There seems to be a baked-in assumption here that sexual attraction is wholly separate from romantic or platonic bonds that I don't know if I agree with. Lots of people's sexual attraction is...
There seems to be a baked-in assumption here that sexual attraction is wholly separate from romantic or platonic bonds that I don't know if I agree with.
Lots of people's sexual attraction is strengthened by their closeness or friendship with someone. It's also the case for most people that sex actually brings them closer on the romantic/platonic dimensions.
And also, sometimes you just want to have sex with someone and don't actually care about an ongoing relationship with them of any kind.
I believe that comes from the model a lot of asexual people use for understanding sexuality. I'm far from an expert in this (I'm not an ace myself), so for anyone who understands this better than...
There seems to be a baked-in assumption here that sexual attraction is wholly separate from romantic or platonic bonds that I don't know if I agree with.
I believe that comes from the model a lot of asexual people use for understanding sexuality. I'm far from an expert in this (I'm not an ace myself), so for anyone who understands this better than I do, feel free to chime in if I'm getting any of this wrong!
From what I understand, they separate out sexual attraction from romantic attraction and usually label themselves in both areas. Romantic orientation follows the familiar prefixes of sexual orientation (e.g. homoromantic, heteroromantic, panromantic, etc.), while sexual attraction exists on a scale from "asexual" (no sexual attraction) to "allosexual" (experiences sexual attraction). The space between those two has a lot of different labels and qualifiers that get into sexual versus romantic versus platonic attraction, as well as primary and secondary attraction (e.g. "demisexual", "gray asexual", etc.).
For example, I have a friend who describes his orientation as "homoromantic asexual" meaning that he is interested in (and has had) romantic relationships with guys, but he experiences no sexual attraction to them (or anyone else). For him, the division between romantic and sexual attraction is very clear, though I agree with you that for most people the two tend to go hand in hand.
You're describing the red/crimson strata. I believe most normal people only experience those two. I'm demisexual and have only experienced the orchid/pink attraction types. That's what asexual...
You're describing the red/crimson strata. I believe most normal people only experience those two. I'm demisexual and have only experienced the orchid/pink attraction types.
Lots of people's sexual attraction is strengthened by their closeness or friendship with someone.
That's what asexual spectrum people refer to as secondary sexual attraction. It's the only kind I experience as a demi.
I'm seeing a lot of disagreement in this thread WRT the ace spectrum and split attraction model. I guess because allosexuals have less need to break apart their attraction into romantic and sexual...
I'm seeing a lot of disagreement in this thread WRT the ace spectrum and split attraction model. I guess because allosexuals have less need to break apart their attraction into romantic and sexual components it is the asexuals (who aren't qualified to describe "primary" attraction) that have been left to define this aspect of sexuality for all people.
One of my friends sent me this, and I think it's a really interesting way of combining sexuality, attraction, and relationship preferences/orientations into one model. According to this, I'm a...
One of my friends sent me this, and I think it's a really interesting way of combining sexuality, attraction, and relationship preferences/orientations into one model. According to this, I'm a "Red 6A".
I'm curious to hear what people here think, where you fall in the model, and how well or poorly you think it reflects your identity, and sexual/romantic identity in general.
Where does "open relationship" fall in this model? If you want a single romantic partner, with the option of meaningless sexual partners on the side, what category is that? The relationship types...
Where does "open relationship" fall in this model? If you want a single romantic partner, with the option of meaningless sexual partners on the side, what category is that? The relationship types listed here seem to assume that all relationships with a person must include romance, and can't be purely sexual: in other words, there's no option for a bit on the side.
In fact, where does casual sex fall into this model at all? Where's the option for "they're hot, and I'd like a piece of that"?
It looks like casual/non-romantic sexual interest would fall under the Crimson tier. Meanwhile, a primary romantic partner with sexual partners on the side seems to best fit B or D, depending on...
It looks like casual/non-romantic sexual interest would fall under the Crimson tier. Meanwhile, a primary romantic partner with sexual partners on the side seems to best fit B or D, depending on how those relationships are prioritized. It looks like the situation you're describing seems to be a combination Red and Crimson one, with B or D as the relationship type.
Well, in answer to your question "how well or poorly you think it reflects your identity, and sexual/romantic identity in general", my reply is: I don't see myself reflected here at all. I have to...
Well, in answer to your question "how well or poorly you think it reflects your identity, and sexual/romantic identity in general", my reply is: I don't see myself reflected here at all. I have to take a little bit from one category, and a little bit from another category, and smoosh some other categories together.
But I'm always a 6. The axis based on the Kinsey scale works for me.
People are complicated. Any attempt to categorize will have people that don't fit. I looked at this and thought "All those choices and I still don't know where I fit."
People are complicated. Any attempt to categorize will have people that don't fit. I looked at this and thought "All those choices and I still don't know where I fit."
Would that not equate to different aspects of the same personality? It may not reflect your romantic/sexual preferences in their entirety, but it appears you may well find yourself reflected more...
Would that not equate to different aspects of the same personality? It may not reflect your romantic/sexual preferences in their entirety, but it appears you may well find yourself reflected more clearly in an X1+X2 fashion.
With simplified diagrams like this, you're supposed to pick one value from each axis to find your identity. If you have to pick multiple values and aggregate them, then the diagram is flawed.
With simplified diagrams like this, you're supposed to pick one value from each axis to find your identity. If you have to pick multiple values and aggregate them, then the diagram is flawed.
As a 'normal' (Red 0 A/B) person that's definitely a very helpful visualization of the LGB (trans people are related to biological sex identity rather than romantic and sexual attraction,...
As a 'normal' (Red 0 A/B) person that's definitely a very helpful visualization of the LGB (trans people are related to biological sex identity rather than romantic and sexual attraction, right?)/GSRM community.
I personally think that if you tear down some of the abstract labeling and make it into something more similar to a political compass (Colors turn into labels like ace and aromantic, ace and romantic, asexual but will do for other motives, etc, A-E turns into strictly het to strictly homo and 0-6 turns into strictly mono to strictly poly) would be helpful for 'the rest of us'.
There seems to be a baked-in assumption here that sexual attraction is wholly separate from romantic or platonic bonds that I don't know if I agree with.
Lots of people's sexual attraction is strengthened by their closeness or friendship with someone. It's also the case for most people that sex actually brings them closer on the romantic/platonic dimensions.
And also, sometimes you just want to have sex with someone and don't actually care about an ongoing relationship with them of any kind.
I believe that comes from the model a lot of asexual people use for understanding sexuality. I'm far from an expert in this (I'm not an ace myself), so for anyone who understands this better than I do, feel free to chime in if I'm getting any of this wrong!
From what I understand, they separate out sexual attraction from romantic attraction and usually label themselves in both areas. Romantic orientation follows the familiar prefixes of sexual orientation (e.g. homoromantic, heteroromantic, panromantic, etc.), while sexual attraction exists on a scale from "asexual" (no sexual attraction) to "allosexual" (experiences sexual attraction). The space between those two has a lot of different labels and qualifiers that get into sexual versus romantic versus platonic attraction, as well as primary and secondary attraction (e.g. "demisexual", "gray asexual", etc.).
For example, I have a friend who describes his orientation as "homoromantic asexual" meaning that he is interested in (and has had) romantic relationships with guys, but he experiences no sexual attraction to them (or anyone else). For him, the division between romantic and sexual attraction is very clear, though I agree with you that for most people the two tend to go hand in hand.
You're describing the red/crimson strata. I believe most normal people only experience those two. I'm demisexual and have only experienced the orchid/pink attraction types.
That's what asexual spectrum people refer to as secondary sexual attraction. It's the only kind I experience as a demi.
Secondary implies these things can be ordinally ranked, which I'm not sure I agree with either.
I'm seeing a lot of disagreement in this thread WRT the ace spectrum and split attraction model. I guess because allosexuals have less need to break apart their attraction into romantic and sexual components it is the asexuals (who aren't qualified to describe "primary" attraction) that have been left to define this aspect of sexuality for all people.
In case you want an image that's more readable.
One of my friends sent me this, and I think it's a really interesting way of combining sexuality, attraction, and relationship preferences/orientations into one model. According to this, I'm a "Red 6A".
I'm curious to hear what people here think, where you fall in the model, and how well or poorly you think it reflects your identity, and sexual/romantic identity in general.
Where does "open relationship" fall in this model? If you want a single romantic partner, with the option of meaningless sexual partners on the side, what category is that? The relationship types listed here seem to assume that all relationships with a person must include romance, and can't be purely sexual: in other words, there's no option for a bit on the side.
In fact, where does casual sex fall into this model at all? Where's the option for "they're hot, and I'd like a piece of that"?
EDIT: Typos.
It looks like casual/non-romantic sexual interest would fall under the Crimson tier. Meanwhile, a primary romantic partner with sexual partners on the side seems to best fit B or D, depending on how those relationships are prioritized. It looks like the situation you're describing seems to be a combination Red and Crimson one, with B or D as the relationship type.
Well, in answer to your question "how well or poorly you think it reflects your identity, and sexual/romantic identity in general", my reply is: I don't see myself reflected here at all. I have to take a little bit from one category, and a little bit from another category, and smoosh some other categories together.
But I'm always a 6. The axis based on the Kinsey scale works for me.
People are complicated. Any attempt to categorize will have people that don't fit. I looked at this and thought "All those choices and I still don't know where I fit."
Would that not equate to different aspects of the same personality? It may not reflect your romantic/sexual preferences in their entirety, but it appears you may well find yourself reflected more clearly in an X1+X2 fashion.
With simplified diagrams like this, you're supposed to pick one value from each axis to find your identity. If you have to pick multiple values and aggregate them, then the diagram is flawed.
As a 'normal' (Red 0 A/B) person that's definitely a very helpful visualization of the LGB (trans people are related to biological sex identity rather than romantic and sexual attraction, right?)/GSRM community.
I personally think that if you tear down some of the abstract labeling and make it into something more similar to a political compass (Colors turn into labels like ace and aromantic, ace and romantic, asexual but will do for other motives, etc, A-E turns into strictly het to strictly homo and 0-6 turns into strictly mono to strictly poly) would be helpful for 'the rest of us'.
Does this open up the possibility of classifying people into groups using a clustering algorithm.