bydontost

26 minutes ago, Coyote said:

• i got a prollem w ppl splitting a complex sociocultural influenced ting like attraction into only two distinct experiences that ppl present as inherently unrelated all the time." (approx March 25, 2015)
• "stop this hyper-progressive (romance and sexual attraction are completely different so lesbians can still date men!!) shit which just circles riiiiight back to being your run-of-the-mill bigot" (approx April 23, 2015)
• "in the past few days i have alluded to the idea that the split attraction model plays into homophobia and particularly lesbophobia but i have not explained that in depth. i have discussed in the past how 'allosexual' is an alienating term and how it potentially hurts non-ace gay/bi people who are already hypersexualized, particularly sex-repulsed gay/bi people (me!!!). but i dont know where these posts are and my position on this is also not fully developed i think." (approx May 10, 2015) (note: this user says tumblr user medicine "is smart af and has definitely talked about split-attraction model before" -- I believe user medicine is the same person as user pure, up in the first link I've listed here)
• "the split attractions model encourages the maintenance of internalized homophobia" (approx June 24, 2015)
• "Again, the split attractions idea does apply to some people. But the model in which sexual and romantic attractions are intrinsically different is not. That difference does not apply to everyone. Trying to apply it where it does not exist is harmful, and reflects many types of homophobia." (approx June 24, 2015)
• "split attraction model is the idea that every single person experiences romantic/platonic/sexual/aesthetic/sensual attraction entirely separately and identifies every single LGBT+ person using that as a guide " (July 22, 2015)

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.

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

So you're using "orientation" and "pattern of attraction" to mean the same thing, and "orientation" and "identity label" to mean something different from each other?

YES!! Just like I said on my very first post on this topic!! 

Quote

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.

Clearly, we weren't on the same page here. 

3 hours ago, Coyote said:

So uh, not to butt in here, but so that I don't make the same mistake you're identifying... can you explain more? Is the issue that Elizabeth used "ace community"/ace concepts to refer to romantic orientation & differentiating types of attraction? Is it the phrase "ace/aspec"? Or is it something else?

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. 

3 hours ago, Coyote said:

We have identified several definitions that people have used and ways that people have used it, as a name, or string of words, to apply to different and overlapping and intertwined concepts, and I would like to talk about the semantic work that the phrase does or does not perform, i.e. how it is and is not useful -- starting with the classification of individuals into "SAM" and "non-SAM."

I'll read what @Prismatangle wrote as I was assembling this reply and get back to you on this

2 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

Some background: I first encountered the asexual community in late 2004, and joined in 2005 (both LJ and AVEN). So please don't assume that because I said "I don't bother with Tumblr" I'm therefore uninformed about the ace/aspec community or unfamiliar with the concepts.

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. 

3 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

It makes sense to explain it that way, so that's what we (asexual activists) started doing.

 

But it wasn't always like that. 

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.

3 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

And believe it or not, romantic orientation did not necessarily involve the idea of romantic attraction

Alright, this shifted. 

3 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

In most cases, there was probably also some kind of attraction, but you can’t just assume that’s the case for everyone. Some considered it a preference, not necessarily a pattern of attraction.

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??

3 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

I think the name for this model should either be separated to add “The Split Orientation Model” or expanded to “The Split Orientation/Attraction Model” at the very least.

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?? 

3 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

I’m coming from a similar place in that I want to talk about the name of the thing, more so than the concepts behind it

If it was about that, then I don't think a lot of people understood it, with coyote asking

• Quote

   

  • What have you seen people using "split attraction model" to mean? What does it mean to you?
  • 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?
  • Do you usually think of "split attraction" correlating with "having more than orientation," or no?
  • Does anybody have a source dating it back prior to 2015?
  • Any other thoughts on the dilemmas raised? Does it fill a lexical gap? Does it have multiple meanings? Is it useful?

   

   

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

Does having a romantic orientation entail differentiating romantic attraction from other kinds, 

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.

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

does differentiating types of attraction entail having more than one orientation?

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 hours ago, Coyote said:

Because that was a big part of the impetus to this whole thread & the whole previous post -- Laura referring to quoiromantics as people who don't split attraction, i.e. referring to a group I'm a part of in a way that I don't subscribe to and in fact find invalidating.

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. 

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

Ah! That's a different statement then.

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:

10 hours ago, bydontost said:

"There's more than 1 or 2 types of attraction, so romantic attraction can be different from sexual attraction"

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. 

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

Is this the same for your thinking or is it different?

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. 

25 minutes ago, Coyote said:

For reference, though, the post I linked up top has the start of an explanation for why I object to using "split attraction model" to mean the same thing as "romantic orientation."

Yes, and what I said is that SAM: 

12 hours ago, bydontost said:

provides the frame in which the concept of "romantic orientation" fits, alongside the other orientations.

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.

34 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Does that plan work for you?

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. 

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

There's the "there's more than one or two types of attraction (ex. 6, as in your example)" idea, which you're acknowledging here, and there's the "romantic orientation can be different from sexual orientation" idea, which is what some others here in this thread are reiterating, and those two aren't the same thing 

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. 

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

people are treating romantic & sexual like the only types of attraction anyone cares about distinguishing between, the only types that anyone conceptualizes as orientations, and the only types that even count as attraction in the first place. 

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.

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

Because of that, I am beginning to conclude that the way people talk about "the split attraction model" is amatonormative.

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?? 

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

to me it's all about choice - amatonormativity doesn't leave room for that. it only shows one model that should be desirable to everyone?? and it's not. nothing wrong with a personal choice to have a romantic relationship, but it shouldn't be the only available option. other kinds of relationships and partnerships exist (friendships, queerplatonic relationships, alterous relationhips, who knows what else) and choosing them shouldn't be weird