Alright, so I was extremely happy to see 1626 people vote in my recent poll about the "sexual/sensual/aesthetic/romantic" split attraction model! I received a lot of really helpful responses in the tags and replies.
I'd like to start with a quick rundown of the results. Note that I think stats are fun but I'm horrible at math, so you can always look at the poll results yourself.
37,6% of respondents were in the community for 10+ years (or ~611 people)
33,5% of respondents were in the community for 5+ years (or ~545 people)
28,8% of respondents were in the community for less than 5 years (or ~468 people)
So - shared rather evenly, with a slight lean towards oldies! (Which includes myself.)
56,2% of respondents voted that they knew the exact model I listed.
20,6% of respondents voted that they knew a slightly different version of the model I listed.
14,5% of respondents voted that they were only vaguely familiar with this model.
8,6% of respondents voted that they didn't know the model altogether.
That's 76,8% of respondents who confidently know it. The split attraction model is not dead!
So this kind of debunks my impression that less of the newer generation of a-specs know about the term; of course the poll could have biases I'm not able to identify. There was a good number of reblogs, including one from the popular blog fuckyeahasexual, which was already around over a decade ago. I don't know this blog's full audience - could it be the case that their followers are more likely to be people who know this kind of vocabulary? Who knows!
Still, the reblogs branched out, so it's not just their audience who voted! (They're the big blob on the left, the source post is on the right.)
Impressions and information I gathered from the responses:
The model is generally well received by respondents.
There was a wave of hate towards the split attraction model around a decade ago, when there was a general wave of aphobia, on tumblr. (This is information I personally did not know - my feed was just too well curated and I only learned there was hate once people started considering it a past anecdote to talk about.) It was not specified by most respondents what exactly was called out about the model at the time, but someone mentioned accusations of homophobia (???). How much this may have impacted younger a-specs' knowledge of the model is up in the air.
From my point of view, some respondents mistook or muddied different models and/or concepts: for example, implying that "demi" or "sex-repulsed/favorable" may be used instead of this model, rather than in conjunction with it. I personally view this as a misunderstanding of what these different words and concepts mean. Of course, any a-spec individual may choose to only identify with one model or label or other; but they still have specifically different use cases. Where you place yourself on the "romance" part of the split attraction model defines your romantic orientation; the model itself is not an orientation, while "demiromantic" would be one.
A couple of people (like, actually 2 unless I missed someone) responded that they do not agree with this model as to them only sexual+romantic count. I can't say I personally agree as it is my established impression that people who relate to the model should be believed when they say these other forms of attraction exist. Like "I don't get it so it's not real" is not speaking to me. Still, that's my bias; the facts of the matter are that a couple of people did share this impression!
Two people shared that they do not prefer it for themselves or view it as universally useful. (I'm sure this applies to more people, same as the point above; commenting was optional.)
This was not specifically asked, but "other options" that came up included: platonic, queerplatonic, emotional, alterous, tertiary, intellectual(personal, not heard elsewhere), spiritual(personal, not heard elsewhere), "way more"
One person pointed out that this specific model was taught to them in psych of sexuality, in an academic setting. It was also my impression that the model was academically accepted.
Some aroallo people think they're not included in "a-spec"??? This can only be a result of experienced exclusion and I'm so sorry to hear it. If someone uses "a-spec" and doesn't mean to include aroallos, they're the one who got their meanings wrong, and you don't have to go out of your way to adapt to their mistakes.
This was really interesting! I'm thankful for all the responses I received, including the ones I disagree with. Sharing these differing points of view was the point. It's always good to remind anyone that a-specs are not a monolith; we're different people with different experiences, preferences, points of view and personalities.
It's very important to note that no one should ever be forced to use a model or label they're not comfortable with or that they don't want. This does not only apply to the split attraction model. All of these words are tools, they're meant to be helpful, and if they're not: then use what is helpful to you!
So is this poll going to change anything for me?... Not really. I'm very fond of the romantic/sexual/aesthetic/sensual (order does not matter) split attraction model and it's extremely helpful to me. I think it can be helpful to a lot of people! I personally only experience aesthetic attraction; not only has learning about the model helped me understand a lot that I might have been forever confused about otherwise, but after years of having this information, I have also clearly identified for myself that it is indeed a form of attraction and that I completely agree with the model as a concept. I believe it is accurate.
I did learn that it's common for people to include "platonic" in that model! This does not make sense to me personally: to me, sensual and aesthetic attraction are inherently platonic (else they'd be "sexual" or "romantic", but this model goes out of its way to separate them from those), so there's no use in specifying it. Still, I understand that it does make sense to a lot of people. I definitely don't identify with platonic attraction as I personally describe it as rather an adjective for feelings that aren't sexual or romantic. I know for a fact that platonic attraction exists more meaningfully for a lot of a-specs.
It also makes a lot of sense to me to include "queerplatonic"! I don't believe I'll bother to introduce it to my personal identification, but it is interesting to note and I hope to be able to use this information (and other things I learned from these conversations) to interact more meaningfully with questioning a-specs, "baby" a-specs and allies.
My huge bias is: like I mentioned in my reblog of the original poll, I genuinely love this model. It makes a ton of sense to me and it's helped me a lot. I really want it to help more people. I'm also someone who does not care for microlabels! Some of the other vocabulary I just don't interact with at all because my brain identifies it as closer to "microlabelling", something that just does not work for me. The split attraction model is something large enough for me to navigate comfortably. To someone with different brain chemistry, the opposite might be true.
I think it will only be positive to continue to introduce people to this model, and to mention other options that one might identify with. I don't know how objective I can be about it; but due to my experiences of discomfort with microlabelling, it feels to me like it might make it easier for more people to "start with the shorter list and then suggest more possible options". This is completely subjective, but for example, "queerplatonic" does not register to my brain as the Uncomfortably Specific type, whereas "alterous" does. Of course, my bias is wanting to go out of my way to make people with the same experience as me feel comfortable.
