Apathetic Echidna

19 hours ago, Coyote said:

Interestingly enough, the word "aromantic" is about a decade older than the phrase "split attraction model." So I guess you're referring to, more generally, the idea of multiple orientations?

I came at these questions only as informed as I generally am (which is not much as I seem to have missed most serious terminology discussions), and the split attraction model was something I wasn't particularly interested in, so I had no idea it's etymological origin was so recent. When I heard about SAM from pro-SAM users they seemed to always give the idea of a long history of development, so obviously they were hitching the SAM model to historical references about multiple orientations or the division of types of affection. 

I have to also agree with @eatingcroutons comment about it being "widely used, and pretty unambiguous" because whenever SAM is defined for new users on AVEN or those 'Introduction to Aspec' type articles normal they describe 'attraction types' (whether SAM is specifically mentioned or not) as being 6 types of attraction with the romantic and sexual being the most important. Those with conflict to the idea tend to argue from the outside, rejecting the SAM or talking about it's inadequacies, rather than talking about it's ambiguity or vagueness.  

19 hours ago, Coyote said:

Sorry, can you elaborate on that? I don't think I follow you. Are you saying that individual people only have one "orientation," in the singular, and can't have more than one?

Yeah sorry, it is hard to get the words to describe something I think of in pictures. 

We live our lives as one experience (there are exceptions, like brain damage and severe psychological issues) and we feel attractions or absence of attractions. We the use that information of attraction and experience to define our orientation(s) (that is if the people do decide to identify themselves with labels, some don't want to use labels at all). Some people may find using two or more orientations useful to define aspect of themselves, others may not want to explain themselves using more than one orientation as they may feel it is splitting their experience. Ultimately though no word or collection of words will ever fully explain us and our experiences because not everything may be defined or explained. 

I am aro/grey-a and I see that as one thing, and that one thing is me, but I know other people may think of that as two things.

My problem with 'variorientated' is about people who feel differing attractions but only wish to use one orientation to describe themselves. Having variorientated applied to them or using it, implies more than one orientation, when in fact they use one orientation and have variation in attractions. 

Year 12 Exams (final High School Exams)

Coming in as a completely un-researched and un-refreshed mind, the SAM I learnt about 2-ish years ago shall answer your questions.  Lol, so I might be reiterating misunderstandings. 

What have you seen people using "split attraction model" to mean? What does it mean to you?

I am grateful to it because I see it as the main factor that allowed the formation of aromantic. Like a white light hitting a prism the SAM divides up attraction into it's component pieces. Most people, myself included, generally tend to only bother determining or mentioning one or two types of attraction when defining our orientation. When people say they have a romantic orientation and a sexual orientation (aroallo/aroace/alloace/etc....) I make the assumption that they have used the SAM to understand those two labels to explain their experience.

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 specifically says they use SAM I think they might have been more self-evaluating and labelled aesthetic, sensual and maybe even platonic or maybe even others (there being issues with the concept of 'platonic' and the need for affectionate terms) , along with romantic and sexual attraction. If someone says they don't use SAM I assume they don't find it useful to explain their personal experience, but that doesn't diminish it's importance to other people. 

Do you usually think of "split attraction" correlating with "having more than orientation," or no?

I think the SAM is most important to people questioning their orientations and trying to find communities (when you are dissecting yourself or trying to find some sort of match to other people's dissections). The way things work, having specifics known about your attractions as sorted out through the SAM, shows you facets of your orientation, but overall it is one orientation as you experience it as a whole. One attraction might be more important than the others, but the others are still there (or you know, as a aspec they are not). 

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?

No idea about before 2015. I read the links for this answer. 

I do think it fills a lexical gap, and is incredibly important to people who are variorientated* because it gives a framework to clearly understand their internal conflict in attractions. But really I feel SAM should only be linked to attraction because our 'orientations' are our experiences and I don't think our experiences are split. Even when we experience conflict we experience it as a full feeling rather than two or more parts and the conflict separate. *that is why I have a bit of an issue with this word as it uses the word 'orientation' to describe something determined by attraction. I understand other people have varying ideas, and variattracted sound hideously wrong for what I am trying to mean. 

I hope I am not too unclear in what I am trying to say. My ideas on the subject are not particularly strong because it directly links to how other people define their orientations and I feel that  I don't (and shouldn't) have any right to dictate the way they define themselves, but then I seem to have avoided many of the disagreements so I was unaware of flame wars and semantic battles going on, I just never want to be accused of being a gatekeeper.  

@eatingcroutons lol, the title inheritance is fully archaic and sexist (I won't get the title because I am a female and literally a bastard  ) but the family name will die with me and when 'cousins' are so distant they no longer feel like family it hardly feels like continuation. It goes to that whole idea of everyone not of African descent can be traced back to 7 unique individuals, so we are all cousins of varying degrees but we are not one big family. 

Because I know the root of my problem is not tied into the 'biological clock ticking' phenomenon I can only assume my own issues are linked to my complex feelings about World War II, but it was looking at the family photos from around that time that started my guilt in the first place. So I don't really want to delve into it again to sort it out.  

It would be so interesting to have a timeline! I know I was searching around for the aromantic concept before 2009 (probably like 2007?) and found nothing

As for other languages, Portuguese resources links were mentioned here 

This post was a little while ago so things have probably developed more on those sites (but I don't speak Portuguese so I can't tell you)

and I believe @Cristal Gris has information on French language Facebook groups (? maybe?) (sorry if I've mis-mentioned you!)  

in the related vocabulary section it would be great to have 'amatonormativity' seeing as we talk about it so often, and the first coining of the term is .....somewhere on the forums in a link....^{search function has failed me!}

French

On 3/12/2019 at 9:05 AM, running.tally said:

It's not particularly popular at the moment (where I'm living at least), but there is the possibility of co-parenting. The work of raising a child is a lot more distributed between many people, and there is also the benefit of having a child you can call your own. A little like adoption but with a greater number of parents/role models that can each contribute to a child's development in different ways (including passing down a title if you so choose).

I don't know much about legal stuff surrounding this issue, but I would look closely at the terms. It could be possible to give the title to someone you greatly mentor later in life, a good friend that will stick around, etc.

I don't want kids. I certainly don't want to get pregnant. I don't want to be a parent. 

It was just for a period of time I had some serious psychological pain at the idea of being 'the end of the line', like I was betraying a debt to my ancestors or something. 

As for the title, well it would be a legal battle for recognition and I am not that interested. In Australia, unless you are British Royalty, nobility means nothing. 

(I did have a nicer worded and longer answer but that was when the glitch happened and I forgot what I said)

I bought a whole heap of Valentines Day stock in the after Valentines sales. Flowers. Chocolates. Candy. ...and a uh....^{love heart shaped balloon}

@Holmbo the problem is I don't want kids. I like them in the sense that I can have a conversation then hand them back to their parents. 

I am feeling much better about everything but my issues weren't about being a parent, it was about continuing my genetics. Most of my post was about background to my question which was about whether or not other people seemed to experience 'genetic guilt', maybe as part of the 'biological clock ticking' fears that some women get. 

One solution would be donate eggs.....but ultimately I think my genetics are a bit whacky. Even if all the men in my family seem to turn out handsome, that is probably not a good convincing reason and which does not compensate for a predisposition for mysterious childhood-fever induced reactions. 

this is so funny! 

Take a romantic song, run it through a few translations to find a funny and pleasing Aromantic joke.  

So I have done:

The Rolling Stones - Summer Romance (via Arabic, Macedonian, Simplified Chinese, Somali, Scots Gaelic and Japanese)  

Baked Goods

You seem to talk about liking the idea of romance, but has it all been either in your head or from what friends have told you? I just ask because many people here struggle with fantasies about being in a relationship (I say struggle because they know they are aromantic and have repulsions to at least some of the things their brain wants them to do). The mind is a tricky thing. I would say try a relationship to see what happens but if you have indifferent or neutral reactions it might just make you feel more confused...but it might clear up some stuff? 

If we go by aromantic being lack of attraction, you do sound aromantic, but if you are uncomfortable claiming that label then don't. If you start a relationship though you should definitely warn the person that you are unsure about your romantic spectrum and so you might react differently than they might expect. 

flowers

Welcome! 

I don't think everyone gets everything figured out, adult or not.  I just hope you can find some interesting points from here that you haven't been able to find elsewhere. 

Also enjoy this customary pixilated Aro-colour themed icecream 

Antarctica

(it was the first thing to pop into my head! ?)

....and to go back on an aro topic:

Single

Warning: This could get sad, or funny 

Just post the first word that comes into your head when you read the word offered in the post above yours.

And to keep the game going, offer an Aromantic-ish word for the next person to use. 

My offering is The One^TM

On 2/22/2019 at 5:36 PM, Ashere said:

discovered the term cupioromantic and thought that may apply to me more, but the longer I was on forums and looking through things the more I thought it might just be amatonormativity shining through like it always does.

The fact that a romantic relationship means so much to you should definitely be respected.  Aromanticism is defined as an attraction orientation so Aromantics can have relationships, they can date, they can marry. I always thought Cupioromantic was the perfect blend of attraction vs desire terms: an aromantic who desires romantic relationships. (though the label police attacked me on AVEN for thinking that). I can't tell you what you are, I think you are aromantic, and your yearning for a romantic partnership makes me think you would fit cupioromantic. Don't let the debates get you down. Internalised amatonormativity is generally a term for things related to romance that annoy us while part of us yearn for them, to be pulled and pushed in different directions. You seem to only feel a pull in one direction so claim a label you find kinship with. 

On 1/28/2019 at 1:32 PM, Berry said:

it takes at least 14 trys to open it and it has a 50% chance of ripping upon being unzipped.

^{Isn't that just a normal ziplock bag?}

it might be interesting to know gender assigned at birth rather than gender orientation to discover if there is some early gender conditioning towards or against romance. I know that in one of the Scandinavian countries they now have kindergartens/early learning centres where the children are separated by gender and given oppositely-gender-stereotyped activities: girls learn to use hammers and boys do manicures on each other (there is a 'The Feed' episode on youtube about it somewhere if you are interested) 

Internalising of phobias that directly conflict with romantic orientation could also possibly represent as Aromanticism. You mention internalised Acephobia but you can also include internalised Homophobia or even possibly internalised Transphobia. 

20 hours ago, Mark said:

I couldn't find any data on prevalance at all.

Thanks for trying! 

Though I definitely see that people with only a mild aversion would fake or force themselves to act 'normal'. I didn't even know the concept of touch aversion before I came here, especially as I explained mine away as being moody because mine is variable

On 1/6/2019 at 3:13 AM, Holmbo said:

it's not really a thing to kiss at midnight. We toast champagne

Yup. So much champagne.

Generally New Years is spent with family or friends, or both. If I am with friends or the wilder members of my family we play drinking games as we watch the Sydney fireworks on TV (we only ever stay to see the early 'family' fireworks wherever we are because it is too hard getting home in the rush after midnight ~plus the drinking games are fun)

4 minutes ago, awkwardchickenpotatodragon said:

Huh. That's an interesting thought. I can't think of any circumstances that would lead to my touch aversion, but what do I know.

our brains are like a multi-million sided rubiks cubes, so take all my comments as slightly thought about brain farts. I'm just glad you thought it was interesting.

As for the finding out how prevalent it is I'll see if I can interest any of my psychology friends to work out an effective survey or something

I remember answering in the other poll where I said Australian. I do believe the Dreamtime stories, they explain the land I live in quite well. But I also accept that much is unknowable at the present time so generally I say I am agnostic (which also help me avoid the vapid racist who think ecological spiritual values are limited by bloodlines).