As someone who experiences split attraction, seeing all this hate towards people who use the split attraction model (SAM), specifically aces and aros who use it, has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. So let me reiterate: If you do not experience split attraction, the split attraction model is not for you.
Let’s face it – the majority of people in the world DO have romantic and sexual orientations that align. Thus the terms homoromantic homosexual, biromantic bisexual, heteromantic heterosexual are redundant. The labels gay, lesbian, bi, pan will suffice just fine. If this is true for you, there is no reason for you to use the SAM. There are already existing words that align with the way that you experience attraction.
However, not everyone experiences attraction the same way. It is incredibly egocentric to assume that just because YOU experience attraction one way that there is no other way for OTHERS to experience it. Some people are aromantic and bisexual, some people are panromantic and asexual, and some people are homoromantic pansexual, aromantic heterosexual, biromantic asexual etc etc. To say that these people don’t exist is identity policing and flat out invalidating. You do not have the right to claim you understand the way others experience attraction better than they do. If it is not applicable to you, there is no reason for you to be denying the use of the SAM to those who it is applicable to.
“They’re trying to force the split attraction model on us!” some cry out. Where? I have yet to come across a single instance of people demanding that people use the split attraction model if they don’t identify with it. I HAVE seen countless people say that NO ONE should use it. This is disrespectful to those that feel the SAM describes their experiences, (and I count myself among them). Again, just because YOU don’t experience split attraction doesn’t mean that no one does so don’t deny people the right to describe their attractions.
“The split attraction model is just tricking people into compulsory heterosexuality/just a form of internalized homophobia.” I won’t deny that there are people who have used the split attraction model in order to conform to societies standards of compulsory heterosexuality and as the result of internalized homophobia. Is this the fault of the SAM itself? No. It’s the result of a society where being cis, perisex, heterosexual, and non split-attraction is considered the default and failing to meet those standards is cause for persecution. People identify this way because they feel they should, not because the words exist.
Some people might feel, and have felt, the urge to use the SAM to comply to this, even if they don’t genuinely experience split attraction. And you know what? THAT’S OKAY. Not everyone’s journey in coming to terms with their sexuality is straightforward. So what, some people identify in a certain way for a little while before coming to terms with that they actually feel? I’m not going to begrudge someone with misidentifying themselves in the process of discovering who they are. I honestly don’t see why you should either. It’s also sad to see people looking back on how they identified and laughing and mocking with blatent hatred. You mislabeled yourself in the past? So what? Almost everyone does as they struggle to find out what labels fit them best. Just because you didn’t get it right the first time shouldn’t be a reason for hatred.
As for tricking people into using them? There’s no deceit involved. There’s no people standing in alleys telling children who think they might be lesbians, “have you considered the term homoromantic bisexual instead” as a way to lead them astray. It’s homophobia and transphobia 101 to say, ‘these words shouldn’t be available because it may cause people to think they’re something that they’re not.’ Sounds a lot like, ‘these things shouldn’t be taught in sex ed/made available to young people at the risk that they call themselves gay or trans’ doesn’t it? The words do not exist to dupe people out of their identities, but rather so people who do experience attraction this way have words to describe themselves.
“The split attraction model is homophobic!” The best argument I’ve come for this is the claim that using it is “sexualizing attraction”. Well let me tell you a thing; sexual attraction is sexual. Does that make it bad? No. There is nothing wrong with experiencing sexual attraction – but society tells you that there is. It’s a form of projection of these internalized beliefs to say the SAM is sexualizing. It’s also pretty darn aphobic to insist so. Telling aromantics that identifying their sexual attraction and subsequent lack of romantic attraction is inherently sexualizing others is horrible. Their existence, in that case, is sexualizing and to say that is incredibly harmful and aphobic – a topic for another post on another day. And just because your romantic attraction goes hand in hand with your sexual attraction doesn’t mean its wrong or homophobic to make a distinction between the two. Check yourself before you go accusing others.
Now for possibly the biggest controversy: denying anyone the use of the split attraction model is aphobic. Asexuals and aromantics disproportionately experience split attraction in comparison to other sexualities and romanticies. To say split attraction doesn’t exist is invalidating. It reinforces the idea that asexuality and aromanticism are modifiers, when they are distinct orientations. Saying people can’t use the SAM forces people to toss aside or to smother a part of their identity in order to conform and be ‘acceptable’. Some people even deny the use of it specifically because it is applicable to aces and aros. They use it to determine who is ‘acceptable enough’ and to invalidate their entire orientation. While there are non a-spec people who experience split attraction, this is a huge issue for aces and aros specifically.
If you don’t experience split attraction, the split attraction model is not for you so who are you to define other people’s identities?
; tldr: The split-attraction model is helpful for people who experience split attraction, is not required to be used by everyone, and demonizing the use of it is harmful to those who identify with it, especially if it’s because it doesn’t match your experiences. The split attraction model isn’t for you so don’t deny people who need it the right to use it.
I see a lot of posts going around talking about the need to be critical of fanfic, and how we gotta watch out for the messages we’re sending
Well, here’s one thing I’m gonna need us to be critical about:
Every statistic I’ve ever seen says fanfic authors are heavily female (or nb)
And Tumblr, which is a fairly US-centric cross-section of fandom, is filled with this discourse about fanfic writers who create pornography
I need us to stop and think about why we’ve decided that fictional sex is the most damaging thing anyone could ever find on the internet
I need us to think about the culture we live in, which encourages us to be sexually available (to straight men) but punishes us if we (sluts) enjoy it
Because here’s the thing: fanfic is not coming from a position of power and prestige in our society
It is a niche genre primarily written by women, for women, for free
And it is a place where many of us do find power in exploring our own sexuality (or asexuality)
Even when that exploration takes us to gritty, horrifying (or cathartic) places
I’m going to need us to think long and hard about why we’re prioritizing fictional characters over the needs of real women
And I’m going to need it to stop
Fandom purity wank is absolutely about control over women and women’s sexuality. There’s nothing ambiguous about it.
Just think about the hot-button issues in the fannish community, the topics that consistently and reliably get people worked up into a lather, the themes that provoke the nastiest conflicts and inspire the most dedicated resistance movements. Think about the fights that are most likely to spill out over their cyber boundaries and start affecting people in the real world – in public harassment at cons, in doxxing and ‘outing’ to family and employers, in malicious legal allegations.
It’s about sex. It’s always about sex.
From the constant tantrums over ‘problematic’ shipping to the righteous doxxing of ‘pedophiles’ (which in current tumblr parlance means anyone who draws or writes canonically underage characters in romantic or erotic scenarios), fandom’s big efforts at moral reform always seem to revolve around restricting and controlling the sexual expression of the majority-women community. You won’t meet many people who stay up past their bedtime to scream at strangers on the internet about unethical portrayals of non-sexual violence – unless, of course, they suspect the women involved in its creation are getting off on it. You’ll struggle to find an anti blog dedicated to the insidious social ills of torture whump fic, or goopy hurt-comfort where all manner of human suffering is put on display for the viewer’s enjoyment. The purity crew dress up their agenda as a desire for collective self-improvement and raised moral standards, but they don’t seem too worried about aspects of public morality that don’t somehow tie back into sex. What they’re upset about is the same thing conservative minds have been upset about since basically the dawn of time – there are women out there in the world doing icky sex things without the permission of their communities.
And these people, these moral guardians, they’ve gotten really good at couching their fundamentalist views in progressive language. They don’t say ‘you’re to blame if you provoke men to rape’ – they say ‘your fic normalises sexual violence and contributes to rape culture’. They don’t say ‘women ought to be chaste’ – they say ‘your fantasies are socially harmful and you owe it to the world to be more self-critical’. The messages are the same and the desired outcomes are literally identical.
The core assumption underlying all of it – an assumption that I’m sure our puritan forebears would find deeply comforting – is that women’s sexual expression is a matter of public concern, and that women are directly responsible for upholding the moral standards of their communities by restricting themselves to a narrow repertoire of publicly controlled, socially condoned sexual outlets. Anything beyond that repertoire is a grave moral breach.
To anyone who’s reading this – and there’s always a few – thinking, “this is just deflection! [X hot-button topic] is really bad and harmful!’, I’d like to encourage you to sit back for just a moment and think about why it is, exactly, that you feel the best and most important place to wage your war against moral corruption is in one of the only pockets of popular media that women unequivocally control. Of all the spaces in the world where you could be fighting for your view of a better society, you’ve chosen a place where women come together to share the fantasies that mainstream culture refuses to let them indulge. Why?
It’s bible banging bullshit in a progressive mask.
THIS is why the current trend to refer to smut in fanfic as “sin” is quite so worrying. Sex is not wrong. Enjoying pleasure and feeling good are not things to be ashamed of. If you don’t enjoy them, if you are asexual or aromantic or have a low to nonexistent libido, that is all just as fine as enjoying them, or reading or writing about them. There is no default that is ok, there is no default that is bad.
Western history has a tend of being terrified of women enjoying their bodies, their relationships, their experiences. If we “sin” in doing so, people can point to it and say it is wrong, there is some higher power – holy or societal – that disapproves. Please don’t fall into this mental trap, even in jest or sarcasm. Normalizing “sexual things as bad” is just continuing this problem.
I NEVER KNEW THAT WAS WHAT AMERICANS MEANT WHEN THEY SAID “QUITE”
WHY DIDN’T ANYBODY TELL ME
SUDDENLY THAT ONE SONG THAT GOES “HELLO I MISS YOU QUITE TERRIBLY” MAKES LIKE A MILLION TIMES MORE SENSE
are you serious british people
i feel like this means i’ve been overestimating your enthusiasm about things for my entire life
And thus we have defined British/American relations for the last 3 decades
My British partner had an American supervisor for her PhD. Poor thing was crushed every time she was told her work was “quite good.”
Now I’m confused. I’m British. If I say, ‘that’s quite good’ – then it usually means I think it’s good, but a habitual horror of overstatement has made me stick ‘quite’ in there.
Quite good – That’s good (with the implication that I’m pleasantly surprised)
Not bad – That’s very good
Not bad at all – Very good – and I’m pleasantly surprised
Brits: politely mitigating their own enthusiasm or politely mitigating their praise
Americans: politely saying “hell yeah”
Huh. I tend to use “quite” as something that’s me being snarky and/or grumpy, and not actually approving, at least when spoken. And a modifier when it’s in narrative of “not all/yet/completely something”. That’s how I’ve always internalized it, as a way of something isn’t enough, isn’t all there, isn’t really to me what it is to someone else… and that I don’t approve of them being enthusiastic about it at me and trying to push it on me.
I have heard it in the context of it being a good thing, but that’s been more recent than the sense of it being a not-good (or bad) thing. And I’m American, with the only British influence growing up being some comedy shows and Monty Python.
One of my favorite things about history is how little bits of it are preserved through traditions and mythology and we don’t even notice it. Like how we still say “’Tis the season” at Christmastime. Who says ‘tis anymore? No one, it’s dead except in this tiny phrase. I had a friend once tell me that she noticed the only group of people who could consistently identify a spinning wheel were girls between the ages of 4 and 7. Why? Sleeping Beauty. There are little linguistic quirks that have been around for centuries, bits of slang we use that people 400 years ago would recognize, but unless you showed someone a 400 year old dictionary, they’d never believe it. Whispers of the past are always there.
After a mention of translating old English on another site, I had to go
track down William Caxton’s preface from one of his books explaining how
difficult it was to pick WHICH English to print.
In
the preface to the Eneydos he told a story of some merchants going down
the Thames. There was no wind so they landed on the Kent side of the
river to buy food. ‘And specyally he axyed after eggys. And the good wyf
answerde that she coude speke no frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry
for he also coude speke no frenshe but wold haue hadde egges and she
vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue
eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstood hym wel’ [And he
asked specifically for eggs, and the good woman said that she spoke no
French, and the merchant got angry for he could not speak French either,
but he wanted eggs and she could not understand him. And then at last
another person said that he wanted ‘eyren’. Then the good woman said
that she understood him well].
As a translator of books which
were to be printed Caxton had to ensure that the language which he used
was acceptable to quite a wide group of potential readers and buyers. ‘Loo what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte egges or eyren?
Certaynly it is harde to playse euery man by cause of dyuersite and
chaunge of langage’ [Now, what should one write nowadays, eggs or eyren?
It is certain that it is difficult to please everybody because of the
diversity and the change of our language]. As far as the social position
of his language was concerned Caxton’s solution was to strike what he
perceived as a balance but he aimed his language not at rude men but at
‘a clerke and a noble gentylman’: ‘Therfor in a meane bytwene bothe I
haue reduced and translated this sayd booke in to our englysshe not ouer
rude ne curyous but in such termes as shall be vnderstanden by goddys
grace’ [therefore, as a compromise, I have translated this book into an
English which is neither too coarse nor too refined, but using phrases
which are understandable, God willing].
Can I just… talk for a moment… about how much I love how, if you know them well, words don’t have synonyms?
English, for example, is a fantastic disaster. It has so many words for things that are basically the same, and I find there’s few joys in writing like finding the right word for a sentence. Hunting down that peculiar word with particular meaning that fits in seamlessly in a structure, so the story flows on by without any bumps or leaks.
Like how a shout is typically about volume, while a yell carries an angry edge and a holler carries a mocking one. A scream has shrillness, a roar has ferocity, and a screech has outrage.
This is not to say that a yell cannot be happy or a holler cannot be complimentary, or that they cannot share these traits, but they are different words with different connotations. I love choosing the right one for a sentence, not only for its meanings but for how it sounds when read aloud. (Do I want sounds that slide together, peaceful and seamless, or something that jolts the reader with its contrast? Snap!)
I love how many words for human habitats there are. I love how cottage sounds quaint and cabin sounds rustic. I love steadiness of house, the elegance of residence, the stateliness of manor, and tired stubbornness of shack. I love how a dwelling is different to a den.
And I love how none of them can really touch the possessive warmness of all the connotations of home.
The comment I’ve outlined in red is by @svollga and reads: “Sin is a term used for smut now (personally, I find it really, really terrible and -phobic, yikes)”
Folks, please, we have to quash this one, and fast. I’ve been around a long time. I understand that language changes. I gave in to the fact that “slash” came to mean m/m only, and accepted that “femslash” was a necessary term. I put up with smushnames. And I went to the wall fighting for “trigger” to keep it’s actual meaning, and get fandom using “squick” again.
But this is WRONG. Using a word that is so loaded, one that carries the baggage of religion and morality, to mean “smut” demonizes sex. Fanficiton is one of the healthiest, most open, sex-positive environments available to North Americans (and I’m making that distinction because there are huge swathes of Europe and Asia that don’t have our deeply unhealthy hangups about sex) and particularly to American teenagers who get most of their information about sex online.
Please, please, PLEASE stand with me on this. If you see it used, refute it. Sex and smut aren’t “sin”. Don’t let it happen. We can win this one.
Urgh, hadn’t heard about this one before. I agree that calling sex ‘sin’ as a casual thing is a horrible, horrible idea, much like calling anything bad or wrong ‘gay’. It builds that association.
For the record, I’m also deeply frustrated with people (mostly teenaged girls, from what I’ve seen) calling themselves ‘garbage’ for liking a particular character or pairing. I mean. I get that slang exists, but it’s just…frustrating.
Young people might take your slang literally. What you say matters, even in fun.
Recognize when it might be time to change the words you use to talk about yourself and your friends, even if it’s been the common fashion for a while, even if it is not *meant* in anything but a light-hearted and positive way. Think about how and why that trend might have started. Is it just a creative language “we-say-the-opposite-of-what-me-mean-as-a-form-of-emphasis” thing, or is it one of the times where it’s a “I’m-trying-to-make-light-of-the-fact-that-others-and-maybe-even-myself-see-me-as-this-worth-negating-term” thing?
After spending most of his life in the Core and around Core world people (which is the case by AOTC) Anakin’s accent in basic is the GFFA equivalent of transatlantic, Not quite Core world, not quite Outer Rim, and not recognizably from any Mid Rim world either, with speech patterns that tend to get more formal whenever he’s uncomfortable or upset (to reach peek stilted formality as Vader).
But he’s had very little occasion to speak Huttese since TPM, not for any extended period of time. So his Huttese, unless he’s making a conscious effort to speak high-Huttese, sounds exactly as it did when he left with Qui-Gon: Tatooinian gutter rat.
All that to say that in any AU where Han ever hears him speak Huttese he jumps about a foot in the air.
Spaaaaaace accents~
I need to go find that ‘Basic is not Anakin’s first or even second language’ meta. It’s my personal AOTC headcanon for some of his ‘padme induced foot in mouth disease’ dialogue. The dork only gets dorkier under pressure~
It reminds me of my protocol droid little sis, who once wrote half a Spanish test in German and finished it in like Italian.
Thankfully the teacher was amused.
Lol, nice headcanon!
Personally I had tended to put his awkwardness on the huge culture clash that must have been his integration into the temple.
He spoke Basic fluently in TPM and moreover spoke it colloquially.
And I think that was part of the culture shock. Anakin was a street smart mechanic from the Outer Rim who had not set foot in a school in his life, the Jedi were highly educated Core World monks.
Anakin’s accent and slang would have A/ stuck out like a sore thumb, B/ made it harder for him to have his opinions taken seriously by adults who might have preached cultural relativism but who were probably programmed to link certain speech patterns with rationality and knowledge (whatever is the equivalent of Formal Standard academic English). So Anakin quickly learned to imitate those patterns, so he doesn’t stand out, doesn’t sound ignorant, doesn’t sound biaised by emotions.
and the more upset he is, the less he can afford to show it, because there is no emotion there is serenity. So I think, anytime he feels uncomfortable or upset, his brain automatically falls back into a pattern of going for the most formal way to says something, which often ends up sounding stilted (but he’s probably not even aware he’s doing it.)
And meeting Padmé again after 10 years and having his crush hit him full force would certainly count as emotional upheaval.
notice how formally Vader speaks? this, up to eleven.
Yup, Anakin during his time as Vader was miserable and it showed in his speech.
That’s my headcanon and you will pry it from my cold dead hands.
100% agreed.
With one addition: I think Anakin’s extreme formality as Vader is both a mark of how miserable he is and also a very deliberate linguistic choice that expresses the only kind of resistance he’s really capable of at that point.
The formality is taken so far as to be, frankly, absurd. And he plays up the subservience to a near-ridiculous degree, too. Or at least, it would be ridiculous if it wasn’t so clear that Palpatine actually expects (and most likely demands) it. Even so there’s a sense of gallows humor in the way Anakin acts out his subservience.
(Actually, Vader reminds me most of the golems in Terry Pratchett’s Feet of Clay. Specifically, of the way Carrot describes golem rebellion: they resist by carrying out their orders promptly, efficiently, and exactly as ordered. Even when that takes them to absurd lengths. A golem’s master orders them to make teapots, and they do so. Hundreds and thousands of teapots, because no one ever told them to stop…)
I’m glad my headcanon works for you, you’re not derailing at all. Maladaptive code-switching is a great definition, I’ll be stealing it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Tatooine colloquial Basic was the only language Anakin had available for Romance, it’s the only dialect he’s ever heard affection being freely expressed in. And of course 10 years under the Jedi and a tendency toward hyper-correction makes for crossed wires.
Do you ever memorize a person’s voice? Like you can construct a sentence in your mind that that person’s never said, and yet you hear them say it.
Is that a thing people can do?????????
yea
there are people that cant do that??????????
We are a chosen few. We have a great power.
It’s called echoic memory
That reminds me…
You’re welcome.
Damn you
Man, I love having echoic memory. Once, when I was writing an exam for a psych class, I made my internal monologue sound like Sean Connery. It was infinitely more entertaining.
I love and hate that I am able to do this
I thought everyone could do this
Same ^
Cool
Let me tell you, it makes writing fanfic really interesting.
For me, it can also be kinda annoying when watching movies where characters have strong accents. ‘Cause then I’m thinking in that accent (or for fun times, multiple different ones) for at least the next day.
(this is also how I can get away with not having seen SG1 in ages but still be able to get the dialog somewhere near accurate)
There's a Mirror on the Wall 