#split attraction discourse

[bisexualsafespace]

exclus: the sam is homophobic because you are claiming to be oppressed while being heterosexual

sexual and romantic identity is more than just being oppressed, its experience, its identity, its emotion, its love, its sex, if you think its only about oppression, you're wrong, not denying that people saph/achi on both sides have much more discrimination than hetbi's or hetgays, but again someone else's experiences aren't "claiming oppression" they began their journey with the same question "what am I" "am I a lesbian" they all asked those questions.

[lgbtransgirl]

Referencing old queer discourse but I'm not arguing anything

I know I post a lot about queer discourse but goddamn, but back in around 2014 I remember the big thing I kept seeing was the Dual/Split Attraction Model where people were saying that your romantic and sexual attraction can't be seperate/different and I was so confused cause like... What about Ace people that liked sex? That seemed like smoking gun evidence IMO

It was all just so confusing because it felt like a "Wait why wouldn't this be the case?" When I was first realizing I was queer

Wait I'm just now realizing this, is that why Ace discourse was so big right after that era of the internet?

[lovelydisgusting]

no more infighting over identity labels. i just saw a post where op listed various queer identity microlabels, sorted into two categories under "support" and "don't support". It was super silly, but also made me frustrated and sad. so here's my message to my fellow severely online queers: other queer people are not your enemy. you might think their labels are nonsense, or contradictory, or even offensive - learn to accept this. remember what you are fighting for: freedom of identity, freedom of expression, bodily autonomy, liberation from binary-hetero-patriarchy. FOR ALL! playing identity cop is utterly counterproductive to the cause.

[loudnqueer]

Bring back the love for the split attraction model

[princetore]

i need to speak my truth im sorry i know thats been the status quo for a while but what world are we living in that confirming a characters sexualities through merch is considered a major win for representation. remember way back when dumbledore was "confirmed" gay only by word of god and ppl were (rightfully) mad because the author stating something to be true in the story without actually including it in the text is a shallow display and effectively worthless in representing anything. do you remember death of the author. you guys used to love death of the author

[angrydino42-and-avathecannibal]

You are homophobic but not for the reasons you think.. just imo* (my correct opinion) demi and ace peeps who use the split attraction model are homophobic.

when did i ever say i used the split attraction model bitch that's a whole new sentence I said that I disliked people headcanoning AM as STRICTLY GAY when it would make more sense for him to be demi as he doesn't care for gender and simply would attach onto anyone who showed him mutual understanding also??? what the fuck has using the split attraction model got to do with homophobia. people can fuck guys and be only attracted to women. people can be only attracted to guys and fuck women.

[crazyalien87]

"you can't have separate romantic and sexual attraction" vs "if you are polyamorous it means you wanna sleep around with multiple ppl but u only have romantic love for 1 or 0 of them"

wait so you CAN have sexual attraction without romantic attraction???? but not the other way around? is your romantic attraction like a subset of sexual attraction or like a special type of it or a stronger version or whatever? What is going on??? I am so confused

[g1deonthefirst]

was reminded this morning about people calling ianthe and pyrrha bi lesbians. no hate to anyone but the idea of pyrrha dve in any universe being involved enough in identity discourse to understand the term bi lesbian is really really funny.

[unrestrainedbalderdash]

NOOO WHY'S THERE BI LESBIAN EXCLUSION IN THE ORIENTED AROACE TAG.

[eyepatchdate]

*sees a post comparing ace feelings to other queer identities* no u cannot come into my playhouse

[rotteneldritchhorror]

Sorry for discourse but I DID NOT JUST SEE SOMEONE LUMP AROALLO AND ALLOACE PEOPLE IN WITH STRAIGHTBIANS AS “Contradictory labels”

HUH.

Being allosexual and Aromantic isn’t contradictory??? Being alloromantic and asexual isn’t contradictory???

[just-a-queer-fanboy]

"You can be bisexuality homoromantic and vise versa, you can't be bisexuality lesbian or vise versa" I wasn't aware that lesbians weren't homosexual/romantic but go off I guess

(Edited it due to a misunderstanding due to the wording, sorry anon 😐)

[mens-rights-activia]

I reject the accusation that I am aphobic simply because I find the split-attraction model problematic. Quite frankly I find this accusation to be egregious. In my 2017 post, I clearly stated why I find it problematic, and still asserted that you can use it if it works for you, but I don’t think me making a post criticizing it makes me a “notorious aphobe” and certainly not “the reason why there’s so little left of the a-spec community on tumblr.” I think this is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make and clearly, you only made it for my attention and or that of people who don’t particularly like me, but I won’t stand by and let someone make such an absurd accusation against me. Firstly, get a life, people are allowed to criticize a model and it is not an indictment of who they are as a person, secondly I love and support the asexual community and there’s nothing you can do about it ❤️

If your boyfriend tells you he’s looking into buying podcast equipment, and you do nothing to stop him, when I’m president and I sign an executive order to finally prosecute men with podcasts, you will be charged as an accessory to a crime. Just some food for thought

[styrofauxm]

Can we all please stop acting like aroallos expressing boundaries (on their own posts/blogs!) is somehow causing harm???

It is perfectly reasonable for them to not want their posts derailed by discussions of asexuality, including aromantic asexuality. It is perfectly reasonable to have a statement in posts in order to get ahead of any derailing. That’s not gatekeeping any more than a lesbian asking gay men not to derail a post about lesbianism would be.

I get that people may tag “asexual” or “aroace” due to not using the split attraction model. But nothing is stopping you from not tagging it, tagging it as aspec, or even tagging it as aromantic (people tag posts about groups they are not a part of with the name of that group all the time). And if you really can’t do any of that, just make your own damn post.

Let aroallo people exist in aromantic and aspec spaces without needing to cater to other aspec identities. Let them set and enforce very reasonable boundaries. Stop accusing them of gatekeeping or whatever else for doing so. Please.

- Sincerely, an aroace person who is so fucking tired of this discourse.

[friend-of-a-cat]

So... I'm doing research for a piece of creative non-fiction (a personal essay) I'm writing for one of my uni assignments about the fact that I'm asexual and demiromantic and think that we, as a wider society, have gotten the concepts of love and attraction all wrong, and I've been researching more into the split attraction model because, well, I see it as something that's important and relevant, and this came up in my Google search:

The initial red flag of this article is the fact that it's on BetterHelp. I didn't see this at first, and did a double take.

Anyway, the first thing I would like to ask is: what are these 'cons'? As far as I'm concerned, there are none. I understand that, for many people, romantic and sexual attraction are intrinsically linked, but, for many, they're not, and the split attraction model existing doesn't harm the former - it helps the latter. The latter includes people who are on the asexual and/or aromantic spectrums, as well as people who are, for example, heteromantic and bisexual, panromantic and homosexual, biromantic and heterosexual, etc. - basically anyone whose experiences differ between their romantic and sexual attraction.

I do find it a bit annoying that, when many people talk about both of these kinds of attraction, they lump them into one 'label', which is mostly [something]sexual (e.g. heterosexual, homosexual, etc.). But, for them, the two are linked, so referring to themselves as [something]sexual to cover both seems fine and dandy. Which... it is. However, I find it wild that people don't realise that, despite the fact that the two may seem linked to them, they are actually two different experiences. People who are both alloromantic and allosexual should be able to see this, right? They can think someone is sexually attractive yet not be romantically attracted to or want to date them. That is a thing that can happen.

Anyway, I decided to read through the article. It isn't bad, per se - much of the information is useful, and it seemed to be quite positive. Until I got to the 'cons':

Now, I'm not really into the discourse surrounding the split attraction model - in fact, I didn't realise there was discourse surrounding it. This is because I tend to, either accidently or on purpose, avoid discourse in general. But... 'oversexualisation'? In what context? If anything, not using the split attraction model would be considered 'oversexualisation' (even though I don't think that that is, either - I honestly don't know why this word has been brought up here) due to the fact that many people focus on sexual attraction over any kind of attraction and use it to cover romantic attraction, too, when they talk about it. I genuinely have no idea what they are referring to here.

In regard to the second point: what? Attraction is complex. That's the whole thing. The split attraction model makes it less complex for many people. It allows people to figure out who they are and have the terminology to be able to voice it. Attraction is a spectrum and so is gender. Of course both of them are going to be complex. Society made both of them rigid in the first place, so breaking out of those rigidities is going to be confusing for everyone. The split attraction model helps people understand themselves, and I would like to think it helps them understand others. Everyone benefits.

I don't know if I can speak much on the third point, as I'm not familiar with the discourse, as I previously mentioned, and don't really know what it entails. Though, in saying this... what do they mean? When has asexuality - or aromanticism, for that matter - ever been prioritised over other queer identities? There's a severe lack of discussion and education surrounding both of them. That's just a fact. People who are asexual and/or aromantic are oftentimes even shunned by the wider queer community they are a part of. I don't really have much more to add on this point because I'm so confused by it. By the way, this article barely talks about aromanticism, despite the fact that it's an important part of this model, too.

The last point is just a rehash of the second point. If I was told about any of this stuff growing up, I would have realised I was ace and demiromantic from the start. Instead, I realised I was ace a few years ago after watching Jaiden Animations' video about the fact that she's aroace (I don't want to use the term 'coming out' here because, frankly, I hate it - I'll save that rant for another time). I only realised I was demiromantic in the past month after... realising that people getting romantic crushes on and/or falling in love with someone when they barely know them is actually a thing that happens and isn't fake. These two terms fit me best at the moment, and explain everything. If I had've known these terms as a teenager, that would have been great. The split attraction model helped me so much in breaking down myself and my identity, and offered me the foundation I needed to ask myself questions. Yeah, attraction and gender are confusing - I said it before, and I'll say it again. But why would you cast something so helpful aside? That will only hinder people - both those who are struggling with their own identity and those who are trying to understand the identities of others. Education surrounding the complexities and spectrums of attraction and gender are so important, and this model will help people teach other people about attraction.

I also read a bunch of hate comments, as one does whenever they go on Reddit or Twitter or literally any social media platform ever, regarding the split attraction model. This didn't surprise me. These specific people seem to hate this model because... well, I don't really know. They were mostly spewing aphobia. I don't think a single one had a constructive point. Also, most of the search results for 'split attraction model' on Google are actually critiques of it, or articles talking about critiques of it and being on the fence. Come on, people. Do better.

Anyway, the split attraction model is important. Education is important. Allowing people to figure out who they are and express it is important. This should all go without saying.

That is all.

[marwyn]

“Doubling” and “incest” together are a familiar pair of closely linked psychological themes, discussion of which is usually framed according to Freudian analyses of narcissism and the Oedipal triangle, ambivalence and repression. In literary criticism it is generally within the terms of that Freudian discourse that the closely intertwined nature of the two themes in literary works is recognized and made explicit. They form a two-stranded thread which, though perhaps most visible in Romantic and modern works, appears to run back through all literature: the brother-sister pairs in Webster’s Duchess of Malfi and Ford’s ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore are two well-known examples (very different ones) from Jacobean drama.

“Double” stories, with or without an overt “incest” theme, are usually about two aspects of human life (or two aspects of the human personality) which in the process of the narrative meet and establish (or discover) a deep relationship, harmonious or hostile—stories, that is, of growth and new life or of mutual destruction and death. A purely psychological view of doubling in literature, such as Otto Rank’s, explains it in terms of “projection”: unwanted instincts and desires, rejected aspects of the inner life (of a character or of the author, depending on the critic’s focus), are dissociated from the self and then personified in the outer world. The literary double, however, is not always, or even usually, so simply conceived. C. F. Keppler, whose study is perhaps the most helpful for distinguishing different forms of the double in literature, insists that the literary double is properly not a simple projection. It is also not a case of “split personality”—really an alternating personality—such as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Keppler speaks of a “second self” rather than a “double” and defines it as a figure who is neither a completely subjective aspect of the personality (“a mental content mistaken for external fact”) nor a completely objective independent being (“a case of mistaken identity”). The “genuine second self,” he writes, is “always simultaneously both objective and subjective, and never explainable as a mistake”; it is “a paradox of simultaneous outwardness and inwardness, of difference from and identity with the first self.” Between the doubles there exists a mysterious psychological kinship, a strong and “uncanny” affinity or bond. Even as opposites they exist in terms of each other, mutually defining each other in the manner of other dualistic pairs of our thinking: good vs. evil, strength vs. weakness, reason vs. intuition, body vs. soul, male vs. female, day vs. night, or truth vs. falsehood. The doubles feel between them the magnetic attraction of opposite poles, the inexplicable antagonism of like against like, or (of course) both.

Andrew Welsh, “Doubling and Incest in the Mabinogi”