Even back when I was identifying as aro ace as a teenager, I sort of thought the split-attraction model didn't make much sense. But I just shrugged it off, thinking that as an "aro" I just couldn't understand "romantic attraction".

But I was wrong, it's simply that the concept of "romantic attraction" as an entirely separate entity from "sexual attraction" is bullshit. Consider this, for example; if we're meant to believe that romantic attraction is completely distinct and separate from sexual attraction, then why are "romantic orientations" still based on sex? Heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic... they're all orientations based on attraction to a certain sex or both sexes, right? Isn't attraction to people based on their sex... kinda the very definition of sexual attraction?

Let's take a "heteroromantic asexual" woman for example. She's solely attracted to males... but not due to their maleness, somehow? What, then? What makes her attracted to males but totally not because they're male? When you get down to it, what meaningful, significant distinction is there between a "heteromantic asexual" woman and a low/no libido straight woman? Nothing so far as I can see. And that's when you realize that "romantic attraction" IS sexual attraction... just not accompanied by the sexual desire you might usually expect, perhaps. Although considering that many argue now that "asexuals" can like and want sex, perhaps not even that.

So what I feel is that the split attraction model is bullshit that falls apart as soon as you apply even a little logic and critical thought to it.