Confused by Cupiosexuality (Again)

[Asexy Void]

I'm having a hard time understanding cupiosexuality again. upset emoticon How does that work if you're in a relationship with someone who is fully ace?

From what I understand of it: isn't it an asexual person who desires sexual contact with their partner because it makes their partner happy, and that in turn makes the cupioace happy? Or is that only something very specific? If it isn't, then how would that work with an Ace partner?

(My girlfriend is cupiosexual, and I'm ace. She's tried explaining it to me before, but I just can't wrap my head around it. It'd make so much more sense to me if I was sexual. :( )

[Poots]

What is cupiosexual?

[Star Bit]

No, Cupiosexuals desire sex while finding no one sexually enticing. They may have standards or preferences for other reasons. (i.e. trust, bad aesthetics are an arousal turn off, look for someone who looks like they'd be active in bed, etc.) It's not an asexual who's willing to sexually compromise.

[Asexy Void]

What is cupiosexual?

An Asexual person that desires a sexual relationship.

No, Cupiosexuals desire sex while finding no one sexually enticing. They may have standards or preferences for other reasons. (i.e. trust, bad aesthetics are an arousal turn off, look for someone who looks like they'd be active in bed, etc.) It's not an asexual who's willing to sexually compromise.

Thank you, that makes sense to me. :o

[Tarfeather]

No, Cupiosexuals desire sex while finding no one sexually enticing. They may have standards or preferences for other reasons. (i.e. trust, bad aesthetics are an arousal turn off, look for someone who looks like they'd be active in bed, etc.) It's not an asexual who's willing to sexually compromise.

If asexuality is considered a sexual orientation, it's still an asexual though. An asexual who has an internal desire for sex other than attraction, but an asexual nonetheless. It's the same way that I guess I could enjoy sexual activities with another man for the plain physical pleasure of it, yet that wouldn't make me bi- or homosexual.

[Star Bit]

XD I never checked back but am now for a different reason.

Again, enjoying sex and desiring it are two different things. You can of course have sex with men, not be gay, and enjoy it, but it's different from desiring to have sex with men/desiring a sexual relationship with men but with no one specific; which is Cupiosexual. The prefix Cupio literally means desire. The creator of the term defines it as [in reverse order] "desiring a sexual relationship despite finding no one sexually attractive."

[KendraPM]

I think the confusion comes in the reasoning behind the desire for a sexual relationship. For example, I consider myself to be cupiosexual because I prefer and desire a sexual realtionship. But why do I desire a sexual relationship? Because the emotional connection I recieve through sexual contact is something I want in a romantic relationsihp, with a bit of "it feels good" thrown in. If the definition of cupiosexual is "desires a sexual relationship without experiencing sexual attraction" than I completely relate to that. Saying you want/desire something is all well and good, but the "why" behind it can vastly differ person to person.

[Telecaster68]

To me, it's confusing because it seems inherently contradictory. It's saying cupiosexuals want sex - as sexuals do - for emotional and physical pleasure - as sexuals do - yet *they're still not sexual*.

If there's an romantic, emotional component, then it must relate to a specific person who cupios want to have sex with as part of that relationship. How is that not sexual desire for a partner? How is that not being a sexual?

[dissolved]

To me, it's confusing because it seems inherently contradictory. It's saying cupiosexuals want sex - as sexuals do - for emotional and physical pleasure - as sexuals do - yet *they're still not sexual*.

If there's an romantic, emotional component, then it must relate to a specific person who cupios want to have sex with as part of that relationship. How is that not sexual desire for a partner? How is that not being a sexual?

Précisément. Exactly my issue with the cupio thing. Couldn't have said it better myself.

But anyway, have none of you ever heard someone say, I really want someone right now but I don't find anyone attractive?? I hear it repeatedly from my single friends because they don't want to settle for just anyone, they want to be with someone they find attractive. One of my friends has been single for eight years because he hasn't found anyone attractive. That doesn't make him asexual or cupiosexual or anything like that. It makes him human.

Wanting a sexual relationship, wanting a connection with someone "but finding no one attractive/enticing etc" is exactly what sexual folk experience. There's absolutely no difference, other than people deciding they want to be different from the rest of the world. What's so bad about being sexual that people feel a need to conjure up a new label in order for them to make a distinction? There is no distinction. There's variation between humans. Everyone experiences things at different times and frequencies, with different intensity and you know what? That's totally fine and there's no need for these little groups and subgroups of people who consider themselves different! We're all human and we really don't need any more segregation, self proclaimed or otherwise.

[dandelionfluff]

I'm confused too, because I assumed that part of being asexual was having little to no desire for a sexual relationship on top of having no attraction. I've seen many people here say that the definition for asexuality includes no desire for partnered sex.I really don't know how these people fit under the asexual umbrella. But that's just me. I'm not trying to invalidate the identity or anything but I am confused!

[Star Bit]

Cupio is under the Gray umbrella, not the asexual or aromantic one (which shouldn't even be umbrellas; that's why the gray middle ground exists).

[Xavy]

Cupio is under the Gray umbrella, not the asexual or aromantic one.

I thought that graysexuality was under the asexual umbrella. Am I getting confused ?

[Telecaster68]

Hang on - asexual is an orientation rather than an umbrella.. Is cupiosexual another orientation if it's not under the 'umbrella' of asexuality? Or is it under the umbrella of 'sexuality'? in which case, cupiosexuals are in fact sexual, and there must therefore be homocupiosexuals and heterocupiosexuals.

This kind of stuff is why the profusion of sublabels is problematic.

[Xavy]

Hang on - asexual is an orientation rather than an umbrella.. Is cupiosexual another orientation if it's not under the 'umbrella' of asexuality? Or is it under the umbrella of 'sexuality'? in which case, cupiosexuals are in fact sexual, and there must therefore be homocupiosexuals and heterocupiosexuals.

This kind of stuff is why the profusion of sublabels is problematic.

I don't have a problem with anyone who doesn't experience sexual attraction at all or who only rarely experiences sexual attraction using the asexual label. I agree that the sub labels become problematic but I think if we stick to the way people experience or don't experience sexual attraction as a guide it will be ok. That said I can see how cupiosexuality can fall under asexuality since it appears to not involve sexual attraction. Seems to me that the cupio's sexual activity is behavioral and not sexual orientation is not about behavior.

[SithLord]

This get even more confusing when I ask sexuals what sexual attraction feels like. What Kendra_P_M described as cupiosexual is what my bf says he experiences as sexual attracted.

Ugh all these terms that serve to confuse and blur lines together. There are no lines in sexuality but still.

[Star Bit]

Cupio is under the Gray umbrella, not the asexual or aromantic one.

I thought that graysexuality was under the asexual umbrella. Am I getting confused ?

Gray is a combination of sexual and asexual (e.g. someone with sexual attraction not wanting sex, demisexual which starts off as being asexual but becomes sexual).

If a Bi person isn't gay then a Gray person isn't ace or aro; they're half. Is a Liger a tiger or a lion? Neither yet both. They are in a separate category despite containing half of both. If hybrids could reproduce they would be a different species. And in dogs they are (not talking about wolf hybrids). It's like saying a Labradoodle is a Labrador.. nope.

Sexuality is defined as "the sexual habits and desires of a person" or "a person's sexual orientation or preference." So basically desiring sex.

@Xavy

Behavior and desire are different, and if someone desires something then they certainly do (i.e. if someone desires to have sex with the same sex they're obviously gay or bi, not straight) Thus Cupio isn't simply behavior. The reason may be different from the majority but it's still desire.

[dandelionfluff]

Cupio is under the Gray umbrella, not the asexual or aromantic one.

I thought that graysexuality was under the asexual umbrella. Am I getting confused ?

Gray is a combination of sexual and asexual (e.g. someone with sexual attraction not wanting sex, demisexual which starts off as being asexual but becomes sexual).

If a Bi person isn't gay then a Gray person isn't ace or aro; they're half. Is a Liger a tiger or a lion? Neither yet both. They are in a separate category despite containing half of both. If hybrids could reproduce they would be a different species. And in dogs they are (not talking about wolf hybrids). It's like saying a Labradoodle is a Labrador.. nope.

Sexuality is defined as "the sexual habits and desires of a person" or "a person's sexual orientation or preference." So basically desiring sex.

To me that makes sense but then there are some people who are like "graysexuals and demisexuals are asexuals too!" so it can get even more confusing sometimes...

[KendraPM]

To me, it's confusing because it seems inherently contradictory. It's saying cupiosexuals want sex - as sexuals do - for emotional and physical pleasure - as sexuals do - yet *they're still not sexual*.

If there's an romantic, emotional component, then it must relate to a specific person who cupios want to have sex with as part of that relationship. How is that not sexual desire for a partner? How is that not being a sexual?

Précisément. Exactly my issue with the cupio thing. Couldn't have said it better myself.

But anyway, have none of you ever heard someone say, I really want someone right now but I don't find anyone attractive?? I hear it repeatedly from my single friends because they don't want to settle for just anyone, they want to be with someone they find attractive. One of my friends has been single for eight years because he hasn't found anyone attractive. That doesn't make him asexual or cupiosexual or anything like that. It makes him human.

Wanting a sexual relationship, wanting a connection with someone "but finding no one attractive/enticing etc" is exactly what sexual folk experience. There's absolutely no difference, other than people deciding they want to be different from the rest of the world. What's so bad about being sexual that people feel a need to conjure up a new label in order for them to make a distinction? There is no distinction. There's variation between humans. Everyone experiences things at different times and frequencies, with different intensity and you know what? That's totally fine and there's no need for these little groups and subgroups of people who consider themselves different! We're all human and we really don't need any more segregation, self proclaimed or otherwise.

I'm confused too, because I assumed that part of being asexual was having little to no desire for a sexual relationship on top of having no attraction. I've seen many people here say that the definition for asexuality includes no desire for partnered sex.I really don't know how these people fit under the asexual umbrella. But that's just me. I'm not trying to invalidate the identity or anything but I am confused!

This get even more confusing when I ask sexuals what sexual attraction feels like. What Kendra_P_M described as cupiosexual is what my bf says he experiences as sexual attracted.

Ugh all these terms that serve to confuse and blur lines together. There are no lines in sexuality but still.

To help clear up a little of the confusion, look at romantic attraction (for those who experience romantic attraction.) Some people don't experience romantic attraction, never get a crush or develope romantic feelings, but can still enjoy and/or want to be part of a romantic relationship. Sexual attraction is not "enjoys being part of a sexual relationship," just like romantic attraction is not "enjoys dating." Sometimes a person never experiences romantic attraction, but still enjoys dating/romance. Sometimes a person never experiences sexual attraction, but still enjoys having sex. It's a different type of enjoyment, and it's not for the same reasons (the "why" behind it if you will), but they can enjoy it.

I don't experience sexual attraction, therefore I am asexual. I am not sexually attracted to my partner, I don't particularly want to have sex with them, but I'm not oposed to it and an orgasm is better when done by someone else plus I feel an emotional bond with them when we are physically invovled, so "why not?" Therefore I am sex-positive (and occiassionally I use the term cupio, mainly because it makes people ask questions and then I get to educate people on different orientations, which spreads knowledge about asexuality which I like.) I see cupio as a sublabel of asexuality. If you like sublabels, there it is. If not, that's fine too. You don't have to use it.

[KendraPM]

This get even more confusing when I ask sexuals what sexual attraction feels like. What Kendra_P_M described as cupiosexual is what my bf says he experiences as sexual attracted.

Ugh all these terms that serve to confuse and blur lines together. There are no lines in sexuality but still.

(Sorry to double post, but extra example time!) You mentioned a bf. If you didn't have any romantic feelings for him, didn't love him anymore than your other friends, but didn't mind when he did romantic things for you, didn't mind b eing his gf and enjoyed when you two went on dates, but didn't feel any differently for him than you did your other friends, that would be like how I feel but with sex. I feel no sexual attraciton, but I don't mind when my partner does for me, don't mind when they do sexual things towards me, and I enjoy sexual contact. That is the best way I know how to describe what I personally feel. I feel no more sexual attraction to them than I do my friends, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying a sexual relationship with them.

[Star Bit]

Having a positive perspective on sex and desiring a sexual relationship are different. And Cupiosexual is not just enjoying sex, it is desiring it for one reason or another. Enjoyment and desire are different. Alot of the time they're together, but not always.

Dictionary definitions:

Enjoy: take delight or pleasure in

Desire: a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.

Cupio: to desire, wish, long for

To help clear up a little of the confusion, look at romantic attraction (for those who experience romantic attraction.) Some people don't experience romantic attraction, never get a crush or develope romantic feelings, but can still enjoy and/or want to be part of a romantic relationship. Sexual attraction is not "enjoys being part of a sexual relationship," just like romantic attraction is not "enjoys dating." Sometimes a person never experiences romantic attraction, but still enjoys dating/romance. Sometimes a person never experiences sexual attraction, but still enjoys having sex. It's a different type of enjoyment, and it's not for the same reasons (the "why" behind it if you will), but they can enjoy it.

I agree with this, but again, enjoy and desire are different. An aromantic can be in, and enjoy a romantic relationship, but they don't desire a romantic relationship; that's Cupio. There is romantic attraction and a (for lack of a better word) romantic-drive. Both are normally present in relationships. Alloromantics can have a romantic-drive/desire for romance without romantic attraction at the time, but the reason they're still alloromantic and not aromantic is because they are both capable of romantic feelings and desire a romantic relationship. That's what the Gray zone is for; anything inbetween. Gray-romantic can be when someone has romantic attraction but doesn't wish to act on it, so why should the reverse be under aromantic and not Gray? We even have specifics for which side the person falls more toward; Gray-aromantic and Gray-romantic. Some people choose to go by aromantic and not Gray-romantic if they have romantic attraction but don't desire to act because Gray-aro or Gray-(allo)romantic predominantly means a romance maybe, where as aro doesn't.

[Telecaster68]

So the thought process going on for a cupio is:

1. Sexuals desire sex with someone else, because they enjoy it physically and emotionally, mostly as part of a romantic relationship.

2. Asexuals don't want sex with anyone, although they might go along with it for their partners' sake.

3. I desire sex with someone else, because I enjoy it physically and emotionally, as part of a romantic relationship.

4. Therefore I'm on the asexual spectrum.

Am I the only thinking 'WTF'?

[Star Bit]

Also, i don't think anyone is saying Cupiosexual is a bad term, it's just about the asexual/aromantic bit, and that it belongs on the Gray scale.

[Telecaster68]

I don't think being what someone might call 'cupiosexual' is a bad thing. I do think it's a pointless, contradictory, confusing term though.

[Star Bit]

I think most people who are on the gray spectrum identify as that publicly with perhaps an explanation on the specific, but not a specific term (except for demi because that's far more common). So people who do use the more specific gray terms online most likely do so out of pride or it being a way to find others like them. Gray is just too wide of a term to find anyone properly.

[Telecaster68]

people who do use the more specific gray terms online most likely do so out of pride or it being a way to find others like you

In this case, other people who, by the usual criteria, are sexual but seem determined to identify as asexual anyway...

[Autumn Season]

"cupiosexual" also sounds more sexual than asexual to me. It makes sense to put the label in the gray umbrella though. If sexual is 100% and asexual 0%, then gray-(a)sexual (including the sublabel cupiosexual) would be 50%. Of course the actual numbers vary from this simplistic model.

And the definition makes sense too. It might not be very useful for most people, but otherwise there is nothing that can be said against it.

I understand it like this:

As Star Bit already said, there is a romantic/ sexual drive and a romantic/ sexual attraction. The drive makes people want a romantic/ sexual relationship in general and the attraction concentrates on one/ several specific person/ people. Usually people have all of it: A romantic and sexual drive as well as a romantic and sexual attraction. Most of the time there is no need to even differentiate. But I can see how somebody with a very low or non-existent attraction can still desire a relationship. In fact I think I know several people who have a low attraction level, but a high drive, so that they end(ed) up in relationships with others they don't particularly desire. Even so they would rather be in a romantic and/ or sexual relationship than alone. And it does not mean they are unhappy. The only difference might be that they don't understand "picky" daters and jealousy well. That's just my interpretation from what I observed in my social circle though.

So the thought process going on for a cupio is:

1. Sexuals desire sex with someone else, because they enjoy it physically and emotionally, mostly as part of a romantic relationship.

2. Asexuals don't want sex with anyone, although they might go along with it for their partners' sake.

3. I desire sex with someone else, because I enjoy it physically and emotionally, as part of a romantic relationship.

4. Therefore I'm on the asexual spectrum.

Am I the only thinking 'WTF'?

The difference to the common sexual people would be the lack of attraction. Most sexual people (I believe) only decide to date someone if they experience sexual attraction towards the other. Cupiosexuals date even though they don't feel the attraction. Other than that, yeah, it's very similar.

[Telecaster68]

Cupiosexuals date even though they don't feel the attraction.

So they manage to be romantically attached to someone and enjoy sex with them for the physical and emotional feelings and have a high sexual drive of their own so presumably want to keep doing it, and would feel an emotional loss if they weren't able to do it with this specific person - but this doesn't amount to being attracted to them?

My brain is melting down.

[SkyWorld]

Even reading this thread is making me confused... but I think I'm starting to understand.

In my own opinion, at first that is before reading the information in this thread, I thought that cupiosexual was just asexuals who have a sexual relationship and I had disagreed with the term because it was about behavior and not attraction.

So now, yes, my opinion has changed from reading this thread (yay for learning), it's quite interesting... since it's not really about behavior, but about desire? There's still some things that I am confused about, but I appreciate everyone putting their input and asking the same questions that I am having. :lol:

[Autumn Season]

Cupiosexuals date even though they don't feel the attraction.

So they manage to be romantically attached to someone and enjoy sex with them for the physical and emotional feelings and have a high sexual drive of their own so presumably want to keep doing it, and would feel an emotional loss if they weren't able to do it with this specific person - but this doesn't amount to being attracted to them?

My brain is melting down.

Well, yeah. ^^° Cupiosexuals can experience romantic and emotional attraction, but not sexual attraction.

[KendraPM]

Cupiosexuals date even though they don't feel the attraction.

So they manage to be romantically attached to someone and enjoy sex with them for the physical and emotional feelings and have a high sexual drive of their own so presumably want to keep doing it, and would feel an emotional loss if they weren't able to do it with this specific person - but this doesn't amount to being attracted to them?

My brain is melting down.

Well, yeah. ^^° Cupiosexuals can experience romantic and emotional attraction, but not sexual attraction.

This is why I often try to use the "romantic attraction" example, to help people understand the difference between attraction and desire. Doesn't always work, but it can help some people understand.

@StarBit: But about desire because of enjoyment? Where does that fall? If you enjoy chocolate and so therefore decide you want chocolate, doesn't that fall under the "desire" definition? (Starting to wonder if I am cupiosexual. I want sexual contact in a relationship because I enjoy it-mainly the emotional connection, but it still counts as "enjoying"- so wouldn't that mean I desire a sexual realationship? When outside of a relationship I have no desire for a sexual relationship, but sexual contact is something I want when in a relationship, due to the emotional connection.....or is it that since it's the emotional connect that I primarily want, I actually have a desire for emotional connection and not a sexual relationship? If the emotional connect could be gotten through any other activity, I'd be completely sex-indifferent, having it only if my partner wanted, but not really caring either way.)