Split Attraction Model (SAM)

The split attraction model or SAM, not to be confused with romantic orientation, is a term created by its critics and has been used to describe any of the following:
 * The differentiation between types of attraction, such as sexual, romantic, or aesthetic
 * The differentiation of romantic attraction and sexual attraction, specifically
 * The use of separate personal identity labels for sexual orientation and romantic orientation
 * The defining of "sexual orientation" as sexuality-specific (reserving romanticism and other emotions for romantic orientation)
 * Sweeping statements and over-generalizations of any of the above

History
The term "split attraction model" emerged recently in response to certain language and developments in the asexual community, including but not limited to: 1) romantic orientation, 2) attraction subtyping, and 3) universalizing statements. Within the asexual community, the concept of romantic orientation dates back to the early 2000s, when asexuals began self-describing with terms such as "heteroromantic" and "aromantic."

This terminology emerged in connection to (but separable from) the concept of multiple types of attraction. At the time, one of the most popular definitions of "asexual" was "a person who does not experience sexual attraction," which featured on the front page of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network. In connection with that definition, some asexuals made a distinction between sexual attraction and romantic attraction in order to explain their romantic identities. Other asexuals also began using additional attraction terms, such as emotional attraction, sensual attraction, and aesthetic attractions, starting in the early 2000s. These attraction types could also be paired with parallel orientation identity terms (ex. pansensual, panaesthetic), but that application of them wasn't necessarily as common.

This terminology began to proliferate on the Tumblr blogging platform in the following decade, as asexual communities branched out to Tumblr and brought their language with them.

In 2015, as this language spread beyond the asexual community, the term "split attraction model" was created for the purpose of criticism. The earliest posts and exact unfolding of events are poorly-documented due to linkrot, but some of the controversy appears to have included the following: Many of the earliest Tumblr posts on this subject have been lost, but early uses of the term typically involve criticism of what it describes or some discussion of that criticism.
 * the objection to universalizing definitions of "sexual orientation" as sexuality-specific
 * the objection to universalizing a romantic-sexual distinction or pressuring others to use it
 * the objection to universalizing a separate recognition of romantic, platonic, sexual, aesthetic, and sensual attraction as different for everyone
 * the objection to personal use of romantic-sexual distinction among non-asexual people
 * the objection to personal use of separate romantic/sexual orientation labeling among non-asexual people
 * accusations of homophobia and lesbophobia

The use of the word "split," in particular, seems to have possibly originated from Tumblr user pure (also known as Tumblr user medicine), who in 2015 wrote "i got a prollem w ppl splitting a complex sociocultural influenced ting like attraction into only two distinct experiences that ppl present as inherently unrelated all the time."

To avoid association with the controversy, more precise and less condemnatory terms include "romantic orientation" or "romantic orientation labeling" and "attraction types," "attraction subtyping," or "differentiating types of attraction." Not everyone who experiences different types of attraction necessarily has a distinct romantic orientation, and not everyone who has a romantic orientation necessarily experiences multiple types of attraction.