Jump to content

eatingcroutons

Member
  • Content Count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

3 Followers

About eatingcroutons

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Name
    crou
  • Romanticism
    Probably aro
  • Sexuality
    Mostly men

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

383 profile views
  1. Machiavelli. Don't get me started on misrepresentation of The Prince as being a moral, rather than a practical guide. Read his Discourses on Livy, then talk to me.
  2. I'd say that what people call "romantic attraction" is part physiological phenomena, part subjective conscious experience of physiology, and part social framing of subjective conscious experience. There are hormonal changes that are correlated with "romantic attraction" - these have been studied and observed. They fundamentally mimic obsession/addiction states: Low serotonin, high dopamine, oxytocin as well. These are physiological changes that can be triggered or influenced by a variety of stimuli or circumstances. Then there's our subjective conscious experience of what our hormones are doing. It's been studied and observed that subjective experiences of similar physiological states vary from person to person: The same cocktail of hormones might result in significantly different feelings or experiences in different people. On top of all that is social context. We're all raised by societies that give us certain frameworks within which to understand and interpret our subjective experiences. Society, for example, may tell us that "love" is a thing that can be categorised into qualitatively different types, leading us to look for ways to categorise any love we feel according to society's framework. So in terms of whether "romantic attraction" has always been around, I'd say that the addiction-like rush of hormones almost certainly has. And that some people have probably always experienced that hormone cocktail as a deep, emotional desire to permanently bond with another person. Framing that desire as "romantic attraction" may be new, and whether or not society as a whole recognises and values emotional desire for a permanent bond varies. But it's highly unlikely that humans have changed so much in <200 generations that the ancient Egyptians never felt a deep emotional desire to pair-bond.
  3. Everyone should be free to come out - or not - on their own terms, depending on whether they feel safe and comfortable in doing so. I don't think individuals should feel pressured to compromise their safety or comfort for broader community goals. I personally am totally comfortable telling people that romance is not for me. I travel quite a lot for business as well as pleasure, and at my age it's pretty common for people I meet to ask whether I have kids as small talk. I find most people are pretty accepting when I explain that, "I don't do relationships." And I absolutely believe that the more people realise that disinterest in romantic relationships is a legitimate life experience, the closer we can get to acceptance of that experience. (I don't tend to immediately use the label "aromantic" with strangers because I find that derails the conversation into semantics - and if I have to prioritise one or the other, I think it's more important that people understand the concept and experience of having no desire for romantic relationships, than that they know the label for it.)
  4. I don't think it's particularly sensible to refer to other people as "SAM-using" or "non-SAM". The SAM isn't an identity, it's an optional framework which people may or may not use to conceptualise their patterns of attraction. As for the "original" definition: 2015-era definitions of the SAM that involve forcibly applying it to everyone come from the time that exclusionists were using the SAM to discredit and attack aspec communities. These days it is well-recognised that the SAM doesn't apply to everyone's experience, and that it is deeply harmful to try to force it on people. I'm on holiday and not about to go digging up posts as examples, but I can promise you my experience of aro communities here, on Tumblr, several Discord servers, and elsewhere, is that they have all long since rejected the "original" definition (which, again, was created and spread by exclusionists) in favour of the understanding that the SAM simply means that some people experience distinctions between different forms of attraction.
  5. Are these the "concepts" you mean when you say the SAM refers to multiple concepts? Because that might be where we're talking across each other. Like @Apathetic Echidna, I understand SAM itself to mean literally nothing more than the concept that "a person may feel many attractions and they may not all be similar". What kinds of attractions exist, and how they are defined, is an entirely separate question.
  6. One of the things I struggled with most when trying to understand concepts like QPRs was precisely that explanations seemed to be contrasted against a much more restricted understanding of "friendship" than my own. It wasn't until I found the original discussion where the term "queerplatonic" was mooted, and discovered that it was explicitly defined in contrast to a fairly conservative USAmerican view of limitations of the term "friendship," that I felt I understood where people were coming from with it. I have no problem with people calling their relationships queerplatonic if that feels right for them, but am also very, very much in favour of standing by the idea that "friendship" encompasses far more than that narrow, conservative definition of what's allowed between "friends". My "friends" include the person with whom I've been wearing matching rings for over 15 years as a symbol of our promise to stay connected forever. They include the married couple I've been discussing buying a house with. They include quite a few people that I regularly have sex with, including one partner from a different married couple that I have an open-ended agreement with. In my view the definition of "friendship" absolutely extends to every one of those situations, and an awful lot more.
  7. Yeah, I agree that's where this discussion has ended up - and I agree that how people define different types of attraction is a separate topic to the SAM itself (which is just the concept that attractions can be distinct).
  8. Ah! That's a different statement then. You realise these two quotes were replying to entirely different things, right? In the first instance @bydontost says that she believes the statements "there's more than one or two types of attraction" and "romantic orientation can be different from sexual orientation" are both part of the same concept, and explicitly clarifies her understanding to be, "There's more than 1 or 2 types of attraction, so romantic attraction can be different from sexual attraction." In the second instance tost is replying to your comments about "split attraction" and "romantic orientation" being "interchangeable/indistinguishable" which... as far as I can tell literally nobody in this thread believes? (I don't know who Laura is but if you have a problem with what they've said elsewhere maybe you should be talking to them about it?) ETA: lol whoops, didn't notice page 2 on my phone.
  9. I'm saying that in my experience, the "split attraction model" refers to the concept that different kinds of attraction can be distinct/split, and I've never met anyone who has found that concept ambiguous once explained in those terms. ETA: I just tested this out on a friend who has zero connection to queer communities, zero knowledge of aspec identities, and has definitely never encountered the concept of split attraction before. It took me all of ten seconds to say, "If I told you some people experience different kinds of attraction as distinct - like they might be bisexual but only romantically attracted to one gender - does that concept make sense to you?" and he was like, "Yeah, why?" I asked if there was anything ambiguous about what I'd said and he was like, "I reckon if you said that to Fred on the street he'd think it was pretty weird, but nah, the idea is straightforward."
  10. It seems to me that Elizabeth was saying "non-SAM" can have multiple meanings and is confusing - possibly because that term was only mooted in the thread you linked to. I can understand how someone who doesn't "bother with" any of the communities where the term "split attraction" is used might be unfamiliar with it. I've also met plenty of people who've never come across the concept of split attraction. But in my experience it takes about five seconds to explain that it means "different types of attractions can be distinct (split)". The meaning is literally in the term itself. The fact that some people are unfamiliar with the concept doesn't make the concept itself ambiguous. Of course not. Only an individual can decide whether split attraction as a concept meaningfully describes their own experience.
  11. I read your link when you provided it in the OP. I saw people talking about how SAM is inadequate for describing all the complexities of human attraction/experience. I didn't see anyone confused about what SAM means or describes, in the way it is currently used. Ditto.
  12. Yeah, this - I've seen plenty of arguments about the limitations and inadequacies of SAM, but never anyone who finds its actual meaning ambiguous or unclear.
  13. Well you did ask for my perspective. Everywhere I've seen it used, it's pretty unambiguously been a framework for people to describe distinctions between sexual and romantic orientations. I agree.
  14. What have you seen people using "split attraction model" to mean? What does it mean to you? I've generally seen people using it to explain that they have distinct sexual and romantic orientations - often ones that don't match. I've always understood the split attraction model to be a framework for people to describe distinctions between their sexual and romantic orientations. If somebody says that they use it, what does that mean to you? If somebody says they don't use it, what does that mean to you? If someone says they use it, I understand that to mean that they make a distinction between their sexual and romantic orientations. If someone says they don't use it, I assume they experience their orientation as a coherent whole, not as having distinct sexual or romantic parts. Do you usually think of "split attraction" correlating with "having more than orientation," or no? I'm not sure how much use it is to people who don't have distinct orientations, so yes, I tend to assume those things correlate. (Regarding @bananaslug's points above, I don't generally assume aroace people use SAM unless they specifically say they do.) Does anybody have a source dating it back prior to 2015? Can't help you there! Any other thoughts on the dilemmas raised? Does it fill a lexical gap? Does it have multiple meanings? Is it useful? I definitely need some way to explain that I have a sexual orientation but not a romantic one, so a split attraction framework is necessary for that. "Split attraction model" as a term is concise, widely used, and pretty unambiguous, and that to me is more important than where it originated. I don't think I've seen it have meanings other than the one I've described above.
×
×
  • Create New...