Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Custos

Sexuals - Initial Attraction Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

That's fine if everyone else is cool with that, as long as those same people also stop bitching about wanting asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Pretty much Asexuality would just be the official label people use when they are confused about their sexual orientation, in between sexual orientations, or whatever.. NOT an actual sexual orientation in and of itself. Those same people also need to accept that they have totally illegitimized the experience of the people who literally do not innately desire partnered sex with people of any gender, ever

This.

It's... kind of mind blowing. We've got people who just use a different set of terms to call themselves "asexual", despite these terms being mirror images of sexual ones. If you're drawn to beautiful women and want to be close to them, that's not fucking different from what sexuals experience and to call it "aesthetic attraction" is... I just can't even. Give it another year and there will be terms for Asexual sex... instead of "sex" it'll be "snix", and if you have snix you're Asexual. You can tell you're having snix because you just "know" you feel different from sexuals.

Just you wait.

We already have a term for asexuals who desire sex, cupiosexual. Which is supposed to still be ace (as far as I understand), just aces that desire a sexual relationship with people and are not aesthetically attracted to them.

Honestly, the cupiosexual term is the one new one that I'm totally behind, because I completely get it. Wanting a sexual relationship for reasons other than a pure desire for sexual pleasure... that makes total sense to me. I think cupio helps bridge the gap between the "innate desire to have sex" and "no desire whatsoever". If someone's like "well is innate desire like when you want to have sex to make your partner happy?" and we can be like "cupio, dude, cupio".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

That's fine if everyone else is cool with that, as long as those same people also stop bitching about wanting asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Pretty much Asexuality would just be the official label people use when they are confused about their sexual orientation, in between sexual orientations, or whatever.. NOT an actual sexual orientation in and of itself. Those same people also need to accept that they have totally illegitimized the experience of the people who literally do not innately desire partnered sex with people of any gender, ever

This.

It's... kind of mind blowing. We've got people who just use a different set of terms to call themselves "asexual", despite these terms being mirror images of sexual ones. If you're drawn to beautiful women and want to be close to them, that's not fucking different from what sexuals experience and to call it "aesthetic attraction" is... I just can't even. Give it another year and there will be terms for Asexual sex... instead of "sex" it'll be "snix", and if you have snix you're Asexual. You can tell you're having snix because you just "know" you feel different from sexuals.

Just you wait.

We already have a term for asexuals who desire sex, cupiosexual. Which is supposed to still be ace (as far as I understand), just aces that desire a sexual relationship with people and are not aesthetically attracted to them.

Honestly, the cupiosexual term is the one new one that I'm totally behind, because I completely get it. Wanting a sexual relationship for reasons other than a pure desire for sexual pleasure... that makes total sense to me. I think cupio helps bridge the gap between the "innate desire to have sex" and "no desire whatsoever". If someone's like "well is innate desire like when you want to have sex to make your partner happy?" and we can be like "cupio, dude, cupio".

Mmm, but that's not really how it's defined. It's any desire - including for your own pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

Shut up, really??? that's absurd. goddamn it AVEN, stop being stupid!

*goes to read definitions*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Shut up, really??? that's absurd. goddamn it AVEN, stop being stupid!

*goes to read definitions*

Yeah. The definition just says desire for a sexual relationship without attraction. And I have seen it suggested for those that do basically what you said you do for casual sex "I want laid, go to bar, find willing person" (or FWB situations where mutual pleasure is the goal)... not finding them "hot" seems to be the only qualification for cupio. And there are also some that see cupio as a label as erasure of asexuals who desire sex for their own personal pleasure, the argument is that if attraction is not present, wanting sexual interaction for your own sake is still very much ace. So there is a divide in the ace community over whether cupios are asexual or cupio should be more like demi, in the gray area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

I think that pleasing your partner for their pleasure instead of your own says more about the relationship than about the individual. Like, when that person then breaks up, would they stop being "cupiosexual"? That wouldn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

I think that pleasing your partner for their pleasure instead of your own says more about the relationship than about the individual. Like, when that person then breaks up, would they stop being "cupiosexual"? That wouldn't make much sense.

I'm thinking it would be more "I desire to please a partner sexually", like some people really like giving oral and such but never want it returned? So the desire would still be there with or without a partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

Shut up, really??? that's absurd. goddamn it AVEN, stop being stupid!

*goes to read definitions*

Yeah. The definition just says desire for a sexual relationship without attraction. And I have seen it suggested for those that do basically what you said you do for casual sex "I want laid, go to bar, find willing person" (or FWB situations where mutual pleasure is the goal)... not finding them "hot" seems to be the only qualification for cupio. And there are also some that see cupio as a label as erasure of asexuals who desire sex for their own personal pleasure, the argument is that if attraction is not present, wanting sexual interaction for your own sake is still very much ace. So there is a divide in the ace community over whether cupios are asexual or cupio should be more like demi, in the gray area.

I have no information about any of this... in your experience, would aromantic sexual fit most of these vocal cupios?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Shut up, really??? that's absurd. goddamn it AVEN, stop being stupid!

*goes to read definitions*

Yeah. The definition just says desire for a sexual relationship without attraction. And I have seen it suggested for those that do basically what you said you do for casual sex "I want laid, go to bar, find willing person" (or FWB situations where mutual pleasure is the goal)... not finding them "hot" seems to be the only qualification for cupio. And there are also some that see cupio as a label as erasure of asexuals who desire sex for their own personal pleasure, the argument is that if attraction is not present, wanting sexual interaction for your own sake is still very much ace. So there is a divide in the ace community over whether cupios are asexual or cupio should be more like demi, in the gray area.

I have no information about any of this... in your experience, would aromantic sexual fit most of these vocal cupios?

"Cupiosexual is a person who doesn’t feel sexual attraction, but feels a need for a sexual relationship "

"A Cupiosexual is one who does not experience sexual attraction, but still desires a sexual relationship. Likewise, a Cupioromantic does not experience romantic attraction, but desires a romantic relationship. "

And sorry... it seems cupios need a relationship, so I was wrong in the first one. The aces who fit "I want laid, go to bar, find person willing" are apparently called sex-favorable asexuals. So, cupios feel a strong need to have a sexual relationship (FWB, or romantic) and sex-favorable just want sex for the pleasure of it, but don't "need" it. Both are supposed to be without sexual attraction, so the argument is are still asexual. But, both desires can be based on personal pleasure.

So, aromantic sexuals may feel the same as some people who identify as cupio. Just different choices of labels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

Annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Annoying.

A bit. The definitions are all so confusing and muddled together.

David Jay did say asexuality is a tool, if it's useful, use it. So, I think the unclear definition is on purpose, to be inclusive.

I'd almost be with those that believe labels are outdated constructs, except, they chose a label for themselves and I can't get over that. :D lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

Seriously? What's their label?!?! "hypocrite" works, right? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Pomosexual (the “pomo” means “postmodern”) is a label used to describe those who do not self-identify as gay, straight, or bi, because they feel such labels are unnecessary and outdated

I could get behind rejecting labels as outdated, if we didn't have to label it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

Agreed completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herfst Seizoen

Pomosexual (the “pomo” means “postmodern”) is a label used to describe those who do not self-identify as gay, straight, or bi, because they feel such labels are unnecessary and outdated

I could get behind rejecting labels as outdated, if we didn't have to label it.

xD OMG, this quote made my day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

So there is a divide in the ace community over whether cupios are asexual or cupio should be more like demi, in the gray area.

Or, you know, just simply a subtype of sexuals.

I have no information about any of this... in your experience, would aromantic sexual fit most of these vocal cupios?

A bunch of them, maybe. "Sexual who simply hasn't found the right partner yet" works fine for even more of them, IMO.

*braces for incoming shitstorm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

I have no information about any of this... in your experience, would aromantic sexual fit most of these vocal cupios?

A bunch of them, maybe. "Sexual who simply hasn't found the right partner yet" works fine for even more of them, IMO.

*braces for incoming shitstorm*

Right though? There seems to be the belief that if you date someone and hate the sex you're asexual, despite wanting to have the sex, and if you don't like them, you're aromantic... god forbid you're just a regular person who, like all other regular people, has to go thru a lot of "no's" before finding a "yes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

No, it's not even that "cupios" hate the sex. Most say they actually enjoy it a lot. They just find enough wiggle room under that vague word "sexual attraction" to consider it a mythical something they don't feel for the people they desire, have, and enjoy sex with.

But as folks who do use that magic word, they're ace in AVEN's eyes.

Basically, Skulls - the only difference between you and a cupiosexual is that they think "sexual attraction" is somehow the key to everything, and you don't. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

I gotta go dig around some of these cupio threads ASAP. I haven't felt a good rage in awhile...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

OMG YOU GUYS I AM SO CRANKY NOW. WOW. JUST.... WOW.

Yes, f.ex. demisexuals. In general I don't desire sex but when I think on people I have crushes on, all the situation changes and my thoughts are totally different.

Um... yeah because that's not what it's like for sexuals at all... we desire sex with all humans. :wacko:

This is a bit harder for me to explain, but if I'm right then that "mindset" says more, "Sex is a way to express feelings." I understand that most sexuals say the same thing, but in the case of an ace saying this it would be more of a way to get closer, whether physically or emotionally, rather than it would be, "They're hot! I'm gonna go have sex with them!"

Never in my life have I had sex because someone is hot. Holy shit. WHAT IS THIS EVEN.

But isn't cupiosexual actually defined as an asexual that desires sex? Thus making me asexual

Hahaha this one might be my favorite. <3 So if I exchanged "asexual" for "ham sandwich" in there, they'd believe they were a ham sandwich??

Also i don't want sex with a partner for the sake of sex with a partner, I want it because I believe it would be more pleasurable and more enjoyable than on my own and it would be a level of intimacy I want to experience with only one person in my life, it's the idea of giving and receiving pleasure in such a private and intimate way and an expression of love

And this one... "i don't want sex with a partner for the sake of sex with a partner" and then goes on to describe, in detail, exactly why sex with a partner is desired by all human people, sexuals included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlowerSpirituality

Thank you! This does make me feel better. I am who I am and I can't or shouldn't change. I'm not dealing with that stuff either and I feel the same interest about this norm sexual behavior. I feel the same way on looks, people can be good looking but I don't feel what most feel. I'm more naturally on the romantic side and can appreciate looks so I might be confusing my dates lol. It took a few years to realize I don't naturally crave sex.

You are welcome! I want to thank you for being you and for relating to me like this! Its meaningful for me! I enjoy the appearance of attractive people, especially men, but I don't understand the concept of having sex with them because they are attractive. That is like trying to have sex with a painting or a beautiful statue. I just want to look at them and appreciate their beauty, like I do with music, art, nature, my chihuahua puppy, etc... I am more on my DemiRomantic romantic side also. I think I confuse Sexuals in general when they discover I feel no desires or sexual attraction towards those very good looking men. Hahaha!! No desires to kiss them either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

OMG YOU GUYS I AM SO CRANKY NOW. WOW. JUST.... WOW.

Yes, f.ex. demisexuals. In general I don't desire sex but when I think on people I have crushes on, all the situation changes and my thoughts are totally different.

Um... yeah because that's not what it's like for sexuals at all... we desire sex with all humans. :wacko:

This is a bit harder for me to explain, but if I'm right then that "mindset" says more, "Sex is a way to express feelings." I understand that most sexuals say the same thing, but in the case of an ace saying this it would be more of a way to get closer, whether physically or emotionally, rather than it would be, "They're hot! I'm gonna go have sex with them!"

Never in my life have I had sex because someone is hot. Holy shit. WHAT IS THIS EVEN.

But isn't cupiosexual actually defined as an asexual that desires sex? Thus making me asexual

Hahaha this one might be my favorite. <3 So if I exchanged "asexual" for "ham sandwich" in there, they'd believe they were a ham sandwich??

Also i don't want sex with a partner for the sake of sex with a partner, I want it because I believe it would be more pleasurable and more enjoyable than on my own and it would be a level of intimacy I want to experience with only one person in my life, it's the idea of giving and receiving pleasure in such a private and intimate way and an expression of love

And this one... "i don't want sex with a partner for the sake of sex with a partner" and then goes on to describe, in detail, exactly why sex with a partner is desired by all human people, sexuals included.

There are some very vocal people on AVEN (a few of them have been commenting in this thread even) who I have heard repeatedly saying variations of the quotes you have posted here. Especially the second and fourth quote. Variations of those exact paragraphs are all over AVEN as examples of just how much deeper an asexuals desire for sex is than a sexual persons. ''I have feelings and emotions in relation to why I desire sex with my partner, it's nothing to do with how they look, I just want to bond with them on a deeply intimate level.. this makes me asexual''

It infuriates me that people on AVEN can think (and be allowed to vocally express the idea when AVEN apparently does not tolerate antisexuality) that sexual people are so shallow, that for a person to only desire sex with their partner for intimacy and giving and receiving of pleasure, you must be asexual. Because of course, for all sexuals, it's only about getting that arse. Sexual people see people and they want to bang them, it doesn't go deeper than that. And of course there are sexual people who enjoy sex with their romantic partner as an intimate, boding experience, but that's only because they think their partner has a fine arse and a nice face. What sexual person might actually desire sex as a deeply intimate and bonding experience with their romantic partner, regardless of whether or not their partner is their idea of aesthetic perfection? No sexual person could actually be attracted to a personality as opposed to an appearance.. Not possible.

Only an asexual person could possibly have such deep feelings regarding sexual intimacy. This is what separates asexuals from sexuals.

*leaves thread again before head explodes*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

I think that pleasing your partner for their pleasure instead of your own says more about the relationship than about the individual. Like, when that person then breaks up, would they stop being "cupiosexual"? That wouldn't make much sense.

I'm thinking it would be more "I desire to please a partner sexually", like some people really like giving oral and such but never want it returned? So the desire would still be there with or without a partner.

so, wait, if someone is willing to please one specific partner in one scenario it means they desire to please any partner? I think the issue here is, that the partner once sex, and the asexual wants their partner to be happy, which means they wanna try to meet the sexual desires of their partner. I don't see that as cupio.

No, no. I think where cupio would come in to pleasing a partner is if you desire to please people sexually, not just compromise to have sex with a partner because they want it (which many aces do). So, you'd still desire the pleasing of people without a partner, not just letting it be relationship dependent. (I think... my understanding of the various labels is not perfect :P )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

I see. so the original intention of "cupio" is for someone who doesn't derive sexual pleasure from sex and doesn't seek sex out of personal pleasure, but finds the "power" to pleasure another human enticing. basically, a kind of kink.

And that actually is something I could possibly see as a trait an asexual or grayce person has (thanks, Skulls, for that expression - it fits perfectly). This description is pretty close - though not identical - to being lith(o)sexual, actually. But it needs repeating that lith isn't, by itself, part of the ace spectrum, either - you can be lith and ace, lith and grayce, or lith and sexual. That's exactly why I don't think it makes any sense at all to consider lith to be an orientation (it's just a qualifier/additional detail to one's actual orientation); and neither could be cupio, the way you just defined it.

But it sure isn't the way in which the more vocal "cupio aces" throw the word around on AVEN. "We love partnered sex, we crave it all the time, we have a lot of it because of this... but 'sexual attraction'? No way we feel that, because we're totally for real asexual." They should not be entitled to have people believe that statement, because to the common sense of an overwhelming majority of people, there simply is no logic in that.

We simply can't succeed in visibility and education if we outlaw all so-called "identity policing". It's impossible. A line must be drawn somewhere, enabling us to tell someone "no, you are definitely not asexual". Otherwise, forget about asexuality ever being seen as a valid orientation. It really, really isn't, on these terms. Being "asexual" in that way is a socio-political choice, and pretending we'd have equal validity with gay, bi, or trans* people for whom it is not such a choice is a very offensive concept that is doing them a big disservice, IMO. LGBT+ shouldn't have to tolerate our antics in their spaces before we shape up and start becoming a lot less inclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

So there is a divide in the ace community over whether cupios are asexual or cupio should be more like demi, in the gray area.

Or, you know, just simply a subtype of sexuals.

I have no information about any of this... in your experience, would aromantic sexual fit most of these vocal cupios?

A bunch of them, maybe. "Sexual who simply hasn't found the right partner yet" works fine for even more of them, IMO.

*braces for incoming shitstorm*

I think I agree with this. Also someone who has sex with no gender preference because they desire it could just be Pansexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

So there is a divide in the ace community over whether cupios are asexual or cupio should be more like demi, in the gray area.

Or, you know, just simply a subtype of sexuals.

Yes, there is that argument as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

I didn't just lay waste to my brain by reading through the main Tumblr blog on cupiosexuality for the last couple of hours. ahem. (wouldn't normally waste my time, or my brain mass, with Tumblr, but as it is a Tumblr-coined term, I wanted to go to the source to learn what I could about it)

Not sure how we got onto the topic of Cupiosexuality, and it's a little off topic, but here goes:

Pretty much Cupiosexual is someone who ''doesn't experience sexual attraction, but desires a sexual relationship'' (with no definition as to what sexual attraction is - from what I'm reading, they are defining sexual attraction as 'finding someone physically attractive in a way that makes you want sex with them', again, a misinterpretation of what it is that makes sexual people sexual - sure SOME sexuals find people physically attractive in a way that makes them want sex with said physically attractive person, but this is not what makes all sexual people sexual. Others desire sex for very different reasons than appearance).

The cupiosexuals on the blog describe it (for the most part) as ''wanting sex with my partner, but not because I want sex with him in particular, I just desire partnered sex in general and he is my partner, so I have sex with him'' They don't ''experience sexual attraction'' (ie finding people physically attractive in a way that makes them want sex) but do desire a romantic relationship and want sex to be a part of that relationship, but not because they are ''sexually attracted'' to their partner. They desire sex in general, not with one particular person, but want the person they have sex with to be the person they love/are in a relationship with. So yeah, that is a subset of sexuality, not asexuality.

Some people (due to definitions like the AVEN one at the top of the page) have the idea that what makes someone sexual is that they look at people and find them physically attractive in a way that makes them want to have sex with them. They believe that if they do not experience this feeling, they are asexual, regardless of whether or not they desire sex under certain circumstances (ie with a partner: just to be clear Demisexual desires sex with their partner in particular once they have developed a deep bond with that person, but no one else. Cupiosexual desires partnered sex in general, but only wants to have it within the confines of a relationship, with a partner. It's making sense in my mind but I'm having trouble describing it clearly enough. They desire a sexual relationship, but don't find anyone attractive in a way that makes them desire partnered sex with that particular person).

So the label Cupiosexual was invented due to a misunderstanding of what it is that makes sexual people sexual (this misunderstanding is still greatly perpetuated right throughout AVEN and other asexual blogs and forums as well) as opposed to actually being a legitimate branch of asexuality.

I can definitely get on board with Cupiosexuality being a branch of sexuality (desires partnered sex in general with no particular target, but only want's to have partnered sex within the confines of a relationship, not with randoms or friends) but I cannot be on board with Cupiosexuality being a branch of asexuality (as it's the lack of that desire for partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release whether with a particular target or anyone in particular, that is the defining factor of asexuality. You only need to look at the issues people in mixed ace/sexual relationships have, to know this is so)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

I'm confused. So... they prattle on about emotional connections and expressing love physically and all that crap, but then they say they don't have a preferred partner and don't experience attraction? Because, I don't know about the other sexuals bouncing around here, but my attraction is distinctly emotional. If that counts as sexual attraction for me, it counts for them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...