m4rble Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 Due to a debate I had in the thread, "Do aromantic people have the ability to be romantic if they want to?":http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/148609-do-aromantic-people-have-the-ability-to-be-romantic-if-they-want-to about whether Rose Quartz from the TV show Steven Universe was aromantic or *cupioromantic I started thinking about what it really means to be cupioromantic. I was arguing that Rose Quartz may have desired a romantic relationship because she wanted to experience what is was like to be human, but then I realized that wouldn't really make her romantic in any meaningful sense of the word. If you only want a romantic relationship because you're curious about it or you like the idea of it in a very general sense that doesn't really make you romantic. Romantic is an orientation, and therefore not subject to very much change due to external factors, but someone's curiosity about a particular thing is very dependent on the context. For example, in the case of Rose Quartz she may not have desired a romantic relationship at first, but then grew to want one based on her love for or curiosity for humans. This does not mean her orientation actually changed from aromantic to romantic. If an asexual wants to have sex because they're curious about what it feels like or because they simply want to experience it the way sexual people experience it, this does not suddenly make them sexual. I think the confusion I was having came from the word, "desire". While desire is often used as a synonym for want, it means something slightly different when applied to orientations. To be romantic you have to actually desire a romantic relationship, not just want it for reasons such as curiosity, fear, financial security, the general desire to bring about other feelings, or the desire to fit in. A romantic desires romance whether they actually want it or not and likewise an aromantic doesn't desire romance even if they want it. Therefore, it seems to me that most cupioromantics would fall into one of two categories, those who desire it for external reasons(therefore making the desire more of a want) and those who desire it for internal reasons. Those who desire it for external reasons are just aromantics who like romance in theory while those who desire it for internal reasons would be experiencing what is essentially a romantic feeling in the form of desire. Therefore, in a lot of situations, it seems like the term,"cupioromantic" would actually be unnecessary or inaccurate. There could be a situation I haven't thought of which would make the term, "cupioromantic" still necessary though. I know it's weird to use musings about a kid's show to try to figure out romance, but this one really got me thinking, haha. I could be totally off base though, so tell me what you think. *Note: to those not familiar with the term, a cupioromantic describes someone who doesn't experience romantic feelings but still wants a romantic relationship. (also, to those who've been reading my posts for a while, this isn't about me. ) Link to post Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 I believe she was bellusromantic at first, and then cupioromantic , she probably just wanted to enjoy romance before desiring to be actually having a romantic relationship and before feeling romantic attraction. *Bellusromantic is is a person who desire to have romantic experiences without necessarily being involved in a romantic relationship and without feeling romantic attraction. Fun fact: the bellus flag has a pink rose on it. XD Steven Universe is a very important cartoon though. Link to post Share on other sites
dissolved Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 I have a lot of issues with this cupio business, so I'll keep this short. Wanting a relationship doesn't make someone romantic because it's the feelings that matter. We conjured up relationships, unlike sex, which was one of those fancy things that has existed for a lot longer. It's like cupiosexual - if that meant wanting a sexual relationship despite not having sexual desires then I'd be on board with that. But that's not what it means. It's just ordinary sexual desire, therefore ordinary sexual person. There's no parallel between cupiosexual and cupioromantic so it doesn't make sense to use the same prefix. I think most labels are unnecessary and force people to fit into boxes they don't actually fit in. And I've never watched the cartoon, sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 If wanting a relationship doesn't make someone romantic then wanting sex doesn't make someone sexual. Nope, and many aros agree that they aren't aro. That's as backwards as a completely straight person identifying as gay. However, my counter to this thread's topic would be that even if she did desire relationships with humans (desire for any reason is still desire; which isn't clear in the show) she literally only views it as "playing" so she doesn't actively desire relationships. Link to post Share on other sites
m4rble Posted December 14, 2016 Author Share Posted December 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, Star Bit said: If wanting a relationship doesn't make someone romantic then wanting sex doesn't make someone sexual. Nope, and many aros agree that they aren't aro. Wanting sex doesn't make you sexual, desiring sex does. Someone can want sex for external reasons such as to fit in or to please one's partner. That doesn't change their orientation. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 Want and desire are the same thing. Google. No, having sex to fit in or please a partner is NOT wanting it, it is strictly wanting those aforementioned things. Link to post Share on other sites
m4rble Posted December 14, 2016 Author Share Posted December 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Star Bit said: Want and desire are the same thing. Google. No, having sex to fit in or please a partner is NOT wanting it, it is strictly wanting those aforementioned things. My main point was that there is a difference between being romantic and wanting to be romantic. It's possible for an asexual person to want to be able to connect with someone in a sexual way because they like the description that sexual people give of it, but they still wouldn't have an inherent desire for it. They would likely still be unhappy or indifferent in a sexual relationship. It's possible for a gay person to want to be straight and therefore desire to have some connection to someone of the opposite sex, but they still wouldn't be able to actually feel it the way they wanted to. In that case the want is one layer up and therefore not really a part of orientation. If Rose Quartz truly did desire to form relationships because she wanted to know what it was like to be human(which you argue she didn't, which could be true, but let's hypothetically say she did) then she would want to be romantic but she wouldn't actually be romantic. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 Btw, effectively i think Rose thought of relationships as acquiring a pet (while already dotingly viewing humans). *puts puppy ears on Greg* But then it becomes confusing on the matter; if she's Cupioromantic or not, because if the things she does desire to play with are romantic things then she would actually be desiring a relationship but just be wording it wrong with the word playing (probably because culturally that's the closest word they would have). Though you could also say she desires platonic things because all we see of her and Greg's relationship is hanging out and giving chaste lip kisses. Her loving expressions throughout it can be from platonic love (which the show says she's abundant with; especially for humans). Link to post Share on other sites
m4rble Posted December 14, 2016 Author Share Posted December 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, Star Bit said: Btw, effectively i think Rose thought of relationships as acquiring a pet (while already dotingly viewing humans). *puts puppy ears on Greg* But then it becomes confusing on the matter; if she's Cupioromantic or not, because if the things she does desire to play with are romantic things then she would actually be desiring a relationship but just be wording it wrong with the word playing (probably because culturally that's the closest word they would have). Yeah, it's really to figure out what it means from the outside. Link to post Share on other sites
Sotapanna Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 On 12/14/2016 at 4:04 PM, Star Bit said: Want and desire are the same thing. Google. No, having sex to fit in or please a partner is NOT wanting it, it is strictly wanting those aforementioned things. Not sure of your stance on the issue, While Want and desire are synonyms, I feel they are different. I "want" (and have) to perform oral sex on romance partners, because I "desire" to see them with that look on their face that says they've had an orgasm. they are so happy... blissful.... Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 @strangeman If you desire sex for the emotional pleasure then that's desiring sex; it is a known fetish for seuxal people; to desire sex out of emotional pleasure from sexually satisfying the other partner. Desiring/not desiring specific types of sex (or even only wanting the stimulation to be one sided) is irrelevant; if any type of sex is desired it is the desire for sex and thus not asexual. But there is a difference between "i want to make my partner happy and sex is what makes them happy so i do it [which i may or may not enjoy doing]" Versus "i want to make my partner orgasm/be aroused and X type of sex is what does that so i do it" The first is an asexual and the second is a sexual person. If this is confusing, know that the first is enjoyment and the second is desire. Asexuals can experience sexual or emotional pleasure from sex but they cannot desire it for sexual or emotional pleasure. Yes, normally desire and enjoyment are together and for most people if one is present the other is too, but the two are actually two different things. Everyone's had a food that tasted fine but for whetever reason just wan't their thing; this is enjoyment without desire. An asexual never yearns for sex for any reason (not for sexual or emotional pleasure of even after foreplay), sexual people do. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Also, they're not two different things in your last sentence; if you desire sex for emotional pleasure then you don't actually seem to desire oral sex (you desire the emotional play off), just like an asexual doesn't actually desire sex (they just desire to make the sexual partner happy or to reproduce). The accurate phrasing would be " I'm willing to (and have to) perform oral sex on romantic partners because I desire to see them with that look on their face that says they've had an orgasm." Link to post Share on other sites
Nea Rose Symphony Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 I see part of my gray aro identity as being cupioromantic (there's other forms of gray I've experienced), and how I see it is having a romantic drive but no attraction. Such as there's a sexual libido/drive that's separate from attraction, there also should be considered a romantic libido. I wanted romance, I wanted a relationship, that desire to be wanted in that way, for someone to express interest in me was there while in middle and high school. But besides the small few who actually were real people, it was mostly just general feelings not directed at anyone in particular. Like when an ace on Whisper had described it as being in a room full of clothes wanting to find an outfit but none of the clothes themselves stood out. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 @Cetasoul Cupioromantics are not aro (many aros agree on this), thus not Gray-aro; they are clearly romantic because they desire a relationship and thus Gray-romantic because it is not the known norm (eventhough cupiosexuality is the sexual norm). And yes, there is a drive without attraction; sex-drive without sexual attraction, romantic-drive without romantic attraction (though romantic-drive isn't a used phrase). Link to post Share on other sites
Ettina Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I identify as cupioromantic and aromantic, because I don't feel romantic attraction, but I do feel a strong longing to have someone in a romantic or romantic-like relationship with me. Mostly because I feel lonely. I am not romance-repulsed, and when I imagine someone being romantically interested in me (assuming they're otherwise compatible) it sounds like something I'd probably enjoy. But I wouldn't have the same feelings for them as they do for me, because I simply can't feel that way. Instead I'd probably just feel caring and loving in a non-romantic way. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.