ac models

A Good Time: people who use the split attraction model need to “accept that [attraction] works and feels differently for everyone” and then a few paragraphs later “the idea of a split romantic and sexual orientation is an unhealthy, pathologizing way of looking at sexual orientations.”

controversial opinion

subdividing and labeling every millimeter of your attraction is not productive, healthy, or beneficial to you or anyone else.

that’s how we end up with young lesbians spending hours on the internet trying to decide if they’re biplatonic abrosexual queerromantic instead of learning to just love themselves and love girls. that’s how we get kids stuck in mogai hell for years.

that’s how we get modern lgbt organizations dedicating entire webpages to taxonomizing sexualities instead of manning suicide hotlines.

that’s how we end up being exclusionary to people who don’t like labels or people who don’t feel comfortable discussing the minutiae of their attraction

that’s how we lose validity and voices in politics and the world.

and that’s how we throw another layer of stress over lgbt lives.

the lgbt community was never about microlabels and split attraction so stop trying to make it so.

(i typed this late and i’m brainfoggy so please try not to be too harsh on me for it thanks)

Friendly reminder that your sexuality is never homophobic. Want to date someone but don’t have sex with them? Not homophobic. Are you sexually attracted to somebody but couldn’t imagine doing romancy stuff? Not homophobic. If you identify that way, you are not homophobic for existing.

This has been a psa

while we’re at it, the sudden invention of having heterosexual/straight mean “heteroromantic + heterosexual” is one of the most annoying things to ever happen like you just effectively created a way for cishets to deny their straight privilege while simultaneously pretending that heterosexual refers to only sexual attraction when it doesn’t and never has

Artist Imagines Realistic One Piece

Considering how cartoony Eiichiro Oda’s mega-hit One Piece is, it can be more difficult to imagine in a realistic style than most. Thankfully Chinese artist Zhong Zhengxiang did the hard work for us, depicting Ace, Gol D. Roger, and Garp with some painstakingly crafted CG art.

Zhengxiang’s art was created using a mix of Maya, Mudbox, ZBrush, and Photoshop. See the results below, along with some detailed close-ups, 3D models, and a message from the artist on what the image is attempting to convey.

For more follow @theotakutimes for news, rankings, updates, deals on DVD box-sets, anime news and all things otakus live for! And remember don’t just like and re-blog but come check us out and follow. We promise to never disappoint.

The split attraction model is, among other things, the idea that someone can have multiple orientations that go in different directions on different axes, and I think that it’s going to lead to some really interesting reconceptualizations of orientations in general a couple years down the road.

But for now we’re still on the basics, so: a friendly reminder that people having two orientations doesn’t mean one is invalid. Either one. They’ve got two orientations and both are valid. Isn’t that amazing?

And people can have a het orientation along with a non-het orientation, and guess what? They’re still valid, and there’s still no excuse to exclude them from the community. Imagine that.

anonymous asked:

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).

liberal feminism didn’t taught me shit. it told me trans women were the most oppressed and the better women. it never told me what gender is and left me confused because i didn’t “identify” with my gender roles but i didn’t want to be a man, so i thought i might be nb, or aporagender or genderqueer. it never told me queer is still a slur that i would mind with care. it kept me from identifying as what i am, thinking that the word “bisexual” wasn’t as wide and encompassing. it told me about the split attraction model, it made me believe i could be panromatic heterosexual, it legitimized my internalized homophobia. it made me believe i was demisexual when i was just normal. it made me think intersex people were a third sex. it made me reject science. it made me afraid of speaking up, of asking questions. it never told me about stonewall, about the aids crisis, about our history.

i personally think the split attraction model should be destroyed and i think it should be made so that -sexual suffixes could also refer to romantic attraction on its own, because:

-etymologically, -sexual suffixes refer to gender, not the act of sex itself

-people are insisting that -sexual suffixes only refer to sexual attraction when they can also refer to romance

- sexual and romantic attraction are closely related and they can be very hard to separate for some people

-some people, like me, don’t want to disclose the level of sexual attraction they feel

-i really hate being forced to call myself “biromantic” when id much rather use “bisexual” a term that, these days, is well known and understood to not just be about sex, but ones attraction in general


Asexual people who use the SAM are all lovely and beautiful

Asexual people who don’t use the SAM are all amazing and wonderful

Aromantic people who use the SAM are all stellar and out of this world

Aromantic people who don’t use the SAM are great and amazing

People who aren’t ace or aro who use the SAM are amazing and wonderful

This has been a PSA

sexuality and attraction has never been and never will be as clear cut as the ace community has made it out to be and that’s why the split attraction model makes no sense outside of aspec identities. 

People experience attraction differently. People experience different levels of attraction. Being sexually attracted to women and wanting to date them and then being attracted to men but only wanting to date them does not make you a ‘’biromantic lesbian’’ it makes you a bisexual person experiencing different levels of attraction to each gender which is completely normal. 

I know I am mostly attracted to men but I could possibly be sexually attracted to women. that does not make me a ‘’bisexual homoromantic’’ it makes me potentially bisexual and one again, experiencing different levels of attraction to either gender. completely normal 

splitting up attraction into little bits does nothing but harm when applied to non aspec identities