Jump to content

Questions about autochrissexuality


Lovelykat

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Torquil said:

So, the nervous system (i.e. libido) of can find people attractive, but autochorissexuals themselves do not.  I think what you're calling objective sexual attraction is really libido.  And yes, autochorissexuals have a libido, but they don't experience sexual attraction in the conventional sense.

I think your interpretation goes too far when saying that no aspects of asexual attraction are present, because there has to be something to distinguish autochorissexuals from other types of asexuals who also have a libido but who don't experience sexual attraction. It seems pretty clear from the quotes you provide that Bogaert and Brotto think that autochorissexuals experience non-subjective aspects of sexual attraction, since autochorissexuals are distinguished as lacking only subjective sexual attraction, but not sexual attraction per se. Autochorissexuals still have sexual fantasies, they just don't imagine themselves as participants in their fantasies, so there's still an operative intentional mental element. After all, in the quote you provide Bogaert writes that autochorissexuals may still seek out persistent themes in fantasy and pornography, which suggests an awareness that certain types of sexual imagery create sexual desires and have an arousing effect.

It is also important to keep in mind that autochoirssexuality is distinguished from a different (and so far unnamed) phenomena where people are aroused by sexual imagery in the absence of any mental registration of attraction/desire. Although even in that case, there must be something to distinguish those asexuals from asexuals who do not experience sexual attraction in any form.

Essentially, in each case there is still an experience whereby sexual desires are being directed in some way, which suggests that some aspects of sexual attraction are still operative, whether it is at the non-subjective or even sub-intentional level. Bogaert speculates about autochorissexuals's bodies/nervous systems having a sexual orientation which leads to them becoming aroused by specific sexual content, which would be quite different from say a person becoming accidentally aroused as a result of brushing against a physical object.

I am not entirely sure what to make of the Brotto and Yule quote, since it is speculative and they have yet to develop it into a full fledged concept. Given that sexual people also report autochoris fantasies, it makes sense to say there's a spectrum from completely autochoris (autochoirssexuals) to completely non-autochoirs. That spectrum would mirror the spectrum from no sexual attraction (asexuals) to those who experience sexual attraction to a high degree. I would think, though, that you could have gray-asexuals and demisexuals within each of the two spectrums, hence I'm not sure about Brotto and Yule's speculations that the autochoris spectrum would better explain those experiences. I would be interested to hear any thoughts on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like omphaloskepsis to me. What possible benefit to the human condition accrues from this microscopic nitpicking between desire and attraction, neither of which has any precise meaning?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

This seems like omphaloskepsis to me. What possible benefit to the human condition accrues from this microscopic nitpicking between desire and attraction, neither of which has any precise meaning?

Think of it by analogy to food. If I say that I desire to eat smoked salmon, and have no desire to eat pasta, presumably there is something to explain why I like the one and not the other. In other words, the taste of smoked salmon makes it desirable to me, whereas the taste of pasta makes it seem off-putting. However, I might develop a desire to eat pasta if I was hungry enough and no other food was available, even though I find pasta unappealing. That's why this sort of distinction between attraction and desire is important for explanatory purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Think of it by analogy to food. If I say that I desire to eat smoked salmon, and have no desire to eat pasta, presumably there is something to explain why I like the one and not the other. In other words, the taste of smoked salmon makes it desirable to me, whereas the taste of pasta makes it seem off-putting. However, I might develop a desire to eat pasta if I was hungry enough and no other food was available, even though I find pasta unappealing. That's why this sort of distinction between attraction and desire is important for explanatory purposes.

It doesn't because it's a bad analogy. No one actually needs sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, asexjoe said:

It doesn't because it's a bad analogy. No one actually needs sex.

I don't need to eat smoked salmon either. I could live on pasta. Pasta is a lot cheaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still a bad analogy. If you are starving and had nothing available, you would eat pasta. Anyone would.

 

That explains nothing about sexuality, or lack of sexuality.

 

Plus there is nothing mysterious about wanting to orgasm and loathing, detesting, despising, abjuring and eschewing the very acts depicted in good pornography.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

Still a bad analogy. If you are starving and had nothing available, you would eat pasta. Anyone would.

 

That explains nothing about sexuality, or lack of sexuality.

 

Plus there is nothing mysterious about wanting to orgasm and loathing, detesting, despising, abjuring and eschewing the very acts depicted in good pornography.

You can't see how attraction explains why desires are oriented in one direction rather than another?

Beyond that, I think what you're describing sounds more like sex-repulsion, which is something that I also experience that is distinct from sexual attraction/desire. Granted, I find pornography boring and have never been motivated to watch it, so maybe the comparison isn't as close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have attraction without desire and desire without attraction. I don't understand why either is very interesting to sexuals.

 

I'm not repulsed by sex. I've had lots of it. It just never got me anywhere.

 

I would find more value in this research if they concentrated on something more relevant to asexuals, namely why sexuals can experience sexual intimacy and asexuals can't.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

You can have attraction without desire and desire without attraction. I don't understand why either is very interesting to sexuals.

 

I'm not repulsed by sex. I've had lots of it. It just never got me anywhere.

 

I would find more value in this research if they concentrated on something more relevant to asexuals, namely why sexuals can experience sexual intimacy and asexuals can't.

If you want to explain why a heterosexual person desires to be sexual with members of the opposite sex and not the same sex, you're referencing the force of sexual attraction. And not being sexually attracted to someone tends to make the idea of being sexual with them seem a lot less appealing, hence its relevance to asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 10:54 PM, Pramana said:

It seems pretty clear from the quotes you provide that Bogaert and Brotto think that autochorissexuals experience non-subjective aspects of sexual attraction, since autochorissexuals are distinguished as lacking only subjective sexual attraction, but not sexual attraction per se. Autochorissexuals still have sexual fantasies, they just don't imagine themselves as participants in their fantasies, so there's still an operative intentional mental element.

Sorry for the delay in responding Pramana.  I think that the view you outlined here depends on how you define sexual attraction.  I created this diagram a while back:

 

10r67md.png

In the past, I've argued that sexual attraction is more on the left side.  Sexual desire is somewhere on the right.  And I've also argued that sexual desire is the thing that distinguishes asexual versus non-asexual.  So, if you go along with this, then autochorissexuals (and some other libidoist asexuals) do have sexual attraction.  I'm comfortable with saying this, but we should be clear about how we are defining sexual attraction.  Some people (including the AVEN FAQ) equivocate with including desire as part of sexual attraction, shifting towards the right side of the scale.

 

On 8/13/2017 at 10:54 PM, Pramana said:

there has to be something to distinguish autochorissexuals from other types of asexuals who also have a libido but who don't experience sexual attraction

I understand that there are libidoist asexuals who have a kind of generalized libido that isn't focused enough to be sexual attraction.  I think one has to be careful about how to define this group too though, because the way you first described it, I thought to myself that autochorissexuals also lack "the mental element of sexual attraction".  It's more accurate to say that the distinction is that these libidoist asexuals lack sexual attraction because their libido doesn't have a focused direction, or something along those lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Torquil said:

In the past, I've myself argued that sexual attraction is more on the left side.  Sexual desire is somewhere on the right.  And I've also argued that sexual desire is the thing that distinguishes asexual versus non-asexual.  So, if you go along with this, then autochorissexuals (and some other libidoist asexuals) do have sexual attraction.  I'm comfortable with saying this, but we should be clear about how we are defining sexual attraction.  Some people (including the AVEN FAQ) equivocate with including desire as part of sexual attraction, shifting towards the right side of the scale.

 

I understand that there are libidoist asexuals who have a kind of generalized libido that isn't focused enough to be sexual attraction.  I think one has to be careful about how to define this group too though, because the way you first described it, I thought to myself that autochorissexuals also lack "the mental element of sexual attraction".  It's more accurate to say that the distinction is that these libidoist asexuals lack sexual attraction because their libido doesn't have a focused direction, or something along those lines.

I would agree with the above. I find that the accuracy of AVEN's materials varies, and it appears those materials haven't been updated in years, so I prefer to rely on scientific papers. In that regard, I think one of the issues is that asexuality is forcing psychologists to consider the relationship between sexual attraction and sexual desire more precisely than they have in the past. As for autochorisssexuality, it seems like they're still in the process of refining a vocabulary for discussing it.

I gather that sexual attraction is the innate force that orients sexual desires, so to the extent that there's an innate desire for partnered sex, that would just be sexual attraction. It seems there can also be learned desires for partnered sex, however, such as the example Anthony Bogaert provides in his book of a homosexual man who found that he enjoyed the physical sensations of sex with women, despite not being attracted to women. I think that's why Bogaert maintains a distinction between desire for partnered sex and sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 5:41 PM, Torquil said:

In the past, I've argued that sexual attraction is more on the left side.  Sexual desire is somewhere on the righ

That's a fascinating diagram.  I think for me everything falls largely on the right.  Touch repulsion falls on the left for me, and is my default.  To overcome it, I need to have a sense of trust and comfort with someone, but that is tied to decisional experiences with them--thus desire and attraction wind up toward the right.  Kind of off-topic, but thanks for a cool visualization which is useful for discussion :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 1:41 AM, litanies said:

That's a fascinating diagram.  I think for me everything falls largely on the right.  Touch repulsion falls on the left for me, and is my default.  To overcome it, I need to have a sense of trust and comfort with someone, but that is tied to decisional experiences with them--thus desire and attraction wind up toward the right.  Kind of off-topic, but thanks for a cool visualization which is useful for discussion :)

Thanks litanies.  That was my intention; to have something to clarify discussions around attraction/desire.  It's based on a theory in psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Systems

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
On 7/19/2017 at 5:33 AM, Homer said:

No. Asexuality is a yes/no kind of thing. Do you experience desire for partnered sexual activity/sexusl attraction, ever, at all?

Yes: sexual (which is on a spectrum; the sexuality spectrum)

No: asexual

 

Greysexuality is a part of being sexual, not asexual.

But I don't experience desire for partnered sex ever at all but think I've had some sort of sexual attraction before on rare occasions. It was something more than aesthetic attraction alone and less than desire to have sex with the person. More of a curiosity or openness to have sex with the person. I've figured at times I must have some sort of occasional sexual attraction because I'll have more fun during sex and won't be grossed out or uncomfortable if that person touches me.  If there is no sexual attraction I'm like ugh don't touch me sexually at all. This all feels gray to me and this gray feels way closer to asexuality to me for the whole I'd rather not have sex ever and wouldn't miss it

I feel much closer to the asexual  side than the sexual if I had to pick. Anyhoo I don't think it's that black and white. I wouldn't consider myself asexual and I definitely would not consider myself sexual. I like to say I'm gray asexual and closer to the asexual side of the spectrum but no I don't think I'm just straight up asexual by itself and hell no do I feel anywhere close to sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...