Jump to content

Questions about autochrissexuality


Lovelykat

Recommended Posts

1. Are autochrissexuals considered asexual or graysexual? If you're autochoris, what do you identify as? 

 

2. About how much of the ace population identifies as autochorisexual? From what I've seen I imagine the numbers are quite high 

 

3. Do I sound like an autochrissexual? 

About me: (TMI Alert!!!!!) 

-I enjoy masturbation more than sex 

-I masturbate frequently out of boredom or to relieve tension 

-when I do, I have to think about sex to reach climax, but I've never fantasized about myself or anyone I've known in real life. Not even a celebrity. I have occasionally done it to someone I remember from a good porn series I watched, but 90% of the time I do it to fictional people. Now when I say fictional people, I don't mean cartoon characters or characters from a book. I fantasize generally about two generic humans with no personality that I have made up in my head. One is a generic blonde girl, one is a big muscular redhead guy. I rarely mix it up, so these two 'characters' exist in basically all my fantasies. 

-i like the idea of sex, it fascinates me

-I enjoy sex, but more for the thrill of it than actual attraction. It gives me a bit of a jolt, makes me feel exciting, if that makes sense. But I don't really crave it out of desire, I guess. 

 

So what do you guys think? 

Could I be asexual? Graysexual? Autochorisexual? A combination of both?

Thanks for all your answers! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The term autochorissexual was coined by psychologist Anthony Bogaert to refer to people who fantasize in the third person, without incorporating themselves into their fantasies. By his interpretation, autochorissexuals lack the subjective component of sexual attraction. For most people, sexual fantasies often serve as scripts for sexual roles they would potentially like to fulfill in real life, but for autochorisssexuals that is not the case. Because Bogaert thinks autochorissexuals only have a partial experience of sexual attraction, he classifies them as a type of asexual (in contrast to gray-asexuals, who have rare and/or weak experiences of sexual attraction albeit in a complete form ). That said, some autochorissexuals may prefer to call themselves gray-asexual, and I think a reasonable argument could be made for that alternative characterization.

2. I'm not aware of any statistics, but my impression is that autochorissexuality is fairly common in the asexual community.

3. From your description, it sounds like you could be autochorissexual. There is also one other recognized subcategory of asexual that I think might be relevant. Alongside discussions of autochorissexuality, psychologists sometimes discuss asexuals who use sexual imagery to aid sexual arousal, while lacking the mental element of sexual attraction/desire. Therefore, while an autochorissexual lacks only the subjective component of sexual attraction (doesn't include themselves in their fantasies, but still fantasizes about attractive people), this type of asexual lacks both the subjective and objective components of sexual attraction (finds there's a physiological response to viewing sexual imagery, but doesn't find the people attractive).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god Pramana, well explained. You seem well versed in the particularities. Was this from that study I heard about just earlier this year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TopHatCat said:

Oh my god Pramana, well explained. You seem well versed in the particularities. Was this from that study I heard about just earlier this year?

Thanks! The explanation is partly from Anthony Bogaert's book Understanding Asexuality, and partly from a couple of journal articles by Lori Brotto et al under the titles Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation Among Asexual Individuals and Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation Among Asexual Individuals: An In-Depth Exploration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 6:32 AM, Lovelykat said:

1. Are autochrissexuals considered asexual or graysexual? If you're autochoris, what do you identify as? 

Asexuality is an spectrum, not white nor black but shades of grey. Autochoris is one of those shades. Nevertheless, I rather define myself as asexual in front of people bc it makes me feel more comfortable that have to explain to them all my personal life. So just call it the way you feel, after all, everything in asexuality is a lighter or darker shade of grey, but alway grey.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 6:32 AM, Lovelykat said:

2. About how much of the ace population identifies as autochorisexual? From what I've seen I imagine the numbers are quite high 

 

I have no idea to be honest, I am one and I would be so happy if i could find more of them bc i feel so alone, too asexual for alosexuals and too sexual for asexuals.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 6:32 AM, Lovelykat said:

3. Do I sound like an autochrissexual? 

 

Yeah for me you sound like autochoriss and sex-positive. I think im sex-repulsed but im confused, i cannot picture myself doing it neither have an interest in it and sometimes im repulsed by the idea of having sex or some kinds of sex but when im lets say horny i kind of enjoy it but then i came back to normal. idk

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, N13 said:

Asexuality is an spectrum, not white nor black but shades of grey.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Homer

 

I don't agree with you.

 

Asexuality 100% is like a robot. Some people are like that but most people who identify as asexual just feel sexual desire when they have a really close emotional bond (demisexual) or they enjoy fantasies but not the real thing (autochorissexual) or they have 0 sexual attraction but are they are sex positive not bc of desire but bc orgasms feels nice to them (or maybe they are repulsed by sex but still do it to keep their partner with sexual needs happy). Lot's of sub-asexualities: cupiosexual, lithsexual, sapiosexual,...

 

There's a lot of diversity, it's not a computer thing, between the 0 and 1 it exist infinite decimal numbers, some closer to 0, some closer to 1, but all of them real and valid.

 

In the picture bellow there's that famous triangle in the asexual community. Yes, you can be a the vertex (what you said), but most people are not that extreme and machine-like, real life is not perfect. Most people fluctuate through the lighter darker grey's shades area left inside.

 

And by the way, grey-sexuality is considered inside of asexuality in all the asexual webs i have read and which are official, not inside of alosexuality as you said. You can also appreciate that in the triangle. From the middle of the triangle upwards, is considered alosexual (which is almost white). And from the middle of the triangle downwards, is considered the asexual spectrum (grey and black). Look it up in any web you can find, asexuality is an spectrum (like every kind of sexuality actually) and greysexuality is a part of that spectrum.

 

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Do you experience desire for partnered sexual activity/sexusl attraction, ever, at all?

  • yes
  • no
  • i don't even know
  • sometimes
  • rarely
  • hardly ever
  • it depends
  • it's hard for me
  • it's complicated to explain
  • i'm confused
  • what does sexual attraction meeeeeaaaaaannn
  • don't wanna label myself
  • sexuality is fluid
  • right now no but i don't know what will bring the future
  • just with the propitious person
  • i used to but it has been ages since the last time
  • i can take care of my libido alone i don't need anyone
  • people scare me
  • im curious about sex and wanna try it but i don't feel the need to
  • all i know i is that i don't know anything
  • dlkfjskfjwohenfjkslnfjsdkljvkjd
  • other:

well, i don't usually feel sexual attraction but i found myself like a boy some years ago and i didn't mind get sexual with him but i most of the time i'm repulsed of the idea of me having sex like ewwwwwww gross but i enjoy masturbating and i have third-person fantasies and when im in that mood i sometimes enjoy watching porn but most of the time if you talk me about porn it's like disgusting. sexual attraction? idkkkkk i find people cute but its not like i wanna fuck them its weirddddddd im broken

 

^ here you have an example of why asexuality is an spectrum, people are no perfect, people are not 1 or 0, people are not black or white, there are lots and lots of hints, touches, shades, nuances... it depends on the definition you give to "asexual" and no matter what definition you give, there will always be people and the border. In a perfect logical world, like in machines, things are binary, they are one thing or the opposite, in the real human world, things doesn't work like that, there are uncountable possibilities and everyone is different and unique. That's what creates our diversity, that's what makes people beautiful. 

 

Asexual's Wikia

 

440px-Ace-logo4.svg.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@N13

 

So you are saying that if someone's answer is "Do you experience desire for partnered sexual activity/sexusl attraction, ever, at all?" is anything but flat "yes" then they are are the asexuality spectrum, wouldn't nearly every sexual be on said spectrum? A heterosexual male could say "only with women," so are they now asexual too?

 

What are these official sources you speak of? The AVEN website (the largest asexual community and first resource that typically pops up on a web search) doesn't mention an asexual spectrum on it. The only time a spectrum is mentioned is here (found in the general FAQ):

 

Quote

There is a spectrum of sexuality, with sexual and asexual as the endpoints and a gray area in-between.

There it mentions that asexual is an endpoint on a spectrum, not a spectrum itself.

 

The AVEN Wiki, which is a wiki the AVEN project team maintains for all things information about asexuality, doesn't have a page for an "asexual spectrum," it doesn't get mentioned. The wiki does have a lot of definitions of many orientations, but that even includes heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and pansexual which I assume we both would agree those are not asexual. Just because the wiki includes the definition, doesn't mean it places them under asexuality or any "asexual spectrum."

 

I understand what you are saying about the in-between 0 and 1, but the funny thing about that example is that zero still is it's own thing with a name. @Homer (and myself) aren't denying that there are things between 0 and 1, all those feelings are very valid and all those labels should be at people's disposal if they want to use them. We are just saying asexual is 0. I can't speak for Homer, but I would call anything between 0 and 1 grey-sexual and any other labels people choose to use that still suggests they have any attraction at all I would place under the grey-sexual label.

 

That isn't to say people who are grey-sexual can't find information, community, and support on AVEN/within the ace community. I love that about AVEN, I love that we open up the doors to whomever needs support. But I still value keeping the term asexual to mean no sexual attraction at all and in turn valuing those other labels as their own thing.

 

 

So, to keep this a little on topic, Loveykat, it's a little debated on AVEN where things are, as you might be able to tell. :P As I'm sure you have gleamed, I'd place autochrissexuality under grey-sexual. Unfortunately, I don't know that much about autochrissexuality as I do most my research on just the asexual label and don't know the more specific labels very well. However, the important thing about any label is that it allows you to feel like you are adequately expressing yourself. If using autochrissexuality makes you feel heard and understood, great! I'd say go for it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, does the person who identifies as autochori desire partnered sex? If no = asexual, if yes = sexual. Autochorisexualism is something both asexual and sexual people commonly experience.

 

@N13 sounds like we should just call everyone except for hypersexuals asexual and have done with it. All of a sudden we're the majority instead of the 1%, yay! :ph34r::huh:

 

 

5 hours ago, N13 said:

Asexuality 100% is like a robot.

Rude :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, N13 said:

In the picture bellow there's that famous triangle in the asexual community. Yes, you can be a the vertex (what you said), but most people are not that extreme and machine-like, real life is not perfect. Most people fluctuate through the lighter darker grey's shades area left inside.

Which, again, makes them sexual. If you include the sometimers, the dunnos, the onlyundercertaincircumstancers, you may well end up at like 40% of humanity, not 1% or so.

 

Think of it as a light switch with a dim function. You could switch it full on. You could dim it, more or less. Or you could switch it off. Would you say that you switched the light off if you left it at 15%? I'd assume not. Or would you someone call vegetarian if they only eat meat once a month? Asexuality is about this switch being off, always and forever.

 

re: autochoris

 

I'm not really sure about this. Pan and Skulls have repearedly stated that autochoris is a common set of feelings among "regular" sexuals too. I remember having a discussion with Skulls (boy, I miss her on here...) about the porn issue. It basically boils down to the question whether you consider porn to be interactive (as in, involving the viewer).

 

Yes, I react to the performance, but they don't react to me in return. They don't say "Oh, Homer is getting off to this big time, let's continue". Maybe my view in the count is the one that makes them shoot another movie, but I'd consider that very unspecific and not directly aimed at anyone. To me, interaction is a back-and-forth kind of thing.

 

I can totally see the point if one is of a different opinion when it comes to porn. As I said, I still have to make up my mind about this. Is provoking a reaction enough to call something "interactive"? If someone reads this post, but elects not to respond, did we interact? I'm really not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Puck said:

I understand what you are saying about the in-between 0 and 1, but the funny thing about that example is that zero still is it's own thing with a name.

Okay I agree, asexual 100% is the endpoint. But how would you cal someone who is 0.001 or 0.2 or 0.13 ?? I wouldn't call them sexual, since approximating they are closer to 0.

 

20 hours ago, ohdearIzzy said:

sounds like we should just call everyone except for hypersexuals asexual and have done with it. All of a sudden we're the majority instead of the 1%, yay! 

Well you can extrapolate it that way if you want. But I said there's a mid point in the triangle where upwards is sexual and downwards asexual. If you most of the time feel sexual attraction you are alosexual, while if you never do or most of the time you don't (it's very unusual, and you rarely feel sexual) you are considered asexual. 

 

20 hours ago, Puck said:

A heterosexual male could say "only with women," so are they now asexual too?

You can see the triangle has three vertex. One of them is asexuality, one of them is heterosexuality and the other homosexuality. Between heteros and homos there is a line which means all the grades of bisexuality, bending more to one gender or being in the middle of both. While if you go down, the sexual attraction decreases. Someone who has sexual attraction to women, like in your example, is at the right vertex, but at the top. Another one who says he can only feel sexual attraction to men who he has a really deep emotional bond with, it's in the gray area but bending towards left. It is a gradient, bc people are people, are you can't ask them to be exact.

 

20 hours ago, Puck said:

However, the important thing about any label is that it allows you to feel like you are adequately expressing yourself. If using autochrissexuality makes you feel heard and understood, great! I'd say go for it :)

Okay, we seem to agree here but.... why do you invite people to take the label they feel comfortable with and then invalidate them?? I have read about autochorissexuality and I relate a lot, but i won't identify as sexual. I don't mind what you say, I've seen the people out there who are alosexuals and i'm not like them, i don't feel comfortable with sex and i don't want to do it neither have an interest on it. I may have a autochoris behavior towards it, but i consider myself asexual. I feel asexual. Are you gonna deny me that?

 

Most autochoris are sex-repulsed or sex-neutral in real life. But they enjoy the idea of sex (with other people) but not the real thing. They won't likely have sex but they masturbate and have third-person fantasies (bc they cant imagine themselves in those situations). They say asexuals can masturbate, or are you gonna deny that too? What if you where in that situation, where you enjoy fantasizing about other people and masturbating but when it comes to being sexual with another person be totally gross out? Would you fell comfortable with people calling you sexual? I don't, i feel asexual and before i had found out that label i felt lost bc i didn't fit in society. Everyone was like ohhh yeah sex and i was like ewwwww. I don't care the differences about how you and me make the division where people start being alosexual and asexual, but i will refer myself as asexual always. A do not invalidate people's identities bc you are not them and you do not know how they feel.

 

20 hours ago, ohdearIzzy said:

Rude :o

Okay sorry if i offended you but that was not my purpose. Robots are cool. In fact i rather be 100% asexual that what i am, i admire people like that i wanna be like them, unfortunately im not. I meant that being a person with 0 sex attraction and 0 libido and 0 desire and 0 sexual needs is really uncommon, bc humans are biologically made up to like sex and contribute reproduction. I know, bc i am one, that not all people are like that. But there are those kind of asexuals who don't feel sexual attraction unless they have a really deep emotional bond, and those who do not feel anything sexual in their whole life till they find the one they wanna be with, or those who has no sexual attraction but like sex bc it gives them pleasure, and those who masturbate bc they have an urge to but don't want to have partnered sex, lots and lots of different kinds (you know, libidoist asexuals exist). So finding a person, who is 100% asexual and feel no sexual at all never in their whole life not even a bit and don't have a libido and they are just like robots (in the good sense of the word) is really rare, and amazing too. I would like to be like those kind of people.

 

 

To sum up, i have named several different types of asexual up there (libidoist, non-libidoist, etc...). Most of those people (demisexuals, grey-sexuals, autochorissexual, cupiosexuals, aceflux, lithsexual, sapiosexual, selfsexual, autosexual) don't feel confortable being called sexual/alosexual people, they don't feel that way, it makes them uncomfortable. Most of them would be rather called asexual to disgusting themselves from those people who feel a strong sexual attraction and wanna have sex with people they find appealing without having to tell people their whole personal life. It's much easier to say "yes i am asexual" than "well i consider myself asexual bc no real person can get me aroused but when im on my own watching porn and fantasizing about others without including me and masturbate it feels so good and i enjoy it so much but yeah when it comes to the real thing no thanks im totally grossed out". Don't you think??

 

 Do not label people, let people label themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with people labeling themselves asexual (and taking it as 100% fact regardless of actual circumstances) is that suddenly the label doesn't mean jack shit anymore because lots of people don't get the actual definition right.

 

Quote

To sum up, i have named several different types of asexual up there (libidoist, non-libidoist, etc...). Most of those people (demisexuals, grey-sexuals, autochorissexual, cupiosexuals, aceflux, lithsexual, sapiosexual, selfsexual, autosexual) don't feel confortable being called sexual/alosexual people, they don't feel that way, it makes them uncomfortable.

Asexuality doesn't mean "people who are uncomfortable with a sexual label", for instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, N13 said:

Okay I agree, asexual 100% is the endpoint. But how would you cal someone who is 0.001 or 0.2 or 0.13 ?? I wouldn't call them sexual, since approximating they are closer to 0.

You can say they are closer to zero, sure, but they are not zero. If they were zero, you would call them zero. But you didn't, you called them 0.001, 0.2 and 0.13. They all have their own label which isn't zero. I think grey-sexuality covers those points well. There is no reason to make asexuality expand when a term already exists to cover them.

 

8 hours ago, N13 said:

You can see the triangle has three vertex. One of them is asexuality, one of them is heterosexuality and the other homosexuality. Between heteros and homos there is a line which means all the grades of bisexuality, bending more to one gender or being in the middle of both. While if you go down, the sexual attraction decreases. Someone who has sexual attraction to women, like in your example, is at the right vertex, but at the top. Another one who says he can only feel sexual attraction to men who he has a really deep emotional bond with, it's in the gray area but bending towards left. It is a gradient, bc people are people, are you can't ask them to be exact.

I understand your argument, I am already familiar with this idea, and I agree with it. I just think you are describing the SEXUALITY spectrum.

 

My point was that just because someone doesn't say a flat "yes" to the question "Do you experience desire for partnered sexual activity/sexusl attraction, ever, at all?" doesn't mean they are asexual.

 

8 hours ago, N13 said:

Okay, we seem to agree here but.... why do you invite people to take the label they feel comfortable with and then invalidate them?? I have read about autochorissexuality and I relate a lot, but i won't identify as sexual. I don't mind what you say, I've seen the people out there who are alosexuals and i'm not like them, i don't feel comfortable with sex and i don't want to do it neither have an interest on it. I may have a autochoris behavior towards it, but i consider myself asexual. I feel asexual. Are you gonna deny me that?

 

Most autochoris are sex-repulsed or sex-neutral in real life. But they enjoy the idea of sex (with other people) but not the real thing. They won't likely have sex but they masturbate and have third-person fantasies (bc they cant imagine themselves in those situations). They say asexuals can masturbate, or are you gonna deny that too? What if you where in that situation, where you enjoy fantasizing about other people and masturbating but when it comes to being sexual with another person be totally gross out? Would you fell comfortable with people calling you sexual? I don't, i feel asexual and before i had found out that label i felt lost bc i didn't fit in society. Everyone was like ohhh yeah sex and i was like ewwwww. I don't care the differences about how you and me make the division where people start being alosexual and asexual, but i will refer myself as asexual always. A do not invalidate people's identities bc you are not them and you do not know how they feel.

I did not invalidate them, I said they are valid and their feelings are real. I said that they were welcome in the asexual community but perhaps they wouldn't need to adopt the asexual label because the gray sexual label might fit them better. However, I think ohdearIzzy made a great argument for why I would be wrong to say all autochoris would be grey-sexual, it looks like some would easily be consider ace. I'd follow her logic, it makes sense to me :)

 

On 7/19/2017 at 6:37 AM, ohdearIzzy said:

Basically, does the person who identifies as autochori desire partnered sex? If no = asexual, if yes = sexual. Autochorisexualism is something both asexual and sexual people commonly experience.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 3:33 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.

I concur. You're either asexual or sexual. The "spectrum" nonsense isn't helpful.

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

I concur. You're either asexual or sexual. The "spectrum" nonsense isn't helpful.

One doesn't rule out the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 11:20 AM, Homer said:

re: autochoris

 

I'm not really sure about this. Pan and Skulls have repearedly stated that autochoris is a common set of feelings among "regular" sexuals too. I remember having a discussion with Skulls (boy, I miss her on here...) about the porn issue. It basically boils down to the question whether you consider porn to be interactive (as in, involving the viewer).

 

The idea with autochorissexuality is that it might represent a spectrum whereby on one end there are people who only have "objective fantasies" and on the other end there are people who only have "subjective fantasies", with the assumption being that many people probably have some mix of the two. But for those on the objective third person fantasy end of the scale, the fact that they never include themselves in their fantasies means that the form of sexual attraction they experience does not motivate them to desire partnered sex, and as such it may be viewed as an incomplete form of sexual attraction.

 

On 7/19/2017 at 6:59 AM, N13 said:

And by the way, grey-sexuality is considered inside of asexuality in all the asexual webs i have read and which are official, not inside of alosexuality as you said... Look it up in any web you can find, asexuality is an spectrum (like every kind of sexuality actually) and greysexuality is a part of that spectrum.

 

On 7/19/2017 at 9:25 AM, Puck said:

What are these official sources you speak of? The AVEN website (the largest asexual community and first resource that typically pops up on a web search) doesn't mention an asexual spectrum on it.

This topic is discussed frequently, so I did some research on the use of asexual spectrum terminology in psychology/sociology articles. To some degree the dispute is semantic, but there are also significant differences between researchers in terms of how they choose to classify phenomena. If interested, I started a new thread in this forum that compiles a list of references.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Puck said:

My point was that just because someone doesn't say a flat "yes" to the question "Do you experience desire for partnered sexual activity/sexusl attraction, ever, at all?" doesn't mean they are asexual.

 

There are asexual people that feel 0 sexual attraction (which is the only condition to be asexual) but want / are involved in partnered sexual activity: to make their partners happy, bc they like the feeling, bc they wanna try and discover new experiences, or for whatever reason. A clear example from this are cupiosexuals:

 

Quote

Cupiosexual is a subset of asexual. It is used to describe asexuals (people who never experience sexual attraction) who still desire a sexual relationship.

Cupioromantic is a subset of aromantic. It is used to describe aromantics (people who never experience romantic attraction) who still desire a romantic relationship.

Are you gonna invalidate their label too? Just wondering since their definition of asexuality doesn't match completely yours.

 

12 hours ago, asexjoe said:

I concur. You're either asexual or sexual. The "spectrum" nonsense isn't helpful.

Well for me it is helpful and for many people too. Same as binary genders, you sometimes can't fit yourself in one of the boxes. Sexual? Asexual? Some people get really confused and I had an identity crisis bc of it, till i found out things were not just black or white, but different shades of grey. That's why need the in-between space, that's why we need the spectrum, bc humans are not perfect.

 

13 hours ago, Puck said:
On 7/19/2017 at 3:37 PM, ohdearIzzy said:

Basically, does the person who identifies as autochori desire partnered sex? If no = asexual, if yes = sexual. Autochorisexualism is something both asexual and sexual people commonly experience.

 

Well this would be better replacing the "desire partnered sex" by "feel sexual attraction". Bc duh, cupiosexuals remember? Some asexuals can be interested in partnered sex for whatever personal not-your-business reason and still feel less sexual attraction than a stone.

 

13 hours ago, Puck said:

I understand your argument, I am already familiar with this idea, and I agree with it. I just think you are describing the SEXUALITY spectrum.

 

Well that's really relative and depends on your point of view. You can view asexuality as another type of sexuality or as a lack of it. And the problem is still the same, if you are like 98% lacking of it, are you still asexual? For me yes, you are.

 

For me it would be something like: 0%-50% sexual // 50%-80% greysexual // 80%-100% asexual. Bc you know, there's not an exact tool of measure to check how sexual a person is, and people are not robots, they are not numbers you can count, they are humans and they can change or feel different depending on several factors.

 

13 hours ago, Puck said:

You can say they are closer to zero, sure, but they are not zero. If they were zero, you would call them zero. But you didn't, you called them 0.001, 0.2 and 0.13. They all have their own label which isn't zero. I think grey-sexuality covers those points well. There is no reason to make asexuality expand when a term already exists to cover them.

Yes, 0.001, 0.2 and 0.13 are not a proper "zero". I agree. But when it comes the time of approximating, they are zero. If the world is split into 1 and 0, and you have to choose a side, and you are 0.000021536, you are gonna say you are 0. Maybe you are not an absolute 0, but you are definitely closer to 0 than 1. Yes, you can also say, I am  0.000021536 but it's much easier to approximate and say I'm zero, I'm near zero, I'm almost zero, I consider myself a zero, I identify as zero, you can call me zero.

 

Still need a reason of why to expand the label of asexuality? Keep reading.

 

13 hours ago, Puck said:

I did not invalidate them, I said they are valid and their feelings are real. I said that they were welcome in the asexual community but perhaps they wouldn't need to adopt the asexual label because the gray sexual label might fit them better.

Okay I agree with you. Objectively speaking, grey-sexual would match better the condition of some people. But maybe they feel more comfortable calling themselves asexual. Maybe identifying with asexuals makes them happy. While if you refer as them as grey or alo they will feel extremely awkward. So what now? Are you gonna impose them the label you think they should have and not what they feel??? This sounds like the trans issue, maybe you try to impose them the label of male bc they have a dick, but if they feel female there's little you can do. Not talking about the gender dysphoria you can cause them just bc arguing with them about they should feel. Something like that happened to me, when i started identified as asexual and feeling comfortable with myself for once some people on the internet started saying "you cannot be asexual if you masturbate blablabla" and things like that made me feel horrible. I went into an identity crisis till i found out about all the spectrum, the different shades and the characteristics of autochorissexual. 

 

So yeah, go ahead, invalidate people who identify as asexuals and even you are not them and have no idea of their feelings, tell them: "no you are not asexual bc of *insert stupid common habit for most of the people who doesn't necessary mean you are no asexual*, you are grey-sexual". But be responsible of your acts and be conscious that you can be hurting that person self-esteem. There's no need to make people go though this, just let them be. How they define, interpret and express their sexuality is none of your business. They know much more about that than you bc, guess what, you are not inside of them!!

 

When someone asks is much easier saying "i'm asexual" than saying "I'm autochorissexual" (and having to explain the meaning while you also are letting them now that you get aroused by sexual explicit media, masturbate and have fantasies in third-person that you don't want to happen for real). Like, please. If people already looks at you bad when you tell them you are asexual imagine the look they will give you after saying all that, they will run away from you or ask you pretty uncomfortable and personal questions. Maybe if one day we reach a open-minded, tolerant, with-no-taboo, all-sexuality-accepting, no-judging society; maybe then what you are saying could be put into practice. But till then, I will always identify as an asexual, bc is what with i feel more comfortable with, rather than concreting which sub-sexuality i belong and having to tell every person i met my whole personal sexual life which is none of their business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N13 said:

 

 

Well this would be better replacing the "desire partnered sex" by "feel sexual attraction". Bc duh, cupiosexuals remember? Some asexuals can be interested in partnered sex for whatever personal not-your-business reason and still feel less sexual attraction than a stone.

 

Cupiosexuals are not asexual, they're cupiosexual. Also, it's a rather... erm... controversial label in itself. Saying that "I don't feel sexual attraction but desire sex" is, according to AVENs definition of sexual attraction (Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them) basically saying "I don't desire sex with people but I do desire sex with people".  At best it is a 'greysexual' label, if not just completely normal sexuality. Yes there are reasons why an asexual person might choose to have sex (to get pregnant, to satisfy a romantic partner), but there is a difference between choosing to compromise and have sex for reasons and just desiring sex in general. The sexual desire vs sexual attraction thing has been debated a hell of a lot, for years on this site.

(Apologies to Lovelykat for the tangent)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ohdearIzzy said:

Cupiosexuals are not asexual, they're cupiosexual.

Yes but a bit too much labels to be aware of don't you think?

+ Whats your sexuality?

- Well I'm cupiosexual autochorissexual panromantic polyamorous

A bit too complex if you wanna normalize sexualities. Common people will think you are speaking another language.

 

For me there are four big groups (heterosexuals, homosexuals, bi/pansexual and asexuals) and every other sub-sexuality can be grouped in any of those big groups. For me, grey-sexuality is nothing more but a part of the asexual umbrella. I use asexual as a spectrum term in order to be undertood and don't have to use a thousand of super specific labels. Also, you are talking about the asexual asexual, 100% asexual, but that's no the only kind of asexual that exist. In this forum at least, i've been people making a difference between libidoist and non libidoist asexuals.

 

But as I said and keep saying. If someone who is cupiosexual will rather define themselves as asexual bc they feel more comfortable with themselves. Let them be, do not invalidate their identity. They know how they feel better that you do. Their identity is none of your business.

 

And well, i think the discussion is over. I've exposed all my arguments several times and now im just repeating myself. If you are able to understand my point of view, through u have another one, good. Otherwise, i'm done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is interested on keep talking, I won't be able to connect the forum in a while, in my bio i'll leave my social media so u can contact me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N13 said:

Yes but a bit too much labels to be aware of don't you think?

+ Whats your sexuality?

- Well I'm cupiosexual autochorissexual panromantic polyamorous

A bit too complex if you wanna normalize sexualities. Common people will think you are speaking another language.

 

For me there are four big groups (heterosexuals, homosexuals, bi/pansexual and asexuals) and every other sub-sexuality can be grouped in any of those big groups. For me, grey-sexuality is nothing more but a part of the asexual umbrella. I use asexual as a spectrum term in order to be undertood and don't have to use a thousand of super specific labels. Also, you are talking about the asexual asexual, 100% asexual, but that's no the only kind of asexual that exist. In this forum at least, i've been people making a difference between libidoist and non libidoist asexuals.

 

But as I said and keep saying. If someone who is cupiosexual will rather define themselves as asexual bc they feel more comfortable with themselves. Let them be, do not invalidate their identity. They know how they feel better that you do. Their identity is none of your business.

 

And well, i think the discussion is over. I've exposed all my arguments several times and now im just repeating myself. If you are able to understand my point of view, through u have another one, good. Otherwise, i'm done.

IMO "I'm pan" would be a perfectly sufficient answer in your example, as it's really the only bit that might be on interest to anyone who isn't in a relationship with the person in question. Asexuality isn't a convenient label for anyone who's orientation or preferences are a little complex to adopt in order to make life easy. Don't get we wrong, I'm very much in the "enough with the labels!!!!" camp, the vast majority of silly "orientation" labels people (mainly teenagers) come up with are completely unnecessary, because they describe variations in perfectly average sexuality (or asexuality), but that doesn't mean that the people who are on the fringes of sexuality should just call themselves asexual, that's why we have the term greysexual! Of course there are various types of asexual, people are different from each other, but that does't mean that it's "an umbrella term", it just means people are different (for example, the autochori thing which I have already expressed my opinion on). Non-libidoist and libidoists are asexual because they don't desire partnered sex, the 'libido' bit is a separate issue even if it is a defining part of their sexual identity (sexual people can lack a libido too, it can be a serious and deeply distressing medical issue for some people). 

 

People can identify as whatever they want, great, good for them, I hope they are happy with their identity, but that doesn't make their identity correct. I could identify as a penguin if I wanted to, but I wouldn't actually be a penguin however firmly I insisted I was and how 'comfortable' I was with calling myself a penguin.  And if people come to a public forum to discuss their identity they are automatically making it other people's business. That said, or course anyone who identifies with the asexual experience is very welcome in the community. I don't think I would be welcome in a penguin community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ohdearIzzy said:

Cupiosexuals are not asexual, they're cupiosexual. Also, it's a rather... erm... controversial label in itself. Saying that "I don't feel sexual attraction but desire sex" is, according to AVENs definition of sexual attraction (Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them) basically saying "I don't desire sex with people but I do desire sex with people".  At best it is a 'greysexual' label, if not just completely normal sexuality.

The problem is that AVEN's definition of sexual attraction is incorrect, as it it is flat out wrong according to every single academic source I've consulted on the issue, and I've consulted dozens by this point. Not experiencing sexual attraction isn't completely normal sexuality, since most people have gender preferences among various other preferences (for example being attracted to younger people and unattracted to elderly people). If you don't experience sexual attraction, then you can't tell if you're heterosexual or homosexual, for example, so I have no idea how that could be construed as completely normal sexuality. That is why psychologists would classify it as asexuality.
 

3 hours ago, ohdearIzzy said:

Non-libidoist and libidoists are asexual because they don't desire partnered sex, the 'libido' bit is a separate issue even if it is a defining part of their sexual identity (sexual people can lack a libido too, it can be a serious and deeply distressing medical issue for some people). 

 

Citation needed?

People with HSDD don't desire partnered sex, but they're not asexual. I don't desire partnered sex, but I'm gray-asexual because I experience a low degree of sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One cannot describe someone who doesn't want partnered sex, ever, with anyone, as anything but asexual.

 

What possible difference does it make whether or not one feels "attraction" if one simply cannot stomach the thought of partnered sex.

 

It seems to me this craving for taxonomy and micro-identification is a fetish in and of itself. There may be a spectrum of sexuality but not among asexuals. Why should there be?

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

One cannot describe someone who doesn't want partnered sex, ever, with anyone, as anything but asexual.

 

What possible difference does it make whether or not one feels "attraction" if one simply cannot stomach the thought of partnered sex.

 

It seems to me this craving for taxonomy and micro-identification is a fetish in and of itself. There may be a spectrum of sexuality but not among asexuals. Why should there be?

I know that the main author publishing on asexuality and HSDD, Lorio Brotto, would be inclined to classify those who experience sexual attraction but who lack sexual desire as HSDD rather than asexual. They main challenge to this characterization is from critics writing from a feminist queer theory perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attraction and desire are the same thing, according to one definition: Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.

 

If you physically can't have sex, but want to, I could see how that could be construed as HSDD.

 

If you have no desire, but want it, you're still asexual, if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, asexjoe said:

Attraction and desire are the same thing, according to one definition: Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.

 

If you physically can't have sex, but want to, I could see how that could be construed as HSDD.

 

If you have no desire, but want it, you're still asexual, if you ask me.

They can't be the same thing, as it wouldn't make sense to have two different terms if they were. Here's Anthony Bogaert's explanation:


“Using a definition that centers on a lack of sexual attraction would not necessarily mean asexual people lack sexual desire. Sexual desire refers to an urge for sexual stimulation (including potentially an orgasm) and may include both partnered and nonpartnered stimulation (e.g., masturbation). It is notable, however, that one alternative but related definition of asexuality is in fact a lack of sexual desire. For example, Prause and Graham (2007) found evidence that many self-identified asexual people report very low (or absence of) sexual desire.”

(Anthony F. Bogaert, Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters, Journal of Sex Research,  May 2015, Volume 52, Issue 4, pages 362-379)

As for HSDD, there is debate within academia but the trend in mainstream psychology is towards classifying HSDD as low desire or a lack of desire in the presence of sexual attraction. Besides that, I stated a new thread in this forum to discuss the spectrum issue in more detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys like Anthony F. Bogaert are the problem. No wonder people don't take asexuality seriously.

 

"Desire" without an object doesn't count. A desire to masturbate isn't a desire for sex. Masturbation has no probative or dispositive value, since everyone does it.

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

Guys like Anthony F. Bogaert are the problem. No wonder people don't take asexuality seriously.

 

"Desire" without an object doesn't count. A desire to masturbate isn't a desire for sex. Masturbation has no probative or dispositive value, since everyone does it.

I would suggest that failing to follow scientific evidence from people like Anthony Bogaert is more likely to be the reason why asexuality isn't taken seriously. Bogaert is the most published researcher on asexuality. And a university professor who specializes in a subject probably has a more sophisticated understanding of that subject than would a layperson with no relevant education or qualifications in that field.

I would add that there are nonlidiodist asexuals who don't masturbate and there is a clear difference between them and libidoist asexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the "science" in simply asking questions and publishing answers? Why should asexuals trust someone with an obvious sexual bias?

 

And what is the relevant difference between "libidoist" and "non-libidoist" asexuals? Why is that important?

 

If asexuals are to be visible to sexuals, we ought to emphasize what we have in common, and what distinguishes us from sexuals.

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

Where is the "science" in simply asking questions and publishing answers? Why should asexuals trust someone with an obvious sexual bias?

 

And what is the relevant difference between "libidoist" and "non-libidoist" asexuals? Why is that important?

 

If asexuals are to be visible to sexuals, we ought to emphasize what we have in common, and what distinguishes us from sexuals.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sexual bias". I think Anthony Bogaert is a reputable source because he gets paid to research and write on these topics, and he's published in peer reviewed journals. According to the most popular definition, what asexuals have in common is a lack of sexual attraction. And we know there are sex-favourable asexuals in the community who desire partnered sex.

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...