I used to be very-open minded to the concept. It still bangs around in my head as a thing that is a logically possible category, but not consistent with reality. If you're making a complete typology, having categories that might exist, sure. These sorts of abstractions can sometimes make clear a confusing, but real thing. I modeled a sort of communication cable today in my engineering job as having an infinite length. Made the math come out wonderfully... but no such thing exists.

Ultimately, I think love and lust are two different sides of the same coin. Maybe it only ever comes up heads.

/u/TransspeciesUnicorn makes a most excellent point that if it's hetero or homo romantic attraction, that is still attraction on the basis of sex. Sex matters.

That being said, I have to pivot and say that not wanting sex, the activity, also very much matters. That's important. These people going on about the split-attraction model might not have that idea quite right, but not wanting sex, that is important to them, and it should be recognized. It makes them stand out quite starkly, and they are different in that way, insofar as much as they are not closeted homosexuals--which would be a typical resolution. I recognize that there are people who are not gay, and are not interested in the activity of sex, are attracted the opposite sex (often; sometimes both and the opposite,) and they are their own thing. It's rough for them. Imagine navigating the world where the majority of people want to initially form a relationship on the basis of a thing that you're either neutral on or disgusted by, naturally.

I'd add that the asexual-crowd definition of "sexual attraction" is far too nebulous. As if you could even get people to agree on the topic of what the adjective "sexual" means. You can't. E.g. are women who engage in penile-anal sex virgins? Some say yes, some say no. Pardon the explicit example. I've seen the research. Opinions about what even constitutes "sex" are quite varied.

Split-attraction is one of these awful semantic arguments where nobody is really playing with a full deck of cards. They will defend their rather bleak conceptualization of things with semantics, in defense of some concept they're not being honest about, or have not realized.

So, I have a lot of criticism for the asexual/split attraction thing, as far as it is presented, but I think it's people trying to make sense out of an uncommon situation. Maybe they'll find their voice. It also strikes me as completely absurd to say that there is only one kind of sexuality that matters--a desire for genitalia, and if you are not in possession of that, then you are not part of the club. There's other things out there, peculiar things, yes, but they still share the same nature.