A while back, when I mentioned my growing impression that the way people talk about “the split attraction model” is amatonormative, the response I received at the time was mostly confusion. I didn’t really address it again until later — and since a lot of things were going on in that thread, I believe that particular point may have gotten lost in the shuffle. So this post is dedicated to bringing that back into focus and discussing exactly that: how using “SAM” (or “non-SAM”) to mean rosol (or non-rosol) is amatonormative. Allow me to explain.Continue reading
Tag Archives: orientation
This post is just a summary of some ideas introduced in a previous post, now with a diagram and more in-depth use of examples. Because I have qualms about the reclamation of the term “split attraction model” to categorize people as SAM vs. non-SAM, I’ve put together some alternative scales to introduce more nuance. This post is simply an explanation of those scales (and can be considered a culmination of the conversations held here, here, here, and here).Continue reading
This is a post about the ace and aro communities’ reclamation of the term “split attraction model” from the most recent anti-ace online harassment wave, picking back up on the discussion from here. A quick recap of that post: romantic orientation & differentiating types of attraction are not the same thing, and “split attraction model” is an anti-ace-derived piece of terminology that lumps the two of them together. For that reason, I’m here referring to ace & aro use of the phrase as a type of reclamation, in that it was imposed on us from the outside and now some have adopted it.
In this post, I do some more thinking out loud about the semantic work that the phrase “split attraction model” does and does not accomplish. The post has roughly three main parts. First, I share some of my understanding of why the term surfaced in the first place, in order to contextualize how it’s been reclaimed and is used now in the present. Second, as a response to that, I’ve present five narratives to complicate the resulting binary. Third, I’ve got some tentative suggestions for finding a way forward.Continue reading
Quoiro/WTFromantic: a brief timeline of disidentification with & personal rejection of romantic orientation
Since I’ve been thinking lately on the topics of those-who-struggle-with-labels and the process of getting new terms to take root, I decided I’d put together a brief timeline of one specific subset of that: disidentification with and personal rejection of romantic orientation.
Featured in this post: the coinage and meaning of wtfromantic, the subsequent coinage and meaning of quoiromantic, some discussion over competing definitions, and a sampling of personal reflection posts on the topic demonstrating its continued relevance over the past eight years. Formatted by year, with select text excerpts in blockquotes.Continue reading
Going back to old, old stuff…. I’ve gotten to thinking about this more, the implications of this idea… a definition of straightness that suggests, if not requires, an explicit hierarchy of straightness. All straights are straight, but some straights are straighter than others.
That’s what comes of a working definition of straightness that depends on absences & on what is *not* experienced (re: patterns of desire, attraction, unwilled feelings, etc.), without any dependence on what *is* experienced (re: patterns of desire, attraction, unwilled feelings, etc.), deliberately shaped to include pathologized experiences off of that list, as long as they meet the given absence criteria.
I just wanna say — it might actually be workable, for all I know, but there’s a couple things I haven’t seen addressed.
So many things. So many things I’ve been thinking about but wasn’t able to say.
- quoiromantic, wtfromantic, no I don’t have a romantic orientation, stop asking
- ace/q***r-debate rhetoric based on sorting aces by romantic orientation (stop)
- the assumption that, in absence of attraction, no one would want or form committed same-genderish relationships (wrong, wrong, hello hi, other people like me exist)
- identity-policing & “no you must have precisely zero of X type of attraction in order to ID as Y” & otherwise = gray
- insistence on a One and Only singular definition of an identity based solely on one Platonic factor
- respectability ploys of isolating variables & “this is completely independent from…” “this has nothing to do with…” (other experiences, gender, race)
- get away from “pin down what specific types of feelings and attractions you have, this is The Most Important and all we do here” & get into pursuing the political implications
- asterisk nominal recognition = not enough; the endgame should be changing the entire rule set and rebuilding it from the ground up
- actually naming and critiquing neoliberalism in the ace community
Some really good reads. Check ’em out.
I know RZ’s style is pretty jargon-y and academic though, so feel free to ask me (or them! I’ve seen them do this too) to translate any sections and talk it over with you.
This is one of those arguments that it feels pointless to engage in, but just to show where I stand here, I might as well state what I think about this.
This post is a response to Dragon’s model for sexual attraction and the ace spectrum, which prompted a lot of scattered thoughts that I’ll be attempting to organize here. Topics include: modeling attraction patterns, attraction vs. arousal, gray-ace vs. asexual, and issues of “frequency.” CW for brief talk of ableism and eugenics.