#split attraction model or history

[rjalker]

how do you outright admit in your own words that you plan to "bully" aroace, non-SAM aros and aces out of the community and think this is proof that you're a good person and your exclusionist hate campaign is totally justified this time, really bro, it's for a good cause, they're dangerous invaders this time, we swear!!!!

[auggator]

The split attraction model is for everyone, not just aspecs. It is important to center its history in the aspec community as to not forget the hell aspecs got for its creation and usage. But we should not stop non-aspecs from using it as it is an important model and way to break the stigma of romance and sexuality being inherently connected.

[max1461]

I didn't know rationalism of the online rationalists was not the same as the one that has the Wikipedia article. When I first saw the term on Tumblr I went to that article and skimmed it and decided I don't really get what those bloggers' perspectives are. After your post I now have even less knowledge than I did before.

The following is an oversimplification, so for those who have quibbles with the history here, well, forgive me.

Online rationalism was founded by two guys named Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson on the blog LessWrong. Of these two figures Yudkowsky has been much more influential. The ideology that Yudkowsky promoted is roughly as follows:

humans are, relatively soon, likely to develop a superintelligent AI which has the capacity to self-improve by rewriting its own code. This will cause the AI's intelligence to rapidly explode beyond anything we can imagine, a process which rationalists onomatopoetically call "FOOM".

This superintelligent AI, if it could be harnessed and controlled, could cure death, and possibly revive all already-dead humans in a simulated world, leading to a technological utopia in which humans have merged with machines; this is called "the singularity" (the idea of the singularity predates the rationalists, and is a broader transhumanist trope).

However, it is almost certain that a superintelligent AI could not be harnessed and controlled; in fact, if such an AI was created, there is a very high probability that it would end the world (in rationalist jargon this is called an "x-risk"), perhaps usurping all of the accessible matter and energy on earth, then in the solar system, then in the galaxy and beyond in pursuit of its inscrutable goals. Thus, humans have a responsibility to make sure we never create such a superintelligent AI (in a recent op-ed in Time, Yudkowsky went so far as to say that the US should use drone strikes to destroy any datacenter found to be training a large AI model).

The reason that people do not recognize the truths above is because people are too irrational to see them. Therefore, people need to be taught to be more rational, by Yudkowsky via the blog LessWrong. The tenets of being more rational are laid out largely in a series of blog posts known as "The Sequences", later published as a book. The main take-aways are: (1) use Bayes' Theorem all the time to estimate the probability of things, and (2) to eliminate one's various cognitive biases, as outlined in The Sequences.

LessWrong attracted a lot of people who did not agree with Yudkowsky about AI, but who liked the Bayes' Theorem stuff and the commentary on cognitive biases. There is a joke that "anyone who has ever disagreed with Yudkowsky is a rationalist". The people who settled on LessWrong were largely drawn from the milieu of Bay Area tech workers, economics blog enthusiasts, and sci-fi fans. They would come to be known as LessWrongers, rationalists, or aspiring rationals. From this group, two major subgroups worth mentioning were spawned:

First is the Effective Altruists. Effective Altruism, to my knowledge, isn't a strictly LessWronger phenomenon, and has also been influenced majorly by philosophers like Peter Singer. However, they have been so intertwined with LessWrongers throughout their history that I think they are worth mentioning as essentially an offshoot of rationalism.

Effective Altruists believe that, in order to do the most good in the world, one should use one's money in a way that does the maximum amount of good per dollar. Rather than e.g. donating to charities willy-nilly based on what feels important, one should use quantitative methods to estimate how much impact each dollar is making, and donate in a way which maximizes that. The Effective Altruists are split along one main ideological line: neartermism vs. longtermism. The neartermists are basically focused on what we would traditionally think of as charitable activities: fighting disease, giving people clean water, that kind of stuff. I think neartermist Effective Altruism is pretty sensible, and I think they've done a lot of good work evaluating charities and so on. GiveWill is an essentially neartermist Effective Altruist organization, and I think their activities are very worth supporting.

The longtermists, on the other hand, are focused on "the long-term interests of humanity". They are, well, in my opinion, basically a bunch of people trying to turn their sci-fi fantasies into a reality. They are often very worried about AI x-risk, like Yudkowsky, and they're often pro-singularity, and sometimes pro-eugenics, and a bunch of other stuff. Remember Sam Bankman-Fried, the guy who committed the largest act of financial fraud in human history? Well, he was an Effective Altruist with some longertermist sympathies. Some of the money that he stole he actually gave to worthwhile charities, but some of it he used on stupid longtermist sci-fi fantasy shit. His girlfriend Caroline Ellison, who helped him do a bunch of that fraud, was a member of rationalist tumblr. Some of my mutuals were mutuals with her.

The other major group spawned out of LessWrong were the Neoreactionaries, or NRx. These guys, too, weren't a purely LessWronger phenomenon; they were also majorly influenced by people such as the philosopher Nick Land (former student of Baudrillard, who took a far-right turn in the 2000s and started advocating for "hyper-racism") and blogger Curtis Yarvin a.k.a. "Mencius Moldbug". These guys are a rag-tag group of authoritarians, eugenicists, and racists, who are interested in rationality insofar as they view it as a path that leads to their desired sci-fi-inflected far-right future.

Oh, right, last but not least I should define the term "rat-adj". It means "rationalist-adjacent". Uh. So, I was never a LessWronger, and as I think my description makes clear, I find like 90% of this rationalist stuff either goofy or actively harmful. But I have, somehow, ended up basically acquainted with a bunch of people formerly or presently part of the LessWrong milieu, and in light of this I am what one calls "rationalist-adjacent". I talk to various rationalist bloggers somewhat often. And most of them are much more normal than all this would suggest, part of the rationalist discursive sphere but not really believers in the imminent AI apocalypse. Uh. So, there you go.

[self-loving-vampire]

One thing A Short History of Transmisogyny spends a lot of time explaining and giving histories of is the way trans feminized people (especially people of color) are made into that type of person the law binds but does not protect.

Many of them were (and often still are) essentially unemployable and beyond what mainstream society considers respectable. Sometimes they are outright criminalized (by crossdressing laws for example) and pushed away from any path through life other than sex work.

These people not only survived but were in such an incredibly marginalized position just by existing that they often took action when those slightly higher up the ladder (the more respectable queers) would not.

But cis gay men eventually began to distance themselves from these "street queens". The lines between "gay man", "drag queen", and "trans woman" used to be more blurry than they are now (and as I have noted before many conservatives used to consider them all the same thing even when I was growing up).

That whole category of person was split into smaller and more precise sub-categories, but along with this came the idea of trans people being a separate thing with no place in the community despite the shared history and struggles, an idea that many transphobes (such as LGB Alliance) are still trying to appeal to.

I have said myself that I don't really identify with a certain transfem model on here that is much closer to that ancient type (the "faggot"), and I think on a logical level it makes sense to differentiate between what people are attracted to and their gender identity (and in fact I'd also note that gender identity and gender presentation are different things as well).

But I think it is bad to discard useful political alliances or leave vulnerable people behind just because of those differences. Like, I don't have much in common with even other trans women, but a world with more bodily autonomy and weaker gender norms benefits us all.

[sirenium]

ID: a Wikipedia screenshot about the split attraction model, reading 'The first recorded conceptualization of orientation that took into account split attraction was in 1879 by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a German writer who published 12 books on non-heterosexual attraction. In these books, Ulrichs has presented several classifications that are quite similar to modern LGBTQIA+ identities. Among his works, he described people who are "konjunktiver Uranodioning" and "disjunktiver Uranodioning" or conjunctive bisexuality and disjunctive bisexuality. The former is described as having tender and passionate feelings for both men and women, which would be a biromantic bisexual in modern times. The second is one who has tender feelings for people of the same gender/sex, but 'in love' feelings for people of a different gender/sex, which would now be a heteroromantic homosexual. However, the Ulrichs model never became popular due to its complexity.' The screenshot has an added text overlay in the center that reads 'reblog to scare an exclusionist' in all caps. The font appears to be impact font. End ID

posting this on it's own

[our-arospec-experience]

The Split Attraction Model (SAM)

*keep in mind, not everyone uses or accepts this model, and wherever you stand with this model, you are valid. This is purely informational, not a guideline.

The Split Attraction Model (SAM) differentiates attraction into different forms.

The SAM allows individuals to describe their orientations separately, for example, aromantic and pansexual.

some individuals may also include a tertiary attraction in their identities.

Not all a-spec individuals use the SAM, most notably, non-SAM aros.

Some individuals prefer more precise terms for differentiation such as "romantic orientation", "attraction types", etc.

Not every individual who experiences different types of attraction necessarily have a distinct romantic orientation, and not every individual who has a romantic orientation necessarily experiences multiple types of attraction.

History:

the idea was first recorded in 1879 by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who published several books on non-heterosexual attraction

it's next use was in 1979 by psychologist Dorothy Tennov in 'Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love'

became common in a-spec circles by 2009

The term was origionally developed from aphobes and exclusionists who insisted the a-spec community of forcing everyone to split their orientation into multiple parts.

The term was adopted by a-spec communities in order to talk about the issue.

SAM flag:

[aroacesafeplaceforall]

I’m sorry to see that you took my earlier ask the wrong way! I didn’t quote you in that, but I’ll quote you now so we can both be on the same page as to what I was responding to.

You said “the term actually asexual started as an aphobic or ace spec exclusionary tag/label.” Then you went on to explain the gatekeeping sub-community that used the term a couple years ago.

I’m not disputing that that happened, I am saying that that is not where the term “started”. It started in 2012, inspired by the actuallyautistic tag, as a method to avoid spam in the main tag. At that point it had no exclusionary connotation. Using actually- tags was a trend on tumblr in the early-mid 2010s so that members of marginalized communities could make sure their voices were heard. This use went out of fashion after that era of spam dried up, so it’s understandable that you wouldn’t know about it, and that you would overestimate your knowledge of history and make such a confident but incorrect statement as you did about the term’s true origin.

I know that emotionally it can be really difficult to deal with a message online correcting a statement you’ve made. It can feel like I’m telling you you’re wrong and you should feel bad for it, so I want to make it clear that this is not anon hate, just somebody who cares about aspec community memory. Nobody is right all the time! I’ve been confidently incorrect plenty of times in my life so I understand how the embarrassment can feel like a slap in the face. That’s ok, and those feelings aren’t always an indication that you’re being put down or judged. It’s necessary that we as people can hold discussions where we’re trying to figure out what’s correct collaboratively and not argumentatively, and that means recognizing when the people you’re speaking with are well-intentioned and responding in kind.

Anyway, yeah, I remember being younger and I remember how mortified I would have felt to read the message I sent, so no judgement at all. The good thing is that as life goes on you get more experience, more desensitization to those extreme feelings, more contextual knowledge to recognize that it’s ok, etc etc.

I’m not asking you to respond to this ask in any way, I just want to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to put you down at all. Have a good night!

lmao bestie, reading this was a wild ride and I wish i kept your past post as you back tracked twice.

Yeah i think this was mostly a misunderstanding on both sides and we were both wrong, however I will say in your OG ask you stated the tag started in 2022. But the reason you gave was the same.

I don't know how active you were on the "actually asexual" tag back in the day, but people were still not being the greatest over the split attraction model. It wasn't suddenly a safe haven for all asexuals (just like the current ace tags).

"Using actually- tags was a trend on tumblr in the early-mid 2010s so that members of marginalized communities could make sure their voices were heard. This use went out of fashion after that era of spam dried up, so it’s understandable that you wouldn’t know about it, and that you would overestimate your knowledge of history and make such a confident but incorrect statement as you did about the term’s true origin."

Yeah I know actually. I've been here since around 2016/17 and I do deep dives into tumblr and older posts a lot in my free time. I'm not new here actually and to give a rough est. of my age, I was never under the age of 13 on the site. "actually-" tags are still quite popular, actually asexual being the most known in my circle for obvious reasons. "I know that emotionally it can be really difficult to deal with a message online correcting a statement you’ve made. It can feel like I’m telling you you’re wrong and you should feel bad for it, so I want to make it clear that this is not anon hate, just somebody who cares about aspec community memory. Nobody is right all the time!"

You are right here, and I agree. But the way you originally phrased your "correction" was not only incorrect, but spiteful and hateful. It might not of read so to you but saying shit like "clearly you don't care about" and "you're to young to understand" isn't constructive criticism, its in-fact quite annoying and patronising. Statements like that are meant to enrage people, which is why I did not respond to you OG asks as I don't want to spiral a small matter. I would also like to say you final statements, while correct, are also quite sarcastically sweet to almost (very) patronising. Please do not talk to me like you would a small child.

[anangelforsure]

I am asexual. Many of my favorite fictional characters and robots or inhuman. What do those things have in common? I’m glad you asked.

In this essay I aim to highlight some connections between inhuman characters and the ace community, largely based off of my own experiences and the experiences of others I have read on the internet. This is going to be a niche and personal piece, as sexuality is a unique experience for every individual.

Some of the characters and media I will touch upon include Mettaton from Undertale, the animatronics from the Five Nights at Freddy’s series, Crowley from Good Omens (tv), AM from I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream (radio show), and the dolls from the Barbie movie.

(*gentle CW for a bit of a vent about personal experiences in paragraph 6- after the FNAF bit. As much as I’d like to have a professional analysis style, this is an art piece)

Asexuality is a difficult topic due to its complicated and varying nature. Identifying as asexual does not mean one straightforward thing, and it can be hard to explain what it means without being too narrow in the definition. So, to briefly explain for anyone who does not know: to be asexual generally means a person does not experience sexual attraction towards others. There are people who identify as being under the ace umbrella who do experience some sort of limited or condition-dependant sexual attraction. An ace person can experience romantic attraction, or maybe they don’t, and are aromantic as well as ace (research the Split Attraction Model for more detail. Aromanticism and asexuality can overlap in many areas, but I will be focusing on asexuality). An asexual person may have sex with others for various reasons, or they may not. Libido and sexual attraction are separate entities.

Now that we have a basic understanding of asexuality, let me get into the fun part, character analysis!

I will start with Mettaton. Mettaton is a hugely popular character in the trans community due to his backstory being an obvious allegory for transitioning. Hundreds of people have written about it better than I ever could, and so I will not waste my time trying to add something new to the discussion. My take on his hypothetical sexuality is what I think sets my views apart. Now, I adore all interpretations of this character, the delightful thing about headcanons is that as many versions of a character as you want can exist simultaneously. Due to his flirty personality, Mettaton is very commonly sexualized (and we do! Wholeheartedly! /ref). But in order to make everything about me, I take it upon myself to headcanon his robotic existence as a metaphor for asexuality. Think about it, a character who so desperately wanted to become something more, to take a form that will make him more relatable and palatable to the masses. The possibilities for gender/ sexuality headcanons are endless. To get more literal, he is a robot. And robots do not generally contain the hardware required for human procreation, you know? So his attitude can be seen as an overcompensation for that void, the lack of true understanding of human sexuality. Or rather, an attempt to cover the unavoidable truth that he will never be truly human. Avoiding alienation is a task many ace people perform in their daily lives, as it is frowned upon by some to be uncomfortable with sex, as the topic of discussion or jokes, not to mention the issues it raises in potential romantic relationships. Sometimes ace people will take part in uncomfortable conversations, or even perform sexual actions they don’t want to, simply to fit in. For example, many of us have a history of making up crushes to relate to our peers at school, rather than admit we didn’t feel that way about anyone. The fear of being unable to relate is an ever present and strong one.

Another example of robots representing asexuality is FNAF. This stems mainly from the many amazing fan works that have come from this fandom, giving the animatronics distinct personalities seperate from the canon possession from the games. As much as I adore the messy franchise, I am partial to the idea of sentient robots, rather than haunted. It is a fascinating idea, the animatronics having artificial intelligence so advanced that they are self aware, they know that they were used in the missing child incidents but were powerless to stop anything. The few canon instances of sentient AI that I cling to come from Security Breach, once is when Freddy is brought into a room with spare endoskeletons he has a moment of panic where he questions his creation and the nature of his existence. The other is when Gregory asks Freddy why he is helping him rather than hunting him like the other bots, and Freddy struggles to answer. The other robots are his friends, and yet they are monsters. My heart aches for him in those brief moments, his touchingly human feelings are distinct from our own because of their roots in artificiality. A sort of isolation, as asexuality can be. Knowing there is something slightly off about yourself, a barrier that prevents you from fully understanding others.

You can come to feel like a monster, when you’ve tried so hard yet failed to feel the way you’re supposed to in a relationship. When you end up hurting the person you were supposed to love, because you’re not the person you thought you could be. You go through the motions, hoping that something changes, maybe once you get comfortable things will click and you’ll be normal.

The realization that those feelings are not going to happen is sickening. You’ve strung them along, wasted their time trying to fix a broken machine. And the worst part is that underneath it all you knew. You knew it was never going to work, and you selfishly tried it anyways. Even more selfishly, you know in your heart that their injury is not what is causing the pain gripping your chest. It’s the cold weight of your darkest fear coming true. You are broken. You’re incomplete. Unforgivable…

Which brings me to my next character. The demon Crowley from the Good Omens TV series. While he is not a robot, Crowley is certainly not human. And despite living on earth for thousands of years, as an immortal being he struggles to totally understand human existence, the power of free will. His experience with free will is that it turns you into a monster. “I won’t be forgiven. Not ever. It’s in the demon job description. Unforgivable, that’s what I am”. It applies to all queer people, because it really is just… part of our job description. There will always be people who see something wrong with you. Crowley’s relationship with Aziraphale drives the point home even harder. Aziraphale, as Crowley’s closest companion, cannot understand him either. The line between them, Aziraphale believing in the existence of a ‘right’ side, while Crowley knows there is no such thing, means he ultimately walks alone. It can be difficult to connect with other asexual people, I have always been the only one in my friend groups. As much as I know I am loved and accepted by my friends, they can’t understand this aspect of me.

I do not have a strong lead in for my next character, but I feel so strongly about them considering the source material is only half an hour long. AM, from I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, specifically the radio show. This character is a horrifically evil totalitarian AI, created by the very species he despised so much he wiped them from the planet. How exactly could a villain like AM tie into this? Well, I fully believed he was going to be completely cold and unlikeable, up until this one line: “Because in all this wonderful, beautiful, miraculous world, I alone had no BODY, no SENSES, no feelings. Never for me to plunge my hands in cool water on a hot day. Never for me to play Mozart on the ivory keys of a forte piano. Never for ME to MAKE LOVE. I was in hell, looking at heaven. I was machine and you- Were flesh.” This says it all, literally. I would highly recommend listening to the radio drama, the written lines don’t do it justice. The wavering in AM’s bitter, hatred-soaked voice struck me right in my core as I went ‘oh’… and all of a sudden he wasn’t quite as much of a tyrannical evil as before. AM has no physical form, and that is the cause of his endless suffering. More than anything, he wants to be the very thing he hates so much. Human. To experience corporeal existence in all its limited glory. As heavy handed as it sounds, yes, this really hits hard as an ace person. The emptiness, once you recognize it, is incredible.

Another form of the no-body/ no genitals thing we have going on with AM and the robots comes from the Barbie movie. They flat out state that the dolls have no genitalia. Again, I will admit that is a heavy handed way to present an ace allegory, especially considering the nuance that goes into ace identities, remember that it’s not all about the act of sex. But the thing about art is that it doesn’t have to be taken literally. A lack of genitals can be more of a metaphor for lacking what they represent. I also want to draw from the music in this movie. ‘I’m Just Ken’ sung by Ryan Gosling, as silly and fun as it is, contains the line “I want to know what it’s like to love, to be the real thing” which is surprisingly impactful. Coming from an inhuman character, wanting to experience the real thing.. I fear I’m getting a little repetitive here as I try to come up with unique ways to drive my points home. Barbie and Ken each struggle with their existence, and wanting to be more than they are. The song ‘What Was I Made For?’ by Billie Eilish Is another really good piece of this movie. Ace people often have the titular question on their mind. Without attraction driving us to procreate, what is the purpose of our lives? Obviously it is ridiculous to reduce humanity down to that in this day and age, but it is subtly ingrained into society so much so that it can be shocking to family members and friends when an individual is not looking to start a family. There is also a common misconception that sex/love are what define us as human. We are so much more than that.

Now that I mention music, I have a small selection of songs that encompass some of the feelings I am trying to convey, sticking to the theme of asexuality and otherness with the robotic/inhuman metaphor as best I can.

‘A Human’s Touch’ by TWRP is the first song on my list. I have seen this song used by many of the fandoms I have referenced above, which really fuels the personal connection here. The song is, a lament of technology past that doubles as a metaphor for a broken relationship. Things we used to adore but no longer have a use for, yearning for someone to pick them back up and make them useable again. From an ace perspective, the notion of being replaced or discarded when a newer, better version shows up is all too real. Sometimes ace people are treated by allosexual people as a last resort, or a placeholder until the other person finds someone more compatible, more willing to do or able to feel the things ‘normal’ people should. “Am I just a toy to you, my love?” Is a question I have asked myself when someone I used to know would come back to me whenever their ‘real’ relationships ended badly.

Steam Powered Giraffe is a really cool band, I love that almost every song is about being a robot. “Brass Goggles” was the song that put me onto them. There’s a lot going on in this song, but there are some really hard lines lamenting robotic life. “Will I ever be something with feelings to hide? Or am I just a boiler with nothing inside?” Wondering why they are alive, what constitutes being alive and human. I think I’ve said as much as I can say about the connection between robots wondering why they exist and can’t feel what a human does, and an ace person wondering why they can’t feel what others do, and why they were born that way.

‘Cabinet Man’ by Lemon Demon is such a cool song for the robotic metaphor. It is about a person who is somehow reanimated as an arcade machine, and is no longer quite human. In particular I like this line- about having people come from all over to see and to play this machine- “this must be what love would have felt like”. It can weigh on you sometimes, thinking that maybe something else is the closest you will ever get to ‘true’ love. Maybe you can’t feel what the humans feel, but isn’t it nice to know that maybe this is what it would have been like…

‘Fake Plastic Trees’ by Radiohead is a little more abstract, as is classic Radiohead fashion. But the general theme is the fakeness of society. To me, this resonates with the way society imposes itself upon asexual people. A culture steeped in sex, where everything is catered towards allosexual people. Simply put,“It wears me out”. Another notable line “she looks like the real thing, she tastes like the real thing, my fake plastic love” I see as coming from the partner of an ace person, resigned to loving a shallow imitation of a human. It’s how I fear I will be seen by a partner, not quite the real thing, but close enough for now.

Now to end on a lighter note, I do love being ace. As much as it can be difficult to navigate the world as an under-acknowledged queer identity, it is beautiful. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. We are an integral piece of the infinite variety that comes from humans. If you are ace, I love you. If you can relate to my experiences, we’re gonna figure it all out someday, I promise.

So, in summary, I really enjoy an inhuman character’s inability to totally grasp humanity as an allegory for queerness, asexuality in particular. If you’ve made it this far, thank you for reading!

[wild-wombytch]

Quick and dirty compilation of everyone else who said they remembered it in the notes qt the time I'm writing :

That may be recent history, but in the days and age of internet, when everything goes so fast, I'm begging everyone to record that kind of history somewhere, not just on Tumblr. Much like they're doing with the Lesbian Herstory Archives. Print it, write it down, photograph what you can, put screenshots with timestamps on a flash disk or something. You don't need to be 90yo to talk about the things you remember and how our history has been/is being changed. Speak your voice! Even (especially) if you think it doesn't matter. It will for the people who will be too young to have context about this 20y from now already.

I was going to respond to this person but I’m fucking chilled to the bone over this. They really are just hiding and erasing everything that doesn’t fit the narrative.

[rjalker]

"you must be this allo to use the aromantic or asexual tags" was not on my fucking 2024 bingo card -.-

[bilesproblems]

Oh yeah also

Happy lesbian day lesbians!!

Happy lesbian day to the lunians who recognize that being an exclusive lesbian doesn't mean being mono

Happy lesbian day to the bi lesbians who feel in between being bi and a lesbian

Happy lesbian day to the pan lesbians who use the split attraction model

Happy lesbian day to the poly lesbians who learned their history and know they belong

Happy lesbian day to the omni lesbians who are aspec and who's aspec identity has influenced their identify

Happy lesbian day to the abro lesbians who's identity as an mspec lesbian keeps changing

Happy lesbian day to the lilaens and lobelians and rosaens and all the exclusive lesbians who support all mspec lesbians

[aholotte]

how does being a bi lesbian work? not tryingto be rude i gen want to understand

First off, I want to thank you for being my very first ask

Now, there are many different ways one can be a bi lesbian. for example:

being abrosexual/fluid between lesbian and bi

using the split attraction model (ie, being biromantic homosexual or vice versa)

being in a grey area between the two

being bi but predominantly wlw/nblw

using the historical definition of lesbian, which included all women who love women and bisexuals

being attracted to a multigender person, which could make your attraction both lesbian and bi

probably many others i'm forgetting

Someone's identity is up to them and them alone to decide. they could just say they have a preference, but maybe they feel like identifying as a lesbian alongside bi suits them better. I hope this was a good explanation. For more info and sources from history, see this archived site

[wild-wombytch]

Reblogging this version because Gendie was kind enough to screenshot your very well written tags 💗

Straight asexual people were never part of the LGB. They were never getting busted by the police in bars. They never dealt with the AIDS crisis. They never had to cypher their own diaries as to not be outed. Nobody's saying there's no issues you experience by being asexuals, we're saying that if you're straight you're straight (shocking) and don't get to use a slur that was used against us (not asexuals) and to use resources of a community that never included you.

The split attraction model is a disaster for homosexual people and for people in abusive relationships in general.

That's not a club. We don't have to be tolerant of oh so ~quirky~ heterosexual people. We also don't need to prove anything to say we are same sex attracted.

Also the misogyny...you people sure are hateful for an oppressed and loving and safe group.

aromantic is trending so it's time to remind everyone that aromantic straight people do not belong in our community, never did and never will. die mad about it <3 (same for straight asexuals by the way)

[demonic-shadowlucifer]

Exclusionist Symbols to Look out for: Part Two.

(Content Warning: Queermisia and Potential Eyestrain, as well as a brief mention of abuse and ableism). (Additional Disclaimer: Do not use this post to harass people. This is meant to be an awareness post). The second part to the Exclusionist Symbols post, and the third overall Anti-Exclusionist series post. Let's just get this overwith. 😅

Aspec Exclusionist Identifiers

So far I only found one Anti-Aspec flag, however I can't find much information on it. Still, best to keep an eye out for it.

(Image ID: A flag with seven horizontal stripes. The first two and last two stripes are shades of green. The third and fifth stripes are blue, and the middle stripe is yellow. End ID). There are many common identifiers used by allosexual Aspec Exclusionists, including: "Aces/Aros aren't LGBT" - the most recognizable identifier. Any use of the word "Cishet" as an identifier for Ace/Aro. -Just for clarification, this refers to exclus who believe that Aspecs aren't LGBTQ+ because they're "Just cishets". However, keep in mind that there *are* Aspec folks who *do* also consider themselves cishet, and that they are still valid! Denial of Aces/Aros being oppressed. However, one thing I don't see many people talk about is the fact that there are also Exclusionary Aspec individuals, which is a surprise because those exclusionists are a *lot* more common than what you might think. Some identifiers of this specific group include. "Asexuality/Aromanticism isn't a Spectrum" - yes people genuinely believe this. Equating Asexuality with being Sex Repulsed, or that all Aromantics are also Romance Repulsed - Something that can easily be seen as misinformation, however some people *do* genuinely use this to exclude other Aspecs too sadly. "If you feel attraction, you're not Ace/Aro". Anvil Aro - A term sometimes used by Exclusionary Aros. Mspec Lesbian/Gay Exclusionist Identifiers Since Mspec Gay/Lesbian Exclusionism is almost entirely normalized, there isn't much warning signs. However here are some of the obvious ones I found. Anti-Mspec Lesbian and their varients. Anything that calls Mspec Lesbians or Lesboys predatory. Anything that says/implies that Mspec Lesbians "invite cis men to date/harass them" (This is *incredibly* victim blamey as well). Any variation of Lesbians "not being men" or "not liking men". (Outside of the blatant TERF rhetoric, it also ignores the idea of closeted lesbians dating men to hide their identity as well as ignoring queer history). And here's an Anti-Mspec Lesbian flag that I've seen mostly on Twitter.

(Image ID: A flag with seven horizontal stripes. The flag has shades of teal on top and shades of purple on the bottom with a white stripe in the middle. End ID.). Additional Exclusionist Identifiers Safequeer - A relatively new term that excludes Mspec Monos *and* Endogenic Systems. Anti-SAM/Anti-Split Attraction Model - Commonly used by Aspec Exclusionists and Mspec Mono Exclusionists. Safequeer Flags:

(Image ID: Two flags with seven horizontal stripes. Both flags have two orange stripes, a blue stripe, a green stripe, a purple stripe and a red stripe. The first flag has a purple and white Lotus flower in the middle. End ID.)

(Image ID: Two flags with seven horizontal stripes. Both flags contain shades of blue on top as well as a green stripe, and shades of orange on the bottom with a thin yellow stripe in the middle. The first flag also contains a silhouette of a lotus flower outlined in yellow. End ID). Some Safequeers might also identify themselves using a Lotus flower, however the lotus can also mean multiple things. It's best to check. Not Queer Exclusionary, but still exclusionist nonetheless: Sysmed/Anti-Endos - Plural individuals that target Endogenic Systems and other Non-Traumagenic systems, believing that you need trauma or DID/OSDD to be a system. Some Sysmeds are queer, but others are not. Sysmeds are also referred to as Traumascum, however this term should not be used to address anti-endos due to it's ableist and victim-shaming connotations (There are, however, some anti-endos that also use the term, though it's not widely used by them likely for the reasons I just listed.) Anti Endo MOGAI or AEMOGAI- A MOGAI group that excludes Endogenic systems. An "Anti-Fake Systems" flag apparently made by an Anti-Endo, however I can't find much information on it. Still, best to keep an eye for it.

(Image ID: A flag with seven horizontal stripes. The first flag contains shades of blue on top and shades of green on the bottom, with a white stripe in the middle. End ID). Again, you see *anyone* with these flags, with these keywords, or with any kind of rhetoric I explained here, block them *instantly*.

[hard--headed--woman]

i'm a febfem who happens to have only dated women even before deciding to never act on my attraction to men. recently my friends have been insisting that i'm a lesbian, and refuse to listen when i say that's harmful to lesbians as i'm attracted to men. its annoying as fuck and i'm getting tired. even my ex (both my exes are lesbians, but only one of them is saying this) has been trying to convince me i'm a lesbian instead of a febfem. its annoying me, but when i said that they asked "what do you have against being a lesbian?" i have nothing against being a lesbian, i just literally am not a lesbian. i'm getting close to just saying they're right just to get them off my back. i don't know what to do, but you're a lesbian so maybe you can help - do you think they're right? does it sound like i'm a lesbian? could i just be experiencing comp-het? i don't want to tell lesbians what is lesbophobic or not, but also insisting that i must be a lesbian despite my very clear statement that i'm bi feels lesbophobic. i don't want to tell fellow bisexuals what is biphobic or not, but it feels like they're just doing the "pick a side" thing by insisting i must be "homoromantic bisexual" or "a lesbian experiencing comp-het" and using my dating history (all women) as evidence of that.

It is clearly lesbophobic and I am glad you know it and do not let people call you a lesbian. If I was you, I would tell my friends that I know what my sexuality is and that I won't accept any more comments and debates about it ; or I would just say that I do not want to talk about this anymore. It is your sexuality and they have no right to debate about it or literally tell you who you are attracted to or not. You know you are attracted to men, I don't even understand why they want you to be a lesbian so badly.

The split attraction model is total bullshit. Comphet is bullshit. You're bisexual and it's OK. Your friends just don't seem to understand that you can be attracted to men and still not date them, and that lesbians never feel attraction to men. It's both misogynistic and lesbophobic. Don't let them call you a lesbian if you know you aren't one!

[yourfavusescontradictorylabels]

whats mspec gay/lesbian?

There's not really one way to describe WHAT an mspec gay or mspec lesbian is, and that's partially because being mspec is a spectrum, and everyone's experience being an mspec gay/lesbian/mono is typically very personal.

For some, being mspec gay/lesbian/mono is because they...

Are using the split-attraction model / SAM ( ex: biromantic and homosexual )

Are questioning their identity and are confused about whether they're mono or mspec ( ex: someone questioning if they're straight or pansexual )

Are nonbinary, genderfluid, or multigender and their attraction feels both mono and mspec ( ex: a genderfluid person feeling like they're both a lesbian and straight )

Are someone with a fluid orientation ( ex: abrosexual / abroromantic ) and switching between two or more identities ( ex: an abrosexual person who defines themselves as bigay because they're fluid between the labels bisexual and gay )

Are a system that is collectively made up of mono and mspec headmates / alters ( ex: a system being made up of both lesbian and pansexual headmates / alters so they collectively identify as a pan lesbian )

And a ton of other reasons!

To put it simply, there is no one definitive mspec mono experience or explanation.

If you are still confused I would recommend these sources for more information on mspec monos:

Mspec gay carrd

Mspec gay culture is carrd

Mspec lesbian carrd

Lesbian label history

Bi lesbian / gay masterdoc

Straight gay / vincian carrd

Straight lesbian carrd

If I find more good resources I will add on!