Thoughts on cupiosexuality?

[Alejandrogynous]

I think there's absolutely a difference between wanting sex for sex' sake and waiting sex because of a specific person. I just don't think it has anything to do with asexuality, and it's frustrating that it gets lumped in with us when it's not related at all. I also think it's a lot more common than people who claim cupiosexual as a label think, common enough that I personally don't think it really warrants its own label to separate it from "normal" sexuality (as it is, in fact, "normal"), and people can experience both "wanting sex for sex" and "wanting sex because of a person" both in different situations. But if they find the label useful, that's great for them. I'd just like them to keep it out of the asexuality conversation.

 

Edit: hit submit before I was done.

[LittleMermaid]

On 3/31/2020 at 1:28 PM, ConfusedSnowflake said:

you can desire sex independently of desiring it with a specific person, and you can want and enjoy a sexual relationship even with someone you're not sexually attracted to.

I have a friend with whom I've discussed this, what she's told me is that she's never been drawn to her boyfriend sexually, but she still enjoys them having sex. Kind of like she knows by experience that sex is nice and therefore wants that experience, but there is no force inside her "pulling" her towards her boyfriend, if that makes sense. Of course I'm not inside her head so can only speak based on what she's told me.

 

On 3/31/2020 at 4:02 PM, Philip027 said:

It really doesn't make sense, no.

 

If sex was "nice" enough to the point she wanted/desired it, yet there was supposedly nothing drawing her toward her partner, why not just have sex with anyone?  (Hint: the answer is sexual attraction)

The way I see it, it's the romantic attraction, not sexual attraction, that is the reason for choosing that specific person.  So you could not experience sexual attraction, but still enjoy the act because it feels nice.  Then like you said you need another person, so the romantic attraction leads you to choose the person it is with, and you can enjoy it the same as you would any other activity with them, whether you necessarily desire it or not. 

[rainbowocollie]

I think the grey area is legit and all, but I honestly don't think cupiosexuality is grey--instead I think it's a brand of allosexual. That said, I define sexual attraction as the desire to have sex.

Cupioromantic I would give a little more leeway, as romantic attraction and possibly desiring a romantic relationship but not experiencing crushes or romantic feelings seems more like a possibility to me somehow.

[everywhere and nowhere]

On 4/10/2020 at 1:09 AM, LittleMermaid said:

 

The way I see it, it's the romantic attraction, not sexual attraction, that is the reason for choosing that specific person.  So you could not experience sexual attraction, but still enjoy the act because it feels nice.  Then like you said you need another person, so the romantic attraction leads you to choose the person it is with, and you can enjoy it the same as you would any other activity with them, whether you necessarily desire it or not. 

There's a difference betwen "being able to enjoy sex" and "actively desiring sex". By all means some asexuals can fall in the former group - this is "sex-favourable asexuality" in its true meaning - but if someone actively desires sex, even if not really relating to "desiring the partner", it falls clearly outside the definition of asexuality.

[Philip027]

Quote

The way I see it, it's the romantic attraction, not sexual attraction, that is the reason for choosing that specific person.  So you could not experience sexual attraction, but still enjoy the act because it feels nice.  Then like you said you need another person, so the romantic attraction leads you to choose the person it is with, and you can enjoy it the same as you would any other activity with them, whether you necessarily desire it or not. 

Yeah, I don't buy that.  If you're attracted to someone and somehow that leads to you desiring sex with that person (and not just anyone else), how is that not sexual attraction?

 

I mean, what are these hangups and logical loopholes some sex-desiring people try to jump through to insist it isn't actually sexual attraction that they experience (and therefore they really are still "asexual")?  I really don't get it

[Blizzard Avis]

On 3/31/2020 at 5:02 PM, Philip027 said:

It really doesn't make sense, no.

 

If sex was "nice" enough to the point she wanted/desired it, yet there was supposedly nothing drawing her toward her partner, why not just have sex with anyone?  (Hint: the answer is sexual attraction)

There are many reasons why one would choose their current romantic partner to have sex with even if they weren't sexually attracted to them. The most simple reason being that a very small group of people is actually comfortable with having sex with strangers, and that definitely includes even the people who feel attraction, "the pull" towards said strangers. Not everyone likes one night stands.

Secondly, if you wanted to have sex with your friends (as opposed to strangers), 9/10 times your friends wouldn't want that. Even thought the society is more lax with sex than it has ever been before, sex is still seen as something exclusive to relationships, and the majority of people don't even want to consider the option of having sex outside of a romantic relationship because of that. For someone who would desire sex but felt no attraction, it would still make a hella lot of sense to do it only with their romantic partner.

[HikaruBG]

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

Yeah, I don't buy that.  If you're attracted to someone and somehow that leads to you desiring sex with that person (and not just anyone else), how is that not sexual attraction?

 

I mean, what are these hangups and logical loopholes some sex-desiring people try to jump through to insist it isn't actually sexual attraction that they experience (and therefore they really are still "asexual")?  I really don't get it

This is nothing but a lack of self-awareness from these people, really. They just want to seem like their cases are different and/or special from those "allosexuals" or whatever. It all goes back down to them feeling uncomfortable with the notion of Sexuality (be it because they have some negative views on Sexuality... or the very least "normal" sexuality, the whole hook-up culture, bad experiences or who tf knows.... it's not a coincidence why did I say a few times that I think that the term "Allosexual" has a lot of negative connotations... sometimes, it almost feels like an insult used at the expense of the sexual people, you know) again.

 

On 4/10/2020 at 2:09 AM, LittleMermaid said:

 

The way I see it, it's the romantic attraction, not sexual attraction, that is the reason for choosing that specific person.  So you could not experience sexual attraction, but still enjoy the act because it feels nice.  Then like you said you need another person, so the romantic attraction leads you to choose the person it is with, and you can enjoy it the same as you would any other activity with them, whether you necessarily desire it or not. 

No, it's not.
If romantic attraction is the reason that leads you to have sex with your SO specifically, then that romantic attraction would also be your sexual attraction.... Otherwise, the person in question would be pursuing sex with anyone else that's not their SO (which would be cheating).
I don't know why would people demand this to be something unusual, that people need to have a new label for it. After all, this is literally why do a lot of people off-AVEN doesn't believe in the split attraction model... because for a lot of people, romantic attraction and sexual attraction is literally one and the same, and would assume that if you are in a romantic relationship (dating) with someone, you also must be having sex with them.
Unless you guys think that your average "allosexual" is a cheating bastards that goes on and cheats on their SO with strangers, because they can't control themselves (because of their sexual attraction).... Hoo boy, I suggest you try to revalue the why you view/see sexuals.

The "enjoying the act" seems fallacious logic here. It's very obvious that if you have an emotional/special connection with your SO, it absolutly makes sense as to why you would rather have sex with them (and enjoy the act) as opposite to having sex with literally strangers.

 

26 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

There are many reasons why one would choose their current romantic partner to have sex with even if they weren't sexually attracted to them. The most simple reason being that a very small group of people is actually comfortable with having sex with strangers, and that definitely includes even the people who feel attraction, "the pull" towards said strangers. Not everyone likes one night stands.

 Yes, they are a very small group.... So why would you assume that it's unusual to not prefer to have sex with your partner as opposite with strangers???

 

26 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

Secondly, if you wanted to have sex with your friends (as opposed to strangers), 9/10 times your friends wouldn't want that. Even thought the society is more lax with sex than it has ever been before, sex is still seen as something exclusive to relationships, and the majority of people don't even want to consider the option of having sex outside of a romantic relationship because of that. For someone who would desire sex but felt no attraction, it would still make a hella lot of sense to do it only with their romantic partner.

Irreverent. This seems to be largely an USA issue (which is kind of ironic because USA still sees sex as something of a taboo). Also, most people never consider FWB in the first place.

I mean.... I have seen people claiming that "romantic relationships without sex just friendship" but for some reason, these same people forget that FWB exists, lol.

[Blizzard Avis]

8 minutes ago, HikaruBG said:

Yes, they are a very small group.... So why would you assume that it's unusual to not prefer to have sex with your partner as opposite with strangers???

 

Irreverent. This seems to be largely an USA issue (which is kind of ironic because USA still sees sex as something of a taboo). Aso, most people never consider FWB in the first place.

I mean.... I have seen people claiming that "romantic relationships without sex with just friendship" but for some reason, these same people forget that FWB exists, lol.

I... never said that it was unusual to want sex only with your partner and I don't understand where you got that from. My post was replying to the other person, I simply explained why someone who felt no attraction but desired sex would have chosen their partner over a stranger or friend. Their message implied that sexual attraction is the only reason why someone wouldn't go and have sex with anyone.

I don't really understand the second part.

[Philip027]

Quote

There are many reasons why one would choose their current romantic partner to have sex with even if they weren't sexually attracted to them.

Name one.

 

Quote

The most simple reason being that a very small group of people is actually comfortable with having sex with strangers, and that definitely includes even the people who feel attraction, "the pull" towards said strangers. Not everyone likes one night stands.

I don't see how that really follows as a reason?  We're talking about the one person who supposedly doesn't experience sexual attraction, not a bunch of people who do.

 

Quote

Secondly, if you wanted to have sex with your friends (as opposed to strangers), 9/10 times your friends wouldn't want that. Even thought the society is more lax with sex than it has ever been before, sex is still seen as something exclusive to relationships, and the majority of people don't even want to consider the option of having sex outside of a romantic relationship because of that. For someone who would desire sex but felt no attraction, it would still make a hella lot of sense to do it only with their romantic partner.

I really don't think it would.  Maintaining a romantic relationship specifically to have sex doesn't make sense when sex is something incredibly easy to get without having to bother with the whole relationship thing.

 

Also, if you (general you) are wanting to have sex with your friends, you're sexually attracted to your friends, and therefore not asexual.

[HikaruBG]

57 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

I... never said that it was unusual to want sex only with your partner and I don't understand where you got that from.

I know that you didn't. My point there was asking why would people need a label for something they know to be not unusual?

 

57 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

My post was replying to the other person, I simply explained why someone who felt no attraction but desired sex would have chosen their partner over a stranger or friend. Their message implied that sexual attraction is the only reason why someone wouldn't go and have sex with anyone.

Your comment makes no sense.  If it leads them to prefer sex with their SO (a.i. the person they feel romantic attraction to) as opposite to literally anyone else, then by definition, they are sexually attracted to their SO (again, this is why do most people off-AVEN doesn't believe in the split attraction model in the first place.... because they believe romantic attraction and sexual attraction to be one and the same). Otherwise, it literally wouldn't matter for them with who they had sex with in the first place.

 

And no, Philip's comment said literally nothing about "sexual attraction is the only reason why someone wouldn't go and have sex with anyone". Re-read it again.

 

Edit: The last part of my comment was directed towards the "wanting to have sex with friends" part. Most people doesn't even consider FWB into consideration, so why would you bring it up.

[Blizzard Avis]

25 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I don't see how that really follows as a reason?  We're talking about the one person who supposedly doesn't experience sexual attraction, not a bunch of people who do.

I said that people, in general, didn't feel comfortable with having sex with strangers, regardless of whether they felt attraction or not. Maybe I worded it out badly.

 

Quote

I really don't think it would.  Maintaining a romantic relationship specifically to have sex doesn't make sense when sex is something incredibly easy to get without having to bother with the whole relationship thing.

Some people still want to have a romantic relationship, it doesn't mean they are maintaining it just for sex.

But when you do have a relationship, the logical thing to do when you desire sex is to ask your partner, not someone else, because of the societal reasons I explained. Unless you have an open relationship or something similar. Majority of people are uncomfortable with having sex outside of a relationship.

 

Quote

Also, if you (general you) are wanting to have sex with your friends, you're sexually attracted to your friends, and therefore not asexual.

Yeah, I think the issue we are having here is that I see sexual attraction as "wanting sex with a specific person", and sexual desire as "wanting sex for the sake of sex", whereas you see them as the same thing (correct me if I am wrong). Maybe I should've added that distinction before writing my first reply I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

However even with this distinction, I do agree that asexuality is a desire for sex, and therefore cupiosexuals wouldn't be asexual.

 

------------

 

9 minutes ago, HikaruBG said:

I know that you didn't. My point there was asking why would people need a label for something they know to be not unusual?

Eh, that's not something I have an answer to, but I guess if it makes them feel better then whatever *shrug*

 

Quote

Your comment makes no sense.  If it leads them to prefer sex with their SO (a.i. the person they feel romantic attraction to) as opposite to literally anyone else, then by definition, they are sexually attracted to their SO (again, this is why do most people doesn't believe in the split model in the first place.... because they believe romantic attraction and sexual attraction to be one and the same). Otherwise, it literally wouldn't matter for them with who they even had sex with in the first place.

 

And no, Philip's comment said literally nothing about "sexual attraction is the only reason why someone wouldn't go and have sex with anyone". Re-read it again.

 

Edit: The last part of my comment was directed towards the "wanting to have sex with friends" part. Most people doesn't even consider FWB into consideration, so why would you bring it up.

Let's say that the reason why this hypothetical cupiosexual would prefer sex with their partner over someone else is a matter of external factors, not internal. External factors being that very few people actually want sex outside of a relationship, so the said cupiosexual wouldn't be able to find someone who would want to have sex with them, or they feel pressure from the society not to have sex outside a relationship as it's seen as "slutty" or whatever. That's why I brought up both one night stands and friends with benefits. If they do have a relationship though, they can easily get sex from their partner.

 

Philip's comment said "If sex was "nice" enough to the point she wanted/desired it, yet there was supposedly nothing drawing her toward her partner, why not just have sex with anyone?  (Hint: the answer is sexual attraction)", so to me it read as that. I am sorry if I misunderstood it.

[Philip027]

Quote

I said that people, in general, didn't feel comfortable with having sex with strangers

I feel like if this were true, prostitution wouldn't have been around for as long as it has.

 

See also, the prevalence of hookups and one night stands, etc.

 

Quote

Yeah, I think the issue we are having here is that I see sexual attraction as "wanting sex with a specific person", and sexual desire as "wanting sex for the sake of sex", whereas you see them as the same thing (correct me if I am wrong).

To me, sexual attraction IS sexual desire directed at a specific person.  So yeah, pretty much.

 

The way I would see sexual desire on its own (without the attraction) would be something like "I wanna sex but nobody around here is appealing..." which would be distinct from, say, aces with a libido, who wouldn't desire sex and would be content with handling it on their own.  And even then, the former people imply that they potentially could find someone they want to sex; they just haven't found it yet / right now.  Aces (at least the ones that have settled into that identity) usually are pretty confident that will never happen.

[Blizzard Avis]

3 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I feel like if this were true, prostitution wouldn't have been around for as long as it has.

 

See also, the prevalence of hookups and one night stands, etc.

I don't think they are THAT common though? I can't think of a single person who I know personally that has engaged in either one of those, and it's not like I am hanging out with very conservative people either (although I assume someone who did probably wouldn't be going around and telling everyone about it, but you get the point. My impression at least.)

 

Quote

To me, sexual attraction IS sexual desire directed at a specific person.  So yeah, pretty much.

 

The way I would see sexual desire on its own (without the attraction) would be something like "I wanna sex but nobody around here is appealing..." which would be distinct from, say, aces with a libido, who wouldn't desire sex and would be content with handling it on their own.

I think we are on the same page here then. Which means the misunderstanding is the fault of my shitty wording, sorry for that 😅

[HikaruBG]

43 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

Eh, that's not something I have an answer to, but I guess if it makes them feel better then whatever *shrug*

More like dishonest attempt to make themselves feel special... especially when they insist that they are asexual....

 

43 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

Let's say that the reason why this hypothetical cupiosexual would prefer sex with their partner over someone else is a matter of external factors, not internal.

To me, the fact that they are romantically attracted to their SO is enough of good internal reason for them to desire/have sex with their SO.

 

43 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

External factors being that very few people actually want sex outside of a relationship, so the said cupiosexual wouldn't be able to find someone who would want to have sex with them, or they feel pressure from the society not to have sex outside a relationship as it's seen as "slutty" or whatever.

Yes, because having sex outside of your romantic relationship is seen as cheating by society at large??? If this the only reason that holds back cupiosexuals to not go on and having sex with people outside of their romantic relationships, this really gives off very unfortunate implications to how much these cupiosexuals really value their romantic relationships/SO.

 

43 minutes ago, SnowyAvis said:

That's why I brought up both one night stands and friends with benefits. If they do have a relationship though, they can easily get sex from their partner.

Okay, but that's also true for people who are not in relationship and not having ONS and FWB. They still desire sex regardless of their relationship status, so to speak.

[Knight of Cydonia]

 

8 hours ago, SnowyAvis said:

There are many reasons why one would choose their current romantic partner to have sex with even if they weren't sexually attracted to them. The most simple reason being that a very small group of people is actually comfortable with having sex with strangers, and that definitely includes even the people who feel attraction, "the pull" towards said strangers. Not everyone likes one night stands.

About 70% of Americans and Europeans have had at least one one-night-stand. [*]

 

Quote

Secondly, if you wanted to have sex with your friends (as opposed to strangers), 9/10 times your friends wouldn't want that. Even thought the society is more lax with sex than it has ever been before, sex is still seen as something exclusive to relationships, and the majority of people don't even want to consider the option of having sex outside of a romantic relationship because of that.

About 60% of Americans and Europeans have been in a "friends with benefits" relationship. [*]

 

Quote

For someone who would desire sex but felt no attraction, it would still make a hella lot of sense to do it only with their romantic partner.

The stats above would imply that this isn't the case.

 

==========================

 

Anyways, cupiosexuality seems like pretty typical, normal sexuality, honestly. If it's really described as feeling sexual desire without sexual attraction, I question what sexual attraction means, then? Do people think sexual attraction is 100% physical, or like getting the hots for someone if they take their shirt off, or something?

 

Feelings of sexual attraction seem pretty subjective, and everyone has their own reason or preference for having sex - be it physical attractiveness, familiarity, emotional attachment, personality, etc. Any combination of reasons go into someone choosing one person over another, so I have a hard time understanding how sexual attraction is not intrinsically tied to targeted desire by definition.

 

Regardless, it's certainly far from asexuality and it bothers me when people say otherwise. 

 

 

[everywhere and nowhere]

On 4/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, SnowyAvis said:

There are many reasons why one would choose their current romantic partner to have sex with even if they weren't sexually attracted to them. The most simple reason being that a very small group of people is actually comfortable with having sex with strangers, and that definitely includes even the people who feel attraction, "the pull" towards said strangers. Not everyone likes one night stands.

Why would someone actively want to have sex if they are supposedly asexual?

I'm not talking about having sex because of a relationship. Some asexuals do it - I wouldn't, I couldn't have sex under any circumstances, but I'm sex-averse and some aces aren't.  But if it goes the other way around - keeping a relationship because of desiring sex and not wanting to have sex outside of a relationship (and, to be honest, I too "totally get it" because, while being sex-averse and completely closed to the possibility of having sex, I generally perceive sex without committment as something bad) - it means having an active desire for sex, not just a willingness.

Really, this topic is a prime example of how confusing the term "sexual attraction" can be. Yes, perhaps a few people could feel alienated by such a move, but I believe that it's better to just switch to defining asexuality in terms of not desiring partnered sex.