The Split Attraction Model: Pros and Cons

Recently, I queued a post on my blog reading: “Normalize aro people who don’t use the split attraction model.”

Yeah, I thought. Good idea. It’s important to remember that not everyone uses it.

After that, however, I started noticing how difficult it is to word aspec discussions in an inclusive way with that in mind. So, I decided to write an article about it. But, since I do use the SAM, it started to seem disingenuous to do so without asking for the perspectives of those who don’t. So I made a google docs survey.  I’m glad I did, because I got a lot of perspectives I wasn’t expecting. 

Wait – back up – what even is the split attraction model?

The split attraction model (SAM) is a way of conceptualising attraction based on splitting it up into different types of attraction people can experience.

This is generally talked about as the split between sexual and romantic attraction, but many people also split the attraction they experience into other categories such as platonic, sensual, and aesthetic.

It was created by and for the aspec community, but people who are not aspec use it as well.

For example someone might be bisexual homoromantic i.e. They might experience sexual attraction to two or more genders and romantic attraction to the same gender.

People who have the same romantic and sexual attraction sometimes use it too – because they experience or conceptualise these attractions as separate. For example, it is very common for people to identify as asexual and aromantic separately rather than asexual, aromantic, or aroace as one identity.

However, the SAM is just a model and it doesn’t make sense for everyone to use it. This is not the way attraction inherently is – it is the way it is helpful for many people to interpret, understand, and explain their attraction(s).

So why use it in the first place if it doesn’t apply to everyone?

The SAM is a really helpful for interpreting and explaining attraction. It gives people the language to say: I am attracted to this person in this way, but not in this one.

I actually think it would be useful for understanding and working through feelings for people who aren’t aspec. Sometimes I explain this model to my allo friends when they talk about finding somebody attractive but not wanting a relationship with them, or vice versa.

But for many aspec people, it’s not just useful, but necessary. There is no real alternative for people who experience different attractions to different groups of people. I couldn’t even begin to explain how I experience attraction, being aromantic bisexual, without using the split attraction model.

It’s also a really easy way to explain what asexuality and aromanticism are. While we may not use the term “split attraction model,” it’s become the default way to explain what aromanticism even is to beginners. How else do you explain the concept of a romantic orientation than by opposing it from a sexual one?

If you do experience your attractions as split, the SAM can be a lifeline. Suddenly, what you’re feeling makes sense! You finally have the language to talk about it, and that’s vital for a large part of the community. But if it doesn’t make sense for you, or you just don’t want to use it for any other reason… that’s where we start to encounter problems.

Okay so why don’t people use it?

There are all sorts of reasons why someone may not want to use the SAM. 

One reason that I have already alluded to, is that not everyone experiences “sexual and romantic attraction,” but “attraction,” which they may label using one of these terms, other terms, or not at all.

If we forget for the moment that the SAM exists, we might think that the corresponding identity for homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc, is asexual. This is how the term came to exist in the first place. It follows, then, that asexual people who don’t use the SAM may view their orientation in this way. The split attraction model then turns this into: “bisexual = bisexual and biromantic; asexual = asexual and aromantic.”

But, the fact that the SAM does exist complicates things. Other asexuals who don’t use the SAM don’t understand asexuality as “asexual and aromantic,” but chose not to adopt a romantic orientation at all, or do not identify with the concept of romantic attraction in the first place.

By the same token, we get people who identify solely as aromantic. This could be for any number of reasons: perhaps because they identify more with that label, they relate more to the experiences of the aromantic community, or they find that the concept aromanticism describes their experiences better.

There’s an assumption that people who identify as solely “asexual,” or “aromantic,” are basically “asexual and aromantic,” but this is not accurate for everyone and that assumption can be forced onto people, which is damaging.

There are also people who use some variation of “aroace” or “asexual aromantic,” as one identity, in the same vein as the way ”gay” and “bi” mean one orientation and not a combination of two. This is likely due to the fact that “asexual” and “aromantic” also exist as separate identities, it makes sense to acknowledge that for these people they mean both. 

There are also people who don’t use it simply as a matter of preference, or have specific problems with the SAM, and don’t use it for those reasons. Some of these are:

• Don’t relate to/ feel a connection with the language of the SAM
• Do experience split attractions but don’t find the way the SAM splits attraction to be helpful
• Find the SAM too confusing/ inaccessible
• Identify with the aspec community for reasons that the SAM doesn’t help explain, e.g inability to determine between attractions

Okay so some people use it and some people don’t. What’s the problem?

Since the first instances of it’s use, the SAM was never meant to apply to everyone, just to those who find it useful. And yet, because so many people in the aspec community need to use it by virtue of the fact that there is no other option, in much of the community it is treated as a default. Our discussions and positivity posts tend to be based on this model of attraction as a given premise. For example, I recently looked at and reblogged this introductory brochure. I didn’t see a problem with it at the time, and I still think it’s a great attempt at aspec 101. But it largely ignores the existence of aspecs who don’t use the SAM. 

I see this as a problem for a couple of reasons:

1. It is alienating to people who don’t use the SAM. I asked in my survey if aspecs who don’t use the SAM felt excluded in aspec discussions and the vast majority responded “yes” or “sometimes.” As one respondent to my survey put it: this community is “not a monolith.” It is not accurate to treat it as one.
2. We’re potentially alienating or confusing baby aspecs. If your first introduction to asexuality and/or aromanticism is using a model that doesn’t make sense to you – it might make the community less accessible.
3. This convention of explaining the ace and/or aro spectrums in terms of the SAM creates pressure for aspecs who don’t use the SAM to explain their identities to outsiders, newbies, and intra community discussions in terms of the SAM when they may not want to.

I don’t think this is an intentional effort to erase anyone. Partly, it’s because when you do conceptualise attraction as split, it becomes really difficult to understand it in any other way.

As well as this, as one respondent to my survey pointed out: it’s a reaction to exclusionists – the discourse around the SAM is exhausting and we’re left having to defend it’s existence. This can make us forget that it’s just an option, and not the only one at that.

Well what do you want me to do about it?

One respondent to the survey suggested we treat the SAM like “queer” in that it’s fine as a personal identity choice and to use about community discussions to a certain extent but to be mindful that it’s not okay to just assume everyone identifies with it. I thought that was a really good suggestion.

I also think it might be a good idea, when introducing people to the concept of asexuality and/or aromanticism, to present the SAM as just one option and not the default.  Unfortunately, this has the potential drawback of making introductions even more confusing. We already bombard newbies with a lot of information at once, and saying:

“Well there’s a model of attraction which splits sexual and romantic attraction so if you think you experience one but not the other or both but differently, or neither but differently you can use that OR you might not find it helpful to think of attraction in that way at all in which case maybe just look at a list of labels and check which your experience seems to relate to most?”

Well, it might just end up being more confusing. Personally, I think it’s worth it.

At the very least, I want to encourage people to stop making blanket statements like: “sexual orientations are different from romantic orientations.” Because, yes, they can be. Or they can not be.

Terminology:

• Allo: used here to indicate both allosexual and alloromantic OR allosexual as a non SAM descriptor.
• Allosexual: the opposite of asexual; not on the asexual spectrum.
• Aspec: an umbrella term for anyone on the asexual spectrum and/or aromantic spectrum

Notes:

At the time of writing this, I have only received 22 useable responses to the survey of non SAM using aspecs. This sample is not large enough to represent every aspec who doesn’t use the SAM, and is likely skewed towards people who interact with the aspec community on tumblr, since that’s where I posted it.

One respondent to the survey had issues with my use of the word aspec (on the asexual and/or aromantic spectrum) as it implies there is one aspec community rather than an asexual spectrum community and an aromantic spectrum community. 

I used aspec because there is no other word that includes arospecs, acespecs, and aroacespecs who don’t use the SAM and the survey could apply to all of them. I continue to use it here, because there is no other word that includes the arospec, acespec, and aroacespec communities. The fact is that for some people aromanticism and asexuality are split and for some they are not. Some people are in both communities, some are in just one and for some being ace and aro is one single identity that they don’t think of as separate.

Another respondent mentioned concerns about the SAM sexualising queer identities. I have not addressed that here because I don’t feel comfortable mentioning it without clarifying that I don’t agree that this is the case, but I have addressed it here. 

I should also clarify that since I do use the split attraction model, while I’ve made an effort to hear from and include people who don’t, it should be noted that my perspective may be biased and I cannot speak for those who don’t use the SAM.