1) The aspec generally refers to a persistent, notable lack of attraction to gender or in general. For example, a demisexual person does not find any gender attractive, but may find other things about a person attractive after forming a bond with them. An asexual would not feel any attraction to any gender or in general (not including the SAM atm but will shortly).* Every aspec identity I know of follows the rule of "does not feel attraction to gender", which is really all that makes it an orientation. But this lack of attraction varies and other attractions are not rendered null or void because we lack attraction to any gender. The aspec exists to explain the varied experiences aspecs have due to lacking any attraction to any gender.
Basically if you feel attraction towards 1 or more genders then you are allo.
2) The definitions of sexual/romantic attraction aren't a mess at all. The reason it seems so is because exclusionists and other aphobes have blantantly twisted the explainations people tried to give for what they were. Besides, they were asking people who didn't even experience it. I've spoken about what sexual attraction is before but I will explain again here.
Sexual attraction has multiple definitions but can be separated into 3 specific ones.(You can simply swap sexual with romantic for romantic attraction.)
-what one finds arrtactive in a (hypothetical) sexual scenerio.
-attraction to gender in a (hypothetical) sexual scenerio.
The 1st would be without using the SAM, and is generally when your attractions all line up in every way. Basically, when your attraction is oriented in the same towards gender.
The 2nd is for general attractions in a sexual situation. Things like kink/fetish, paraphilia, orientations, ect. all fall under this in regards to sex and sexual preference.
The 3rd is how one might define orientation when it is different in different ways. So an asexual lesbian would be attracted to women in a romantic way, but not feel the same attraction towards women in a sexual way.
This isn't really anymore inappropriate than just sayin you are gay or bi or het or asexual without using the SAM because none of these give explicit details about one's sex life. Ex: Saying you are het only still has the implication that one has sexual attractions towards their opposite binary gender, yet you don't know if someone actively is sexually active or sex repulsed just because they say they are heterosexual. All you know is that they feel attraction towards their opposite binary gender in every way (including sexual).
3) You didn't mention anything about this but I want to bring it up. The way people tie attraction as the sole factor in determining one's ability to like or consent to sex is inherently sex negative and enforcing rape culture. You cannot claim that sex is an extremely nuanced action influenced by many factors and that we should respect people's choices and agency and then claim that, because people lack (sexual) attraction to any gender, they cannot have, enjoy, or consent to sex and it's fine to strip them of their agency. This implies attraction is the deciding factor in consent, and implying that we cannot consent because we lack it also implies the opposite for allos; that feeling attraction to x gender means they automatically consent to sex. This inherently enforces rape culture ideology by enforcing the idea of "they found their attacker attractive so of course they wanted it".
4) As I said above, if you can understand that sex and romance are nuanced actions whose participation in is influenced by multiple factors (including, but not limited to attraction), then you can understand why some asexuals would be okay with having sex and why some aromantics would be ok with dating/kissing/holding hands. Our decisions to have sex or be romantically involved are influenced by everything besides attraction to gender.
5) I disagree with your final argument. It is very productive to have allo as a term especially when talking about aspec people's treatment within other communities and how, while not having cishet privilege, there is a sort of privilege(for lack of a better term) within individual communities that allo LGBT+ people have over aspec LGBT+ people.
For example, a gay man wouldn't rape another allo mlm for having sexual attraction to men, but one may do so to an ace mlm (an experience I heard of from my ex's current BF btw. Since I bet you'd call me a homophobe if I didn't specify.). An allo lesbian wouldn't be told she's a "predatory lesbian" stereotype by other lesbians for having romantic attraction to women, un like an aro lesbian might be or be told she's "not a real lesbian" because she's not sexually attraced to women like an ace lesbian may be.
*Asexuality is a very broad term to begin with as it has many functions. It is an umbrella term, an individual term, and a term under the split attraction model. One should probably figure out which way asexuality is being used before making arguments against it or clarify how they are using it to avoid confusion.
Don't mind the numbering! I did that for my own sake since it helps me focus when I answer.
andulkaphoto
jacobvanloon
2087
tangentwithtanner
germansingergirl
dededos
kianamaiart
yousharknotpass
stormborns
