Apathetic Echidna

Yeah, this is hard. I decided not to come out to a friend who is very active in LGBT+ initiatives because they were displaying aphobic tendencies and comments for many years before I even discovered aromanticism. That certainly added to the death of that friendship. I hope your friend can be more open minded in the future. 

I have come out using the word aromantic. One of my friends was privy to my whole questioning process. But it is a very limited number of people who know.

Otherwise I don't think it is anyone's business, and after learning the things I know about some people I have met, I do wonder about discrimination (though not only orientation discrimination, but some of those people are closet sleazebags and I don't want to give them any information about anything)(....and I guess now I am much more cautious with new acquaintances because of bad experiences)

I haven't heard about the new laws but I'm fairly sure Arocalypse might have been started around April 3, 2016

9 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

Sophomore

I knew there was an 'S' word somewhere related to all of this, but I ALWAYS forget what it is. Thanks for clearing up the freshman thing too. 

Maybe I should also make clear that in my list the first two are identified as 'school' but I didn't do it for tertiary because it is normally used with words like learning and education because there are many routes of tertiary learning (from certificate courses to all the different levels of degrees)

back to the main point of this conversation, I think mostly because they might be less clearly defined (because they mix and meld  very differently in different people and some of those people might shy away from discussing them (either because they themselves have issues defining them, to try and describe them would mean being uncomfortably open about personal experiences, or there are dictatorial people in the community/conversation who might deride their usage of the specific attraction terms). So in short: they are tucked away because they are 'messy' (at least for some people).

(though I don't know how that might be worked into any terminology. It seems mainly about their reasons for lower visibility which could maybe be fixed with a shift in community focus from highlighting non-romantic/sexual orientation labels and experiences)

The issue I have with my initial reflex understanding of Tertiary is that (at least in Australia) it is generally used in relation to the school system. Who knows, maybe an Australian coined the word in this use because it does sort of fit the pattern (in a sort of really horribly problematic way):

Primary School (I guess Elementary in US?) = Simple, common, shared experience, compulsory.

Secondary School (Freshman/Middle/High School? I find US year separation names confusing) = Difficult, common, shared experience, partially compulsory

Tertiary (University or college) = Complex, nuanced, specialised

So the word Tertiary is already charged with a bunch of uhhh...extra understanding? I wonder how common this understanding is...is it an Australian thing?

@Ace of Amethysts

9 hours ago, Magni said:

but that it is useful to have terminology to describe them as a group rather than listing them out individually

People define them all quite differently and there seem to be heaps of different word out there as well as different definitions. Personally I don't really think they have any meaning in a conversation unless context is given and for that you sort of have to list them, or at least your experiences if you don't give them a defining term(s). I think when arguments get theoretical enough to need shorthand words for groups of things that negate their actual identification then you are just asking for people to misinterpret what you mean.   

And we learnt from the SAM conversation that there are many varied ways to understand how it works or is applied (simply from the sort of ridiculous length those posts and the whole thread got)

11 minutes ago, Magni said:

Generally, even when used as a singular pronoun, the verbs for they conjugate as if it is plural, similar to how you works.

oh, I was thinking it might be swapped to singular to avoid the plural use of They. None of your examples in the table specifically made that clear, so thanks for telling me!

7 minutes ago, Magni said:

Ze/hir/hirself

I actually haven't ever seen that variant before with the 'h', but I have seen many using the 'i' like in Zir. The Ze is probably becoming more popular (well at least the pile of content using it is growing quicker) because the letter makes sense to many people. Your chart certainly makes it clear, and as a singular it would bypass the only failing I think 'They' has which is its need to change more than one word in most sentences to keep it grammatical....but it is not like I use find & replace regularly to swap out She/He with They.

also I just noticed this

On 3/8/2019 at 9:09 AM, HotRamen said:

we never hear people say “you is”

That comes into regional grammatical slang. Have you seen the movie 'Brother where art thou?' ? it is used there, and is representative of the speaking quirks of the region and time but I doubt it has fully dropped out of use. There is a great quote that starts "Is you is, or is you ain't...". It is like the English/British(?) use of 'I was stood' rather than 'I was standing' 

@Magni I am seeing the Ze form much more now and I think they are a cool set of alternatives to use! Are you saying you coined them? if so, super cool!

(Though a little while ago I read a short (very short) work of fiction which had two characters (un-named characters I might add) that used Ze and it's other forms. It was the most confusing thing I have read recently. The author had taken it all a bit too far. The same exact problem would have come up using two 'she', 'he' or 'they' characters. The author just really needed to give at least one character a name!)

10 hours ago, Coyote said:

I think it's an overall tricky situation, probably with no one-size-fits-all solution.

Definitely. I wouldn't say it is a unanimous community reaction, I just find for answering those initial questioning topics that run less along 'I feel bad about my self' and more like 'I am scared I am this thing I have preconceived notions about' with a 'you don't have to be that thing' is more welcoming/encouraging(?) than debating why they are wrong, when the perception change must come from inside which is best done by hearing others experiences and opinions which never really seem to make their way onto those questioning posts. I guess this is all my reaction to those posts elsewhere where questioning people ask about terms they are interested in and get answers along the lines of 'that's not really a recognised/legit term #toomanylabels' and then the questioning person abandons their account. Some people have a drive to quantify themselves with labels even if they later decide to stop using them. 

(Those other 'I feel bad about my self' topics don't tend to focus on labels like questioning topics do so it is much easier to discuss and reassure using personal contexts, generally they also get much more activity, more different users and more comments)

6 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

This is just a quick response so I did not read through all of this. Sorry! 

This thread is monster length ? and it goes off topic a few times (with very long posts). Sorry!

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

If it were me, and someone came to me distraught saying "I don't feel sexual attraction but I don't want to be this way," my response wouldn't be to just... recommend some kind of a "asexual but is unhappy with that" label.

well the only reason people hang around in online communities is when they feel accepted, if they feel it is toxic they will leave. So I just think giving them whatever kind of support they want initially. Don't think I have ever brought up cupioromantic unless it was already in the thread. As I said to Mark, these are the people who see 'aromantic' as a painful idea so they are not initially going to listen to 'but aromantics can do that too' comments. 

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

I think there's beliefs and ideas about worth and regard that need to be addressed there with far more than a label. 

These sorts of things are all over the forums. It is a popular topic in all it's guises.

My mind set on this is basically reassure them in however they want to be reassured, so that they accept that the community is welcoming. Then hope they might find some conversations and experiences of others that can help them, or even start a conversation about their fears. I know there are some people around who had a label before aromantic because they thought to be aromantic was to give up on a dream, which it doesn't have to be. 

I guess the 'giving up on something' is a trope we are fighting as a community, and the labels that define 'aromantic but unhappy about it' are a soft way to handle people's distress. Not to mention all the 'letting go of something I don't actually want anyway' distress in the forums. I'm not going to poke the cupioromantic bear (at least not yet) as some people find it reassuring . 

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

That's kinda what I'd intended for the convergent group, then. Is there a way I could change the wording for that one to better suit you (i.e. make it broader/more identifiable)? Note that I've gone and made edits to the main post for that section recently, although can't say whether that will have made a significant difference yet. 

Ahh, I was still working from the understanding from the raws, so if you've edited it might be clearer for me. (I did think that the circles section was the most confusing, but with clearer context hopefully I can get a better understanding)

@MarkWell I see the 'separation' I'm specifically talking about here as being caused by the questioning people having ideas (probably mostly fears) about what being aromantic means (probably based on a whole heap of misconceptions about turning into crazy-cat ladies who are forever alone or all their dreams of finding The One^tm and having happily ever after suddenly being smashed). So, we, the aromantics who find partners or enjoy romantic-coded things are sort of invisible because 'being aromantic' has already been rejected by them. And when someone has a gut reaction against a label or is uneasy about a label that should be respected like Oak says here. There are some interesting points over here, even if they are mostly using a sexuality vocabulary. 

As for your specific comment about being easier being something else, I don't really understand. Sure, the world would be a simple place if we were all allocishet with no neurodivergency, (but it would also probably be boring.) But if you mean that using the alloromantic label or asexual label would make things less difficult, that would be a personal choice you would have to make, just like if you decided to stop using 'aromantic' because you felt it did not explain your experience (like Ashere or oak in the first link).  

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

but I'm still interested in assessing these four/five circles I'm drawing, with others' help. Would it be too soon/unwarranted to go and make another new thread?

drawing....pictures? diagrams are good. ?

?????

Discussion of the circles warrants it's own thread, and some new commenters. 

Though I can just image that this is going to end up on a linkspam as the longest article (that probably even warrants a length warning)

Quote

Ditto Coyote. There is a very long history of discussion of defining asexuality not solely with respect to sexual attraction. In recent memory, the last time it became a big discussion on the blogs was around Here’s 2015, but my impression is that it comes up even more frequently on AVEN. Generally, the other criteria under discussion are “sexual desire”, “sex drive”, or “wanting sex”. (Siggy from the blog comments)

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

There's also, for instance, cupioromantic folks, right? Who want to express an openness to certain relationships, despite no specific attraction? I personally didn't get putting that in your orientation label itself, but people do it, and it's not something I'm going to fight them on. And more generally, there are some people on the border line who choose between the labels gay vs. bi vs. queer depending on who/what they want to prioritize, I think, right?

 

Although the ace and aro comms talk a lot about "attraction," it seems like there are a lot of other closely related factors, like desire and intention and cultural perception, that influence people's choice of description. See also that whole recent thread on a not-specifically-aro umbrella term, where it was mentioned that folks have been shying away from "greyromantic" because of unwanted associations (as was also mentioned on this post over here).

I'm just going to tie these comments together because they work together to answer. 

So since I moved off AVEN all the discussion about aromanticism sort of hard lines 'aromantic' in relation to attraction and maybe a few other things on an individual basis. Desire, drive and wanting don't come into it in relation to aromantics, all of those other criteria are pushed into different labels like cupioromantic which then take it into account in it's definition. There have been quite a few people come through these forums expressing (sometimes very upset or stressed) that they don't feel romantic attraction but don't want to be that way, don't want to be 'aromantic'. They need that separation from the rest of the aromantics. Those labels may simply be a middle-step as they come to self acceptance or it may be the identity they choose for life, but they are incredibly important for people who want an 'out' from being aromantic as I highly doubt there will be much push to change the current attraction centric definition of aromantic. 

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

But to get back on track -- I was thinking of it in terms of this: Are you more "at home" with the more common composite use of "sexual orientation" you see basically everywhere else, or are you more "at home" with the ace & aro communities' typical way of talking about sexuality vs. romance as separate, or do you not really care and go with either one? With this way of drawing the circles, I'm thinking less about pinning down an exact experience itself and more about just... what chafes, if that makes sense. 

Sorting out the chafing in all our communities is probably the best aim any of us can have right now! 

I must say I composite, but not sexual orientation as everything defaults to aromantic for me (and I prefer not to name the rest). I find it is only in aro & ace communities that I find myself detailing other things and people assume they are separate, which is fair because generally it comes up when talking about a specific incident or event. I think what chafes is some of the language which reinforces division and there is no alternate terms, and the suffixes trip me up. Even with apressexual it makes little sense to use -sexual because it also involves another attraction anyway* (sexual only follows another sort of attraction), but I guess that is part of the sexual or sexual/romantic centric mentality. All I can say on suffixes though is that -ttracted would definitely not work, at least in the case of apres-.

*Think about how messy long that would get adding varying gender targets for both or more attractions into one sexuality term if that is how people decide to specify their identities.    

and 'differentiating types of attraction' is what I meant by SAM, I guess I should change over too to be clear (Goodbye SAM^{wise Gamgee})

6 hours ago, Prismatangle said:

As for whether I use/used SAM… Well, yes and no.

...

So, I don’t use SAM at all for one of my orientations, I’ve tried to use it without success for another, and it only sort of works for asexuality now that my attractions have shifted to have a clear absence of sexual attraction. And like you, whatever you want to call this model, it’s not something I use anymore, because it’s no longer useful to me. I eschew naming my attractions, for the most part, but because of the intense scrutiny about them coming from all sides, I end up having to try to explain them a lot more than I would prefer to.

Yes, Yes. Everything you say. I understand it all. And it is precisely why until this topic sat without comment for 6 or so hours while I was on and off brain dead bored at work that I had avoided discussions of SAM. Detailing this stuff is hard. The fact that the vocabulary we have is insufficient or conflicting makes it so much harder still. When/if you manage to work up a post I would be very excited to read it, even if it takes a year or two  

The understanding of 'orientation' seems to be only slightly less messy, so good luck with that too. 

So maybe we can all agree that the concept of SAM as defined as 'a person may feel many attractions and they may not all be similar' (Using the word 'may' to also include a negative option or possibility of an absence of attraction) is a useful coarse tool for some people, but does not encompass many subtleties for which finer tools, concepts or terms are needed.

Personally I think the most problematic thing abut SAM is the fact people are trying to stretch it to cover those subtleties when ultimately it can only fail or exclude people.

2 hours ago, bydontost said:

I guess my understanding was that patterns of attraction(s) itself(s) were influenced by things like that tbh.

I guess with that it would depend on where the person relates to their other influences. That would be a individual decision according to the person's own feelings.

I remember one comment on AVEN where someone on the Autism spectrum wanted that to be taken into account when they discussed their orientation (via orientation label that they included the word 'autism' in just to make sure everyone got it), so obviously they thought it was a fundamental part that could not be divided from whenever they discussed anything to do with their experience. ^{My search skill have left me again but this link says pretty much the same thing but about gender Not what I was looking for, but sorta?}

2 hours ago, bydontost said:

Should throw in N there too, to make "damn" ?.

But what could N possibly be? Split Attraction Model Now!  Nah, I think we should go with yours, PAMYDHAIYBIOPRYDHLYIATTM. 

I can't think of a word, or even set of words, that mean 'could be felt as separate, or combined but identifiable, or combined but melded together to basically be the same thing, or any combination of these 3, or their absence(s)'.

All in all @Coyote's Convergent, cohesive pieces/Divergent pieces and Singular composite/Singular specific/Multiple specific orientation is much more comprehensive than identifying as using SAM or non-SAM, but it is still a concept that would best apply when people have sorted shit out, which is hard most of the time and SAM (as per my basic understanding as stated before) is a useful tool for at least some people ^*cough* me ^*cough* to get that shit sorted...and that took between 5 months and 13 years to do (depending how you look at it) but personally I think that tool's usefulness is over for me and so I would prefer something less vague than 'non-SAM' to be out there. But even now I'm unsure about how I would fit in your 4 circles, maybe Divergent Pieces (as I can tell the difference between the ever pervasive constant aromanticism and the sexual/sensual) but maybe Singular Composite as I experience them as a cohesive whole when they do occur in conjunction and most differentiation is done in hindsight and even then it is tricky. Is that 5th circle or am I doing it wrong?

One thing is for sure of, if the wall chart is anything to go by, Lars really likes sex

and as there were only men on that list we can be pretty sure he has a gender preference

On 3/20/2019 at 3:59 AM, Coyote said:

It also seems like people are defining SAM in terms of multiple (not "separate" but "separable,"

ah, yes this a distinction I did not actually think of before but yes. For some people things will be more clearly defined and so can be 'separated' and identified easier, but for a lot of people (as seen from all the pain from those "what am I?" posts) the decision/choice has to be made to self-evaluate and examine if other attractions can be identified (either singly or in conjunction with others). 

On 3/20/2019 at 3:59 AM, 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?

I hadn't realised you didn't catch this idea when @bydontost brought it up the first time. I skimmed that post too, but I recognised the distinction and it is pretty much the same one I make. It is possible this is the point that is tripping some of our conversation up. I have tried to be clear in my own posts about when I was talking about orientation or the orientation/identity label that we choose, but if that wasn't picked up I can understand how odd some things might get. 

The basic framework of this can be seen as:

It lines up with the concept of 'Born this way' that got publicity and debate around the campaigns for same-sex marriage laws around the world as well as campaigns against aversion therapy and the idea that non-heteronormative people can be 'cured'. Summed up as

Quote

"Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, it is primarily neurobiological at birth." So said Jerome Goldstein, director of the San Francisco Clinical Research Centre.

Many other people have said basically the same thing, but recently (not sure when) the 'sexual' has been dropped to include a-spec orientations. Not knowing the label words or denying them does not change the orientation or attraction patterns as they are uncontrolled, unlike actions or identifying as something which is a choice. 

I know this is all of on another tangent but I felt this had to be cleared up because in a way it does tie back to the understanding of the current view of SAM. The only thing I disagree with @bydontost about is that 'orientation' and 'pattern of attraction' are the same thing, simply because using them as synonyms denies the possibility that there may be other influences, in addition to pattern of attraction, that may influence someone's fundamental orientation. A specific case for this might be neurodivergency.  

@Prismatangle Welcome! I'm sorry to have misunderstood you when I quoted, so thanks for coming over and clearing things up (also thanks for clearing up the pronouns! I didn't want to make assumption so I went neutral). Am I right in re-reading your comment as you used the concept that we (at least Croutons and I) now call SAM?

On 3/19/2019 at 5:41 PM, Prismatangle said:

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.

As for this, I would be more worried if you did find Tumblr important because that seems to be the stronghold of all sorts of bad stuff. 

Just saw I got pinged here, so just going to post it

oh also @Coyote yes, just having 'Orientations' would solve the issue but I am sort of attached to my pyramid so I'm not going to be the one to mention it in the site improvement topic

On SAM:

On 3/20/2019 at 8:03 AM, bydontost said:

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.

On 3/20/2019 at 3:59 AM, Coyote said:

The name "split attraction model" seems very intentionally coined to positioned romantisexual as a default and the idea of differentiating types of attraction as "splitting" a larger whole, which to me is like referring to the concept of apples and oranges as "split fruit."

On 3/20/2019 at 5:34 AM, Prismatangle said:

LOL split fruit! And yeah, exactly!

Yeah, Split Attraction Model (SAM) is not the best use of words but I do like the acronym. I did think that maybe Differentiated Attraction Model might be a possible solution but that acronym.....?..?

It has been a long time since I have read Western-style comics because I opened up The Griefer Belt and started reading it right to left like a manga ?

oooh.

I certainly hope you are reading Lars right too, fingers crossed for more representation!  

Definitely gonna check these out

 sorry, I feel bad for your inundation. That is how I felt yesterday when I found all the activity here. well at least it is good that it no longer takes 3 days to get an answer on topics!

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

So, is it right or wrong to interpret this as meaning that "SAM" & "non-SAM" mean multiple things/can be used in multiple ways, for you?

I think this is where the ambiguity of "non-SAM" come in. I don't really know. As I said in my first post here, SAM is not something I was particularly interested in before so I wasn't particularly critical. Sure, I used SAM to work out 3 orientation labels for myself which was only because I could identify those attractions, but now that I have labels doesn't change how I experience my life, and 2 of those attractions are so closely tied and so generally uncommon that I'm not on first name basis with them. I don't know enough about how "non-SAM" is generally understood to be comfortable using it, but I have used the concept of SAM in the past even if I don't think the division of attraction is important in my day to day life.

 As for the mini-profile format, I was originally going to also say AVEN mini-profiles as well but they just have an area called "A/Sexuality" and then people fill it with as many or as few orientation labels as they want which obviously allows more inclusion to those who use neither sexual or romantic (or don't separate them). I (in a very stupid way) actually really like the format of the mini-profiles (for a really stupid reason) as my mini-profile makes a nice pyramid shape (told you it was stupid) which is why I never bothered to change my sexuality when I found a specific label (it would have ruined the pyramid!) ?

This thing is getting pretty mammoth, but it is really interesting! and I'm glad we are able to keep it all nice and respectful which goes into my little mental pile of why these forums are the best. 

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

This is something I am interested in talking about. While I don't want to get sidetracked into talking about Plato just yet, stick a pin here to indicate that I have thoughts (so, we can talk more about that if anyone cares). Would you mind -- for definition purposes -- laying out examples of a "true/reflective" definition & a "misuse"/"narrowed down" definition? I want to see if we agree about which uses are bad/nonstrategic/unfair/unwise/whichever thing you'd like to call it.

Feel free to re-awaken those topics that mention Plato if you wish (I'm sure there are some members who would love to pounce back on that topic). They would probably be a better place to get into the technical history of 'Platonic' anyway because some of the argument is already there and Platonic is really only a minor component of the SAM discussion which has so many other attractions to compete with for discussion space. 

As for a "true/reflective" definition, as a simplified to basic concept, I think SAM as an idea is at it's core: a person may feel many attractions and they may not all be similar 

Using the word 'may' to also include a negative option or possibility of an absence of attraction. 

The "misuse"/"narrowed down" definition that I commonly see is that: SAM is used to define sexual and romantic attraction (only).

Which makes the assumption that only those two attractions exist and that everyone has to have both, and that they require individual orientation labels. 

--As for Elizabeth's comment, because they admitted they used it successfully I figured they must have an understanding of SAM and the confusion was about where it came from. I must admit I had no idea where it came from, that it was so recent a term or that it apparently has elitist links to it's coining.  

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

I do not really believe in "true" names or absolute essential meanings that "inherently" match up to a word (or that things can "inherently" mean things), just trends and tendencies. For example, if I call a spade a spade ♠️ and you understand me, that's not because a spade "is" a spade, it's just because we happen to share an understanding of what the letters-spelling-out "spade" (as a word-symbol) refers to, as its referent.

 

I don't think I can say right now what this discussion "is" about. I can say what I'd like it to be about, though, and what I'd like it to be about is the idea of "split attraction model" as a name or phrase that people are making a choice to reclaim and use on things -- "split attraction model" as a symbol for an idea (or set of ideas), not the ideas themselves.

My call out question was basically to find out who thought about this conversation in a similar way as me. 

I realise now that my own concept of SAM is probably much different from the original SAM definition, and maybe that is because people have been linking it back to older ideas of difference in attraction without detailing the ideas as being separate or a progression.

But when I said "Even now though I don't see any of this discussion and debate as being specifically about SAM itself. It is rather about the components (attractions) that the SAM concept allows to be separated." I sort of meant "since my last post" because the discussion seemed to sway into talking about the attractions themselves, which can end up like debating colours as they come out of a prism (a prism that is the idea of SAM). Sorry for the bad wording on my part, really the unbolded stuff is more important than the bolded stuff. ^{I fail at formatting but this is all happening during my 'weekend' so I am a little bit hungover}

7 hours ago, bananaslug said:

I feel like we all got scattered somewhere along the lines and now that everyone is getting back together and talking everyone has 10 different definitions for every term. Which is... confusing and difficult, but also pretty neat I guess.

Yeah. I have problems with some definitions of the attractions in the original model I was introduced to and I have no idea why in that model they stopped at 6 attractions in the SAM. So I think it is a good thing we have that variation in information now (though I don't ever think I will understand non-individualised attraction to intelligence). 

Even now though I don't see any of this discussion and debate as being specifically about SAM itself. It is rather about the components (attractions) that the SAM concept allows to be separated.  do other people agree with me? is discussing specific attractions discussing SAM, or are the discussions using SAM as a idea to divide attraction and we are specifically discussing the attractions (as being the product of SAM, not SAM itself)?

^{(ahhh, so much bold!)}

25 minutes ago, Mark said:

on the AVEN Wiki

The aromantic definition does seem to be only very lightly skimming the possibility of aroallos except in the last line of "aromantics can be of any sexual orientation."

But the descriptor for queerplatonic on the Aromantic definition page is offensively amatonormative:

Quote

When an aromantic gets into a relationship that's more than friends - but less than romantic - that is known as a queerplatonic relationship.

So the amatonormative language is around, but SAM doesn't seem to be in line with that sort of language or concept, so maybe @Coyote meant it in the way that SAM is silently ever-present as amatonormativity is silently ever-present (well not so silent to us, but you get the idea of it's general pervasiveness). Which ties in with the fact of non-SAM users having to identify themselves with a negative...just like aros and aces (lol, it would be fun if 'blank slate' was assumed and we defined ourselves by what we actually are, but the majority would probably take offence as I have seen happen in other spaces where allocishetnormative question their need for any labels because they are the 'normal ones')

Beach at sunset

11 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

It was my mistake to think that the 6 type format was well known, it is just the only one I ever heard in a total explanation.

I have seen it used partially, like here, where the 'less important/more confusing attractions' were not included. 

And I have seen people complain about specific terms used

EDIT: My post was cut off! I had like 5 other links and other comments ^{I think the site hates me}. Okay I think I can reconstruct it....

And I have seen people complain about specific terms used in the SAM like here, here and here

I see people talk about attractions not covered in the SAM 6 attraction model like here and sometimes I have seen those attractions cut and fit into the SAM, like here.

But because some attractions are not given importance by some people they discourage or erase the possibility of having an orientation that is not sexual or romantic, like here

I think these discussions and criticisms are based in the misuse of a narrowed down understanding of SAM or issues associated specifically with a type of attraction, not with the basic concept of 'a person may feel many attractions and they may not all be similar'. 

I've read through the article and comments of your linked article "Romantic Orientation and the “Split Attraction Model” are not the same thing" (I think it was my quote from there that glitched my post) and I agree with @eatingcroutons that at least Elizabeth's comments seem to be talking about what "not-SAM" is. 

(A quote, but not using the quote function again)

"What I don’t understand about the phrase “non-SAM” is this: why are we identifying people who do not split attraction/orientation/whatever, why are we identifying people by what they do not do (or experience) rather than what they do experience? Wouldn’t it be better to name the experiences that people are having, rather than the model(s) they’re rejecting?" -Elizabeth seems to be asking why is SAM the automatic assumption (which forces others to note if they don't use it)

(and another quote from Elizabeth)

"In my case, I don’t find the phrase “non-SAM” to be useful to me, because in one sense (the one sense that the phrase is apparently used to mean most often), I definitely do use SAM. Making distinctions between sexual and other kinds of attractions has been critical, for me. But when it comes to other kinds of attraction… eh. It’s not as important for me to make distinctions, even though I probably could if I really tried, just to explain what components are involved. I experience these attractions as integrated, rather than split." -Elizabeth seems to have the (at least basic) understanding of SAM because she has used it and referenced more than 2 attractions (sexual and attractions, plural), so I don't know why you linked her comments as being confused about SAM. 

So much. More posts. Currently active. Quoting my crap writing!

This is specifically the way I was introduced to the SAM concept

It was my mistake to think that the 6 type format was well known, it is just the only one I ever heard in a total explanation.

In most cases of it's use I have seen people prioritising sexual and romantic (attraction and orientation), mostly because I have been in aromantic or asexual centric spaces. I have seen bullying about use of platonic and several failed attempts of people trying to get others to classify their own sensual (experience, attraction or orientation). I have posted many times on AVEN about people needing to be careful about what is an 'appreciation' and what is an 'attraction' because it seems many people get really confused over attractions that are not romantic or sexual (mostly I see this issue with Aesthetic, which can marginalise people who actually find it important because the majority are making jokes about it). 

Because people don't list 6 orientations (to form their internet identities) that match perfectly with this 6 type SAM format (if they do in fact use SAM), just means they pick and choose what is most important to them in regards to the community they are in, how much information they have about themselves... or their answers may be N/A, or they might not list them at all (even if they know them) to avoid the negative reactions that would isolate them from the community they have chosen to be active in. I used the concept of SAM to find my orientation labels (yea, I do have more than two) but I feel them joined as a cohesive experience (which is more not-SAM) yet I still am happy to explain most things in the format of SAM because I find the idea useful and it makes explanations easier (especially when trying to figure out absence of attraction).

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

When people conflate the "there's more than one type of attraction [sexual/sensual/aesthetic/emotional/romantic/queerplatonic/who knows what else]" idea with the "romantic orientation as distinct from sexual orientation" idea, 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.

That is all about how people use the SAM, rather than what it is and how it is explained in 'information' and 'introduction' spaces. Sure, if people get their understanding from other people who preference the sexual and romantic only view and give incomplete information then the two things could be seen as different because the new person would only have the information to work out their two attractions and how that might apply to an orientation label. But for everyone else, what we list is not all there is.

I guess the website format here is enforcing the romance and sexual being the important ones because they are the two clearly asked for and listed on our mini profiles. There are some worries about our language being too amatonormative in it's format. 

that is a sweet song  I definitely see the lyrics being about a Lithromantic experience! 

I seem to have very few aro-spec songs, many of the ones I proposed seem to be romantic. My ears and brain just hear and think what they want, which is not-romance 

I still see 'Gunning Down Romance' by Savage Garden as a song for romance repulsed aromantics but other people have read the lyrics as romantic burnout (which it probably is).