Autochorissexuality

[ben8884]

Hmm, never heard of this before but it may be part of my asexuality 

 

[PHOENIX97]

This definitely fits me because I'm fine with touching myself but when other people are involved I hate it. It's awkward and uncomfortable for me. The whole thing just feels wrong. 

[PHOENIX97]

Do people not consider us asexual? 

[six-or-one]

On 11/03/2017 at 5:04 PM, Evo41 said:

Do people not consider us asexual? 

 

I consider us asexual. I had a hard time reconciling how I thought about sex in the past. I always thought of sex as good in theory, but the idea of physically doing it was always uncomfortable.

 

I feel more comfortable now, but I still have some minor issues because I have only recently changed my perception of my sexuality from pansexual to asexual. I feel much more comfortable about myself and I've become more confident.

[kani]

1 hour ago, six-or-one said:

 

I consider us asexual. I had a hard time reconciling how I thought about sex in the past. I always thought of sex as good in theory, but the idea of physically doing it was always uncomfortable.

 

I feel more comfortable now, but I still have some minor issues because I have only recently changed my perception of my sexuality from pansexual to asexual. I feel much more comfortable about myself and I've become more confident.

 

Yeah, autochorissexuality raises questions but the fact remains it has little to do with sexual attraction. People are just quick to confuse attraction and arousal. I don't even consider myself gray-ace even though that's been claimed too. I guess individuals can decide what feels best though.

[Dudette]

I am autochorissexual, but then I like to call myself grey cause the name kinda sucks ass.

[Sherlocks]

On 12/4/2016 at 10:42 PM, Crystal7 said:

Yes, it's a mouthful! Any other autochorissexuals here?

 

That sounds about right for me. 

[HonoraryJedi]

I read a description of autochorissexual once and felt that it certainly fit me, when I was uncertain about asexuality itself due not really understanding what 'sexual attraction' meant. According to this thread, it seems there is a lot of variety within autochoris as well^^ It was extremely validating to find the label, even if it took a fair few round before I could remember the name.

 

For me, can enjoy arousal and sexual fantasies and masturbation, but I have no interest in ever having sex with a person and the thought alone makes me kind of uncomfortable. So no fantasies ever include me at all. That's the basis of the label I believe. And preferably should be detached from reality on some level as well. I could never think of real people, be it people I know or celebrities. Characters portrayed by actors in live action a step better, but complete detachment from a real person feels less weird to me. That is also not really surprising from what I gathered from the wiki. The only thing that differs is the third person part. I do sometimes directly relate to one character, though it is still important that they are someone else than me. As though I can only experience this through the eyes of a made up person, if that makes sense.

 

It is confusing because I can have opinions on what I think is "sexy" but nothing will make me want to have sex with a person, so I don't know what that is worth, or if it counts, or how it compares to sexual attraction and asexuality. In the end, I think that the complete lack of desire to have sex makes the asexual label fitting and practical.

[Dudette]

3 hours ago, HonoraryJedi said:

I read a description of autochorissexual once and felt that it certainly fit me, when I was uncertain about asexuality itself due not really understanding what 'sexual attraction' meant. According to this thread, it seems there is a lot of variety within autochoris as well^^ It was extremely validating to find the label, even if it took a fair few round before I could remember the name.

 

For me, can enjoy arousal and sexual fantasies and masturbation, but I have no interest in ever having sex with a person and the thought alone makes me kind of uncomfortable. So no fantasies ever include me at all. That's the basis of the label I believe. And preferably should be detached from reality on some level as well. I could never think of real people, be it people I know or celebrities. Characters portrayed by actors in live action a step better, but complete detachment from a real person feels less weird to me. That is also not really surprising from what I gathered from the wiki. The only thing that differs is the third person part. I do sometimes directly relate to one character, though it is still important that they are someone else than me. As though I can only experience this through the eyes of a made up person, if that makes sense.

 

It is confusing because I can have opinions on what I think is "sexy" but nothing will make me want to have sex with a person, so I don't know what that is worth, or if it counts, or how it compares to sexual attraction and asexuality. In the end, I think that the complete lack of desire to have sex makes the asexual label fitting and practical.

 

Actually, I used to sometimes label the two personas in my 3rd person fantasies as myself and my crush (still do to keep myself sane, and not to start thinking that I am some kind of psycho), even though they have no faces, and different bodies  , but then these fantasies did not translate into reality  , I have learned the semi-hard way what it means sexual attraction vs sexual fantasies. 

 

Also, I had no idea that most people have sexual fantasies in first person  (I read it somewhere on LGBT forum). I tried it, and I don't get it.

[Dudette]

Fuck, I forgot to ask, and I don't feel like starting a new thread.

were you able to have proper sexual fantasies before watching porn or erotica (before I was 16, I didn't have sexual sexual scenes, but more like romantic)?

What I am trying to say is that are your sexual fantasies more like scenes of some porn or erotica which you watch at some point of your life?

[iridian]

1 hour ago, m_p_w said:

Fuck, I forgot to ask, and I don't feel like starting a new thread.

were you able to have proper sexual fantasies before watching porn or erotica (before I was 16, I didn't have sexual sexual scenes, but more like romantic)?

What I am trying to say is that are your sexual fantasies more like scenes of some porn or erotica which you watch at some point of your life?

I had fantasies, like romantic scenes as you say, since i was pre-teen and certainly i didint watch erotica content or anything then, so..

[Dudette]

1 hour ago, jaymes said:

I had fantasies, like romantic scenes as you say, since i was pre-teen and certainly i didint watch erotica content or anything then, so..

my point was whether you were able to create sexual fantasies before you've seen them. When I think about it,  my sexual fantasies was my erected penis (I still like to masturbate in front of a mirror) until I looked up erotica content in my mid-late teen. I just wonder if I didn't have any idea of erotica then would masturbation in front of a mirror be my only sexual fantasy still as grown up person?

 

I think romantic was a wrong word for it but then sexual is kinda also wrong because it does not include two people :/ 

[six-or-one]

2 hours ago, m_p_w said:

Were you able to have proper sexual fantasies before watching porn or erotica?

What I am trying to say is that are your sexual fantasies more like scenes of some porn or erotica which you watch at some point of your life?

I saw hardcore pornography by the age of 7, I doubt I had sexual fantasies before then. I think I probably started in my early teens.

My fantasies are usually brief, and in themselves a little arousing, but boring at the same time. I don't feel like I need to act out the fantasies. They seem unnecessary to put into action. They are usually very abstract.

[Mundane Mesh]

Remember that autochorissexualism doesn't have to be in contrast to asexuality. You don't have to choose to call yourself either autochorissexual or asexual, they are two fully compatible labels. You can choose to identify with both.

 

Regarding the length of the term; I usually just say "autochoris". I think 4 syllables is more than sufficient.

[interpol]

IMO, it's not all that different from being allo. 

 

 

[Mundane Mesh]

3 hours ago, interpol said:

IMO, it's not all that different from being allo.

Except that we, you know, don't desire partnered sex / don't experience sexual attraction...

[200 Ponies]

On 3/20/2017 at 1:05 AM, interpol said:

IMO, it's not all that different from being allo. 

 

 

It kind of is, since it's got nothing to do with attraction to another person. It's more like the way you get aroused, rather than whom you're aroused by. I'm autochorissexual, but I'm asexual first and foremost. I don't experience sexual attraction to other people or a desire to have partnered sex, but I can get physically aroused by porn or erotica (although I don't like it much). I have zero desire to do any of that in real life, and would be very put off from it if it were actually happening.

[iitu2]

On 3/20/2017 at 8:05 AM, interpol said:

IMO, it's not all that different from being allo. 

 

 

Which is why, for the longest time,  I considered myself a broken allo,  a person with serious phobias and anxieties about relationships and sex.

I do not feel I fit in with the allo crowd,  but comments such as this certainly didnt welcome me to join in with the aces.

 

I've know of asexuality for years,  but I had a very narrow view of the spectrum - asexuals in my mind were sexrepulsed aro-aces with zero sexual fantasies.  Obviously I dont fit this bill so I didn't have a sexual identity which I could latch on to and consider healthy.  

[keith1977]

On 20/03/2017 at 6:05 AM, interpol said:

IMO, it's not all that different from being allo. 

 

 

Of course it's different, it describes perhaps the sum total of how some ace people experience arousal. For an allo person, it may also describe SOME of the things which arouse them, but it won't be all of them since sexual attraction will also play a factor for them. Otherwise it's no different to suggesting that because many allos like boobs, and I like boobs, that I'm no different to being an allo.

 

Personally I like that definition, since it gives a name to something I've tried and struggled with putting into words ever since I realised I'm asexual. I don't see it as a replacement definition though, rather a more detailed fine tuning. Like in general I'd describe myself as Asexual. Within that I'd describe myself as Hetero-romantic, but generally only to those in the community who'd know what that meant. And now within those I'd describe myself as Autochorissexual, but realistically I imagine that being more of a description where I want to further clarify where I stand when I get to know someone better, rather than an initial greeting. Crucially, none of those terms negate those which come before them.

 

[Rhaenys]

That word describes me but I kinda don't want to wear that label.

 

[Excal]

I'm an autochorisexual, but outwardly I identify as asexual, since there's not that many people I'm likely to discuss my masturbatory preferences with. 

[Hermit Advocate]

I've never understood the fascination sexuals have with asking ace's if they masturbate. I find it rude. And gross. 

[chair jockey]

4 minutes ago, Hey you in the corner said:

I've never understood the fascination sexuals have with asking ace's if they masturbate. I find it rude. And gross. 

The rationale in the minds of some sexuals is that, if a person masturbates, the person isn't asexual. Masturbation is widely regarded as a substitute for partnered sex instead of what it really is, which is a completely distinct and separate activity from partnered sex. The real problem here is education.

[Hermit Advocate]

Ah education, how you have failed me. 

[kani]

10 hours ago, chair jockey said:

The rationale in the minds of some sexuals is that, if a person masturbates, the person isn't asexual. Masturbation is widely regarded as a substitute for partnered sex instead of what it really is, which is a completely distinct and separate activity from partnered sex. The real problem here is education.

It's hard to answer to that without confusing them even more. Explaining it too briefly might leave them with a wrong impression and getting into too much detail is too much to take in at once. Especially with a person that has hard time believing a healthy straight man wouldn't masturbate at all, and not because of religious reasons, inability or low libido.

 

At least to the "how do you know you wouldn't like sex if you haven't tried (hard enough)?" you can always answer by asking how do they know they're (e.g.) straight if they haven't had sex with a person of the same sex. *sighs* 

[Married with Children]

So, this seems to be an accurate description of me insofar as my mastubatory habits go. My daughter fairly recently came out as Ace and the more I learn about the orientation the more I feel I may be Gray-A. I am married and have two children, so obviously I've had sex. However, my interest in the sex act itself has never been strong. I've orgasmed during penetrative sex, but I've found that to be increasingly rare. Perhaps it is just part of getting older? (I'm 53)

 

I've also been on antidepressants on and off for years and whenever I get asked the question all doctors ask when prescribing these drugs, "How's your sex life", I've always answered "Fine" even though I was thinking  "I've never really had much of a sex drive so how can I tell you it's changed. It's normal for me." 

 

I'm still trying to define for myself whether or not the Gray-A label fits me. However, when I read the definition of  autochorissexual  it feels very accurate. In specific, the idea that arousal is more mental and depersonalized. I never fantasize about myself or from a first person POV. I can get aroused from erotica or porn but am just as likely to be able to watch/read something and experience no arousal, which makes me feel like Gray-A fits as a label. 

 

Its all all very confusing. 😏

[everywhere and nowhere]

The definition on asexual wiki suits me pretty well.

The little problem with autochorissexuality is that it's quite a complicated word. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the "-choris-" stands for, even though I'm often able to analyse the structure of Greek or Latin scientific words.

But I think that "3rd-person sexuality" could be a good and compehensible casual equivalent.

[Ace Spaceman]

I'm autochorissexual. The definition pretty much fits me perfectly. I'm aroused by erotic images and audio, certain types of porn and I masturbate but don't picture myself taking part. Nor do I have any desire to have sex with someone else. It's as simple as "That's arousing to me, I'll masturbate to it" and that's it...pretty detached.

 

When I first discovered asexuality I thought it just pertained to people with no sex drive or sexual attraction, but learning there is a broader spectrum including people with libidos has been quite a revelation to me.

[Lovelykat]

I'm definitely autochrissexual, no doubt about it. I think about sex constantly, but the people in my fantasies are never anyone I know, not even a celebrity could enter my fantasies. Usually it is two characters I made up in my mind that are completely fictional, a random generic pretty blonde girl and a generic large, muscular guy. Oh, and I am never, ever involved in my fantasies. I think that would ruin it for me completely. 

I do like porn, mostly because they are complete strangers I've never seen before I think. 

But yeah, the weird thing is I couldn't even do it to a hot guy I see on the train or anything...just the fact that I've seen him in real life ruins it. 

[null-]

null