A SECOND ACE AWARENESS PAGE

I. Ace-Aros may be Total Aces or Kink people

AVEN's account of Aromanticness begins as follows.

"Romantic attraction is an emotional response, which most people experience at one point or another, that results in a desire for a romantic relationship with the recipient.

Many asexual people experience romantic attraction even though they do not feel sexual attraction."

We add the following commentary to define in outline Ace Kink people and Total Aces :)

"The opposite is also true.

Those wo experience neither are Ace-Aros.

Some such are non-normatively sexual and/or romantic, e.g. dominant, submissive, or, more generally, some kind of Kink person: an Ace-Aro Kink person.

Others are Total Aces: A-everything-else also.

It is clearly also possible to be Asexual, Alloromantic and a Kink person, or Allosexual, Aromantic and a Kink person. This series of five articles is motivated by recent demographic revelations that, among those few universities that have 'official' kink clubs, some contain a majority of Aces!

One point is that even if one is sure one is Ace-Aro, one may not (yet) be sure one is a Kink person, not meast because Kinks are very large in scope and some parts of that scope may not be well-known.

Another is that some Kinks do not involve another person.

It is possible for instance for a Total Ace to have a Lycra fetish in a way that does not translate to a partner wearing Lycra.

Such a Total Ace might (if they pleasure themselves, which being even a Total Ace does not preclude) prefer, or even need, to do this on Lycra, or with Lycra or while themselves wearing Lycra.

A counter-point is that if a person is not a Total Ace, something like their partner wearing Lycra might exist. I.e. a way by which a partner can please the Ace. In some cases, this will co-please the partner (a term explained in the next article).

The particular significance of this to Ace-Aros is that Kink may be the only way of satisfying a partner and/or being satisfied by a partner.

Ace Article II. Co-pleasing versus 1-way fetishes

An example of co-pleasing from Kink more generally is that a person may have a boot fetish in the sense of liking kissing their partner's boots, while another may have a boot fetish in the sense of liking their boots being kissed. If someone of the first persuasion is a partner of someone with the second persuasion, then boot kissing concurrently pleases and co-pleases.

One can also imagine boot kissing between two people for whom it's a fetish for one, and consented to but not a fetish for the other.

In such cases (1-way fetishes), the partners may work out which of each other's fetishes they consent to, and trade entertaining some of these consensual acts that they like for ones that their partner likes.

This may occur in wider contexts like rewarding one's pet or one's mistress with one of their fetishes, or working one of their fetishes and/or one of one's own fetishes into punishment or discipline.

It is in particular often possible for two partners to concurrently entertain each others' fetishes.

For instance, a person with a fetish for being edged might do so while kissing the boots of a person with a fetish for having their boots kissed. While such an experience might be more intense if each of these things co-pleased both partners by itself, a certain amount of ingenuity can make up for such matters, as is already seen in pairing fetishes.

The fact is that two people with long lists of fetishes are vanishingly unlikely to have complementary fetishes. What happens then in practise is that each restricts the other's fetishes actualizable in the manner of hard limits, as well as identifying common fetishes, be those complementary or aligned. They can then find suitable combinations for scenes on this basis.

Ace Article III. Supporting Kink Lexicon

BDSM is but a subset of Kink, yet already brings out many new words and concepts.

Some of these are very relevant to BDSM as well, especially as regards identifying and removing some normativities.

BDSM is, more accurately, BDDSSM, or even BBDDDSSM. Only the 6-letter version starts to be accurate without overlap: Bondage, Discipline, Domination, Submission, Sadism and Masochism. The 8-letter version distinguishes further between being in Bondage and placing another in Bondage, and between receiving, and meting out, Discipline. In the 8 letter version, then, we have 4 complementary pairs:

(placing another in Bondage, being in Bondage)

(meting out Discipline, receiving Discipline)

(Domination, Submission)

(Sadism, Masochism)

Let us first emphasize that all of these are assumed to be consensual in this article. % (Though, for sure, an article on Non-Normative Survivors could cover how each of these, without consent, becomes a form of abuse and quite plausibly equivalent to rape even if no 'normative rape' accompanies it.)

So, Dominance means one partner consensually leading a given scene (or the entire relationship), whereas Submission means consenting to the other partner leading.

A Dominant is commonly, but not always, called one of Dom, Master, Lord, Prince, King, Emperor, God. A Female such's versions of these titles are Femdom or Domme Mistress, Lady, Princess, Queen, Empress, Goddess.

A Submissive is often called Pet, Servant or Slave, which are inequivalent terms. For instance, Slave might be reserved for long-term relationships or above a certain level of submission, with Servant applying elsewise. Both Pets and Slaves tend to be 'collared': a commonplace equivalent of being in a long-term relationship. Pet and Slave may however have substantially different statuses, e.g. Pets might be petted whereas Slaves might be punished. Though disobedient or untrained Pets might also be punished, and good slaves might be Rewarded. While a Dom(me) might well be proud of a Pet or of a Slave, the reasons for their pride might differ (e.g. how cute a Pet is versus how much a slave willingly endures). Obedience might well be a source of pride in each case though.

Gender-neutral terms include the phonetic "Dom", which can be a pronounciation of Dom or Domme, Princeling, Majesty, Imperial Majesty, and Divinity. Pet, Servant and Slave are already gender-neutral.

There is also a commonplace asymmetry in the sense that a Dominant is called by titles whereas a Slave or a Pet, in particular, may have a personalized name they are addressed by.

This makes it particularly straightforward for Submissives who aren't Gender-Normative to have names that fit this, including when, say, they are Closet-Trans*, so they don't have a name they're OK with elsewhere in life. Similar applies when a Submissive is GenderFluid; they may for instance give as a hard limit that their Dominant is to know the Submisive's gender at every point, and always use an accordingly suitable name (a binarily GenderFluid Pet might for instance have two names).

Let's finally note that capped pronouns like He/Him are used by some to indicate Dominance, whereas half-sized leading-letter pronouns are a less common convention among Submissives. Full caps like SHE/HER may be used by Hyperdominants, and full half-sized letters by hypersubmissives. See Article 5 for more about such "Hyper-X" notions and person-types.

Bondage means consensually restraining a partner. While this can include ropes, chains or handcuffs, bondage can be broader in scope than this. E.g. mental restraints could be used. The type and amount bondage used in a session may vary over the session, as both previously and ongoingly consented to. For instance, one partner may consent to not moving by will alone (mental restraint), and then to be physically restrained once this is no longer possible.

Discipline means consensually punishing a partner. This is quite often mutually consented to be a necessary prequel to other kinds of intimacy. It also quite often has a systematic component to it.

That a partner may not be able to cope with all of such a session is one thing covered by agreed-upon SafeWords, with a hard-limit and near-hard-limit SafeWord system like 'red' and 'yellow' being common.

SafeWords however apply to *all* parts of BBDDDSSM, and of Kink more generally. It may be less obvious that Bondage, Submission, or even Domination and meting out Discipline can result in the SafeWord being used, but that's no less important. E.g. a person could feel too Submissive or not OK with how Submissive their partner is (be that in state or in action).

Discipline may include training a consensual person to be able to deal with more Discipline. Discipline may also determine which other BBDDDSSM things can occur. This might for instance be based on the consensual agreement that the partner receiving discipline will only be indulged once the discipline reaches a mutually agreed threshold. This might for instance be the ability to take thirty paddle strokes, or to take thirty paddle strokes without shouting out. This may include components outside the immediate control of the participants. Such as a Disciplinarian being unwilling to cause bleeding, by which 30 paddle strokes cannot be completed. Or a Disciplinarian only being willing to paddle a Submissive who has no remaining soreness from the previous paddling. What happens in such cases is that both parties can adjust to what is realistic. Whether or not more endurance is attained. Or the implement or stroke motion are adjusted.

Aftercare is an important part of what Dominants provide. Ensuring that Discipline is at a suitable and attainable/sustainable level is part of that, as is caring for the soreness incurred. But, as for SafeWords, this also applies in general whenever there is a Dominant party. E.g. ensuring the Submissive returns to their usual state by the end of a scene, or that physical restraints do not chafe.

Consensual Sadists consensually exact pain on their partners (who consent to that, in detail). How is this different from Discipline? It now involves the Sadist taking pleasure. For instance, a consensual Sadist may not be able to orgasm without consensually hurting their partner at that point in time. This may not always fit the format of Discipline, particularly as that is systematic and may have a narrow upper limit.

This is another place where there's more than one way to be Consensually Sadistic: physical, mental or sexual. A Consensual Sadist may for instance have a verbal way of hurting that they know their partner can, and consents to, sustain. They may also for instance have a sexual way of imposing themselves, such as ensuring their partner can't orgasm before they do, for instance by requiring to orgasm from oral sex before seeing to their partner.

Consensual Masochists like, and consent to, some such things.

This is a case in which some overlap of kinks is likely necessary, particularly if one or both of the partners cannot experience pleasure without giving/receiving pain.

Ace Article IV. Kink Ace Lexicon

Much as some people are Asexual or Aromantic, many BDSM people are A-this or A-that :)

One case, perceived as normative given that we're talking about BDSM in the first place, is that people are Dominant, Place-in-Bondage, Disciplinarian and Sadistic, or that people are Submissive, in-Bondage, receive-Discipline and are Masochistic.

However, firstly, it is entirely possible for someone to be Dominant but Asadistic.

Indeed, each of Adominant, A-bondage-placing, Adisciplinarian, Asadistic, Asubmissive, A-in-Bondage, Adiscipline-receiving and Amasochistic are parallel concepts to Asexual and Aromantic.

One could argue that people who know what each of BDDDSSM are, and have thus informedly decided they are none of these things, are A-BDSM. One could futher extend this to people who've contemplated kinks in general and consider none of these to apply to them being Akinky: a strong realization of what is usually called "Vanilla" among Kink people. However, many people actually do have kinks, or don't yet know if they do out of not being aware of the full range of kinks. Or possibly normatively associate some subset of BDSM with gender roles. E.g. 'male is to me a default kind of dominance', or 'in modern Western society, female is a default kind of dominance via right to Not Consent'. Or 'I am the receiving partner in a Lesbian relationship'. Between these various things, then actually "Vanilla" or "overall Normative" sex and romance are not as highly prevalent as one might at first think. Maybe 1 adult in 3 has kinks they know about. And maybe 1 adult in 2 considers their gender to signify something as regards such matters as initiating sex, being the one who asks prospective partners out, being dominant in bed, or 'being the receiving partner'. This is counterbalanced to some extent by many of these people not identifying with being Dominant or Submissive or having kinks.

One reason many people don't identify with BDSM is because they think that a BDSM dominant 'is into bondage, discipline and sadism'. Once it is understood that a Dominant can be Asadistic etc, then more people may identify with Dominance, or with being 'partly-BDSM' or 'BDSM-spectrum'.

Another reason is the thought that BDSM people necessarily identify primarily as BDSM people, only have BDSM relationships, or socialize (primarily or otherwise) in BDSM related circles. None of these things, however, need be the case. Much as a Bi woman may for some years date a man, and a man alone, a person who has some kinks may for some years date somebody in a Vanilla way. Or elsewise in a way that only involves a subset of their kinks. E.g. a common-interest subset, or a negotiable rather than hard-limit subset. Some Kink people are socially Kink people, but others are not.

E.g. they might not be Out about being a Kink person. This parallels how the number of people going to LGBT events, ever, is much smaller than the number of LGBT students. With Closeted people particularly unlikely to attend events (unless part-Out, e.g. a person Out as Gay who is in fact Closet-Bi, Closet-Trans*, or Closet-Pan).

E.g. they might have other social priorities. This is tied to the idea that people can be socially-non-normative as a separate attribute to being sexually or romantically non-normative. But then also one can be sexually-non-normative and yet socially-normative, or socially non-normative but in a way unaligned with how they are sexually-non-normative. For instance, a Kink person might hang out with Cosplayers for Cosplaying reasons unrelated to their Kinks.

Another point to make concerns Switches: even within the picture of some of Dominant-Sadistic... and Submissive-Masochistic occurring as packages, one person could manifest both, whether at once or time-dependently (KinkFluidity). Some Switches may be in a long-term Mono relationship in which only one of their two sides is active. One could also agree for instance to some scenes in which one is Dominant and others in which one is Submissive, still Mono, if one's partner is also a Switch. Or possibly with 2 distinct partners, e.g. someone's Pet could additionally be somebody else's Mistress. The first of these has obvious parallels to a Bi person in a Mono relationship, whereas the third has parallels with Polyamory. The second is more lacking in parallels, being conceptually a 'Two-Fluid' or 'Two-X' situation; other cases, also uncommon, include between two Genderfluid people, or between two people each with multiple genders.

A point raised by someone reading this is as follows. Dominant-and-Submissive is a complementary pairing, like heterosexuality. Two genderfluid people, however, involves (at least in a binary-gender non-spectral approximation) all of M-F, F-F, F-M and M-M components. So, yes, this analogy is not exact. In fact, if both people are Pan as well, the relationship might just have one component... But the follow-up point is this 'I'm an Ace, and I'm Dominant. What if the person I'm interested in is themselves also Dominant?' I.e. a same-pairing, rather than a complementary pairing.

One point to make here is that, for instance, Dominants can interact with other Dominants. E.g. a new Dominant can learn what Dominance is about from a more experienced Dominant. Among allosexual Dominants, at least, it may be possible that they 'get off' on each other's Dominance even if nobody else is involved in a Submissive role. It is easier, at first, to envisage a Slave with two Masters. In such a setting, Domination is directly satisfied, and in more ways than a Mono relation could, including for instance one Dominant enjoying watching the other Dominant dominate the Submissive (assuming all three consent to this!) None the less, it is also possible for two Dominants to have a relation together with no Submissives present, and even so in the event of this Dominant relation being Mono. One way is, simply, an enjoyment of sharing dominance. Another way is that one Dominant might be more Dominant than the other.

At least in the circles of those writing this, more Dominant Dominants don't enslave less Dominant Dominants, but they might take one on as a Pet as well as an Apprentice. Or vice versa, when strength of Dominance runs in the other direction of experience. I.e. a powerful new Dominant might take on an experienced Dominant as both Pet and Instructor. These examples are all phrased in a way useful to Ace-Aros; if two Allo Dominants are dating each other, they might well have one or both of sex and romance as a common point. All in all, being Dominant doesn't mean exercising Dominance is a part of every close relationship one has. Dominance might not apply, or be the subject of comparison, exploration, or exchange of ideas.

On the one hand, some Aces are Kink people. In fact it's also been documented that at some universities, most Kink club members are Aces. Kink can provide ways of having partners, pleasing partners and being pleased by partners that some Aces, Aros and Ace-Aros may enjoy and/or have need of. The basic idea here is that the number of legal and consensual kinks is very large. So two people, including one-or-both being Ace-Aro, can get an entirely acceptable deal that is such as fulfilling or stabilizing of long-term relationships or closenesses.

Some Aces, Aros and especially Ace-Aros develop an early impression that Allosexuals and/or Alloromantics readily out-compete them for partners, including taking partners or close friends away from us in various ways. This can sometimes be countered by having a good knowledge of kink, including one's own kinks and which relatively-common kinks in others one is fine with. An Asexual can for instance be Mistress to a Slave, or a Dominant's Pet. This can moreover include blowing that partner's mind way more than anybody else has or will, as well as receiving arbitrarily large amounts of closeness of types the Ace-Aro wishes for and the partner is willing to give. So, in a parallel sense to 'love of my life', an Ace Mistress could be 'the mistress of someone's life', or an Ace Pet could be the most valued partner a Dominant has ever had. One way such things can occur follows from some Aces being reknown for paying attention to detail in matters that most others do not, and also some Aces being reknown at being understanding toward people who are Different in ways other than their own.

Being a partner to an Ace, Aro or Ace-Aro is something that many people would refuse, or would refuse as an exclusive arrangement. This is probably more likely to be encountered if the Ace-Aro 'asks somebody out in the Ace-Aro's own terms', e.g. 'be my cuddlebuddy' or 'be my best friend in knowledge I don't have partners, so best friend is the most important person in the world to me'. If an Allo and an Ace, Aro or Ace-Aro are mutually interested in each other in initially-acceptable or compromisable ways, then a deal may be more likely to be workable, and may or may not involve BDSM-type closeness or other mutually-agreeable kinks. Difficulties an Ace, Aro, or especially Ace-Aro may have are along the lines of 'I really like this person, but either don't have, or am unwilling to exercise, the means of attracting them, courting them, flirting with them, or seducing them.'

One thing to bear in mind here is this. Suppose the Ace is a Kink person, and they know the person they are interested in is as well. Then it may be that they're willing to kink-court them in the event of them not being willing to do so conventionally. The same kind of rules apply, morally, such as ceasing courtship if they say they're not interested. And moving forward in small steps. Also understanding that because Kink is much larger than Vanilla, Kink Courtship might not be perceived, or might just reveal kink incompatibility. There is now only sometimes a clear-cut analogue of 'first base' and so on. If an Ace is one of Dominant or Submissive and the prospective partner is definitely at least in good part the complement, then at least some courting conventions exist. Such as the Dominant looking down upon their potential partner, for instance from partly up a flight of stairs. The potential partner might then, if they like this attention, move further down the stairs, and various facial expressions might be exchanged to indicate this is not a happenstance postion to be in or to further exaggerate.

As to how one might know one's potential partner is Dominant or Submissive in the first place, they might have been Out about it (at least according to BDSM dress conventions in public) in a previous relationship. They might also have mentioned this to the Ace-Aro as part of friendly entrustment. They might also see each other at a Kink club or forum. One may also have ways of Kink-flirting which don't cause concern to people who don't feel that way. For instance, a Dominant seeking partners might always be at the front of the hall queue when this is at the top of a flight of stairs. They can then see if anyone they know and like responds in a meaningful way. For sure, looking at people down a flight of stairs is scarcely the only way of Dominant-flirting or for a Dominant to find likely- or definitely-Submissive people.

One idea then is that one can cross-correlate with a distinct signal, to see if the same person picks up on that too. Or whether they return with a Submissive signal at some point, the principle of 'returning courtship' being a healthy one, though not one that all ascribe to (some people who are interested don't court back). This is at a similar level to 'smiling' or 'greeting' in normative flirting.

On the other hand, Total Aces are Akinky, including Adominant, A-bondage-placing, Adisciplinarian, Asadistic, Asubmissive, A-in-Bondage, Adiscipline-receiving and Amasochistic. They may be sure there's no kink they are into. Or they may be sure that, while they don't know what all kinks consist of, they are not interested in finding out, and thus place as a Personal Boundary that they don't want to find out, and thus either are-for-all-practical-purposes a Total Ace. Or somebody who identifies as a Total Ace. Which they can do temporarily, or not, and if not, questioningly or not. These are freedoms each person has: a right to find out more about themselves if they so wish. A right to do so in their own time, and under their own initiative, if they so wish. And a right to be left alone by people looking for partners in ways a particular Ace-Aro cannot provide.

Ace Article V. Hyper concepts and people

One usually considers Allo to be the opposite of A. It is, in one sense, but that's not the only sense of opposite. Let's start then with the Hypersexual opposite of Asexual. By one definition, at least, a Hypersexual is a person who only bonds closely via sex, or one for whom everything is about sex. Such might e.g. have no close friends other than partners. This may not be an issue if they're single in a sexually-active manner. Or if they are Poly, from the point of view that they may then have a comparable number of friends to an Allo or an Ace.

"So", says an Ace, "these are people I can't be friends with".

"Not necessarily." we answer "for that depends on whether you and they are normatively sexual... Also, this still fits our Safer Space's philosophy: they are entitled to consider everything to be about sex for them. This is very far from the same as them requiring anyone else, Aces say, from ascribing to that view. Plus, of course, we're thinking diagonally here. We're trying to get though to the concept of HyperDominance..."

A Hyperromantic person, first, is one who views everything in their own life as romance, who forms no closenesses but romances. This has similar caveats as to how they might be Poly, can't push their personal views onto Aros, could be non-normatively romantic etc etc...

This series of articles being about Ace-Aros and Kink, however, what's central to our discussion is HyperDominants. A HyperDominant views everything in their own life as being about Dominance. A HyperDominant may also only form closenesses based on their Dominance.

Notice first the distinction between 'their Dominance' and 'exercising their Dominance'; a HyperDominant may for instance nurture new Dominants. A Hyperdominant might be Mono, though this might well require finding a roughly equal-strength HyperSubmissive partner. A HyperDominant might alternatively be Poly, and this might include an uncommonly large number of partners. This is from the point of view that SHE is a veritable Empress, with multiple Realms of subjects. SHE may find it impossible to contain her Dominance to one partner, possibly having enough of it to Dominate no known upper limit of people concurrently.

A lot of points can be made about such people, starting with how they do not fit into the more traditional rubrics of BDSM. Go back far enough in time and the only way to become a Dominant, at least in 'the' community is to be a Submissive first. But such as SHE would have Never submitted to anybody. If SHE'd 'been made to', it would have often been a comparatively negative experience to rape, whether or not SHE in some sense consented.

Let us assume then, that SHE is modern. That Dominants, even HyperDominants, can be hurt is in fact a big issue for some HyperDominants. It is in fact something that THEY can do something about, in that HyperDominants are known to Protect, and on occasion even succeed in Healing, Wounded Dominants (a type of Non-Normative Survivor)

If SHE has many adherents, it may be that SHE is the most important person in the world to many people simultaneously. SHE can, in her own way, handle that. If PolyDominant, SHE may require that nobody involved covet HER exclusively, or with any kind of jealousy. SHE might train each of HER adherents in profound compersion (the opposite feeling of jealously).

SHE might of course be a HE, or have gender-nonstandard or time-dependent pronouns.

SHE might well be a social group's leader, possibly of a large social group or of multiple social groups. Many such will of course not be PolyDominant in a conventional sense, e.g. having a sphere of influence far larger than HER actual partner or partners. This is because 'acting Dominantly' is not the same thing as 'having consensual relationships as a Dominant'.

There are various reasons then why SHE interacts Asexually with part of HER group. There are some things SHE can confer that nobody else can, such as protection, reassurance, cooperation, mediation, resolution. For at least internally, all parties respect HER, and the protection can easily be with reference to external problems as well. We are talking, for instance, about dozens of Survivors hiding behind a single HyperDominant, or possibly even just behind some of HER Knights, Ladies-in-Waiting or Fief Queens.

This points to quite a common rule: a true leader such as HER knows how to deputize. In a setting with actual judgement of character - something SHE has - and actual trust: something she instils and maintains. As such, SHE can find a reliable Fief Queen to deal with Survivors 'on everyday occasions'. SHE can do more through a such in terms of hours and location than she could directly. SHE even has some people elsewhere who devise what Fief Queen training should consist of and how to compatibilize each Fief's Subjects with others. SHE will appear HERSELF if there is need: a life in danger, a worn-down Fief Queen. SHE is a SafetyNet. SHE has open-court hours for brief requests and to forge inter-Fief bridges when one is short of something another has aplenty. SHE is a cooperator rather than a competitor; just as well, locally, for competing with HER would be as holding a candle to the Sun. [This is one reason SHE is more likely to be a SHE: cooperation is much more widespread among Ladies, for all that not all Ladies ascribe to such. But SHE does and that's the kind of culture that SHE foments.]

SHE is invaluable to the group, quite possibly irreplaceable. If SHE goes, the group between very largely and down-to-the-last-person leaves with HER even if it is to an entirely different set of activities. On rare occasions, there is an Imperial Princess waiting in the wings. Of some relevance to Universities, where 'life span' is either 3-4 or 7-8 years, so a great leader (HyperDominant or otherwise) is not around forever. The point being that even if staying on for a PhD, SHE is not particularly likely to find a similiar and similarly-benevolent replacement within that timespan. Replace HER nominally ('a new president') quite simply doesn't cut it. where exactly in description of 'President' is the guarantee that dozens of Survivors, say, will continue to feel safe at the society SHE had previously sheltered them at?