Jump to content

Autochorissexual/Aegosexual? Heard of it?


Flemming

Recommended Posts

Will you please read my posts properly so i don't have to repeat myself.

1) Peoole take the sexual suffix of anegosexual to mean it's a seperate sexual orientaton (which MANY people do). It is not. If anything it should be called anegoerotic.
2) HOW someone masturbates is NOT needed information, nor is whether someone masturbates or not. The only reason the term Libidoist exists is because Non-libidoists wanted a title.
3) Being a libidoist of any kind is completely normal regardless of orientation, thus doubling it being unneeded.
4) And Again, Confused Newbies Can Be Corrected Through Just PROPER EDUCATION.
Most people who are for this word are newbies and the rest of people are AGAINST this word existing for the aforementioned reasons.
If you want to be proud you're a libidoist then say exactly that.
The ONLY reason the word exists is because a stupid psychologist confused sexual arousal for sexual attraction/thought the two should always be together and someone found his devised word for the "disasociation" which doesn't even live up to that word and it's completely normal to be.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read your posts, and there's a lot I agree with. However, I think having a term has a lot of importance and need for a lot of people that is getting dismissed by misunderstandings about said uses and importance.

1) Changing the words used would be fine with me; all I feel the need for is a term that describes the phenomenon and a way for people who fit the definition to find each other. However, the English language tends to be imprecise and illogical in general. More people know the currently-used words than anegoerotic, which barely comes up in search engines, and so for the purpose of communication it's a more simple matter to use what actually has searchable definitions. This isn't optimal, and you do have a point, but if I were going into all the things that really need to be changed about the language we could be here all day. Autochorissexuality and aegosexuality are terms that show up in the lexicon pinned in this actual subforum. If anegoeroticism actually showed up as something with even a semi-official definition that I could point people to, I'd change the term I use in a heartbeat in order to avoid newbie confusion.

2) I don't know about everyone, but I certainly don't use the word because I want to publicize my personal habits. I use it because often the phenomenon tends to result in a sort of pseudo-allosexuality, which often feels pretty isolating from both sides of the coin. I've avoided using the term "attraction" in explaining what I experience in order to avoid confusing people with the currently-used definition of asexuality, but it honestly feels like that a lot of the time. Because I don't want sex with the people I'm "attracted" to, I don't really fit in with allosexuals; but because I sometimes find people "hot" and/or want to gush about how cute someone is in a mostly-aesthetic-or-sensual-but-maybe-not-completely manner and/or I read certain types of fanfiction or whatever, I often find myself not fitting in with a lot of other asexuals. The purpose of this forum, as far as I can tell, is to give people who might be isolated otherwise from those like them a place to find others, and there are plenty subcategories and offshoots of people who have their own threads on this forum to discuss what makes them ever-so-slightly different from other aces. Having a thread or two dedicated to such community, and/or offering a word that lets other people find those like them, is hardly an attempt to offer tmi. Even if it was, there's a reason this is in the greysexuality forum - there's a lot of worse tmi in here - but that's not exactly the point. If somebody's repulsed by the completely unintended mental images from the term I'd consider taking the word out of my profile, but technically the concept of sexual attraction in general implies an interest in having sex with other people which I'd think would be a bit more repulsive (though since I'm not respulsed myself I'll admit that I could be wrong). Just because, on a technicality, I don't want sex with the people I'm "attracted" to doesn't make the attraction less of a thing or something that can be completely ignored; and just because I'm "attracted" to people doesn't mean I'm any less of an asexual. However, asexuals sometimes question the asexuality of finding people attractive this way, and allosexuals often doubt that I'm not some emotionally/mentally damaged allosexual, but they're easier to convince if I explain that there IS a term for this and other people like me, and it doesn't exclude us from the asexual umbrella. Most of the time I leave it out of my explanations but it does occasionally come up, especially in explaining to friends why I acted the way I did before I realized I was asexual and why I'm still asexual after enthusiastically joining in their conversations about good-looking movie actors.

3) THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING A LIBIDOIST. There are plenty of asexuals with libidos who don't experience this sort of "attraction" to other people. Sometimes one's libido is not connected to much of anything at all, or there's a kink or something involved. Actually, if we want to get a little tmi about this, half the time my libido ISN'T connected to any sort of other people whatsoever, and I'd think that there's plenty of libidoist asexuals who feel the same much more of the time. Having a libido has nothing to do with whether or not the libido is activated by anything. Also, having a libido is something that can be kept private as long as it isn't influencing anybody else's lives. However, experiencing attraction - even if it doesn't end with an actual desire for sex with the person in question - is something that people like to talk about; it influences how people discuss things with friends, and what sort of fandom stuff they participate in, and even what sort of movies/tv shows/actors/etc. they are a bit more biased to like. These are things that influence one's interactions with others, sometimes unintentionally. What sort of attraction it is also sometimes becomes important, especially when explaining the discrepancy between how I talk with my allosexual friends and my proclaimed asexuality. Saying "It's because I'm an asexual with a libido" offers implications about other asexuals with libidos that may be inaccurate, whereas explaining "Just because I talk like an allosexual and find someone attractive in a certain way doesn't mean I want sex with the person" is a bit more accurate. However, the latter is a bit long and unwieldy, and having an actual term for it helps validate it as a thing that exists for enough people that a word was actually, in fact, created for it.

4) Yes, confused newbies can be corrected through proper education. My belief is that proper education means explaining the complicated concepts, not removing a concept just because it confuses people. I'd agree if what we were talking about was the same as asexuality, but it's not. It's about a weird and difficult-to-describe form of attraction that is almost-but-not-quite sexual attraction, that distances the person in question from the majority of allosexuals AND asexuals and is NOT the same as being asexual with a libido.

I find the majority of people who are against the word are the ones who confuse it with libidoism, or who don't understand the definition. Sure, I do understand it confusing newbies and I do see that a lot, but we haven't exactly decided to get rid of the concept of asexuality because it confuses people even though it does sometimes do that. Sexual attraction and sexual arousal are indeed different things, but I think it's a bit more complicated than just that. I don't feel the need to be proud of being a libidoist, but it IS nice to find other people who can empathize with enjoying the physical attractiveness of a shirtless movie actor while simultaneously not wanting sex with them, for the same reason that allosexual people talk about the people they find attractive but without the distrust or incomprehension at my repulsion at the thought of actually doing anything with the person in question. I'm definitely not going to find that sort of understanding in the allosexual community, and a lot of asexuals can't empathize or only empathize in a platonic sense, but at least in this community that understanding is more easily found. And it's more easily found by having a simple way to pinpoint "Okay, that person's like me".

Link to post
Share on other sites

NEWBIES ARE THE ONES WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THINGS.

Wait, are you saying you think Anego is aesthetic attraction or something? No! That it not the definition of the word. It is literally only being sexually aroused by someone they do not sexually desire. And are you saying being Anego is somehow something you can't keep from other people/it can't be private? How?! And Anego is NOT about a hard to define form of attraction or even close to being sexual attraction. Sexual arousal and sexual desire are two different things. The only way someone could be "close to feeling sexual attraction" is if they desired to go further than making out but not actually have sex; like a make out session with the whole body excluding the genitals or something like that. Anything else is NOT even close to being sexual attraction.

Look up the definition of the word; link.

Yes, there are asexuals who don't use erotica, but fact is faping is faping no matter how you do it. Libidoist IS Anego; Libido means you desire to masturbate, and Anego is NOT attraction; it is purely sexual arousal. Sexual attraction is a DESIRE TO HAVE SEX with someone. Sexual arousal can happen before or after that desire and has nothing to to with sexual arousal equating to sexual attraction or meaning there's something missing in the person's mind. If someone has a foot fetish, yes, feet sexually arousal them, but to they want to fuck a foot? No. They are not sexually attracted to feet. Anegoerotic people have no attraction to the erotica. When something is perfectly normal then it DOES NOT need a term. It's like coming up with a term for people who breath oxygen. Anego is not disassociation when 90% of people experience it.

According to an AVEN poll that took 262 participants, nearly half of those people (off by 10) use porn. Who knows how many more just read erotica, sexually fantasize to get off (since that's under anego too), or were non-libidoists and voted no.

Anegoerotic was just created last month in a thread conversation, no wonder it only has that thread as its only search result. But i suppose it is good that you can still find it on google. I created a thread on it. link

Link to post
Share on other sites
scarletlatitude

Unlocking.

Please remember to be careful when discussing labels. We don't want anyone to feel attacked or left out. It's okay to debate labels, but it's not okay to attack a person for using them. That is their decision.

A note to all - if you would like to discuss a sexuality topic for support, without any debate, you may wish to post in the Tea and Sympathy forum.

scarletlatitude

Gray Area mod

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Member101533

Hi I'm new here & so happy I found this site :) I've recently run across both of these terms & I'm so relieved to finally figure out what I am aegosexual /greysexual/ biromantic :) never was one to put labels on things but this is an exception. I finally feel like I can relate / belong to something :) The only problem is I'm having a hard time meeting like minded people in my area :( I'd really like to meet someone special who feels the same as I do :( Thank you for providing a safe place for us to feel comfortable expressing ourselves :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month 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"

Because it's not? While those who identify as autochorissexual might overlap with libidoists, it's two different things, at least from my interpretation. A libidoist is defined as someone with a sexual desire, right? But enjoyment of sex and desire for sex are two different things. And before you said that's where the libidoist ASEXUAL part comes in, I should mention my definition of asexuality, which is the lack of sexual attraction and/or the desire to have partnered sexual encounters. So a libidoist asexual has sexual desire, lacks sexual attraction, and may or may not enjoy sex. Autochorissexuals can have that enjoyment, but not that desire, yeah?

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

Just slightly?

It shows why my new signature is spot on.

I mean, I experience autochorisexualism but I don't call myself an autochorisexual. 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.

But I agree with this. I, too, am asexual. I, too, am what the word "autochorissexual" describes. I, too, find that word itself incredibly stupid.

I don't necessarily find it incredibly stupid, just more of a nuisance. Labels can only bring people together so much before they start dividing. I also don't feel like explaining it and justifying my asexuality every time someone asks me how I identify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't change that it's a completely normal thing that doesn't need a name; other than "completely normal human being that makes up 99% of people"

(that 1% not coinciding with asexuality; a majority of asexuals masturbate and use erotica to do so)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gray-A/Gray-asexual/Gray-sexual is a term for when you desire sex that differs from the norm.

The only requirement for asexuality is not desiring sex with anyone. Anything else is irrelevant in determining that.

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

I'm autochorissexual. I usually use that term, rather than aegosexual, because it seems to be better known, and I can conveniently refer some one to the wiki page if need be:

http://asexuals.wikia.com/wiki/Autochorissexual :P However, I don't have any beef against using the term "aegosexual". What's important to me is having a way to communicate what I experience to others.

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

And asexuality doesn't do that??

You don't see sexual people who don't fap (normally because it doesn't work for them) looking for a new sexuality. It doesn't change your orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

i think the label is useful even if it's just for yourself. I found it recently and was excited about it because it described some aspects of myself that had previously had me struggling with whether I could call myself asexual or not (despite already feeling that i was).

 

Unfortunately reading parts of this thread in my research has left me feeling a little alienated all over again. Apparently no matter if I try to be sexual (which had me spending many years feeling there was something wrong with me and doing things I wasn't actually comfortable with) or call myself asexual, some people are always going to think I don't 'fit'. :(

 

Edit: You know what, it's going in my profile. I'm not going to let other people's debates over labels destroy the fact that I was happy about finding this explanation for how I feel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, erratic said:

Edit: You know what, it's going in my profile. I'm not going to let other people's debates over labels destroy the fact that I was happy about finding this explanation for how I feel. 

Go for it!

 

Folks like to debate labels, but if you find something fits you, it's fine to claim it. It's important to learn about labels and fair to gather other's viewpoints, however, if a label seems to fit, there is nothing wrong with taking ownership and pride in it. :) If you find that this label explains how you feel, then I am happy you have found it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, erratic said:

i think the label is useful even if it's just for yourself. I found it recently and was excited about it because it described some aspects of myself that had previously had me struggling with whether I could call myself asexual or not (despite already feeling that i was). 

And some people do find those aspects confusing on sexuality, but again, you don't see straight women who can fap to girl on girl erotica looking for a different sexuality. It's just plain old ASEXUALITY and people just need a bit of clarification that these things DON'T DISQUALIFY you. Some gay/bi men may go "I don't desire anal sex like most gay/bi men, am I really gay/bi?", but it does NOT change their sexuality, they just need to be INFORMED that not everyone is into anal sex. No one creates a whole new sexuality over it. I could go on and on about the sexual misconceptions sexual people have. Them needing education doesn't mean it's a different sexuality or that it needs a separate label. "Oh, I didn't know X term existed so I made up my own" Ok, still doesn't change that it's really called X and not Y.

 

Such masturbatory behavior is even normal for half of sexual people (mostly women and a minority of men), but it clearly doesn't change their sexuality. No matter how much these things made you question your sexuality, it does not change the fact that 99% of asexuals experience exactly what you do; that it is NORMAL asexuality. The O-N-L-Y requirement for asexuality is not desiring sex with anyone, nothing more. Asexuality does not mean completely non-sexual; sexualities only refer to WHO you desire sex with.

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

I proudly call myself autochorissexual. *shrugs*

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do experience sexual attraction to other people rarely, I'd say 90% of the time the autochrissexual label fits me very well. When I masturbate, I can only think of two characters, generic human beings basically having sex. No one I know is ever in these fantasies, and I'm sure as Hell not in it! And watching porn turns me on for sure, but I mostly just concentrate on the act and not the people involved. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Someone Else

I feel like if I had a libido, I'd want to do something about it, like masturbate.  But I don't want or at least don't feel a need to do anything, like masturbate.  Don't see the reason or point to it, so I tend to assume I'm completely non-libido.  But, two women kissing?  It seems magical, in a way that my intellectual brain can't easily quantify, and is a little confused by.  I don't think it's a libido, or lust in a traditional sense.  
That being said, I don't feel like using the aego- or auto- labels to describe myself, they sound weird to me.  I just like women, and don't need to do anything physical as a result of that. That sounds like a specific category to me.  It's visual and makes a full stop at that, like a rainbow, but definitely nicer than aesthetic like "pretty like a painting." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that autochorissexuality (sometimes called aegosexuality) is actually one of the more studied areas in asexuality research so far, as a result of the fact that the concept was developed by leading asexuality researcher Anthony Bogaert. Here is how he describes the phenomenon in his book Understanding Asexuality:

"But what if an individual's targeting system does not operate in this way? What if, for example, the "I" in "I am attracted to him or her" in a typical targeting sequence does not operate in a traditional way? In some asexual people, the disconnect between identity/self (the "I") and a sexual object seems to be this kind of target alteration: the identity or self is not connected to or "targeted" to a sexual object.

I am not aware of a specific name for this paraphilia. However, using a traditional Greek nomenclature, I have named it autochorissexualism: the quality of having sex without (choris) one's self/identity (auto), or "identity-less" sexuality (see also Bogaert, in press-b)."

(Anthony F. Bogaert, Understanding Asexuality, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015, at page 119)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
On 7/13/2017 at 4:56 PM, Lovelykat said:

While I do experience sexual attraction to other people rarely, I'd say 90% of the time the autochrissexual label fits me very well. When I masturbate, I can only think of two characters, generic human beings basically having sex. No one I know is ever in these fantasies, and I'm sure as Hell not in it! And watching porn turns me on for sure, but I mostly just concentrate on the act and not the people involved. 

This is more or less the same for me. Although watching porn does nothing for me either. I find seeing other people kiss or perform sexual acts very uncomfortable, even with normal film sex-scenes. Sometimes I enjoy reading about it though. Apparently I’m only slightly interested if it’s completely imaginary and I’m not involved haha!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Egg Says Eek

I've heard that the term 'autochorissexual' is a bit problematic. 

The term was coined by a known sexuality researcher, Dr. Anthony Bogaert. When the term began to gain more recognition, it came to be known as a paraphilia (an abnormal sexual desire, essentially a kink) rather than a sexuality. As you can imagine, those associations were not received well by the LGBTQ community. 

A new name was decided upon on Tumblr (as you said). As an Aegosexual, I much prefer the new name. Also, it's much easier to say, and the name itself looks very aesthetically pleasing to me, so that's always a plus 😄

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

I'm doing research on asexuality for a research proposal, so I wanted to note that autochorissexualism is no longer being categorized as a paraphilia. :) So everyone can stop hating on Mr. Bogaert, because he has done a LOT for pioneering and drawing attention to the need for research of asexuality. We literally would probably have NO research without him taking up the baton and getting the research going.

 

Brotto, A. L., & Yule, M. (2017). "Asexuality: Sexual Orientation, Paraphilia, Sexual Dysfunction, or None of the Above?" Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(3). 619-627. doi: https://doi-org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1007/s10508-016-0802-7

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
On 6/15/2018 at 3:21 AM, Egg Says Eek said:

A new name was decided upon on Tumblr (as you said). As an Aegosexual, I much prefer the new name. Also, it's much easier to say, and the name itself looks very aesthetically pleasing to me, so that's always a plus 😄

I just wanted to say that it's linguistically inaccurate. If the negated word begins with a vowel, the prefix should be "an-", not "a-". So it should be anegosexual, not aegosexual. It works completely the same as articles in English: a potato, an owl.

However, I agree that this word has the advantage of being much simpler and more transparent in its structure. But still, I think it should be spelled properly, with the "n".

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

And just btw: something is wrong with the forum. It works very slowly and when I tried to edit my post, I ran into some bad error.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2018 at 4:21 AM, Egg Says Eek said:

A new name was decided upon on Tumblr (as you said). 

That's the place where all the most reliable and most useful information comes from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes find myself wishing I was a sex repulsed asexual instead because it seems like it would be simpler! So much harder to explain to people how I feel and it’s taken me a long time to figure myself out. 

I am not sure I feel comfortable using the more specific labels outside the ace community because the description becomes a bit of an overshare!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 1/16/2015 at 4:26 PM, Flemming said:

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?

I really like this term Aegosexual; largely because it breaks away from Autochorisexuality. While, yes, it's the same definition, there's no "stigma" or "negative-history" with the term Aegosexual. I find it suits me very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Aegosexual does sound better. But I really don't know enough about the linguistic differences to say that I prefer it. On a surface level, though, it does sound better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
1 hour ago, Tunes said:

I think Aegosexual does sound better. But I really don't know enough about the linguistic differences to say that I prefer it. On a surface level, though, it does sound better.

It should be "anegosexual".

I'm already kinda used to "autochorissexual" and I use it here just because it seems more widespread and recognised. On the other hand, when I try translating it into Polish, it doesn't sound well, so I only use the form "anegoseksualna" on the Polish forum. Which may spread because, anyway, I've seen very few discussions of autochorissexuality/anegosexuality in the Polish asexual community before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's most likely me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...