> Out of the box, I think this goes against the aforementioned architecture as the ORM couples the domain model with the data model.
It doesn't. You're confusing the persistence model with the domain model. Your persistence model is dictated by your need to persist your data while meeting the requirements of your domain model. Your domain model does not care about your persistence requirements. Your persistence model is bounded to your persistence service and should not leak out, while your domain model is ubiquitous to your system.
Let's put it this way: with a Clean Architecture you are able to add/replace any persistence service you wish, and that has no impact on any other service.
Can you provide a concrete example? I would assume if you wanted to decouple the persistence model from the domain model then you would need to write a separate domain model in Django since the domain and persistence model are tightly coupled.
I'm not very familiar with Django thus my ability to provide relevant examples using this particular framework is limited.
However I direct your attention to the fact that Django docs make it very clear that to them in general each model maps to a single database table. That's quite Spartan even for an ORM, and obviously the point of a domain model is to model a problem domain, not to model the database.
It doesn't. You're confusing the persistence model with the domain model. Your persistence model is dictated by your need to persist your data while meeting the requirements of your domain model. Your domain model does not care about your persistence requirements. Your persistence model is bounded to your persistence service and should not leak out, while your domain model is ubiquitous to your system.
Let's put it this way: with a Clean Architecture you are able to add/replace any persistence service you wish, and that has no impact on any other service.