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

[Tarfeather]

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.)

I'm fine with that definition then, though obviously we have to concede that such people still can self-identify as sexual if they choose to.

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.

That's a fallacy, actually. The large amount of romantic asexuals has no bearing on the proposition that if someone does not experience attraction, they are likely asexual. It entirely depends on the amount of non-asexuals who for some reason experience no attraction. I propose that number is low, and thus the absence of attraction is an indicator for asexuality.

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?

For one, because I turned out this way through a life without sex. I'm sure if I had actually had a "normal" amount of sex during my puberty I'd be different now. I don't think the term "demi" suits me because I don't require an emotional connection to desire sex with someone, it's just that I can channel my libido pretty well into imaginary things as long as I don't have to interact with real women. :)

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.

Ah, yes, for the term asexuality itself this absolutely makes sense. But I don't think we'll get around the fact that a lot of people are actually gray-sexual in some sense of the term. While we have a very sex-crazed culture, a significant portion of the population wouldn't really be that way if they weren't educated to be so.

[Guest]

That's a fallacy, actually. The large amount of romantic asexuals has no bearing on the proposition that if someone does not experience attraction, they are likely asexual. It entirely depends on the amount of non-asexuals who for some reason experience no attraction. I propose that number is low, and thus the absence of attraction is an indicator for asexuality.

Point taken. Statistics are a female dog... that one was one of its better known counter-intuitive pitfalls. *sigh*

For one, because I turned out this way through a life without sex. I'm sure if I had actually had a "normal" amount of sex during my puberty I'd be different now. I don't think the term "demi" suits me because I don't require an emotional connection to desire sex with someone, it's just that I can channel my libido pretty well into imaginary things as long as I don't have to interact with real women. :)

Makes sense.

Ah, yes, for the term asexuality itself this absolutely makes sense. But I don't think we'll get around the fact that a lot of people are actually gray-sexual in some sense of the term. While we have a very sex-crazed culture, a significant portion of the population wouldn't really be that way if they weren't educated to be so.

Hmm. Perhaps even including yourself, with that description above?

That leaves us with scenario in which there are a lot of people - let's just stick to my pulled-from-the-ass number of 40% - who are gray-sexual, but never even knew of the term and still functioned perfectly well in the world assuming to be plain old hetero/homo/bi/etc.-sexuals (because almost half of all folks in every of these groups would expectably have to be grayce, so they're bound to have met a lot of their peers, who also likely IDed as plain old het/gay/bi)... it would make it look very strange indeed that grayces are ten or more times more numerous than aces, but are treated in effect as an "appendix" to asexuality. Maybe it's time for the grayces to emancipate themselves from asexual groups...?

[The_Verse]

That leaves us with scenario in which there are a lot of people - let's just stick to my pulled-from-the-ass number of 40% - who are gray-sexual, but never even knew of the term and still functioned perfectly well in the world assuming to be plain old hetero/homo/bi/etc.-sexuals (because almost half of all folks in every of these groups would expectably have to be grayce, so they're bound to have met a lot of their peers, who also likely IDed as plain old het/gay/bi)... it would make it look very strange indeed that grayces are ten or more times more numerous than aces, but are treated in effect as an "appendix" to asexuality. Maybe it's time for the grayces to emancipate themselves from asexual groups...?

Nah. I would hate that. Just because it's entirely possible I experience sexual attraction with one person in my life, doesn't discount all of the other ways I am ace in the rest of society. I cannot relate to the experiences of my peers and the way they think about other people. I feel sick and repulsed if anyone looks at me in a sexual way - makes me want to scrub my skin clean. I feel disgust and fear if someone shows any kind of attraction to me, actually. I feel super uncomfortable if someone approaches me in a bar (so I don't go anymore) and I would never go on a date. There are more ways that I feel I fit in with this community than don't. Ya know? Just because I have sex with my partner, doesn't discount all of those other things.

[Guest]

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.

The way I see these two is :

Demi - Needs a strong emotional bond to want sex (for themselves, not just to please their partner) with a person

Cupio - Wants sex, but doesn't find people appealing to look at, just wants the pleasure from sex. Doesn't have to be a partner, could potentially do one night stands as easily as a relationship.

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.

Compromising to please a partner or having sex just to have a child does not make you cupio. :) You need to desire sex for your sake. Not just have sex.

[Guest]

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.

The way I see these two is :

Demi - Needs a strong emotional bond to want sex (for themselves, not just to please their partner) with a person

Cupio - Wants sex, but doesn't find people appealing to look at, just wants the pleasure from sex. Doesn't have to be a partner, could potentially do one night stands as easily as a relationship.

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.

Compromising to please a partner or having sex just to have a child does not make you cupio. :) You need to desire sex for your sake. Not just have sex.

^^^ All of that.

[The_Verse]

The way I see these two is :

Demi - Needs a strong emotional bond to want sex (for themselves, not just to please their partner) with a person

Cupio - Wants sex, but doesn't find people appealing to look at, just wants the pleasure from sex. Doesn't have to be a partner, could potentially do one night stands as easily as a relationship.

So, in your opinion, I could potentially use both. Interesting.

I think your definitions make a lot of sense. Thank you :)

[Star Bit]

@PanFicto I'll compare it to its romantic equivalent. I already suggested to do this and will be repeating things from previous posts, but it looks like i need to spell it out. Cupioromantic is someone who cannot feel romantic emotions, yet desires a romantic relationship. They have love to give but unfortunately cannot feel romantically toward anyone. Do you think the technicality that they're aromantic is invalid? They have a romantic-drive with no romantic attraction. When i say technicality i don't mean that they should be considered asexual/aromantic, but that there is a loop hole that makes that statement valid. Yes, sexual people and romantic people can get into one of those relationships strictly with a sex-drive or romantic-drive with no attraction, but the point of Cupio is that they never can feel that attraction for anyone. If someone frequently acts on their sex-drive while rarely feeling sexually attracted to those people, then they'd be a type of Gray-sexual; as Cupiosexual also is. I agree that sexual desire is what typically makes a sexual orientation (if i didn't include the word typically then asexuality would be ruled out). But as i pointed out before, there are two things; sex-drive (undirected) and sexual attraction (directed). Someone with sexual attraction but no sex-drive can also exist (Aposexual and Apathsexual). So putting Asexual as someone without a sex-drive is also inaccurate. Some Allosexuals sex-drive and sexual attraction corolate and some don't. Some have lost sexual attraction to their partner but still have a sex-drive and will go out of the relationship and find someone they are sexually attracted to and have sex with them. Other people have a sex-drive that is only triggered by having sexual attraction/they're fine in a sexless relationship when they're nolonger sexually attracted to their partner, or at least they're not around anyone else that triggers their sexual attraction. Sexual attraction isn't just having desire for sex, it's about that impulse being triggered by someone. Their partner's presence causes sexual arousal, which then triggers their sexual impulses/desires toward them.

I agree with Seran, minus their "look at" detail in Cupio. And yes, someone can be both of those terms. It would mean that you desire to have sex but are only comfortable doing so with people you have a bond with, while that sexual desire never being triggered by that person.