Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About bydontost

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Name
    Bydon Tost
  • Pronouns
  • Romanticism

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Phew, so, I think that the issues that were supposed to be explained by sam, but weren't very structured in sam are answers to the following questions: Attraction: What kind of attractions do you experience? What is the pattern of this attraction? Are those types attractions you have experienced as cohesive? Identity: What do you identify as? What is that identity influenced by (attraction/other factors)? And answers to those questions and concepts around them could be structured more. More talk in a comment here: https://theacetheist.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/remodeling-on-the-reclamation-of-the-term-split-attraction-model/#comment-9651
  2. I read @Coyotes post on their blog in the meantime and I'm actually ready to agree that sam is not enough to capture those subtleties, no matter how we rename it... I hope that wouldn't make things harder, but we need something to explain how all those attractions can influence identities and how identities don't have to be about attractions and all that. You're not sure where you fit in those 4 categories Coyote suggested - maybe there's another one, I now notice it could be harder for someone who does think of their attraction as fluid to pinpoint where they fit, so that's something to think about. I'm definitely in the divergent pieces, multiple orientations, but it doesn't feel like a fractured experience - the pieces intersect, interweave to form a single sense of self.
  3. That's what the way I've been using it, yes. You clearly were using a different meaning, so of course you're going to (eta:) misunderstand me if you don't apply the sense I mean to my words (/end eta). only in the sense that you experience that attraction, yes. Can you have attraction without labelling it?? Yes, you don't have a problem with this. Can you have orientation (in the meaning pattern of attraction) without labelling it?? Apparently not, even though it has the same meaning to how I use them. This is tripping you up. You don't use them the same way I do, but can you let go of the way you're using it for a second and understand what I'm saying?? The answer to that question you asked above is still: yes if you mean orientation = pattern of attraction, and no if you mean orientation = identity. I mean it in the first sense. I'm not sure I understand - you mean that aros and aces only talk about the term sam to say they don't apply it to themselves...?? Or that it's mostly useful in setting apart aces from aros?? Mostly looks like those are the groups. The only issue I have is this first part of this sentence and the use of "split": Hmm this is sth I'd have to think about tbh...?? I guess my understanding was that patterns of attraction(s) itself(s) were influenced by things like that tbh. Should throw in N there too, to make "damn" 👌. But I think that to name it accurately it'd have to be like "Possible Attraction Model, You Don't Have to Apply It to Yourself, But It's an Option, Please Remember You Don't Have to Label Your Identity According To This Model", which is to say - it's not useful for everyone, the name is probably never going to reflect all the problems people have with it, while the name split attraction model remains a bit unfortunate. Differentiated Attraction Model - "so you have to differentiate??". Separable Attraction Model - "so it's possible to separate in everyone??". Split Orientation Model - "so everyone's orientation is made out of different components??" or "so everyone's patterns of attractions can be separated from each other??". Anyway, maybe people who only have one orientation (either in terms of identity or attraction) could just say they're something"-oriented" as clarification..?? Like, "I'm aromantic, in the sense that I'm a-oriented"..??
  4. Yes, and now you're on an aromantic forum and discussing this in terms of aromanticism and the possible shifts in meanings that you're supposedly informed on/following. I am well aware that aro community wasn't a thing when the concepts of multiple attractions were being developed, but at least when the words "split attraction model" started being used, the are community was very much a thing already. So, wording I'd prefer to see, when you're trying to prove you're connected to aro discussions (this, happening on an aro forum, is an aro discussion) would be for example "ace/aspec spaces and now aro communities too". It worked poorly to me to name the communities you were active in then, in the context of you being connected to what is going on now. This is all. I don't mind actually, to clarify. nope, still not a reaction to this Oh cool, same page!! Yes, I agree this is not good to assume a person's identity is only, always about their attraction. I think the most common case in which this is not so are people identifying as straight, but who have some non-straight attractions. I'm going to theorize that a lot of people like that aren't going to call themselves straight in the future (well, the younger generations). But I agree that it's good to emphasize that attraction doesn't have to equal identity. Tbh I thought that people who say they're "non-SAM" mean that they don't name their identities only based on the attractions they feel. And those who use SAM, use it to label their identity according to the attractions they feel (be it romantic, emotional, sexual, platonic, etc). Well I certainly didn't catch that at all tbh. Yes, okay, I think I'm on the same page. So, useful in my opinion - helps to conceptualize that there may be different types of attractions a person feels and that some of them may not exist or pull us in different directions. Useful when to someone a certain attraction is an important part of their experience and they want to incorporate it into their identity. Not useful - may further reinforce the concept that attraction is the sole basis of identity. It is also mostly used in a way that centers sexual and romantic attraction-based identities, which doesn't make sense to many people. I don't think an argument that it doesn't apply to everyone is a strong one - a lot of concepts doesn't apply to everyone, but can be very useful to others. As a word - it's not the best for sure, but I'm not certain trying to change it wouldn't be like trying to turn a river with a stick at this point.
  5. Yep so those are just exclusionists and otherwise aphobic people criticizing the universal application of sam. They also don't seem to engage in good faith and are probably just trying to stoke the aphobic moods on tumblr. So while they were the first ones (probably) who used the words, I'm not actually going to take their concerns too seriously. When it comes to what sam meant to them - I still think they were talking about different patterns of attraction existing in people. The reclamation may have been just that people arguing with them started using the term too in their responses. YES!! Just like I said on my very first post on this topic!! Clearly, we weren't on the same page here. In my opinion, a connection to spaces described as "ace/aspec" when you're on an explicitly aromantic forum and trying to explain how you're connected to the issues being discussed in context of this space is a great insensitivity. Wording that would work for me: "ace/aspec and now aro communities too". Just... use the word aromantic when you're on an aromantic forum and discussing things in context of aromanticism. I'll read what @Prismatangle wrote as I was assembling this reply and get back to you on this
  6. I'm seriously... speechless, we're on an aromantic forum. We've been over this time and time and time and time again, talking about how aro spaces don't equal ace spaces. And if you missed that, then you're uninformed. So you started doing it a certain way that you say made sense and now you're saying that it wasn't always understood like that. Alright, this shifted. And I'm not going to deny people's right to identify a certain way that makes sense to them. So, romantic orientation wasn't always based on attraction. Okay, this shifted and usually I see people identifying as a certain thing because of their pattern of attraction, which I imagine suits the romance favourable aros, who still call themselves aromantic despite being comfortable in romantic relationhips. But I think I see what you mean that attraction may not be the only reason for someone to identify with a certain label and that was marginalised in the split attraction model. Is that it?? An identity someone chooses may not be only affected by their attraction, but also by other factors?? I hmm, am assuming you mean orientation as identity here, so I'm getting that you mean that a) even though some people may feel distinct patterns of attractions, they don't have to label them and incorporate into their identity OR they don't use their attraction as indicator of identity, b) even though some people may not feel distinct patterns of attractions, they may want to label their identities based on their preferences?? If it was about that, then I don't think a lot of people understood it, with coyote asking
  7. Orientation as in pattern of attraction - not necessarily. Orientation as in identity - it is used this way, yes, a homosexual perioriented person probably won't say they're homoromantic, while a varioriented one may. Yes (that is orientation in terms of pattern of attraction, not identity or label you choose) Again tho, I don't see romantic orientation and split attraction model as on the same level - sam is a category above romo, sexual, platonic, sensual, emotional, and so on attractions that allows to talk about them in terms of one concept (the split attraction model).
  8. Yep, I think that's a different conversation though - I'm not in Laura's head and I don't know why they chose to talk about it like that, maybe because the most common usage of sam is to distinguish between romo and sexual attraction, but that's not all there is. I mean honestly that's what I've been trying to say from the start, so I'm glad we're finally on the same page. "I don't undertand how it's not the same idea" was followed by: the first part of that sentence was about sam (existence of multiple types of attraction) and the second part was fitting sexual and romantic patterns of attraction into the frame provided by sam. A statement "There's more than 1 or 2 types of attraction, so sensual attraction can be different from platonic attraction" would also be true and I don't see how it'd imply that sam = platonic orientation. Mostly the same!! Definitely don't see the various orientations as exclusive or existing in some sort of hierarchy (where you'd first have to label your sensual orientation for example and only then you'dbe able to make other ones), so definitely overlapping, definitely something everyone can pick and choose from to suit their needs in describing experiences, so you can as one of the options choose sexual and aesthetic and platonic orientation or romantic and sensual and platonic and emotional orientation and it'd be all happening within the framework sam provides.
  9. Yes, and what I said is that SAM: I'm not saying sam is the same concept as romo orientation. I'm saying that the split attraction model is a concept larger that this of romantic or sexual or platonic or aesthetic orientation and it provides a larger frame/mold in which all those attractions can be conceptualized as distinct and different...?? I'm really not arguing they're the same thing... So again, how does "There's more than one or two orientations" contradict "romantic attraction can be different from sexual attraction"?? I think the second statement is complementary to the first one. As @eatingcroutons said, I think the essential part of sam is that a certain person finds it useful to describe their experiences. If you give me examples of people who say the sam doesn't work for them, then I'll say they don't use the sam, because they say they don't use the sam.
  10. I don't understand how this isn't the same idea...?? "There's more than 1 or 2 types of attraction, so romantic attraction can be different from sexual attraction", that's how I understand it. A different thing entirely is how people mostly use it to distinguish between/describe their sexual and romantic patterns of attraction - but that doesn't mean they think those are the only ones in general or the only ones that are separate enough to distinguish between. Most people who use SAM use it to distinguish between sexual and romantic attraction because it's *useful* to them, and the fact that that makes some people who are less knowledgeable about the community terminology think SAM is only for sexual and romantic attraction or that those are the only orientations worth naming is not the fault of people who use SAM to describe their experiences a certain way. I'm not sure where you got that generalization that romo and sexual are "the only ones to count as attraction" either. I don't get how this is amatonomative, as in conforming to the "assumption that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types". Did you mean that sexual and romantic identities are assumed to be necessary to describe most people's experiences with interpersonal relationhips and you don't want it to be a norm??
  11. Before I reply - there's a problem of understanding sometimes wether someone is talking about their identity (a choice to apply a certain term to themselves) or orientation (pattern of attraction). Orientation has taken to mean identity for a lot of people, so I want to make sure we're on the same page here. What sam means to me?? i started to call myself bisexual aromantic, because i felt that it just describes me and my non-standard relation with sexual and romantic orientations. i need both those terms to accurately talk about my experiences of attraction - bisexual wasn’t enough and i can’t call myself aromantic without acknowledging my sexual attraction/orientation. at that time i didn’t know i was using what is called the split attraction model (SAM), i knew that it was natural and right to be able to discover and name both my bisexuality and aromanticism. i experience both a bisexual pattern of sexual attraction and aromantic pattern of romantic attraction and those are my orientations that I identify with. What have I seen other people using sam to mean?? A description of their patterns of attraction, that aren't all going in the same direction. Most popular is the sexual and romantic one, because it's the framework we're operating in right now, mainly because of the importance of sexual relations and partnerships in the world we live in. It became customary to specify "allo aro" or "aroace", while the other types of attraction aren't as widely spread and rarely considered identities. If somebody says they use it, what does it mean to you?? I guess I mostly see people just use it. It helps me to conceptualize what kind of patterns of attractions they experience - though to me it's closely tied to my identity, which doesn't make sense to some people. If somebody says they don't use it, what does it mean to you?? Either that they choose to identify a certain way that's more central to them despite experiencing distinct patterns of various attractions, or that they don't experience distinct patterns of various attractions and so SAM doesn't apply to them. Does it fill a lexical gap?? Yes, it provides the frame in which the concept of "romantic orientation" fits, alongside the other orientations. Is it useful? Yes, I find it necessary to use
  12. you mean the translation?? because I'm pretty sure the root is supposed to mean love
  13. To anyone interested in what nonamory means: https://anagnori.tumblr.com/post/68737057155/nonamory Nonpartnering is also a term used for it
  14. oh boy, so as far as we can tell right now what is romantic is intent - so, if you're going to movies or restaurant with a friend or your qpp and the intent isn't romantic - congrats, your activity isn't romantic. what it *can* be is romance-coded (like kissing on the mouth is pretty romance-coded), but what decides if something is romantic or not is just the intent. and if you wanna see the original definition of queerplatonic, see here: https://realsesmith.tumblr.com/post/2868581031/word-of-the-day-queerplatonic
  15. I'd be interested in a london one!!
  • Create New...