Hi! i'm a-spec and i've never seen a view on the SAM such as yours. So if i'm understanding correctly, it's like changing the idea of asexuality so that the default definition should be "attracted to no one," while the more common definition, "sexually attracted to no one," would be understood only in the presence of a given romantic orientation? i sort of like it, as someone who has always felt that there should be a word for aroace people. but i'm not really sure how practical it is. (1/?)
like, right now the ace and aro communities agree that they are separate and that asexual by definition refers only to sexual attraction. i don't think there's really a way to change that. either way we're in a crappy situation, because either aroace people are assumed to be "just ace," or alloro ace people are assumed to be aroace. i feel like there just needs to be a different word for /something/ but i just don't know how this issue could be diverted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (2/2)
Yep, I feel like we’re in a no-win situation and it’s been constructed for us by the aphobes. They have used the Oppression Olympics that they’ve run, played in, and judged themselves; and now there’s nothing we can do without being fucked over.
And yeah you’re so right, if my argument regarding the SAM is to work (bc I think I’m right, this is how the SAM should work), then the default assumption about someone that IDs as asexual should be that we’re attracted to no one (neither romantic nor sexual attraction). And then by using the SAM and the a-spectrums, we would be able to explain any specifics wrt romantic/sexual attraction as they apply.
And I totally see your criticism that this may not be practical, and I dunno, you may have a point but I’m also optimistic it could totally work. I’m all for creative solutions and it might be as simple as folding the SAM into the definition of asexual/aromantic so that when you get one, you get the other?
Thoughts? :)
