• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues May/June   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! Our theme this time was "ace connections".  May/June
Siggy

Autochorissexualism

28 posts in this topic

"Asexuality and Autochorissexualism (Identity-less sexuality)"

It's a two page paper proposing autochorissexualism (choris=without, auto=self/identity), a sexuality that "involves a 'disconnect' between an individual’s sense of self and a sexual object/target." It seems to be based on this thread, where several people said that if they had sexual fantasies, the fantasies did not involve their own participation.

So, any thoughts? I think it would be funny if autochorissexualism suddenly became a popular term, bringing up the average number of syllables per word in the asexual community.




2015 Edit - For future reference, hers's the abstract:


I present evidence that target-oriented paraphilias may occur in some who report no sexual attraction for others or those who identify as asexual. One target-oriented paraphilia in some asexual people is a disconnection between their identity and a sexual target/object. I name this phenomenon [/size]autochorissexualism or “identity-less” sexuality.


If anyone needs the full paper, please PM me or the Project Team.

Edited by ithaca
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Aven and some of it's members like to make new stuff up so hey why not. Who's turn is it next month?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrrm. It's an interesting topic.

The idea also seems that it can go multiple ways, but Bogaert seems to be focusing on dissociation of one's self from the act - as in, being aroused by people, but dissociating your own "self" from the fantasy - i.e. fantasizing about situation not involving yourself. (I'm going to give this a better read through later)

Personally, though, I tend to be more interested in the idea of dissociation of the act from the individuals involved in the act: for example, in my personal experience, I can sometimes get aroused by things that are sexually charged - fanfiction, art, even scientific articles occasionally. However, what is noticeable is that it's not an attraction to any particular participants in the act, but to the idea of the act itself. It's another theme that I've actually seen in other discussions of masturbation, fantasy, etc: that many people can still be aroused by sexual activity or sensations, but that the interest is in the act, not the other people involved - a dissociation of the acts themselves from the people involved. (Although this may often be paired with dissociation of ones own participation from the idea of the act as well.) In cases like this, erotic material can be arousing because it is a representation of situtations, regardless of whether one is particularly interested in the people. For example, a straight man watching a porn video of heterosexual intercourse may not be particularly sexually attracted to the male participant, but the participant is still necessary to represent the act of interest (intercourse). Similarly, an asexual who has interest in certain acts or situation may be interested in material which involves that situtation, without actually having any interest in the participants.

And of course this likely does tie into or maybe overlap Bogaerts idea of autochorissexualism sometimes: in addition to a lack of interest in other participants of the act, it is also possible that many asexuals may also have no interest in necessarily having themselves involved either, as the focus is on an act rather than on any particular individuals.

Bogaert does sort of mention that possibility in the article, he just never follows up on it. But I do think that if there's any other follow up on this that the participant/act dissociation would definitely be something that should be explored.

In particulart, Bogaert mentions this:

A typical target sequence in humans can be summarized by the following sentence: ‘‘I am attracted to him/her.’’ In those who have alterations in typical target processing, the I and/or the him/her in this sentence do not operate in traditional ways.

So, basically, in this process, Bogaert is arguing that in autochorissexualism, the difference is that the "I" is not as included, whereas I am more interested in the way that perhaps, instead of having the "to" argument apply to a person, it may apply instead to an act, situation, or sensation, without interest in the actual participants.

Overall, though, I think this does reflect a common sentiment that I've seen pop up now and then in the community: that erotically charged material can induce an erotic response, even when the subject may not be particularly interested in any of the participants being involved, or even in being involved oneself.

It may also tie into a difference between active attraction and passive, responsive interest: many people may be able to respond to depictions of sexual acts, but may have no desire or motivation to actually actively engage in them or seek them out.

(Although, wow, that is such a long and awkward word to say. au-to-cho-ris-sex-u-al-is-m. I guess just calling it dissociation was too boring? I admit, making up new words can be kinda fun...)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sort of felt like standard asexual community theorizing, except now it's the subject of academic study! It feels validating somehow? The world's experts figured out that the best way to understand asexuality is to ask asexuals what they think. 8)

In my own experience, it's more about sexually charged situations, or things that remind me of sex. Imagining my own participation, or thinking about the other people who participate has never really been a part of it. Now I can explain this to people by telling them I'm autochorissexual, and they will cower in awe of my sesquipedalian. Yesssss

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one interesting and refreshing article, thanks for posting.

How much more interesting and productive it is for research when instead of automatically trying to explain away observed data as irrelevant, impossible or a priori flawed, you take it for what it is and try suggesting what is underlying it. The hypothesis might turn out to be wrong, but at least exploring it is a move forward.

(And also, how nice that someone with 2pp worth of article writes a good and forceful 2pp article, rather than hiding it in 20pp of drivel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww dammit, I thought that's how everyone felt about sexual interaction..... bother. I'm sitting here reading, thinking what the hell does sexual arousal have to do with self or perceptions of self or others? obviously for some, it has a lot to do with it. But because of my own perceptions of sexuality being detached from my sense of selft, is it possible that this anthropomorphism on my part means that I instinctively believe that others are impersonal and detached about sex like I am, so I see their constant pursuit of it as kind of an inexplicable encroachment by them, on my idea of self?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite a mouthful, and not something I'd expect to be on a list of standard asexual vocabulary terms, but that description actually fits me very well. I had wondered if anyone was similar and whether that made me more in the gray area of asexuality. I can have a physical reaction to reading something explicit about people who are not me, but if I try to imagine myself in a similar situation ...

nop-nope-octopus.gif

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy crap, I think I might be autochorisromantic :o

EDIT:

although, it seems "choris-" is not a common term, that "a-" "ab-" and "ex-" may be better alternatives... but what do I know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I had seen a post on Tumblr about autochorissexualism, and it inspired me to look back into my own sexual orientation, and I re-looked at definitions of types of attractions. I also googled autochorissexualism and found this thread. I made this account yesterday, but a few years ago I had an account here, and that was when I figured out my gender identity and that I was at least not fully sexual. I used to think I was grey-ace, but now use asexual.

I actually like saying autochorissexualism, but I've always loved words (especially huge ones) so I may just be weird. (Atually I know I'm weird :) ) Autochorissexualism sounds better than autoabsexualism and autoexsexualism imo. Autoasexualism sounds interesting.

I may be bit autochorissexual I guess. For me it really is more the event that the person or people, and I would not want to be part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so happy to have seen a post about this on Tumblr, because... this is totally me. Like, I am a very "sexual" person, but only when I'm not involved. The mere idea of romance and/or sex outside of fictional characters gives me anxiety. It's a strange condition, and, 'til now, it had me thinking I couldn't be asexual or sexual. But now I know there are people like me and I guess it's under the asexuality umbrella so that makes things easier for me when it comes to explaining my lack of romantic/sexual attraction to people. Aesthetic attraction? Hells yes. But anything beyond that (when existing outside of fiction or "shipping") seriously makes me uncomfortable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel freaking great because I finally found my sexuality, because even lithsexual didn't descripe exactly what I am. Now I know. Names for things are so important! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thatsit_zpsadb067f2.jpg

Finally. Now I know it's actually a... thing. It wasn't until recently that I realized there was a difference for me when it came to sexual fantasies and sexual realities. I've never been in a relationship before, romantic or sexual, so I never had to find out first hand or have that discussion with anyone. There wasn't really an obvious indiction that I'm not personally interested in sex with another person other than the fact that I just don't really think about it, whereas I guess most people do? When I'd develop a crush on someone, it was always for the opposite sex but always purely romantic. However, I do experience arousal when watching/imagining sexual fantasies played out (and my preferences there range far and wide), as long as they don't involve myself or anyone I know. Otherwise it gets too "real" and I'm instantly turned off. In fact, the idea of myself participating in a sexual act is one of my biggest turn-offs. But I've mostly been attributing that to poor body image. I might be ok-looking with clothes on and a bit of eyeliner, but I would not be at all comfortable with someone seeing the rest of me, even if it was someone I loved.

Regardless, I know there must be more to it than that, because on occassions where my hormones are all over the place (usually around a certain time of month) and I find that I'm feeling very aroused and in need of release, I have no inclination whatsoever to involve someone else in that release (not even as a wistful what-if situation where I'd be built like Sofia Vergara). I know how to take care of it on my own just fine and I am satisfied with this. Although, recently when I was "taking care of it on my own," an image popped into my head that sort of dumped all over many of these revelations I took so long to reach... But that might belong in another topic, so for now I'm just going to say I'm autochorissexual with some exceptions! Life has become simulanously easier and more complicated. :rolleyes:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this an actual identity, it's more of a term judging from people who claim it is their identity. Can we stop claiming terms can be identities? I've seen posts claiming being attracted to fictional characters counts as a real sexual identity and it's not, it just means you're attracted to fictional characters but your sexual orientation is the same. :\ I know most people are completely aware of this, it even says in the description, but some people confuse the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even care how many labels there are.

Sexuality is (often) far to complex for it to pinned down to a label, that's why my A/sexuality is written like a mess because that's what my orientation is: a mess. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, if i understood it correctly, it means that you have sexual atracction to a situation, fictional or not and if that happened, you wouldnt be there participating, right? okay. but does it include the posibility of a sexual action happening (or kissing action), in which you arent involved with the difference that theres no sexual atraction to it? (i dont know what other types of atraction could happen around/towards it, when it happens, i never "start" it, i mean i have dreams with it included or i read fanfics or similar stuff)

i dont understand my life :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, though, I tend to be more interested in the idea of dissociation of the act from the individuals involved in the act: for example, in my personal experience, I can sometimes get aroused by things that are sexually charged - fanfiction, art, even scientific articles occasionally. However, what is noticeable is that it's not an attraction to any particular participants in the act, but to the idea of the act itself. It's another theme that I've actually seen in other discussions of masturbation, fantasy, etc: that many people can still be aroused by sexual activity or sensations, but that the interest is in the act, not the other people involved - a dissociation of the acts themselves from the people involved. (Although this may often be paired with dissociation of ones own participation from the idea of the act as well.) In cases like this, erotic material can be arousing because it is a representation of situtations, regardless of whether one is particularly interested in the people. For example, a straight man watching a porn video of heterosexual intercourse may not be particularly sexually attracted to the male participant, but the participant is still necessary to represent the act of interest (intercourse). Similarly, an asexual who has interest in certain acts or situation may be interested in material which involves that situtation, without actually having any interest in the participants.

That seems to describe my sexuality quite nicely. I am interested in the acts not the people. I may even be interested in participating in the acts. But again, I am interested in the act not the people involved.

Thanks for that! It's been helpful :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "aegosexual" is the shortened term for this? I've seen it used a lot off AVEN and they usually just say "I'm aegosexual" or just aego for short. Also the people who I have met who identify with this label say that they have sexual fantasies when they masturbate (to help them orgasm) they are just never involved in the sexual fantasy, ever.. it's always other people doing it (as opposed to people who imagine themselves having sex etc in their sexual fantasies)

I would be an "aego" I think, as I've never imagined *myself* personally in any remotely sexual situation (though have imagined plenty of fictional characters doing all sorts of dodgy things lol) but I just stick with labeling myself sensual asexual because I love sensuality when in love but have no desire for actual sex. I can totally see why some people would feel an affinity this term though!
:cake:

https://www.tumblr.com/search/aegosexual



Autochoris- is a bit of a mouthful…

…and was coined with intentions to use it to describe a paraphilia (NOT a sexuality), by someone who (despite notable and commendable contributions) is not himself asexual, nor does he remotely identify with the term he created.
Now, to sidetrack: I am not the only person to have had the “Yer a wizard, Harry!” moment of realization upon hearing the description of this term, that incredible relief of “Oh God, it’s not just me”. I’m not the only one to have spent years wondering what was wrong with me, why I felt this way, and what the hell my identity was, anyway. I give tremendous regards to Dr. Bogaert for his coinage of the term, and his definition of what many of us were experiencing without knowing how to explain it, or feeling comfortable enough to talk about it.
However, my gratitude to Dr. Bogaert does not erase my distaste for the unnecessarily long and unpronounceable word (choris or khoris?), nor does it mean I am any less upset and offended that he described my experience as a paraphilia. A paraphilia is an abnormal sexual interest, much like a fetish. And as we can see from the number of people who can relate, autochoris- is not abnormal. We are not broken, we are not strange, and we have lived our lives wondering what’s wrong with us. In my case, I’ve spent years already battling hatred from both sides; those who claimed asexuality does not exist, and my own mind, for claiming I couldn’t be asexual if I experienced sexual arousal. Enough is enough. I know I’m not the only one that’s taken years to get here and find where I belong. I’m not about to sit by and let some allosexual man tell me that what I’ve felt, worried about, and cried over for years is essentially a fetish. This is my sexuality, and I don’t want the word for it to take longer to say than the definition.
So! I saw a suggestion that someone who identifies with the definition of autochoris- to coin a new term, and I set to the task. Using my previous knowledge of Latin linguistics and a few websites, I made a list of possible terms, and narrowed down my favorite: aego- (AY-go or AI-go), as in aegosexual(ity) or aegoromantic(ism). This was drawn from the prefix a-, meaning without, and the word ego, meaning me or myself. Translated literally, aegosexual would mean “sexual without myself”, which is essentially the same translation as autochoris.
I don’t mean to be presumptuous and say that this is the only acceptable term for this sexuality. However, I am adamant that this be considered a sexuality, and due to my belief that it should be treated as such, I felt it needed a term to describe it as a sexuality, not as a paraphilia. I’m open to suggestions for other terms, and I still have my list of possible terms and their meanings saved, if anyone would like to see them. Since autochoris- is still a new word, I’d like to see it reclaimed and accepted as a sexuality, with a new word to brand it as such, before it’s dismissed by the ace/aro and LGBT+ community. I will not rest until it is classed as a full sexuality, and I fully believe that a new term is the first step towards making it so.

Edited by ithaca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "aegosexual" is the shortened term for this? I've seen it used a lot off AVEN and they usually just say "I'm aegosexual" or just aego for short.

Right, it comes from this tumblr post; but it's not yet a standard on AVEN; it would be nice to make it such.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this an actual identity, it's more of a term judging from people who claim it is their identity. Can we stop claiming terms can be identities? I've seen posts claiming being attracted to fictional characters counts as a real sexual identity and it's not, it just means you're attracted to fictional characters but your sexual orientation is the same. :\ I know most people are completely aware of this, it even says in the description, but some people confuse the two.

Well some people do identify *as* aegosexual (the shorter term) because they are asexual (no desire for partnered sex) but do have a deep interest in, and arousal by, sex that they aren't involved in.. they think about it when masturbating etc and as long as they aren't involved in it they love it. So they personally choose not to identify as asexual (even though that's their orientation) because they feel that their interest in and enjoyment of say, fictional people having sex, is strong enough for them to actually identify more with that than with 'basic' asexuality, if that makes sense. So yeah, it's an identity for them personally. I often get told that fictromantic isn't a thing lol.. but I don't care what other people think, I have felt stronger romantic (and platonic) emotions for fictional characters my whole life than I *ever* have for a real human, so Pan-fictromantic is my primary romantic identity. I am grayish romantic for real people, but as I've only ever felt actual romantic love for one real human (and I'm 26 years old) I know that my fictoromanticism is is a much greater part of my identity than my greyishwhatever romanticism for real people lol. So yeah, fictromantic is my primary romantic identity no matter how many people tell me it's not real :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "aegosexual" is the shortened term for this? I've seen it used a lot off AVEN and they usually just say "I'm aegosexual" or just aego for short.

Right, it comes from this tumblr post; but it's not yet a standard on AVEN; it would be nice to make it such.

Yeah I agree.. I think it's only "not standard" on AVEN yet because not many people know about it. If more people knew about it I'm pretty sure more people would identify strongly enough with it to use it as their primary sexual identity label :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one nuance I don't understand in the label definition...

There are two kinds of fantasies where the subject doesn't experience sexual attraction:

A) the subject is 'observing' a sex scene performed by others;

B) the subject sees themselves involved, but in a strictly non-sexual way, e.g. cuddling or wooing, gets aroused in reality but not within the fantasy.

A) is clearly an aegosexual fantasy. B) doesn't match Bogaert's description, but I'm not sure if Anthony was considering such a scenario at all - it was at an early stage of asexual visibility development and the variety of types of attraction wasn't understood as clearly as now. I need to reread his book, but as of now, I want to regard B) as an aegosexual fantasy too because no partnered sex happens nor is considered in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the short term, I don't like it that its inventor violated the rules of Greek phonetics. When the base word begins with a vowel, then the prefix an- should be added instead of a-, as in words anaerobic, an(a)esthetic. So ideally, the term should be 'anegosexual', but the Internet has got used to the word without 'n' already :rolleyes: There might be some confusion - the former term can be incorrectly broken down as 'a-nego-sexual' by those unaware of its origin - but 'aegosexual' can be easily mispronounced as 'egosexual', thus removing the important prefix, and I think this is a bigger problem than with the 'an-' variant, and that's probably what stops the spread of the 'a-' variant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an open-minded alabelist; I invite the gynesthetic fetish-a(n)egosexual quiromantic panplatonic cupiogynesensual [^] to explain the advantages of employing such an obscure label to relate to those of us, who know little about Greek phonetics, how you perceive your sexual and romantic orientations.

I suggest you place your 'orientations' on a spectrum...in order to illustrate them to lay Avenites like me. I look forward to the lecture gynesthetic fetish....Cia :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my target audience is people (mostly females) who understand Greek prefixes on a basic level and are interested in following all the links in my signature if they misunderstand something in the profile. The labels are written out not to relate to them, but so that they waste less time on researching me if they happen to be romantically interested in me.

I could of course write a long lecture in the 'About Me' section of the profile instead, but I'm too lazy to edit it every time when my perception of my orientations changes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gynesthetic = gyneaesthetic = gyne [Greek 'female'] + aesthetic [artistic taste]

WTFromantic = quoiromantic = quoi [French 'what'] + romantic = questioning whether 'romance' is a separate concept

panplatonic = pan [Greek 'all'] + platonic = capable of squishing regardless of the object's gender

cupio [Latin 'longing for'] = doesn't mind doing this, but isn't attracted in this area

(Well, that was a lame choice of the prefix by the author of the term 'cupiosexual'; try to think of smth better.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the short term, I don't like it that its inventor violated the rules of Greek phonetics. When the base word begins with a vowel, then the prefix an- should be added instead of a-, as in words anaerobic, an(a)esthetic. So ideally, the term should be 'anegosexual', but the Internet has got used to the word without 'n' already :rolleyes: There might be some confusion - the former term can be incorrectly broken down as 'a-nego-sexual' by those unaware of its origin - but 'aegosexual' can be easily mispronounced as 'egosexual', thus removing the important prefix, and I think this is a bigger problem than with the 'an-' variant, and that's probably what stops the spread of the 'a-' variant.

Thank you. I was already feeling an itch in my fingers to go into a Graeco-Latin linguistic rant, myself. :lol:

This makes "aego-" way more wince-inducing to me than "autochoris-" (and as I said in another thread, I'm no fan of that term either, even though the concept it denotes is something that even describes me to a certain extent, so I don't doubt it's a real thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like it, it's silly and sounds like you are attracted to a robotic Spanish sausage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so if this is an apart thing, that's totally me! It perfectly describes me, so if we choose a term, we should make it more known:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.