Jump to content

Autochorissexual/Aegosexual? Heard of it?


Flemming

Recommended Posts

Heard of autochorissexual, not of aegosexual. I like sticking to terms I already know, though I have no objection to new ones. All I know is that the description seems to fit me quite well.

Although I don't like the description of autochorissexualism as a paraphelia, I'm also not sure about considering it a sexuality of its own or even a subcategory of asexuality specifically. I can imagine the concept applying to allosexuals as well - the disconnect between an object of fantasy and real desire isn't that strange of a phenomenon, I think. It's just in the context of asexuality it becomes a lot more obvious, as well as a source of confusion for the person in question (such as myself). I might be wrong, but from what I've observed that seems to be the case.

And as for everyone arguing that autochorissexualism negates asexuality, or that it's the same thing as a libido, no. A libido just means that one has a sex drive - a desire to do something about arousal, if you will. Whereas autochorissexualism, while resembling some sort of sexual attraction (depending on your definition of "attraction"), in my case does not feel like what other people describe as "attraction". Attraction, to me, would mean "I want to do sexual stuff with this person," whereas my experience is "I find myself experiencing arousal based on some people (often fictional, though not always) and/or their actions". Do I find myself wanting to involve these other people when acting on that arousal or perform these actions personally? God no, and if I so much as imagine myself in that position it kind of kills everything immediately. I find absolutely no desire in me to have any sort of physical interaction with the people in question, beyond cuddling, but that's unrelated to the subject at hand. I think that sexual attraction had something to do with desire for or desire to be sexually involved with another human being - something that implies a wish to act on an impulse, however mild the wish; not some sort of thing where "that's hot" and "stay the hell away from me, I'm the opposite of interested in doing anything with you" are feelings that coexist in peace and harmony.

Even if it did negate my asexuality, I can swear that I'm genuinely 100% more interested in eating cake than having sex with anyone, so there's really no practical difference between me and your average asexual. And I'm going to keep calling myself "asexual" because it's an easier title than explaining all the various little details that prevent me from being a "normal asexual" to an outside observer who will never spot the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I don't like the description of autochorissexualism as a paraphelia, I'm also not sure about considering it a sexuality of its own or even a subcategory of asexuality specifically. I can imagine the concept applying to allosexuals as well - the disconnect between an object of fantasy and real desire isn't that strange of a phenomenon, I think. It's just in the context of asexuality it becomes a lot more obvious, as well as a source of confusion for the person in question

This. I feel very much the same way. ^_^

And as for everyone arguing that autochorissexualism negates asexuality, or that it's the same thing as a libido, no. A libido just means that one has a sex drive - a desire to do something about arousal, if you will.

Yes, I for example am asexual and I have no sex drive, because of that I also don't entertain actual sexual fantasies either. However slightly before discovering and coming to terms with my asexuality I realized that when I read something with erotic content I can and sometimes do experience arousal. Discovering that was pretty alienating for me personally, because before I had never understood what sexual arousal was and then when I actually felt something in kind, I still did not want to act on it in any way, which honestly made feel broken in a way. When I randomly learned of the term autochorissexualism it helped make sense of part of it, realizing and accepting my asexuality, plus reading up on libido ended the rest of any confusion on my part. I can enjoy reading erotic fiction from time to time, but it's not something that impacts my asexual identity.

So yeah, I'm all for acknowledging the word's existence as something useful because it is. Just not universally, but that doesn't make it in any way irrelevant. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Plenty of straight, gay, and bisexual people watch stuff that turns them on too without wanting to be in the scenario themselves. (Really, how else would you have all these fandoms?) I know there's research on fairly common sexual fantasies, and watching other people is one of them. So I think this is more of a trait/fetish, not an orientation in and of itself and not a subset of one either.

I will get a lot of hate for this but I also don't really accept the concept of a spectrum. You either are or you aren't ace/bi/pan/whatever. I do accept that your drive might change. If someone is bi or pan, they may experience attraction to one subset of people more often at some times than others. But there's no way someone is straight one minute and gay the next; there's no way someone is ace one minute and horny the next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh! There IS a word for this! I never really saw this discussed, but yes it's a thing, it's not just me! I was going to create a thread to ask that! *is the type that needs labels for every little thing* I'm going to describe myself as asexual AND autochorissexual now. That's possible, right? :)

[TMI? haha I feel weird discussing this] I don't have a libido per se if I understand the concept correctly (there's no actual "need" for me to "take care of", I can happily go months without release and not even think about it), but I can get aroused. And I have certain 'fetishes', or whatever the word is, that I won't go into detail about, I've never disclosed those to anyone before because it's embarrassing to me. So I sometimes fantasize in my head or even draw stuff, usually involving characters I made up, but I've noticed that I'm personally NEVER present in any of the scenarios. The moment I try to include my own person (and I have tried because I thought it was weird not to), it just totally kills the whole thing. I've imagined things from the perspective of one of the characters before, yes, but there was still a degree of detachment - just to imagine their point of view, not to insert myself into the fantasy, if that makes any sense at all. Difficult to describe. I wonder why it is that way, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sage Raven Domino

I classify autochorissexuality as a particular case of asexuality (partly because I feel more comfortable under the ace umbrella). though some people disagree. My reasoning is that the criterion is whether someone craves sexual interaction with another person (including fantasies); that no other person is needed to fufill the libido is a fundamental difference from sexuals - they need to involve a sexual partner but aces can do without engaging another person in sexual activities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I classify autochorissexuality as a particular case of asexuality (partly because I feel more comfortable under the ace umbrella). though some people disagree. My reasoning is that the criterion is whether someone craves sexual interaction with another person (including fantasies); that no other person is needed to fufill the libido is a fundamental difference from sexuals - they need to involve a sexual partner but aces can do without engaging another person in sexual activities.

Except so can sexuals, because some of them are quite content with taking care of it themselves, especially if they're convinced nobody else will understand them. I don't think that's auto sexual either; I think that's just "I know myself best."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting slightly disturbed by the fact people are trying to discredit my asexuality because I experience autochorisexualism.

Yeah... gonna have to agree that is very annoying. Lots of aces look at porn and become aroused (I personally do not, but I lack a libido). Some aces even think about sex. But, does that TRULY make one "sexual"? Of all the sexuals I know, they would all say no. So, stop telling people they aren't asexual cause of it people. :P

If you want to use this label, it's fine. Personal choice. I don't think society at large will memorize it any time soon though, so you will still likely have to explain what you mean. I would just say "libidoist asexual" personally, if I had that experience.

That's kind of where I am. I am a libidoist asexual, however I am not a autochorissexual. So, I can see how saying "I'm a libidoist asexual" can be both helpful and confusing. Outside of AVEN...well, I usually just say I'm straight and leave it at that, but when I do get into a discussion of sexuality, I tell people I'm asexual. But even then I have to go into a big ol' long explaination about how no, I don't not have sex and yes, I can still be asexual even though I enjoy sex and....basically it's mainly frustrating experience as I'm told repeatedly that my active sex drive somehow makes me heterosexual and that I'm just confused.

I appreciate this discussion and I don't know why people rush to dismiss it. Personally, I'm always looking for new vocabulary - the more words I can find to help me describe something as weird and squiggly as feelings, the better - even if it's only in my own head. I don't think anyone's expecting a bunch of new terms to be adopted by the Public At Large. At least not any time soon. So, there's no such thing as having too many words, in my opinion -

That's kind of how I feel. Do we need all the words? Probably not, but right now, all these new terms are super helpful to some people (myself included). My mother teaches Special Ed, and this is something they deal with; terms. People fall on a spectrum in the sped department. Where you fall on the spectrum or when certain aspects are different than other students on the same spectrum, etc, will determine your exact "label" in the sped department, but they still have umbrella terms for their students. "Autistic" is an umbrella term, much like asexual, but there are specific types and subsets of autism. I have no issue, and even encourage, different subset terms to come about, because, like in my mother's job, the exact label can help you know how to teach the person.

I classify autochorissexuality as a particular case of asexuality (partly because I feel more comfortable under the ace umbrella). though some people disagree. My reasoning is that the criterion is whether someone craves sexual interaction with another person (including fantasies); that no other person is needed to fufill the libido is a fundamental difference from sexuals - they need to involve a sexual partner but aces can do without engaging another person in sexual activities.

Except so can sexuals, because some of them are quite content with taking care of it themselves, especially if they're convinced nobody else will understand them. I don't think that's auto sexual either; I think that's just "I know myself best."

And this is why I sum up asexuality as pretty much "lack's sexual attraction." Because the rest, all this "do you engage in sexual activity?" or "do you prefer partnered sex?" or "do you have a libido?" etc questions just add a level of confusion (at least for me). And thus adds weight to why I think we should be open to subsets. Because what if you lack sexual attraction, but engage in sexual activity? Or what if you lack sexual attraction but don't engage in sexual acitivity? What if you lack sexual attraction but prefer partnered sex? (And there are several reasons why one might; emotional connection, a partner can get at the angle I can't, less effort on my part if I don't have to think about it and therefore can get lost in what I'm feeling...and those are just my reasons, I'm sure there are others that have different). If we keep the definition of asexual simple, and then expand from there in case someone wants a more specific term, than we can help a lot of questioning people to figure out exactly where they fall.

OK, I went on a bit of soap box stand there. And I fully understand that some people prefer the basic terms (hetero, homo, bi, pan, a, etc) for describing the attractions, and there's nothing wrong with just sticking with those. But for some people, figuring out where we fall on the spectrum is just as important as learning what spectrum we belong to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Homeostasis

I just made this account today to say that I'm glad I found these terms. I've been thinking I might be asexual for some time now, but it didn't really feel... right. But neither did any other orientation. It was really confusing. I didn't know what I am, but now I've found a word for it. I'm glad I found this. :D

As for people who say having a word for this is unnecessary, I just have to say that having a word for it helped me out quite a bit. It's cleared things up for me. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think, after looking more at it, that autochorissexuals are sexual, not asexual. Being sexual doesn't mean you are ready to have sex. Or even want it at this particular stage. But if you're looking at people who are doing it, and enjoying it, honestly to me that sounds like your average sexual's brain at work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think, after looking more at it, that autochorissexuals are sexual, not asexual. Being sexual doesn't mean you are ready to have sex. Or even want it at this particular stage. But if you're looking at people who are doing it, and enjoying it, honestly to me that sounds like your average sexual's brain at work.

But the difference is that your average sexual would actually want to have sex with another person. An a(n)egosexual/autochorrissexual on the other hand would most likely to never even bother with it as they don't want that in the first place. An autochorrissexual may be looking at porn and doing the deed for 40 years, but yet never want to have that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new word sounds interesting, does anyone happen to know what the latin roots for it are?

Autochoris- is Greek:

Auto = self; choris = apart, separate from

Anego- is Latin:

A- (an- if the second morpheme starts with a vowel, so the word must correctly be anego-, not "*aego-") = not, without; ego = I (i.e., first person singular)

I had a feeling the conjugation was off o: I feel all vindicated now haha

I use it alongside placiosexual to be very precise about my experience, because I confused it with basic heterosexuality for a very long time, and was confused when the ego part of sex was so underwhelming. It was really important to me to realize that this is a thing other people experience -- enjoying sex in theory, but not so much in practice.

But as with most parts of my identity, I only roll out the specifics when I feel like the other person could understand. Most people don't hear the word 'agender,' so instead, I just challenge their biological essentialist assumptions. This is the same sort of thing: asexual is a word enough people understand, and we only need to get into the nitty-gritty if the other person feels like going that deep into the subject. But as precise language goes...I feel comfortable saying it's changed my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think, after looking more at it, that autochorissexuals are sexual, not asexual. Being sexual doesn't mean you are ready to have sex. Or even want it at this particular stage. But if you're looking at people who are doing it, and enjoying it, honestly to me that sounds like your average sexual's brain at work.

Well that's your opinion and that's fine, but unless someone who identifies with the term also identifies as sexual the point is moot, right? edit: While I suppose you don't mean to sound rude or invalidating, it seems kind of the same as if someone posted that they thought that 'aromantics maybe just aren't ready for a relationship'. :blink:

Just like being libidoist doesn't make one less asexual just because sexuals can be libidoists too, finding personal use in the term autochorissexual doesn't invalidate anyone's orientation either in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Autochorisexuality A disconnection between oneself and a sexual target/object of arousal; may involve sexual fantasies, or arousal in response to erotica or pornography, but lacking any desire to be a participant in the sexual activities therein. Commonly found in asexual people; an analogous feeling may occur in aromantic people for romantic fantasies. (Anthony Bogaert)

I reccently discovered this term on a tumblr post and I thought it fit me quite well. I was surprised that I hadn't heard of it before as I'm active on aven (even if I'm just lurking). It made me quite happy that I found it because sometimes I felt like I might not really be asexual because I still enjoyed thinking of sex but not participating. Then I wondered if I hadn't heard of it, how many other asexual people hadnt? Thus, the post.

My only problem with it is that Anthony Bogaert, the guy who originally coined the term despite not being asexual himself, used it to describe a paraphilia (like a kink) and not a sexuality. As I have seen a lot of people identify with this term since researching this and finding out more about it, I don't think it's a kink (which didnt even make sense in the first place, honestly). Someone on tumblr who was autochorissexual themself came up with a new term, 'Aegosexual', which is NOT a mouthful and has something to do with latin root words.

If you are (or even if you aren't, use your imagination) autochorissexual, would you rather identify as aego- or autochoris-? Have you heard of either of these terms before?

Dunno if this is so much a sexuality as just a psychological phenomenon as I've always had it when enjoying lesbian erotica. As a man I enjoy watching two women together but have no interest in participating or even being present as then the setting would be ruined. Like a wildlife researcher observing secretly. If they intervene, the behaviour they wish to observe changes. So they keep their presence covert. As with enjoying some porn, you like what you're watching but don't wanna change it with your presence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If I can shake the negative connotation off the word, you're really describing a sense of voyeurism. And that's definitely one dimension of it, sure. But (and other anegosexuals can correct me if their experiences differ), another dimension is that crossing the line into participation is always less pleasurable.

Somebody who is egosexual can be a voyeur or a participant, though perhaps in different circumstances. Somebody who is anegosexual can't make that shift -- at least, not while getting the same level of sexual gratification. For example, because my sexuality is mashed into placating my partner, I can participate. But the pleasure I feel is emotional -- bonding with my partner by pleasing them, feeling appreciated, and even feeling sensual pleasure by being close to them, etc. But my partner can't please me the same way I please them, because I can't get sexual gratification as a participant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Heard about it, all over the damn place

Still don't get what makes it different from just saying "I'm a libidoist asexual that just doesn't want to have sex"

close but not close enough :) because from my experience as an autochorrisexual I'm a libidoist asexual only when it comes to autochorrisexualism (when I masturbate while seeing an object of arousal ) but a non libidoist asexual when it comes to actual sex, not only because I don't want sex but more so because I experience nothing from actual sex. So to just say that I'm a libidoist asexual that just doesn't want to have sex ...is not so accurate. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

When I bring up a memory of a cuddly moment (that I was enjoying!) I somehow get a picture of seeing us as if I was a third person observer, as if I were an artist drawing us. It is very strange!

That's completely normal, it's not disassociation.

I might get hate for this but I don't think autochoris.. etc belongs with asexuality. It's a sexual who just doesn't want to have sex, for various reasons. It's used to describe people who get attracted to fictional characters/cartoons etc, right? That's still sexual attraction. So, in my opinion, if you're autochoris you are not ace. (Shrug)

No, a sexual person IS a person who desires to have sex. Someone who does not is COMPLETELY asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDUCATION TIME

(will put in links to mentioned content tomorrow)

It seems that the newbies are the ones that aren't informed on what are normal masturbatory habits and think their own experiences are unusual. They're not. For one, according to both the creator of the term and AVEN's wiki, anego IS an asexual. Yes, the word ends in sexual and sounds like an orientation, but it's not. Yes, masturbation is sexual, but it is not a sexuality; those denote who you desire to have sex with. The word asexual is not literal; just like the other orientations. Asexuals can masturbate (with or without erotica) and sexually compromise; those two things are sexual. Despite the prefix herero meaning different, Heterosexuals do not desire the opposite sex and intersex people. Homosexual people do not desire only their twin, Bi people do not desire only two people.

 

Sexualarousal is not sexual attraction, and the two not matching up is not disassociation but completely normal for both sexual and asexual people. When someone has a fetish-- let's say a foot fetish-- they do not (usually) desire to have sex with feet. They find feet sexually arousing, and (again) there is no disassociation. Sexuals and asexuals masturbate to porn that contain people they're not sexually attracted to. Heterosexual women commonly watch female on female porn. Gay women commonly watch male on male porn. There's a study proving that it's common for (sexual) women to get sexually aroused by almost any kind of erotica; that includes ones with people they don't sexually desire and animals. What people describe as anegosexual is completely normal for both sexuals and asexuals.

 

The only reason anego/autochrous even exists is because of an ignorant sexologist who can't even tell the difference between sexual arousal and sexual attraction and confuses it for dissociation. And then someone found this term in an old medical paper and started using it relatively recently. Just because you don't sexually desire what arouses you doesn't mean there's disassociation; it's common for sexual people to not have sexual attraction line up with sexual desire and or with sexual arousal. Sometimes sexual people are't in the mood to masturbate despite arousal, sometimes sexual people want sex but are't getting aroused or even attracted to their partner at the time, etc. It's normal. And them never matching up for asexuals is normal.

 

The reason we have libidoist in the first place is because of non-libidoists who felt unrelateable to the majority of people; asexuals and sexuals. Which is fine. And if you want to be proud of masturbating then use libidoist, but no one needs to know the specifics on how you masturbate. What's next, we come up with orientations for people who fap to fetishes, to hetero porn, to gay porn, etc.? NO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDUCATION TIME

(will put in links to mentioned content tomorrow)

It seems that the newbies are the ones that aren't informed on what are normal masturbatory habits and think their own experiences are unusual. They're not. For one, according to both the creator of the term and AVEN's wiki, anego IS an asexual. Yes, the word ends in sexual and sounds like an orientation, but it's not. Yes, masturbation is sexual, but it is not a sexuality; those denote who you desire to have sex with. The word asexual is not literal; just like the other orientations. Asexuals can masturbate (with or without erotica) and sexually compromise; those two things are sexual. Despite the prefix herero meaning different, Heterosexuals do not desire the opposite sex and intersex people. Homosexual people do not desire only their twin, Bi people do not desire only two people. Sexual arousal is not sexual attraction and the two not matching up is not disassociation but completely normal for both sexual and asexual people. When someone has a fetish, let's say a say foot fetish, they do not desire to have sex with feet, they find feet sexually arousing and (again) there is no disassociation. Hetrosexual women commonly watch lesbian pron. Gay women commonly watch gay male porn. There's a study proving that it's common for (sexual) women to get sexually aroused by almost any kind of erotica; that includes ones with people they don't sexually desire. What people describe as anegosexual is completely normal for both sexuals and asexuals.

The only reason anego/autochrous even exists is because of an ignorant sexologist who can't even tell the difference between sexual arousal and sexual attraction and confuses it for dissociation. Just because you don't sexually desire what arouses you doesn't mean there's disassociation; it's common for sexual people to not have sexual attraction line up with sexual desire and or with sexual arousal; sometimes sexual people are't in the mood to masturbate despite arousal, sometimes sexual people want sex but are't getting aroused or are attracted to their partner at the time, etc. It's normal; and them never matching up for asexuals is normal. Sexuals and asexuals masturbate to porn that contain people they're not sexually attracted to. The reason we have libidoist in the first place is because of non-libidoists who felt unrelateable to the majority of people; asexuals and sexuals. Which is fine. And if you want to be proud of masturbating then go by libidoist, but no one needs to know the specifics on how you masturbate. What's next, we come up with orientations for people who fap to fetishes, to hetero porn, to gay porn, etc.? NO.

I think the issue here is that people feel that allosexuality (particularly heterosexuality) can be taken for granted but asexuality must be justified. I'm guessing that those who feel a connection with this term do so because before they heard it they didn't really feel like they could be asexual but didn't feel like anything else either. People of all orientations can feel aroused when seeing or imagining people they aren't sexually attracted to do sexual acts. Many straight women watch lesbian porn and I knew one lesbian who enjoyed watching gay porn. Obviously not all people who identify as asexual feel the same way about everything, but that doesn't automatically invalidate their asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of straight, gay, and bisexual people watch stuff that turns them on too without wanting to be in the scenario themselves. (Really, how else would you have all these fandoms?) I know there's research on fairly common sexual fantasies, and watching other people is one of them. So I think this is more of a trait/fetish, not an orientation in and of itself and not a subset of one either.

I will get a lot of hate for this but I also don't really accept the concept of a spectrum. You either are or you aren't ace/bi/pan/whatever. I do accept that your drive might change. If someone is bi or pan, they may experience attraction to one subset of people more often at some times than others. But there's no way someone is straight one minute and gay the next; there's no way someone is ace one minute and horny the next.

Being "horny" is related to libido and not to attraction. When I feel aroused I hardly ever find partnered sex appealing(in reality or fantasy).

People aren't factory made with a clear cut sexual orientation in mind. In reality their is a huge amount of variation between humans in a vast amount of areas. For example, some people think entirely in pictures while others aren't even capable of visualizing objects in their minds. Most people fall between these two extremes. It makes sense to think of sexuality and asexuality in terms of spectrums because that's how they exist in reality. Applying black and white thinking to this situation only distances it from reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I call myself an asexual. I think we need to embrace that asexuals are diverse without trying to find a new word for every single feeling. Sure, it may shorten explaining it, but only if people are previously aware of what the term means. I'd rather that, if I want someone to know the kind of asexual I am, I explain it without all the jargon. I find having too many labels and sublabels slightly ridiculous. /unpopular opinion

Agree 100%. Some try to make things far more complicated than they need to be. It's almost like they think everyone should have their own little personal branch of the spectrum (eyes rolling).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is actually pretty depressing. Why are we arguing each other's asexuality? How is it anyone else's job or right to decide whether or not someone is asexual?

I apologize if I sound defensive, but I've taken it more personally than I probably should. I would agree that autochorisexuality is not a sexuality in itself, and I don't use the term for myself, although it definitely does apply to me. There is a separation between myself and the sexual situations I fantasize about, never putting myself in the position of either party, but enjoying it from a voyeuristic perspective. But that doesn't make me any less asexual. My enjoyment of watching sexual situations doesn't make me any less repulsed by the idea of sexual contact with another person. It doesn't define who I am or am not attracted to.

Even if I don't use the 'autochorisexual' label, I'm glad the word exists. If for no other reason than it means I'm not the only one that operates that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're arguing because some ppl think anego ISN'T asexuality and ISN'T normal/IS disassociation.

If you want to be happy that you're not the only one who operates that way then go to an educating asexual thread, that's all people need, not this word. Not to mention it ending in sexual is very problamatic; it makes it look like/people think it's a sexual orientation. Someone has suggested it be replaced with Anegoerotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel kind of strongly about this, because it was the word "autochorissexual" that led me to believe I was probably on the asexual spectrum. Up until I discovered it, I thought that I couldn't possibly be asexual, because I would watch porn/read erotica in order to get off and I enjoyed it. But I didn't like sex, and not just in the sense that I wasn't physically enjoying it/wasn't attracted to a particular partner/etc. I didn't like sex at all. When I had romantic feelings toward someone, I never imagined myself having sex with him or even kissing him; I might imagine him having sex with someone else, but I was never a part of it, and I didn't want to be a part of it, even as a voyeur--I wanted it to stay entirely in the realm of fantasy. And when push came to shove, there was always something I'd rather be doing than having sex; I found it boring and pointless, because I could do a better job getting myself off, we could be watching a movie instead, etc.

For the longest time, all of this made me think I was just broken. I felt like something had gone wrong, because a "normal" person would be able to translate her sexual fantasies into reality, but I couldn't and didn't even really want to (except to be "normal"). So discovering that other people who identify as asexual have experienced what I have is a big deal to me, because it means I can stop worrying that I need to be "fixed." I'm still not sure exactly how I identify--I wouldn't call myself completely asexual, because sexual "things" (erotica, etc.) are still a part of my life--but I do think that asexuality is a better description than anything else I've encountered. I could easily go the rest of my life without having sex, and I don't think that's something most sexual people would say.

I guess what I'm saying is: the word itself doesn't matter so much to me, but it's important to me that people who experience this not just be lumped in with sexual people. Because I lumped myself in with other sexual people while knowing I wasn't the same, and it made me feel terrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, your previous problem would have been solved with proper education, which is readily avalable in AVEN's FAQ, not this word. The same assumption/question comes up with aromantics too; "I like fictional romance, does that mean I'm not aromantic?" The answer is no; that is completely normal for aromantics. There is no disassociation or anything. Just like any person, being for another couple and understanding their passion for eachother is not dissasociation, it's normal. A gay person being for a straight couple doesn't mean that person's Bi. Misconceptions like this are even common among sexual people; many monosexuals ask themselves if they're Bi because they find someone outside their current orientation as aesthetically attractive. Answer is, if that's all they're feeling then no, they just find someone beautiful and nothing more.

It's called educatiin. If anything, the banner definition should be changed to the many agreed definition of "an asexual does not inherently desire sex." Maybe then misconceptions like that wouldn't happen. Or maybe the FAQ should be in big red letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I'm so happy I found the term and definition on tumbler. I've been very confused about my sexuality for a very long time, but I think I'm finally figuring it out thanks to a reblogged post. Weird.

I thought I was hetero. I mean I always have a crush on some celebrity or character or something, so obviously I'm sexual, right? Except I don't fantasize about having sex with my crush; sometimes I am a character watching or I'm not in the scenario at all. I like being in a relationship. Except while I like cuddling and kissing, I've never enjoyed any sexual activity. The first partner, I thought the problem was he didn't know what he was doing (which he didn't, but). The second, I thought we just weren't sexually compatible. But the third was into the stuff I liked in my fantasies and he was good at doing what I asked to try to make it better. At that point I think my brain just fried and gave up on figuring it out.

Well, I love erotic fanfic and lot of the stuff I like is written by asexuals (which maybe should have been a clue), so I am following several asexuals even though I didn't identify as one. Then one of them reblogged about being autochorisexual. It's the first description that actually fits me. I was surprised to find it was on the asexual spectrum, but after reconsidering my sexual history with the question "Am I asexual?" in mind, I realized I've confused romantic and sensual feelings with sexual attraction. My boyfriends have never "turned me on".

After 8 years of not dating at all because I felt like something's wrong with me, I might even try dating again, only identifying as asexual and not forcing myself to have sex because I think I'm suppose to want sex if I'm romantically involved with someone.

It may be easy to dismiss when it doesn't apply to you (thanks a lot for that, btw), but you might feel differently if it turns your whole world right side up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please just go to this thread and educate yourself on what an asexual actually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all asexuals have a libido. Hence we use phrases like libidoist/nonlibidoist.

Not all asexuals find people attractive in ways other than sexually. We have terms for those too. For example, "sensual attraction".

Not all asexuals find people, fictional or otherwise, sexually arousing under certain circumstances without wanting sex with them. Therefore we use terms like "autochorrisexual". It's not something all asexuals experience. Actually, it's something people from any sexual orientation can experience - think of lesbians who watch male gay porn, or straight women who watch lesbians. It's specifically important to people in the asexual community because, with the lack of actual comparison, it can be easily mistaken for sexual attraction and mislead people about whether or not they're under the asexual umbrella. That doesn't make it ace-exclusive.

So, yeah, maybe it's definitely included with a close reading of the definition of asexuality. That doesn't make it the same thing as asexuality, or mean that there's anything wrong with having a word for it, and telling people to just "educate themselves on asexuality" is a bit misleading and inaccurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Refer to http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/123256-asexuality-sexual-orientation-lexicon-read-me/:

OTHER LABELS AND SUB-LABELS:

Aegosexual/Autochorissexual- A person with a disconnect between themselves and the target of their sexual attractions/desires

Also:

Other questions/wonderings

Help! I can't decide which word is right for me!

The labels you chose to use are entirely your choice. No one else can tell you which word is right for you. It can be daunting to look at so many terms and try to pick just one. It is absolutely okay to not know which word you want to use. It is also okay to change your mind over time. It is all up to you. Don't stress if you don't have a "place" yet. Take the time to reflect on your own, and choose the word that is the best for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I searched for a while before I discovered these terms, and It was like a Lightbulb moment!

I'm definitely allosexual (homosexual) but I've always preferred masturbation over partnered sex, I certainly have a disconnect between fantasy and reality where my arousal is concerned. I don't actually enjoy or want real sex. 95% of my arousal stimulation is visual and the other 5% aural (sound) - I'm not actually into all the bodily contact and associated stimulus's which most allosexuals like about actual sex.

can you have an active sex life without actually having sex? I feel my imagination is so diverse - I'm probably having a better sex life inside my mind than most sexually active people!

I think the asexual community is much more understanding of such variants, and hense why I like these forums and associated discussions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...