Asexuality and wanting sex/relationship

[Galactic Turtle]

I'm reading a lot about asexuality as I am confused about my own orientation.

I know all the basics and most asexuals don't care about sex etc, but is it possible for an asexual to want a sexual relationship but just not be sexual attracted to anyone?

I've heard that's called cupiosexual but I wondered if that was also a type of asexuality and whether it was common.

Cupiosexual/cupioromantic are terms that I don't personally like to touch but... as far as your main question...

Is it possible for an asexual to want a sexual relationship but just not be sexually attracted to anyone?

I'm going to replace "sexual" with "romantic" because that's something I can understand from personal experience instead of just theoretically. XD

I love romance. I love the idea of romance. I desire the emotional fulfillment and personal improvement that I believe comes from being in a healthy romantic relationship. It's hard for me to picture myself in a romantic relationship since most come with a side order of sex but I do believe that somewhere down the line somehow someway I will enter a romantic relationship before I die. My eyebrows rise dramatically at the notion of not wanting a romantic relationship.

At the same time, I don't really experience romantic attraction in what some would consider to be the "traditional" sense. Being thrown through the exciting turmoil of having a crush on someone, debating with myself on whether or not to ask someone out, talking about boys at school I thought were cute to my friends... that never happened. I've physically recoiled from people who have shown interest in me romantically even without any sexual undertones at all. The one guy I've ever been sorta kinda interested in was a bit of a confusing experience because it was like "woah there's this cute boy and I love it when he talks to me and I really want to spend time with him in a more than a friend way" (yes, that was romantic attraction just not in the Disney way I thought it would happen) but our mutual liking of each other wasn't enough to get me to act on my feelings (mostly because I had determined that he also had sexual feelings for me which I didn't want to entertain) but even than at one point I told myself "well if he doesn't ask me out then I won't tell him I'm attracted to him and I'll just move on with my life."

I don't feel any need to date. I don't really want to date either. Dating seems kind of gross, really. In fact, I intentionally avoid meeting people if it's set up with any type of romantic connotation (like blind dates or me and my girl friends going out with a group of guys with the expectation that we're going to pair up later on). :P I dislike the idea of kissing about 20% as much as I dislike the idea of sex (I'm sex and touch repulsed). Holding hands while walking down the street is a bit cringe-worthy as well but I do believe that if I were to get romantically involved with someone, I would somewhere down the line despite my touch-aversion agree to holding hands, back rubs, surprise hugs, and general silliness if my partner wanted it and I can even picture myself wanting it as well... just not nearly as quickly as the vast majority of the population. In my head I like the idea of running into someone by chance and falling in love rather than actively going out to seek a partner.

I'm not aromantic. I'm not cupioromantic. I'm romantic just not romantically attracted to people I see walking down the street or in my daily life like my friends who have a new crush every few months. I desire romance not directed at any person in particular but just in general, a vague background desire that has been there since I was like... 14. It doesn't take very long talking to an aromantic person to realize that we're different in that regard.

Could I possibly go by some type of demi/cupio/whatever label? Yeah. I just don't see the point because at the end of the day (to me) desire is desire regardless if there's anyone in the vicinity that desire can be directed towards and regardless of which set of circumstances I might experience actual attraction.

Is it possible for an aromantic to want a romantic relationship but just not be romantically attracted to anyone?

In my view and in my experience: no.

[Star Bit]

Edit: I've read what you said again and I'll just answer with this: I agree with you for discrimination between sexual and non sexual people. I'm talking about orientation however, which I think is why we're getting confused.

Sexuality and orientation are the same thing, i don't get what you mean by this. Unless you're differentiating between what you mentally desire and what you desire IRL. If those two are different then the person is Gray, but not ace. As said, if you think you'll never desire sex with anyone IRL then that's not ace but Grya-A. This differentiation is important because asexuality gets hate; "hah, i knew it, you do desire sex". And while i agree that sexual attraction and sexual desire are technically two different things they are still both desire for sex, just one is directed and the other is not.

And really? I'm the one that's misinformed? When I'm the one on here talking to sexuals for years? Dang you're sticking to your misinformed guns and won't hear anything else. Seriously, PM a sexual person on this forum and ask them what sexuality is. Sexual people either feel sexual attraction or sexual desire, not aces.

I never said you would certainly have sex in the future, READ. I said the person who left what was quoted most likely thought you would, and IF it never happened then Gray-A would be accurate. If you insist, Cupiosexual can be used, but despite misinformed people saying "it's a type of asexuality" it is factually a type of allosexuality. Some cupiosexuals desire sex but won't act without attraction (which they can never experience so they never act). Which personally sounds more like a sex indifferent sexual, which can be put as a type of Gray-sexual depending on if they'd ever act on their desires (gray-a and gray-sexual can be used for different things). Sex indifferent can be used as a label but doesn't specify orientation, so it can be used on sexuals and asexuals. It either means they don't desire sex but are indifferent to having it/have no compromise limit, or although they desire sex they don't care about satisfying their desires. It did also get an orientation a while ago but i rarely see it used; apathsexual; the root word being apathy.

[dissolved]

Wait, by "orientation" is OP trying to figure out who they could possibly desire sex with if attraction doesn't pin point it?

If so, then people can still determine their orientation by figuring out who they want to have relationships with, or who their romantic interests are directed towards, as chances are these will match.

Or pansexual does cover it, as gender/sex/bodies don't factor into orientation when there's no specific attraction.

[Star Bit]

Is the OP saying they don't experience romantic attraction either?

[nanogretchen4]

There are some reasons why an asexual or possibly gray person with no experience may think they want sex, in theory, without ever actually wanting it in real life.

1. The presumption of sexuality. Everyone wants sex, so they must too. It's not like there's a clear and consistent explanation of what this desire is supposed to feel like.

2. Everyone is talking about how awesome and important sexual relationships are, and they don't want to be left out.

3. They actually want a romantic relationship, and sex is just part of that by all accounts. In all the novels the sex part is great once they meet the right person, so presumably the same will happen in real life. (To complicate matters, it might if they are demisexual and there's no sure way to know in advance.)

4. They want companionship and commitment, but the dating pool sure would be a lot larger if they were heterosexual, so they are seeking a heterosexual relationship and trying to believe they can make that work.