what's wrong with the split attraction model? i've found it sort of useful for defining my orientation (panromantic gray-asexual), but maybe i'm not thinking about it critically enough. i'm not trying to be hostile or confrontational, btw (hopefully i was already getting yhat across but i am very bad at judging tone in both online and irl conversation)
okay so i typed out this whole long, introspective response and accidentally refreshed the page and i lost everything i wanted to say. so i’m super annoyed at myself right now - of course not at you anon, you don’t sound confrontational at all and i really wanted to answer this question properly and i’m sorry you have to settle for this mess of a response because i’m so irritated with myself. so here’s an much more poorly written version of what i wanted to say about the split attraction model:
born out of a misunderstanding of sexuality; the myth that the -sexual suffix in bisexual, heterosexual, etc. refers to sexual attraction and/or the act of sex when it refers to the gender(s) that one is attracted to.
along with this, sexualizes lgbp identities by insisting that our sexualities are inherently sexual because of the -sexual suffix.
encourages people to identify as things like “bihet” and “heteroromantic lesbian”, and to use h*m*sexual/h*m*romantic freely without realizing that these terms have been used to medicalized and pathologize (is that a word?) gay people’s attraction.
through dicing up attraction, encourages internalized homophobia/biphobia (e.g. someone who calls themselves “heterosexual h*m*romantic” might really be bisexual); the split attraction model gives people the tools to construct an orientation around internalized homophobia/biphobia rather than confront it (x).
encourages people who are not lgbt to freely call themselves q*eer just because they believe they are not “normal” when they label themselves as lithsexual, placiosexual, or something along those lines.
seeks to contain attraction when in reality attraction is incredibly complex and it is oftentimes not helpful to try to categorize each and every aspect of it; fails to recognize attraction is different for everyone and attempting to micromanage sexuality (and gender) is incredibly counterproductive and confusing for young lgbt people.
seeks to categorize what is the “normal” amount of sexual/romantic attraction when there really is no way for that to be quantified.
similarly, implants a false allo-ace dichotomy that is in no way indicative of oppression in society.
allows cis straight people to not only deny their cishet privilege, but encourages them to call themselves q*eer due to the conjured idea that not feeling a specific type of attraction makes one oppressed.
similarly, leads people to believe that the general public not having knowledge about their very precise “sexuality” is oppression.
that is all i can think to say about this issue at the moment. i know this is actually really incoherent and i’m sorry about that. i hope this isn’t too obnoxious or difficult to read, and if it is you can always send me another message and i will try to do better (because i’m still metaphorically punching myself in the face).
