Does lack of split between sexual and romantic orientation apply to women, too?

Yes, in fact I do dismiss quite a lot of positivist psychology and social science from the past forty years. Psychologists (not to mention sociologists) go ahead with their nitwit experiments and publish results in refereed journals as if that solved all of the theoretical and methodological problems they dodge. I am constantly amazed when I read some of the dreck that gets published. But such disciplines are self-policing and ultimately the real point is tenure, so what the hell.

I'm pretty familiar with the history and philosophy of science, so don't really need the refresher course. And it was mostly beside the point. I didn't make the argument you criticize. I objected to the authoritative-sounding tone in your statements, which I think unjustified. I don't mean that as a personal comment about you; it is an objection I have to the suggestion of certainty where none can exist. See: Husserl, Adorno, Foucault, John Searle, and Thomas Nagel on the limits of positivist social science.

Beyond that, the history of science, psychology in particular, is rife with examples of pseudo-science. A lot of respected authorities have made a lot of bone-headed claims. To cite the most egregious: race theory, phrenology, eugenics. I'm not claiming that your argument belongs with those; I'm noting the dangers of accepting "scientific" arguments at face value. Even if the findings support my worldview.

(Useful in another regard are various object-relations psychoanalysts on psychic splitting. Klein is unreadable, but there are a lot of interesting people who came after her, from Winnicott to Bollas.)

The irony here is that I basically agree with you about the pseudo-scientific nature of some of what gets passed on as fact when it is only conjecture. But I object to an appeal to science when the issue under discussion is basically phenomenological.

 

This makes me extremely angry, OF COURSE it is possible for sexual and romantic orientation to not match. I can't believe that someone from the lgbt+ community on an lgbt+ site is denying the possibility. Even if you "don't get it", I don't get Korean but I fully respect that it's an actual language.
I myself am panromantic but asexual, and to the staff member who told me that it's unlikely and made me really uncomfortable with myself for being different within the lgbt+ community, I AM ASEXUAL.
I actually can't believe this.

 

Well... I have a problem that I think I'm essentially bisexual... but I feel romantically mainly towards women. I can feel sexually towards men quite intensely, in fantasies, looks etc... but I don't want to be with them... So yeah I would like to call myself homoromantic bisexual... except nobody beleives in it and its just so cumbersome anyway so I don't like it it just seems accurate, because the rest of the time I just feel like I have problems that I need to work out but don't know what. Like, I don't like the label but... its difficult to just go fix myself. Literally your masturbation test doesn't work for me Chip because I get off to guys fine but when I get in situations with guys... once it goes on for more than a few minutes I just drop out of it. Doesn't happen like that with girls. The only thing I can think is some anxious control problems because I am the sorta butcher one with girls so I feel sorta more in control... Or gender confusion because I just feel the need to be the butcher one.

---------- Post added 30th Dec 2016 at 11:23 AM ----------

Oh and I forgot, the actual reason I was interested in this thread is... I really do beleive that attraction in women is sooooo much more mental and can really work in confusing ways. You can tell even from the way gay guys talk about gay feelings when they were younger that made them realise - its usually really obvious sexual attraction, whereas I know that generally its really rare for me just to feel sexual about anybody involuntarily without having concious thoughts that lead to it. It happens... but mostly only when I'm drunk and I'm just suddenly automatically hypersexual.

 

Really? Wow, that's all I can say.

And those same people you rely on so much have never gotten any of their facts or research wrong? Psychology in all its focus areas has been an adaptable, changeable, malleable field which has on more than one occasion go completely in the opposite direction from where it began stating its factual basis.

Secondly, where does the 'research' come from - the bunch of utterly unscientific people who are willing to share and voice their experiences. Why would you Assume that none of us have background in this area, or are not educated enough to understand?

I'll leave the last remark concerning the "tiny-but-noisy communities" alone, as I am hoping that is not how you generally feel and are just frustrated.

---------- Post added 30th Dec 2016 at 08:38 AM ----------

I hate not being able to edit =
* gone completely

 

The common argument I've seen towards not using the split attraction model is that we should work towards desexualizing being LGB. (Saying that people over sexualize LGB and assume it's all about sex.)

I dunno, I feel sometimes people use it because they don't want to label themselves as pan/bi. Other times people use it because they are asexual, which I feel is valdi. So the reasons vary. I think people's label is up to them.

 

There is a few studies which points to differences between love and lust in the brain - https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2...-brain-s-sweet-spot-love-neurological-patient

Differences found in those is a key prediction for the split model, and even a slight difference leads credence to the split model. They're found in those two studies.

So, you would be wrong that there is no support at all, but not enough support is arguable at this point.

As far as asexuality goes - It's at the theoretical finding stage at the moment
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24750031 But, there are few demographic studies, and as far as I'm concerned, neurological-speaking, if someone can have a brain state which allows for feelings of sexuality, you can definitely have the absence of it much in the same way someone can be blind at a neurological level while being sighted is possible. Nothing really rules out asexuality, and for that reason alone, your claims are not warranted.

And yes, there were observed examples of behavioral asexuality in animals. One can be found in rams for example.

There isn't any solid proof of those claims as long as it doesn't always align with how some people describe their own experience and researches on differences between love and lust remain a low-priority. As of now, you can even argue that the split model can exist given large amount of room to be allowed for support of the model given very little studies done on them. Until, there is more studies, there is no certainty as what you can claim.