Lost247365 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 1) please be clearer in the future please. 2) I was refering to the specific bloggers. 3) I am not at all denying your aceness, I know what it is like to have my identity so policed and wouldnt wish to inflict that on anyone. I just find some of your opinions a bit problematic, at least in the way they are written, as I said please be clearer. 1) I will try to be. I was on my phone at the time. 2) :) To quote you, please be clearer in the future. Regardless, I am sure there are bloggers who argue the opposite. If not, I can simply start a blog myself....which shows the problem on using blogs as a source. 3)Then why are you using the definition that will hurt people. The attraction definition does not do anything but cause confusion. It hurts people. I will try to be clearer. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I use the attraction definition for the sexual orientation, I have included the desire definition as an identity, and then there is the spectrum. a 3 part work up of all of the Ace Sphere. Link to post Share on other sites
Cabana Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Um, if I may say, i'm getting pretty confused and I'm not sure why all the back and forth about sex and desire..I just wanted to talk about the aromantic and cupioromantic side of things Link to post Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Um, if I may say, i'm getting pretty confused and I'm not sure why all the back and forth about sex and desire.. I just wanted to talk about the aromantic and cupioromantic side of things I deeply apologize. Also, from what Ive seen some Aros are curious about romance and may get involved for the sake of living that particular life they want. The idea of romance is enough to make em give it a go. I think it is valid. Link to post Share on other sites
Lost247365 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Um, if I may say, i'm getting pretty confused and I'm not sure why all the back and forth about sex and desire.. I just wanted to talk about the aromantic and cupioromantic side of things People on message boards can get involved in sub-discussion especially if it is over a heated topic. There is a big pinned discussion on this topic just for the debate of this subject. Sorry for the aside I will take this discussion to PM and leave the thread. Link to post Share on other sites
Cabana Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 I deeply apologize. Also, from what Ive seen some Aros are curious about romance and may get involved for the sake of living that particular life they want. The idea of romance is enough to make em give it a go. I think it is valid. Thanks for understanding me! People on message boards can get involved in sub-discussion especially if it is over a heated topic. There is a big pinned discussion on this topic just for the debate of this subject.Sorry for the aside I will take this discussion to PM and leave the thread. Thank you, you helped me realize some important stuff v u v) Link to post Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 No problem :) Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Well, you did ask why there's hate on the topic; you really didn't expect to spark a debate? You said you were confused so possible clarification: They were talking about Cupio and went off into its sexual orientation as the base example/topic of debate. If someone is Cupio they desire what they cannot feel toward anyone; they have a drive (to have some sort of act/relationship) with no attraction/pull to do that with anyone in particular. Other than Cupioromantic because romantic attraction is an emotion, the rest of Cupio types/suffixes revolve around desire (e.g. sensual, sexual, and platonic attraction). An Asexual is defined by AVEN as not desiring sex, Cupiosexual is defined as someone who is asexual out of technicality (in the sense that no one is sexually enticing) but desires sex; it's even in the terms prefix and it literally translates to "desires sex". Do you see the oxymoron? So it's not an asexual. Asexuals who can enjoy sex are perfectly accepted in the asexual community and those're two different things; desire and enjoyment. An asexual/aromantic can be in a sexual/romantic relationship, they just wouldn't desire to have those relationships/do those acts; they'd just feel good by pleasing the person, where as a cupio desires it. With your explanation, maybe you want a queerplatonic relationship. Link to post Share on other sites
Baam Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I identify as cupioromantic. I have never had a crush on anyone, I am literally unable to feel romantic attraction to anyone... However I do like the idea of romance, and I desire to feel it; I desire a romantic relationship.. But again I do not feel romantic attraction towards anyone, therefore I am aromantic. You see? I don't feel the desire.. But I desire to feel the desire... If that makes any sense.. xD It's very hard to explain and I feel I've done a bad job of it... But my orientation is NOT invalid, and it is not an oxymoron. I think perhaps you have misunderstood the definition of cupioromantic? No offense intended, but it is sometimes hard to understand other orientations. Link to post Share on other sites
Cabana Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Well, you did ask why there's hate on the topic; you really didn't expect to spark a debate? You said you were confused so possible clarification: They were talking about Cupio and went off into its sexual orientation as the base example/topic of debate. If someone is Cupio they desire what they cannot feel toward anyone; they have a drive (to have some sort of act/relationship) with no attraction/pull to do that with anyone in particular. Other than Cupioromantic because romantic attraction is an emotion, the rest of Cupio types/suffixes revolve around desire (e.g. sensual, sexual, and platonic attraction). An Asexual is defined by AVEN as not desiring sex, Cupiosexual is defined as someone who is asexual out of technicality (in the sense that no one is sexually enticing) but desires sex; it's even in the terms prefix and it literally translates to "desires sex". Do you see the oxymoron? So it's not an asexual. Asexuals who can enjoy sex are perfectly accepted in the asexual community and those're two different things; desire and enjoyment. An asexual/aromantic can be in a sexual/romantic relationship, they just wouldn't desire to have those relationships/do those acts; they'd just feel good by pleasing the person, where as a cupio desires it. With your explanation, maybe you want a queerplatonic relationship. Yeah but after a while it didn't sound like a debate.. When you put it like that, I can see why it's confusing to so many people. A Cupio seems like they want two opposite things. I also like what Baam said, Cupios desire to feel the desire. If I desired a romantic relationship then I'd go out and try to get one myself, but I don't because I can't feel strongly towards a specific person. It's like.. being hungry and wanting to try the chocolate cake that everyone loves, but you don't think you like chocolate. SO what do you do? You settle for the other food that's probably just as good, but you know you won't be satisfied until you've had that chocolate cake! I don't know if that makes sense at all. I've thought about a queerplatonic relationship and I feel like it'll just be me settling for the other food. Like I'm bouncing around what I really want. Unless I'm not thinking of queerplatonic in the right way? Link to post Share on other sites
Baam Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Yea, Cabana, I feel the same way about queerplatonic relationships.. I don't think it would be fulfilling enough in some way? I do like your chocolate cake analogy as well. I want a chocolate cake (romantic relationship), but at the same time I seem unable to like chocolate (unable to like anyone romantically)! Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Queerplatonic relationship (QPR): an emotionally platonic relationship that has the characteristic(s) of a romantic relationship. It can be an importance/closeness stronger than the best friend norm, displaying platonic sensual attraction above the norm (only differing from romantic sensual attraction with chaste kissing, although preferring chaste kissing or no kissing does not make one’s feelings unromantic), friends with sexual benefits, romantically pleasing someone they platonically love (QP to one and romantic to the other, although it's their decision on what they call the relationship), or any combination of those. They may or may not have monogamy, live together, have kids, or look like a couple to the public. Romantics and Aromantics can have QPRs. Also, another reason there's debate on it is the use of asexual/aromantic in the definitions. Elaboration: Out of technicality it's accurate, but once you use the terms in the definition it becomes a full oxymoron and not a seeming oxymoron. So it's accurate to say "Cupioromantic is someone who does not experience romantic attraction but desires a romantic relationship" but not to simplify it by "Cupioromantic is an aromantic who desires a romantic relationship/has a romance-drive" because an aromantic lacks both romantic attraction and a romance-drive (and in some uses just a romance-drive). As i said in my other comment, an aromantic could willingly be in a romantic relationship, they just wouldn't desire to be/pursue romantic relationships, where as cupioromantics pursue. Link to post Share on other sites
Baam Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I think take out the '/has a romance-drive'. I don't think we really pursue either. As I said earlier, and Cabana agreed, it's the desire to feel the desire we have. So while we desire a romantic relationship, we don't feel the attraction in order to spur us on to pursue that. I know what a QPR is, but again I'm not sure it would be fulfilling enough? Maybe I just don't understand what a romantic relationship is. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I agree you would have no drive toward someone but you would still try to get into a romantic relationship and thus have a drive to have romance/a romantic-drive. Where as an aromantic would just do it to satisfy a friend. Cupio literally means desire after all; it literally means you desire romance (the definition of romantic-drive). Romantic attraction and romantic-drive are different. Quote from Aven's wiki on Aromanticism: "The aromantic attribute is usually considered to be innate and not a personal choice, just as the lack of sexual attraction is innate to asexuals. It is important to note that aromantics do not lack emotional/personal connection, but simply have no instinctual need to develop connections of a romantic nature. ... It is possible for an aromantic individual to be involved in, and enjoy, a devoted relationship with another person, but these relations are often closer friendships, naturally reflecting the closeness of the two individuals and not a purposely initiated monogamous separation as is often found in romantic couples." And it used to say that others also defined it as not desiring a romantic relationship. (some people still include both meanings) Thus an aromantic does not desire romance/does not have both romantic attraction and a romantic-drive. Cupio is on the Gray spectrum. Though i guess the romantic feeling aromantics could also go by romantically abstinent/celibate. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.