out as asexual for a minute and a half has heard the "well what if you're wrong?" and "what if it's a phase?" narrative. Coupled with "you shouldn't ID that way if you're not SURE."
…How does one become "sure"?
Quite simply, like EVERY OTHER SEXUALITY, you DON'T.
Asexuality, like any sexuality, is an expression of your attraction experiences based on the past and present. It does not make claims about the future except to the extent that anyone else's does. Which, you'll find, IS PRETTY ACCURATE.
Identifying as asexual isn't a celibacy vow (lol, especially since some asexual people have sex and sexual orientations aren't behaviors, but I digress). Identifying as asexual isn't a statement that we know, for sure, how we will feel forevermore.
It's just the same estimation everyone else makes.
When people expect us to be sure somehow before we ever apply the word to ourselves, they limit that very exploration. How are we to know if this is true for us if we can't try it on? Explore our relationship with the world through that lens? Experiment, according to our inclinations, within reason?
I once had a dude on the Former Bird App go off on me because I said some ace people date and find out while dating that they don't feel sexual attraction. This dude SCREAMED that we better FIGURE OUR SHIT OUT before we HURT PEOPLE like that.
'Scuse me, sir, but how do we do that in isolation?
And considering that everybody else is allowed to date and split up if they're not right for each other, why would we be some special case where we have to hide in shame, "figuring our shit out" somehow, before we ever try to learn about ourselves in relationships? Sorry, but we all do that.
I also once had someone send me a shaming e-mail claiming I'm corrupting children and confusing the youth by advocating for asexuality awareness. That teens who haven't developed yet latch onto asexuality because they're scared or inexperienced and it somehow ruins them for life.
OK then!
Apparently just having that information out there is so captivating that it will lure unsuspecting young people into our fold and we will never release them! Mwahah! Evil plan complete! What do we get now? It's like they think we're Underpants Gnomes and they're sure there's a [Profit] somewhere.
This chap said my Responsibility as an activist is to carefully prioritize straight and cis people and make sure they don't "erroneously" identify as ace before they've explored all options. Asexuality = last resort, as we all know. (Notice how this contradicts the "figure your shit out" guy.)
Y'all, none of this is how sexuality works. Asexuality awareness is important because it is ONE of many things a person can be. And, as a lifelong asexual person who did NOT have this presented as an option when I was growing up, I can say my life would have been easier if I'd known I had company.
Contrary to popular belief, we do not capture and hold people who initially identify as asexual and refuse to let them change their terminology in the fear that it will make us look bad. I know it can be hard and feel like you're betraying former ideals, but freedom to evolve is important.
In asexual communities, we SUPPORT it if someone realizes they need a different term or a modified version of the term they've been using. We SUPPORT someone IDing as demisexual after initially IDing as only asexual, for instance. It means they've learned something about themselves. That's good!
But it's also important to make sure we do not see asexuality as an embryonic orientation. It is ALSO sometimes people's full and complete answer. It is not a sign that the person has not examined themselves fully or is living a regressive, sheltered life. Asexuality is ALSO some people's answer.
You do NOT have to be "sure" to use the label!
If what you feel changes, you CAN change how you describe yourself to fit what best communicates your experience and preferences! This isn't failure!
And no one--except unreasonable people holding you to different standards--will be mad at you!
Coming across the rich culture, diverse community, and wealth of information about asexuality has been a turning point in many ace people's lives. Realizing they aren't alone and they too can have fruitful discussions about a formerly alienating aspect of their lives. Make friends. Learn. Be heard.
This is all available to you even if you're not sure. This is not damaging to everyone else if they might mistakenly identify as ace for a while before realizing it doesn't fit. I will continue to make materials and welcome people and educate on the topic. This is vital to health and happiness.
And if you think this is not relevant to you because you are not asexual or think you don't know any asexual people, guess again! People who are not on this spectrum still benefit from knowing about us and understanding an important aspect of human sexuality.
As the author of the first mainstream-published nonfiction book on asexuality from an ace perspective, I have been thrilled to see the wealth of educational materials and ace-inclusive fiction boiling up after me. We need more, always--more updated and nuanced works than what I wrote 10+ years ago.
It's much better now than it was, but every time an ace-related thread gets popular, we hear "well is anyone hurting you?" and "what rights do you not have?" and "sounds like you want attention." This tells me those people have never listened to an ace person. Because those questions have answers.
I urge you to listen to an ace person. Find the answer to one of your questions. Read a blog or a book or a pamphlet. Check out a thread. Read our poetry. Watch our videos. Learn about our experience instead of insisting that it is nothing.
You'll be glad you did.
Disingenuous reviews
Just about any author will tell you bad reviews are part of the game. But what about when someone posts a review that's beyond just expressing an opinion? What if they seem to be attempting to connect your work with grossness (maybe just because they're a bigot)?
My most recent Amazon review for The Invisible Orientation gives the book one star and says "asexual" is another word for those simply obsessed with illegal porn.
Despite this gross person's review title being "lol," indicating that they think it's a big joke, people have been trying to say stuff like that about me, and asexuality in general, for a very long time. I once had to get a lawyer to stop someone from posting publicly that my sexuality was a cover-up for my ACTUAL attraction, which he stated baldly must be toward underage boys, and accused me of being a pedophile. On a page that had my full legal name on it.
So yeah. It's not funny or jokesy to suggest asexuality is fake and that those who describe themselves that way are criminals.
(Yes, I won the case.)
But you know what puzzles me way more than some clown posting that asexual people are criminal porn addicts? Disingenuous reviews.
I'll say straight up that I don't mind if someone dislikes my writing style or just doesn't vibe with my tone. I've gotten plenty of bad reviews that were very subjective and I am more than happy to leave them unbothered. They have that right. I don't care if they want to give me a bad review because they think I'm ugly, find my voice in my YouTube videos irritating, or are mad at me because I once gave the finger to their cat.
(For the record, I have never given the finger to anyone's cat.)
But one thing I've occasionally noticed is people criticizing the book for things it didn't do when it DID, or the opposite (criticizing it for containing things it did not contain). The latest review of my book on Goodreads has that issue several times, and it's just . . . weird. You know?
The reviewer begins by complaining that "the first chapter" has a tonal mismatch to the rest of the book.
The first chapter delves into the author's personal experience with the topic, which, while nice, feels disconnected from the rest of the book since the author never reappears.
It wasn't the first chapter. It was the introduction.
Could the first chapter not have been an "about the author"-section instead?
. . . It was an introduction. This is weird, right? It's not uncommon at all for books' very brief introductions to be different from the rest of the book, or to even have entirely different authors. And see, that wouldn't have bothered me much in itself, but then the review went on to QUOTE my book using sentences that literally were not in it. And nothing LIKE the supposed quotes is in it, either. For example:
it consistently confuses its own definitions, attempting to clarify that "some asexual people do have sex," while later stating things like "we simply don't have sex."
The phrase "we simply don't have sex" does not appear in the book.
Nothing LIKE the phrase "we simply don't have sex" appears in the book.
I never said or implied in the book that asexual people don't have sex. I assure you this is not something I was ever confused about while writing this book. There is an entire sub-chapter (entitled Intimate and Sexual Activity) which opens with this:
Some asexual people enjoy sexual activity. Some are indifferent or ambivalent toward sex. And some are repulsed by sex. Whether an asexual person likes sex or is willing to have sex varies quite a bit and asexual people who have sex are not less legitimately asexual.
Could the person have confused what I wrote with one of the quoted asexual contributors in the book who said they personally didn't like to have sex? Maybe. I don't know. But seeing this as an honest mistake rather than an intent to reframe what I said seems less likely when I get to this:
there's a chapter about memes within the (highly specific and by no means representative) US-American Ace community, which further alters the tone. It becomes evident that the author's definition of asexual refers not to the lack of sexual attraction but to being part of a specific US-American, mostly internet-based community. As a European asexual person, phrases like "Most asexuals joke about cake" or "Many asexuals know this meme" made reading the book a strange experience. Does not being part of this community make me less of an asexual?
Really? This person believes my book excluded non-Americans and implied they were not asexual if they don't joke about cake?
Weird. In reality, the very short section of the book that talks about ace community symbols BEGINS with this:
Not everyone who’s asexual relates to the communities’ beloved television shows or popular symbols (and some may even feel alienated by how enthusiastically other asexual people participate), but any group of people that shares space and intersects tends to develop a culture of sorts. Plenty of asexual people don’t associate themselves with any of the following symbols or jokes, but here are a few themes that may pop up in asexual spaces.
The section then discusses jokes about amoebas, orientation shorthands, deck of cards terminology, the Kinsey scale, the flag, the ace ring, and yes, a mention of cake:
Especially on AVEN—the Asexual Visibility and Education Network—it is common to reference sharing and eating cake. This developed when some members discussed “what’s better than sex?” and cake was the most popular answer. Cake is frequently featured in asexuality-related banners, logos, and blog names.
The phrases that this person said were so alienating--"Most asexuals joke about cake" and "many asexuals know this meme"--did not appear. I never used the word "meme" at all, and the above symbols were discussed in a four-page section that is almost entirely about terminology--not memes. It is VERY STRANGE to me that when I attempted to provide some examples of asexual community culture (and intentionally took care to open this section by saying this stuff is not universal), this person literally turned it around to claim "looks like this author believes you're not even asexual if you don't joke about cake."
Now why would someone go out of their way to put words in someone's mouth and misrepresent their position on important issues? Especially since the review went on to say how disappointed they were in the book because asexuality education is so important to them?
I don't know.
Maybe I gave the finger to their cat.
Show Modern Pleasure Podcast, Ep EP20: JulieSondraDecker- The Asexuality Convo - Nov 15, 2023
This episode of Modern Pleasure has an interview with me. It's a pretty broad discussion and it'll include some of the Greatest Hits (the usual "how did you figure out you were asexual" and "what did your family think" type questions) but also some nuanced stuff about if and when some asexual people have sex and what kinds of discrimination we might experience.
Show Spinsterhood Reimagined, Ep The One Where I Talk To Author & Asexual Activist, Julie Sondra Decker - 6 Nov 2023
Lucy Meggeson, creator of Spinsterhood Reimagined podcast, had me on to talk about the similarities between being a perpetually single woman and being an aromantic asexual woman. A lot of it is asexuality basic education, and some of it is more nuanced discussion of experience, along with a lot of positivity.
I'll talk about some fictional asexual characters in books and TV! Bring your favorite examples and talk about them in the chat. I'll read s
An Ace Week Live event is scheduled on my YouTube channel on Friday at 7:30 PM Eastern. Come watch me talk about some cool examples of ace characters in fiction and we'll discuss the representation, and I'd love for attendees to bring their own examples and put them in the chat!
Sheila Das had me as a guest on the podcast Flow to talk about conversations surrounding asexuality.
Julie Sondra Decker shows how asexuals are silenced when denied as a “real” orientation, not divergent enough by queer groups, or overlooked by some sex-positive advocates. We look at how silencing then reverberates in TV shows, institutions and personal violence. But how has the scene been changing? And what can we do about it through our conversations? Julie is a leader and advocate in the asexual or Ace community and author of The Invisible Orientation.
My sisters did the New York Times Friday online crossword last night. The answer to the clue "Identity for someone who may prefer platonic relationships, informally" was "aro." Cool!
Out of all definitions I've seen, this seems like one of the worst.
The absolute exclusion of the fact that aromanticism regards one's romantic attraction and not any other kind of attraction or any kind of relationship at all.
It is such a vague definition and I know it's just from a silly little game but I think it's the job of a crossword game to properly use the correct meanings of the words the players are supposed to guess. An “identity for someone who may prefer platonic relationships, informally” would be closer to be either platonic or alloplatonic (even though the latter would not be the most correct since your platonic relationship stance is not the same as your platonic attraction or lack thereof).
Seems like an attempt at trying to present aromanticism in a more “palatable” manner to the alloromantic masses. It's like defining ace as “identity for someone who may prefer romantic relationships, informally” which excludes the fact that asexuality centers around your relationship with sexual attraction instead of how you feel about romance or anything else. Also excludes aces who just don't engage in romance and such relationships. The classic “they're [a-spec identity] but at least they feel [insert type of attraction/feeling]”.
Once again, aplatonicism is forgotten and aromanticism misunderstood.
When my sisters told me about the clue, I said it wasn't really an appropriate definition, and they were quick to point out that crossword puzzle clues are generally never "definitions." It is true that we "may" prefer platonic relationships (and may do so more often than other romantic orientations). I'm not a crossword person and it was true that the other clues talk around words they're hinting without nailing the essence, so I was satisfied with that.
We aros are frequently misunderstood as people who just don't have romantic relationships just like aces are frequently misunderstood as people who just don't have sex, so while it's legit to be annoyed that they always zoom in on what we might look like from external observations about our actions, I'm okay with vague, less accurate language in a puzzle where part of the setup is intentional obfuscation of what you're actually talking about.
My sisters did the New York Times Friday online crossword last night. The answer to the clue "Identity for someone who may prefer platonic relationships, informally" was "aro." Cool!
Not everyone wants to have sex—and that's okay.
Had an interview for The Knot with Dina Cheney and unlike with a lot of the media experiences I've had, she just printed pretty much what I said and didn't try to boil it into something else or spin it as a message I never relayed. I was very happy with the balance between comprehensive, full answers and reasonable conciseness, and I appreciated that it didn't feel like the interview was conducted primarily to make a point counter to what I actually wanted to say. It didn't oversimplify but also didn't overcomplicate. It borrowed words from non-asexual experts but didn't do so to "both sides" my perspective.
I wouldn't say the article is "everything you need to know about asexuality" at all, but headlines are always like that. One of the few articles I've participated in that didn't make me feel like I needed to make clarifying statements afterwards to mitigate misleading uses of my answers.
Register now for A Room of One's Own's event on Crowdcast, scheduled to go live on Monday March 06, 2023 at 6:00 pm CST.
We did it! Asexuality activist panel to celebrate Cody’s new book (it’s really good y’all). Now you can watch the replay if you weren’t able to attend. It was funny and informative and just a good time.
Cody (Ace Dad!) is doing a book panel in support of his new book I AM ACE and he invited me to be on it with another ace activist (Ashabi Owagboriaye). It’s today (March 6) at 7 Eastern/6 Central, and it’s virtual only. You can come in and hang out with us, watch us speak about ace activism and ace media, and possibly submit questions and topics! Sign up at Crowdcast for the event. I hope we’ll see you there.
