Cupio vs Demi - do you think there's much difference?

[The_Verse]

Cupio - A cupiosexual is a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction but desires a sexual relationship for one reason or another.

Demi - A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone.

I previously considered myself Demi, but am not sure how to define sexual attraction. I have never found anyone "hot" but I enjoy sex with my partner. So maybe I'd be Cupio (which would still fall under the AVEN definition of asexual).

I'm not asking you guys to define me, because I know that's boring and irrelevant. I just wondered what other people thought the difference was between these two terms. I know cupio is kind of new, though.

[elainetta]

By the definitions you posted, the difference is that demis DO experience sexual attraction (in the described circumstance), while cupios still do not. It decidedly seems to fall as a subcategory of Asexual ("aces who enjoy partnered sex," in my opinion), while demi is "almost Ace" (or " 'functionally asexual' while not in love," imo).

I am not very familiar with cupiosexuals... thank you for sharing what the word apparently means. :)

Edit to add: Yeah, very few people can clearly define what sexual attraction really is. I know I can't.

Edited again for clarification.... >.<

[an18059]

They're definitely not the same, because demisexuals do actually experience sexual attraction (when they have formed a close bond with someone) whereas cupiosexuals don't, they just want a sexual relationship. So yes, I do think there's a difference.

I don't know about your particular circumstance though, because you can definitely just identify as asexual and still enjoy sex with your partner. I think (although I may be wrong, because I don't actually know that much about cupiosexuality) that cupiosexuals would seek out a sexual relationship for whatever reason, whereas asexuals wouldn't but some do have the potential to enjoy one. It's quite hard to distinguish between some orientations I guess, because there is so much overlapping, and I'm pretty sure that no two people experience attraction in the same way.

[noparlpf]

Obviously nobody else can define your identity.

Based on your definition of cupiosexuality, the primary difference is that cupiosexuals still don't experience sexual attraction but want to have sex for other reasons (they want to please their partner, they want to have a kid, whatever) whereas demisexuals do experience sexual attraction under certain circumstances. So cupio would be a subset of asexuality, whereas demisexual is more a subset of grey-asexuality.

[Wineblood]

I've never heard of cupio before and based on your definition of it, it sounds very "special snowflake"-y and vague.

[Star Bit]

Asexuals can have and enjoy sex, they just don't have the impulse to do it. Sexual attraction is when someones presence is sexually arousing and then they have the impulse/desire to do sexual things to/with that person. Cupiosexual is NOT an asexual who enjoyse sex, it is someone who DESIRES sex while finding no one sexually enticing.

[The_Verse]

This is why I think it's difficult, because every one has different opinions on it. Which is why I asked the question!! It's interesting to see everyone's points of view, even if they aren't accepting and open-minded ;)

I used to think I was a perfectionist and that's why I never found anyone "hot". XD Now, I better understand it as part of the asexual spectrum. I definitely never find people's appearance "hot".... just trying to figure out if there's some sexual attraction around the personality or whether I just like sex with my partner XD Which is why I find it hard to figure out cupio vs demi. But then I notice a lot of people on AVEN cannot figure out sexual attraction because we don't often experience it. Ack XD

[whocaresthough]

I'm demiromantic, so I think if you take out sexual and replace it with romantic for both terms, then I feel like demi and cupio are extremely different.

I've never heard of cupio before and based on your definition of it, it sounds very "special snowflake"-y and vague.

I understand that reference XD

[The_Verse]

I'm demiromantic, so I think if you take out sexual and replace it with romantic for both terms, then I feel like demi and cupio are extremely different.

Hmm, that's an interesting point! I'll have a think about it from this angle too. :D

[Member54880]

Demisexuals can be indifferent, repulsed, or favorable towards sex, and can only experience sexual attraction with a close emotional bond.

I've seen at least 2 different definitions for cupiosexual. It's clear in each of them that they don't experience any sexual attraction, but I've seen several people say it's the same thing as being a sex-favorable asexual, or the wording I've seen used suggested that cupiosexuals are sex-favorable. The other I've seen is desiring a sexual relationship itself without experiencing any sexual attraction (or desire for sex that is directed towards anyone). Under that definition, it is also possible for a cupiosexual person to be sex-indifferent or repulsed.

[FlowerSpirituality]

Hmmm...Now, I wonder am I a CupioSexual instead of Demi. I do enjoy the sensations I feel during sex (a little tiny bit but not worth it), but I have noticed I can enjoy sex in close relationships and take months to years for me to feel intense pleasure with my partner. I know it take longer than 3 months based on my history. It took over a year and a half of being with one boyfriend before I finally understood what and why Sexuals enjoys sex so much. It scared me at first! It was new to me to feel that type of intensity!!!! I thought it was the beginning of insanity!

I wish I could feel that type of pleasure as easily as Sexuals do and as quick. Since I know about my connection to Asexuality, I know not to waste time trying to have sex, especially now I know what a real orgasm feels like, and I won't enjoy it much until I feel very close to someone special, over time. I have no idea when to start since I do not understand how this work. I don't have sexual attraction to let me know when my body is ready to truly receive that person. I have no guidelines to go by other than try it and hope for the best. Touching me to get me arouse sends false signals because I still cannot feel much pleasure when I tried having sex.

I don't remember experiencing sexual attraction. I have experienced Romantic Attraction very lightly to where I want to be close to the person but do not act on it, especially if the bond is not strong enough for me to feel comfortable doing it. I believe the key to opening the door to my sexuality is through Romantic or DemiRomantic. What is a CupioRomantic? For me, romantic starts with me singing about the person, even the desires to kiss happens much later after a stronger bond has been formed. Doing things prematurely feels awkward and empty. Having a libido does not promise enjoyment; libido without emotional closeness felt strange and empthy. Regrets!

Okay? Do I sound like CupioSexual or DemiSexual to you based on what I wrote? Do I sound like DemiRomantic or CupioRomantic based on what I wrote? Do you have any questions for clarification? If you can explain why for your answer, that would be helpful also. Thanks in advance. By the way, I would love to have sex, but I have to wait until I feel that type of emotional closeness to someone to where my body will respond to them like that. Thankfully, I know now I am normal if I cannot function sexually like an AlloSexual person and its okay. I am glad I cannot look at a man's body like a piece of meat in the meat market! :-)

[The_Verse]

Demisexuals can be indifferent, repulsed, or favorable towards sex, and can only experience sexual attraction with a close emotional bond.

I've seen at least 2 different definitions for cupiosexual. It's clear in each of them that they don't experience any sexual attraction, but I've seen several people say it's the same thing as being a sex-favorable asexual, or the wording I've seen used suggested that cupiosexuals are sex-favorable. The other I've seen is desiring a sexual relationship itself without experiencing any sexual attraction (or desire for sex that is directed towards anyone). Under that definition, it is also possible for a cupiosexual person to be sex-indifferent or repulsed.

Hmmm...Now, I wonder am I a CupioSexual instead of Demi. I do enjoy the sensations I feel during sex (a little tiny bit but not worth it), but I have noticed I can enjoy sex in close relationships and take months to years for me to feel intense pleasure with my partner. I know it take longer than 3 months based on my history. It took over a year and a half of being with one boyfriend before I finally understood what and why Sexuals enjoys sex so much. It scared me at first! It was new to me to feel that type of intensity!!!! I thought it was the beginning of insanity!

I wish I could feel that type of pleasure as easily as Sexuals do and as quick. Since I know about my connection to Asexuality, I know not to waste time trying to have sex, especially now I know what a real orgasm feels like, and I won't enjoy it much until I feel very close to someone special, over time. I have no idea when to start since I do not understand how this work. I don't have sexual attraction to let me know when my body is ready to truly receive that person. I have no guidelines to go by other than try it and hope for the best. Touching me to get me arouse sends false signals because I still cannot feel much pleasure when I tried having sex.

I don't remember experiencing sexual attraction. I have experienced Romantic Attraction very lightly to where I want to be close to the person but do not act on it, especially if the bond is not strong enough for me to feel comfortable doing it. I believe the key to opening the door to my sexuality is through Romantic or DemiRomantic. What is a CupioRomantic? For me, romantic starts with me singing about the person, even the desires to kiss happens much later after a stronger bond has been formed. Doing things prematurely feels awkward and empty. Having a libido does not promise enjoyment; libido without emotional closeness felt strange and empthy. Regrets!

Okay? Do I sound like CupioSexual or DemiSexual to you based on what I wrote? Do I sound like DemiRomantic or CupioRomantic based on what I wrote? Do you have any questions for clarification? If you can explain why for your answer, that would be helpful also. Thanks in advance. By the way, I would love to have sex, but I have to wait until I feel that type of emotional closeness to someone to where my body will respond to them like that. Thankfully, I know now I am normal if I cannot function sexually like an AlloSexual person and its okay. I am glad I cannot look at a man's body like a piece of meat in the meat market! :-)

Both of these posts just show how complicated it is. It's really difficult to label anyone else, let alone yourself.

Does desire = attraction? Are they the same thing?

At the end of the day, it doesn't worry me too much as I am starting to realise just how complicated things can feel. It would just be nice to have a clear definition XD

[Star Bit]

Hmmm...Now, I wonder am I a CupioSexual instead of Demi. I do enjoy the sensations I feel during sex (a little tiny bit but not worth it), but I have noticed I can enjoy sex in close relationships and take months to years for me to feel intense pleasure with my partner. I know it take longer than 3 months based on my history. It took over a year and a half of being with one boyfriend before I finally understood what and why Sexuals enjoys sex so much. It scared me at first! It was new to me to feel that type of intensity!!!! I thought it was the beginning of insanity!

I wish I could feel that type of pleasure as easily as Sexuals do and as quick. Since I know about my connection to Asexuality, I know not to waste time trying to have sex, especially now I know what a real orgasm feels like, and I won't enjoy it much until I feel very close to someone special, over time. I have no idea when to start since I do not understand how this work. I don't have sexual attraction to let me know when my body is ready to truly receive that person. I have no guidelines to go by other than try it and hope for the best. Touching me to get me arouse sends false signals because I still cannot feel much pleasure when I tried having sex.

I don't remember experiencing sexual attraction. I have experienced Romantic Attraction very lightly to where I want to be close to the person but do not act on it, especially if the bond is not strong enough for me to feel comfortable doing it. I believe the key to opening the door to my sexuality is through Romantic or DemiRomantic. What is a CupioRomantic? For me, romantic starts with me singing about the person, even the desires to kiss happens much later after a stronger bond has been formed. Doing things prematurely feels awkward and empty. Having a libido does not promise enjoyment; libido without emotional closeness felt strange and empthy. Regrets!

Okay? Do I sound like CupioSexual or DemiSexual to you based on what I wrote? Do I sound like DemiRomantic or CupioRomantic based on what I wrote? Do you have any questions for clarification? If you can explain why for your answer, that would be helpful also. Thanks in advance. By the way, I would love to have sex, but I have to wait until I feel that type of emotional closeness to someone to where my body will respond to them like that. Thankfully, I know now I am normal if I cannot function sexually like an AlloSexual person and its okay. I am glad I cannot look at a man's body like a piece of meat in the meat market! :-)

Well, you would still be Demi/Demi-Cupiosexual if Cupiosexual was accurate for you. You can be more than one thing. Asexuals can have sex and enjoy it, they just don't have the impulse to have it. It sounds like you can only enjoy sex after a certain bond but never have sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is when someones presence is sexually arousing, which triggers the impulse/desire to do sexual things to/with that person. Cupioromantic is an aromantic; someone incapable of romantic feelings, who desires to be in a romantic relationship. It sounds like an oxymoron, but basicathey they have love to give while unfortunately never being able to actually feel it for anyone. They can feel platonic love.

@The_Verse

No, desire does not equal attraction. There are two things; the attraction and then the desire to have that kind of relationship. Someone can desire to have sex while finding no one sexually attractive. Someone can desire to be in a romantic relationship while not having a crush. Someone can have a crush while not wanting to be in a relationship. Someone can have sexual attraction toward someone but not want to act on it. Which attraction do you need the definition of?

@Aqua Ace

A Cupiosexual being indifferent or even repulsed makes no sense; cupio means desire, and the latter example would only be valid if they were Cupio-Lith. And if someone's sex indifferent then there's Apathsexual. Using the term Demisexual toward indifferent people, i feel, is misleading/misinforming other people on what the term means, as well as if a partner looks up the term and sees that eventually their partner will have sexual attraction/eventually show sexual reciprocation, which an indifferent person may not. I think demi-consent should be a term.

[Guest]

Cupiosexual is NOT an asexual who enjoyse sex, it is someone who DESIRES sex while finding no one sexually enticing.

In other words, someone who is sexual, but hasn't found the right partner yet (possibly because of too high standards).

I still don't understand why "cupiosexuals" should be considered asexual. At all. (But of course, I think the entire "sexual attraction" definition is humbug, and the real difference between aces and sexuals is the presence or absence of an innate desire for partnered sex. The "cupio" label only makes sense within a definition of asexuality that I neither use or support.)

And that's what differentiates them from demis... Demis, for all intents and purposes, live in "asexual mode" most of their life (i.e., feeling no desire for sex, at all), and only might switch to "sexual mode" - i.e., start feeling desire for partnered sex - in a close, long relationship.... but if and when they do, they are indistinguishable from sexuals in regard to that one partner only.

[Star Bit]

@Mysticus Insanus
It's a type of asexual out of technicality; the same goes for its romantic equivalent. Sex-drive and sexual attraction are two different things. If it's hard to understand then look at its romantic equivalent (actually sexual attraction doesn't translate with romantic attraction, but you can still get the idea). Sex-drive = desire for sex. Sexual attraction = sexual desire triggered by a person. Sexual arousal is what triggers this impulse in sexual people. Asexual is having no sexual impulses triggered by a specific person. I wouldn't say they have too high of standards. Saying they haven't found the right partner yet is as ignorent as someone saying that to an asexual. So essentially no ones presence turns them on and their sexual impulses aren't triggered by the person but by their existing sex-drive and the thought of sex is what probably starts their arousal.

[Guest]

The difference is that:

Cupiosexual = regular sexual person who does not find other people aesthetically attractive ie ''I love and desire sex, I just don't find anyone "hot''

Demisexual = asexual for all intents and purposes (no desire for partnered sex ever) until they develop a deep emotional bond with the right person, at which point they begin to desire partnered sex with said person, regardless of whether or not they find that person ''hot'' (Hot is just a term many people use to describe strong aesthetic attraction to another person, using the word hot to describe another person has nothing to do with whether or not one is asexual)

[Guest]

Does desire = attraction? Are they the same thing?

As far as defining ones sexual orientation goes:

Sexual attraction is the kind of attraction that causes you to desire partnered sexual contact with other people. Someone who does not experience sexual attraction has no desire for partnered sexual contact with other people under any circumstance. Someone who is homosexual only desires partnered sexual contact with people of the same gender. And so on and so forth. The reasons for the desire are greatly varied, and often have nothing to with looks (for some reason 99.9% of AVEN seem to think that sexual attraction as a defining factor for sexual orientation is all about looks, which is incorrect). Some sexual people can desire partnered sex only when in love, some can desire it only with people they are close to, some just desire partnered sex in general, with no real target, but when the opportunity arises they will happily take it, some desire partnered sex only with people they find 'hot', the list goes on. It's the desire for partnered sex that all sexual people have in common, and it is this desire, this attraction to other people in a way that makes one desire sexual release with others, that asexual people lack.

[Guest]

Asexual is having no sexual impulses triggered by a specific person.

I simply don't think orientations work that way. And looking at what sexuals in this forum have posted, I suppose the vagueness of the "attraction" definition will likely mean that not 1%, but at least 40% or more of all people out there are "asexual".

Honestly, if "sexual attraction" plays a major role for someone's sexuality, as a "trigger for desire", I would suppose that that person is most probably demisexual, not sexual. For sexuals, desire comes first, innately, regardless of who is there or not to act it out with. (And since this description fully fits to "cupiosexuals", it only makes sense to conclude that they are sexual, not ace.)

Saying they haven't found the right partner yet is as ignorent as someone saying that to an asexual. So essentially no ones presence turns them on and their sexual impulses aren't triggered by the person but by their existing sex-drive and the thought of sex is what probably starts their arousal.

Nope, to me that sounds exactly like not having found the right partner yet. I can see nothing ignorant about that statement.

And I've said it before: That reply is a logical result of every attraction-based definition. People who want to keep that definition will just have to learn to live with the fact that "you haven't found the right partner yet" will always be a correct description of their situation. It doesn't make sense, and helps noone, to call that reply ignorant, when it's just logical. I simply haven't seen any attractionist give a good argument why "asexuals"-as-defined-by-no-attraction-regardless-of-desire aren't simply people who haven't found the right partner yet.

You simply won't succeed anymore in getting me to stand behind a definition of asexuality, or of any other orientation, that words things in terms of attraction. It's way too vague and misleading, and I just see it as being about politics (trying to suck up to the US branch of the LGBT+ movement, in particular), instead of a good, solid description of a character trait to easily help people identify themselves (which "no innate desire for partnered sex" certainly is).

[Tarfeather]

I still don't understand why "cupiosexuals" should be considered asexual. At all. (But of course, I think the entire "sexual attraction" definition is humbug, and the real difference between aces and sexuals is the presence or absence of an innate desire for partnered sex. The "cupio" label only makes sense within a definition of asexuality that I neither use or support.)

What I don't understand is why you seem to think that this "innate desire for partnered sex" definition is any more practical. For all intents and purposes, it's impossible to tell whether somebody has no such innate desire to begin with, or whether they have a weak form of that desire and simultaneously a set of strong psychological factors shutting this desire down. I think it's important to take into account all available information, and if somebody experiences the "that person is hot I want to be physically close to them" feeling, that is an indicator that shouldn't be ignored, even if the person in question firmly does not want sex.

[Guest]

I still don't understand why "cupiosexuals" should be considered asexual. At all. (But of course, I think the entire "sexual attraction" definition is humbug, and the real difference between aces and sexuals is the presence or absence of an innate desire for partnered sex. The "cupio" label only makes sense within a definition of asexuality that I neither use or support.)

What I don't understand is why you seem to think that this "innate desire for partnered sex" definition is any more practical. For all intents and purposes, it's impossible to tell whether somebody has no such innate desire to begin with, or whether they have a weak form of that desire and simultaneously a set of strong psychological factors shutting this desire down. I think it's important to take into account all available information, and if somebody experiences the "that person is hot I want to be physically close to them" feeling, that is an indicator that shouldn't be ignored, even if the person in question firmly does not want sex.

Since noone can truly give an answer to why someone is asexual, and psychological factors can't ever be ruled out*, I don't see why such a person shouldn't just be seen as asexual. If they want to be physically close to some "hot" persons, but don't ever desire sex with people no matter how "hot" they find them, that definitely sounds like asexuality to me.

Desire for sex still remains the key, and it's easy to identify - whereas "sexual attraction" is a vague term that can mean anything and nothing at all.

* And they aren't, on AVEN - the only reasoning that is firmly rejected is when someone tries to explain away all of asexuality by trauma, psychological issues, autism/Aspergers etc.pp.; of course, individual aces can have any or all of these, and yes, in some cases they may even be the cause of their asexuality, and the people in question won't be any less ace because of it than someone who doesn't have these conditions.

[Star Bit]

@PanFicto

Cupios can feel aesthetic attraction; aesthetic attraction is just having a fixation on someone because of their looks and or mannerisms; having a pull to look at them. That is not the same as the sexual majority's definition of hot which has sexual attraction with it. But you are right in a way; they don't look at people and have the desire to have sex with them, however they do have the desire to have sex in general/toward no one specific. As I've put it before, a Cupiosexual desires sex while finding no one sexually enticing. Cupiosexual is only a type of asexual out of technicality, but is actually a type of Gray-Asexual.

[Tarfeather]

Since noone can truly give an answer to why someone is asexual, and psychological factors can't ever be ruled out*, I don't see why such a person shouldn't just be seen as asexual. If they want to be physically close to some "hot" persons, but don't ever desire sex with people no matter how "hot" they find them, that definitely sounds like asexuality to me.

Desire for sex still remains the key, and it's easy to identify - whereas "sexual attraction" is a vague term that can mean anything and nothing at all.

* And they aren't, on AVEN - the only reasoning that is firmly rejected is when someone tries to explain away all of asexuality by trauma, psychological issues, autism/Aspergers etc.pp.; of course, individual aces can have any or all of these, and yes, in some cases they may even be the cause of their asexuality, and the people in question won't be any less ace because of it than someone who doesn't have these conditions.

What I'm saying is that your definition is not a definition at all. A person who does not experience this "innate desire for partnered sexual activity" for psychological reasons might not consider it as part of their identity, as the psychological reasons might be something they wish to change about themselves. Thus, they would not consider themselves asexual. Again, we're in the situation where asexuality can become a choice, something certain people can work on over time to change in one direction or the other. That is something which a lot of people seem to disagree with. If someone doesn't consider other people "hot" to begin with, this is not really something they can influence, so I believe that is certainly something to look at when evaluating someone's asexuality. Basically, if they don't have a concept of what "attractive" is, you can be reasonably sure that this is something they can not intentionally change about themselves.

@PanFicto

Cupios can feel aesthetic attraction; aesthetic attraction is just having a fixation on someone because of their looks and or mannerisms; having a pull to look at them. That is not the same as the sexual majority's definition of hot which has sexual attraction with it. But you are right in a way; they don't look at people and have the desire to have sex with them, however they do have the desire to have sex in general/toward no one specific. As I've put it before, a Cupiosexual desires sex while finding no one sexually enticing. I agree that desiring sex is why Cupio is a sexual orientation and is only a form of asexuality out of technicality. However, it is a type of Gray-Asexual.

As a sexual person, I can assure you that what you describe as "aesthetic attraction" is the exact experience I have when noticing an attractive person most of the time. As I said in another thread on this subject, the actual sexual desire only kicks in later, and it involves psychological factors.

[Guest]

What I'm saying is that your definition is not a definition at all. A person who does not experience this "innate desire for partnered sexual activity" for psychological reasons might not consider it as part of their identity, as the psychological reasons might be something they wish to change about themselves. Thus, they would not consider themselves asexual. Again, we're in the situation where asexuality can become a choice, something certain people can work on over time to change in one direction or the other. That is something which a lot of people seem to disagree with.

Since there are people who are gay but don't want to be, and therapies (misguided as they are) that try to help them stop being gay, I don't consider that a valid argument. Of course you can want to not be ace, and choose trying to do anything in order not to be. Just use the search function here, and you'll find a good number of examples for people feeling that exact way. That doesn't invalidate asexuality in the least, and it doesn't make these people less ace if they choose (!) not to accept themselves as such and try becoming what they aren't.

It just means that their quest for being something they're not is likely to fail.

If someone doesn't consider other people "hot" to begin with, this is not really something they can influence, so I believe that is certainly something to look at when evaluating someone's asexuality. Basically, if they don't have a concept of what "attractive" is, you can be reasonably sure that this is something they can not intentionally change about themselves.

I strongly disagree. Not only is "finding noone attractive" utterly dependent on one's surroundings - which would lead to bizarre situations like if someone is stuck with people of the same sex for a long while (e.g., jail), they obviously could no longer be straight; they will be turned either gay or ace, because there simply is noone of the opposite sex to "feel attracted to" - but it also completely muddles the waters between sexual/aesthetic/romantic desires/attractions. If someone has a concept of people they consider attractive for looking at, for kissing, and for relationships, that still says nothing about their sexual orientation. The sexual orientation is who they desire to f**k. That's literally the only deciding factor. Perceptions of attractivity really don't matter in it.

Attractivity/attraction simply is too much of an outside factor, and can most definitely be influenced by societal factors (even flimsy ones like current fashion trends); it would be baffling if behavioral therapy would not be able to modify it. Defining orientations that way is very thin ice, ideologically, it could all too easily be used as validation for conversion therapies and "pray the gay away" camps. Whereas desire for sex (or lack of it) just is - nothing outside will influence that. And unlike attractivity, which is, at least in part, clearly a choice (if you're around ugly people as the only choice, you'll end up "attracted to" the least ugly one; if you're among knockouts, you'll find and overstress flaws that end up repelling you from.the least beautiful ones. That is selective choice at work.), desire is not - you either have it or you don't, your only choice is what to do with it if you do have it.

As a sexual person, I can assure you that what you describe as "aesthetic attraction" is the exact experience I have when noticing an attractive person most of the time. As I said in another thread on this subject, the actual sexual desire only kicks in later, and it involves psychological factors.

Do you ever feel a desire for sex, in the absence of attractive persons? An urge to just get laid, even if you don't even know yet by whom? Because that's definitely something I've heard many times from sexuals... and it's the exact thing that I would say differentiates them from aces.

However, it is a type of Gray-Asexual.

If pretty much everyone is kinda gray-ace, then noone is.

We need stronger criteria. And yes, that means we must get ready to tell people that no, they don't fit under the ace umbrella.

[Guest]

@PanFicto

Cupios can feel aesthetic attraction; aesthetic attraction is just having a fixation on someone because of their looks and or mannerisms; having a pull to look at them. That is not the same as the sexual majority's definition of hot which has sexual attraction with it. But you are right in a way; they don't look at people and have the desire to have sex with them, however they do have the desire to have sex in general/toward no one specific. As I've put it before, a Cupiosexual desires sex while finding no one sexually enticing. Cupiosexual is only a type of asexual out of technicality, but is actually a type of Gray-Asexual.

I have seen the Tumblr page that coined the term, and it was described repeatedly there as ''not finding people hot but desiring partnered sex'' meaning they were using the term 'hot' to describe sexual attraction, which is incorrect. Finding someone 'hot' is a form of aesthetic attraction, not sexual attraction (unless you desire partnered sex with the person you find 'hot' then yes, it's sexual attraction as the desire for sex is there). .. 'Hot' on it's own is literally just strong aesthetic attraction and has nothing to do with sexual attraction.

And yeah, I'm happy to go with Grey-A. Not asexual. Asexual = no desire for partnered sexual contact. If you have a desire for partnered sexual contact, then you don't have no desire for partnered sexual contact. It's that simple. Happy to say they are Grey-A (despite the huge portion of sexual people this would automatically make Grey-A) but asexual, nope. You won't ever see me saying a cupiosexual is an asexual. They are not an asexual, they are a cupiosexual. An asexual is an asexual. A cupiosexual is a cupiosexual. It's very straight forward really.

I don't get what technicality you refer to, that makes them asexual. They desire partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release etc (ie for exactly the same reason many sexual people desire sex). How does this make them asexual? Unless of course we are now saying that at least 20%-40% of the population are asexual.

[Guest]

Happy to say they are Grey-A (despite the huge portion of sexual people this would automatically make Grey-A) but asexual, nope. You won't ever see me saying a cupiosexual is an asexual. They are not an asexual, they are a cupiosexual. An asexual is an asexual. A cupiosexual is a cupiosexual. It's very straight forward really.

I don't get what technicality you refer to, that makes them asexual. They desire partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release etc (ie for exactly the same reason many sexual people desire sex). How does this make them asexual? Unless of course we are now saying that at least 20%-40% of the population are asexual.

Ah, Ficto, you're still more lenient than me... :lol:

[Guest]

And to all the people whining about the ''no innate desire'' definition making no sense, you only need to look in the sexual partners forum to see (many) hundreds of miserable sexual partners saying ''I desire sex but my asexual partner doesn't and it's killing me. They say they do love me, and do find me attractive, they just have no interest in having sex with me, or anyone, ever... I just don't feel loved though, I need that sexual connection, I feel so empty inside and don't know what to do!!'' ... Never once seen someone in there saying ''God my relationship is falling apart, my asexual partner loves having sex with me and initiates it every day, they can't get enough sex so our sex life is just amazing, but they just don't find me attractive in a sexually enticing way, it's killing me!! God I feel so empty inside, what am I going to do to fix this? pleeease help me!!'' .. why don't you see this? because it's the innate desire to have partnered sex for sexual pleasure that separates the asexual from the sexual. It's nothing to do with how they feel about how the other person looks. Feeling a lack of emotion (good or bad) regarding your partners looks is NOT what makes someone asexual. It's having no desire to have sex with them for sexual release/pleasure, regardless of whether or not you have emotions regarding their looks, that makes one asexual. Most of the population desire partnered sex for sexual pleasure under some circumstances, like 99% ... It's a very, very small percentage of the population that literally never desires partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release ever, regardless of how high their libido is or any other factor. Honestly I just don't see what's so complicated about all this. All the examples one could ever need of what separates a sexual person from an asexual person are right here in this forum, when you see asexual people wishing their sexual partner didn't want as much sex, and/or sexual people wishing their asexual partner wanted more sex. It's so obvious I just don't understand how people can not get it.

[Guest]

Happy to say they are Grey-A (despite the huge portion of sexual people this would automatically make Grey-A) but asexual, nope. You won't ever see me saying a cupiosexual is an asexual. They are not an asexual, they are a cupiosexual. An asexual is an asexual. A cupiosexual is a cupiosexual. It's very straight forward really.

I don't get what technicality you refer to, that makes them asexual. They desire partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release etc (ie for exactly the same reason many sexual people desire sex). How does this make them asexual? Unless of course we are now saying that at least 20%-40% of the population are asexual.

Ah, Ficto, you're still more lenient than me... :lol:

Lenient or maaaaybe just trying to be at least mildly politically correct here. I myself am now (probably) identifying as Grey and I know for damn sure I am not sexual enough in any way to be able to have an actual sexual relationship with a sexual person, ever. But by the definition of Cupio, one could easily have any regular sexual relationship with a sexual person out of a personal desire for partnered sexual pleasure (as opposed to carrying on a sexual relationship only for the sake of ones sexual partner). How this would actually make someone Grey-asexual is beyond me, but as long as they are identifying in the Grey area and not the ''asexual'' area, I can at least be a little more tolerant.

[Guest]

Lenient or maaaaybe just trying to be at least mildly politically correct here. I myself am now (probably) identifying as Grey and I know for damn sure I am not sexual enough in any way to be able to have an actual sexual relationship with a sexual person, ever. But by the definition of Cupio, one could easily have any regular sexual relationship with a sexual person out of a personal desire for partnered sexual pleasure (as opposed to carrying on a sexual relationship only for the sake of ones sexual partner). How this would actually make someone Grey-asexual is beyond me, but as long as they are identifying in the Grey area and not the ''asexual'' area, I can at least be a little more tolerant.

Bah, pee-cee, schmee-cee. I'm too rigidly logical for that. ;)

[Tarfeather]

Since there are people who are gay but don't want to be, and therapies (misguided as they are) that try to help them stop being gay, I don't consider that a valid argument. Of course you can want to not be ace, and choose trying to do anything in order not to be. Just use the search function here, and you'll find a good number of examples for people feeling that exact way. That doesn't invalidate asexuality in the least, and it doesn't make these people less ace if they choose (!) not to accept themselves as such and try becoming what they aren't.

It just means that their quest for being something they're not is likely to fail.

I'm having a hard time seeing the logic here right now. This was a reply to your trying to define "asexuality" in such a way that it includes people who have a potential for sexual desire, yet also a repulsion due to psychological reasons that cancels out this desire. Assume these psychological reasons are pathological and the person overcomes that mental illness (and there are good reasons to do this other than to "become straight"), they would now have turned from "asexual" to (gray-)"sexual" as a result of their own choices and actions. Certainly this would be rare, but it would be possible, and a logically consistent definition must cover all cases.

If someone doesn't consider other people "hot" to begin with, this is not really something they can influence, so I believe that is certainly something to look at when evaluating someone's asexuality. Basically, if they don't have a concept of what "attractive" is, you can be reasonably sure that this is something they can not intentionally change about themselves.

I strongly disagree. Not only is "finding noone attractive" utterly dependent on one's surroundings - which would lead to bizarre situations like if someone is stuck with people of the same sex for a long while (e.g., jail), they obviously could no longer be straight; they will be turned either gay or ace, because there simply is noone of the opposite sex to "feel attracted to" - but it also completely muddles the waters between sexual/aesthetic/romantic desires/attractions. If someone has a concept of people they consider attractive for looking at, for kissing, and for relationships, that still says nothing about their sexual orientation. The sexual orientation is who they desire to f**k. That's literally the only deciding factor. Perceptions of attractivity really don't matter in it.

Attractivity/attraction simply is too much of an outside factor, and can most definitely be influenced by societal factors (even flimsy ones like current fashion trends); it would be baffling if behavioral therapy would not be able to modify it. Defining orientations that way is very thin ice, ideologically, it could all too easily be used as validation for conversion therapies and "pray the gay away" camps. Whereas desire for sex (or lack of it) just is - nothing outside will influence that. And unlike attractivity, which is, at least in part, clearly a choice (if you're around ugly people as the only choice, you'll end up "attracted to" the least ugly one; if you're among knockouts, you'll find and overstress flaws that end up repelling you from.the least beautiful ones. That is selective choice at work.), desire is not - you either have it or you don't, your only choice is what to do with it if you do have it.

The presence of attraction usually does not imply the absence of asexuality, yes. But the absence of attraction does very heavily correlate with the presence of asexuality, just as the absence of desire does very heavily correlate with the presence of asexuality. I'm just saying that both factors are statistically significant, I don't really think that either serves as good definition.

As a sexual person, I can assure you that what you describe as "aesthetic attraction" is the exact experience I have when noticing an attractive person most of the time. As I said in another thread on this subject, the actual sexual desire only kicks in later, and it involves psychological factors.

Do you ever feel a desire for sex, in the absence of attractive persons? An urge to just get laid, even if you don't even know yet by whom? Because that's definitely something I've heard many times from sexuals... and it's the exact thing that I would say differentiates them from aces.

In those situations I feel a desire for looking at or imagining pretty women and masturbating. I don't feel a desire for sex if there's not a particular person currently enticing that desire.

We need stronger criteria. And yes, that means we must get ready to tell people that no, they don't fit under the ace umbrella.

The various factors that define sexuality are on a continuous scale. Defining a binary "ace umbrella" just cuts that scale off at an arbitrary point, which in my opinion serves no purpose other than alienating people from each other. I honestly don't care in the slightest if someone fits under the "ace umbrella" or not.

[Guest]

I'm having a hard time seeing the logic here right now. This was a reply to your trying to define "asexuality" in such a way that it includes people who have a potential for sexual desire, yet also a repulsion due to psychological reasons that cancels out this desire. Assume these psychological reasons are pathological and the person overcomes that mental illness (and there are good reasons to do this other than to "become straight"), they would now have turned from "asexual" to (gray-)"sexual" as a result of their own choices and actions. Certainly this would be rare, but it would be possible, and a logically consistent definition must cover all cases.

As long as they don't feel desire, they're asexual. Orientations can change over time, it's just that they rarely do so. So, yes, they would indeed have changed from asexual to sexual. (Which, btw, I can't imagine happening merely through choice alone... but if the ace in question is one of those where their asexuality happens to caused by trauma or whatever, I wouldn't completely rule out that therapy could big-freakin'-airquote-"cure" their asexuality.)

The presence of attraction usually does not imply the absence of asexuality, yes. But the absence of attraction does very heavily correlate with the presence of asexuality, just as the absence of desire does very heavily correlate with the presence of asexuality. I'm just saying that both factors are statistically significant, I don't really think that either serves as good definition.

I don't think so, seeing as aro aces simply aren't the majority. There are way too many hetero/homo/pan/etc.-romantic aces to se a very heavy correlation there; if anything, I see at least as strong a correlation with being on the autism spectrum as with absence of attraction, and noone seriously suggests defining asexuality by using autism/Asperger's as a criterion.

In those situations I feel a desire for looking at or imagining pretty women and masturbating. I don't feel a desire for sex if there's not a particular person currently enticing that desire.

Sounds a lot like demisexuality to me, to be honest. What are the reasons for you to identify as sexual instead of demi?

The various factors that define sexuality are on a continuous scale. Defining a binary "ace umbrella" just cuts that scale off at an arbitrary point, which in my opinion serves no purpose other than alienating people from each other. I honestly don't care in the slightest if someone fits under the "ace umbrella" or not.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the definition of a concept does not allow for clearly demarking something as not within this definition, and thus not within the concept, then the concept described probably does not really exist, and/or the definition is worthless for describing it. "Asexuality" that includes, basically, anyone who calls themselves asexual, really is nothing but a special snowflake term. We should not try to convince the doubters otherwise; we should acknowledge that they have a damn good point doubting our statements that it's "totes real, we just don't know what it is". On that ground, we're simply not real-world relevant enough to deserve visbility. We should stick to our little internet social clubs, and stop annoying the world outside by talking about our (probably fictitious) orientations.

Alienating people is not inherently bad. In fact, alienating some people is neccessary in order to be taken seriously. Noone will accept a guy as gay if he only ever wants to boink women, date women, live with women, etc., even if he steadfastly clings to calling himself "gay". Every reasonable person should, and will, tell him "no, you're not gay. Stop pretending you were". Every real orientation does this. If we think asexuality is real, then we should get over this "total inclusivity" political correctness and start doing it already, too.