Apathetic Echidna Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.