Jump to content
gray-a girl

Are cupiosexuals considered gray as?

Recommended Posts

Homer

If only there were a group of people who could solve this... but whatcha gonna do *shrug*

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone (me)
2 hours ago, Homer said:

but whatcha gonna do *shrug*

Make memes about it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
13 hours ago, frostboot said:

What's the difference between "asexual" and "hasn't found the right person yet"? How do you know the one isn't right around the corner? Your question is just recycled aphobia.

If you had bothered to actually try to understand what I wrote, you wouldn't have replied like this.

 

One more try. If you desire a sexual relationship, but you only ever met people you don't want to fuck, that is literally "not having found the right person". To me the description of "cuopio" sounds exactly like that. I think that's very different from not desiring sex in the first place (="asexuality"). You shoehorning this into some kind of "phobia" doesn't make it a phobia on my part though.

 

If I'd like to eat something, but I don't like any of the food available, that's different than not being hungry at all to begin with.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
1 hour ago, Homer said:

 

One more try. If you desire a sexual relationship, but you only ever met people you don't want to fuck, that is literally "not having found the right person". To me the description of "cuopio" sounds exactly like that.

"Cupio", not "cuopio". Kuopio, by the way, is a town in Finland which has ski jumping hills. Unfortunately, I haven't been to these ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

Ha, I initially made a spelling error and then replaced it with a different spelling error... go me...  m(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran
2 hours ago, Homer said:

If you had bothered to actually try to understand what I wrote, you wouldn't have replied like this.

 

One more try. If you desire a sexual relationship, but you only ever met people you don't want to fuck, that is literally "not having found the right person". To me the description of "cuopio" sounds exactly like that. I think that's very different from not desiring sex in the first place (="asexuality"). You shoehorning this into some kind of "phobia" doesn't make it a phobia on my part though.

 

If I'd like to eat something, but I don't like any of the food available, that's different than not being hungry at all to begin with.

The cupio will never "desire sex with a person" - they will desire partnered sex... I don't personally get the difference, really. But, that's the defining difference. Some desire it in the sense of a kink that requires two, some desire it in the sense of wanting orgasm but masturbation isn't fulfilling so it has to be with a partner. I've also seen them say the reason they choose partners varies between the person is nice, they are trustworthy, they are partners so it makes sense to be sexual with your partner, etc. 

 

I guess it's the reverse of my own sexuality. I only desire my person whereas, a cupio just desires.... anyone that won't hurt them and is OK being used like a sex toy? *shrug* So they do want to have sex with the people they meet. Can't be "haven't met the right person". or they wouldn't have sex with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AceMissBehaving
12 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

I point this out because it seems like some people are only using the term asexual in the narrowest sense of the word. As people who are either sex repulsed or sex indifferent, and also lacking attraction. They are not equating the term with aspec, and they are not the same thing for some people. So for some, it seems that gray-as are aspec, but not asexual. Whereas when I use the term, asexual means the same thing as aspec. 

And this is why a lot of us hate it when people use the word asexual to mean aspec.

 

If people would just leave asexual to mean asexual, and aspec for everything else, I think 99% of the problems and debates would go away.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
1 hour ago, Serran said:

The cupio will never "desire sex with a person" - they will desire partnered sex...

Mmmmmkay :huh:

 

I don't get it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gray-a girl

 

14 hours ago, Star Lion said:

 

Yeah, I personally don’t think greysexuals are asexual or that aspec is an accurate term to describe the asexual community. I’m more on board with the idea that graysexuals (the “aspec“ people) are sexual but just very close to the asexual end of the sexual attraction spectrum. I also define asexuality, as an aroace, as not experiencing sexual attraction

Except some of us don't really relate to sexuals. Ok, fine, you don't like asexuals to include gray as, demis, cupios, etc. But whats wrong with having a word to define someone that falls in between asexuality as you want to define it, and sexual? I just do not relate to sexuals so I don't ID as such.

 

 

14 hours ago, Star Lion said:

At the same time though, I wanna know what the OPs feelings actually are because they never explicitly told us. They could literally just be asexual even by our ideas of the definition, if we were to dig deeper on the topic

I have explained it elsewhere but, what do you want to know?

 

4 hours ago, Homer said:

If you had bothered to actually try to understand what I wrote, you wouldn't have replied like this.

 

One more try. If you desire a sexual relationship, but you only ever met people you don't want to fuck, that is literally "not having found the right person". To me the description of "cuopio" sounds exactly like that. I think that's very different from not desiring sex in the first place (="asexuality"). You shoehorning this into some kind of "phobia" doesn't make it a phobia on my part though.

 

If I'd like to eat something, but I don't like any of the food available, that's different than not being hungry at all to begin with.

Not having found the right person yet is not the definition of cupiosexual. Cupiosexuals do not feel sexual attraction, though still want to be in partnered sexual relationships. Being in the "right" relationship won't suddenly create sexual attraction. It doesn't change this. There is no "right" relationship, actually. (read below for my reason for wanting to be in a sexual relationship).

 

 

2 hours ago, Serran said:

The cupio will never "desire sex with a person" - they will desire partnered sex... I don't personally get the difference, really. But, that's the defining difference. Some desire it in the sense of a kink that requires two, some desire it in the sense of wanting orgasm but masturbation isn't fulfilling so it has to be with a partner. I've also seen them say the reason they choose partners varies between the person is nice, they are trustworthy, they are partners so it makes sense to be sexual with your partner, etc. 

 

I guess it's the reverse of my own sexuality. I only desire my person whereas, a cupio just desires.... anyone that won't hurt them and is OK being used like a sex toy? *shrug* So they do want to have sex with the people they meet. Can't be "haven't met the right person". or they wouldn't have sex with them. 

You know I'm glad you say that you don't get the difference. I think, maybe it's better to say "I don't get it" than to make assumptions about things and just believe you get it based on those assumptions. Basically, I'm kinky, and as someone else explained it quite well, sexually its like someone else is another set of hands. You cannot do certain kinks alone. Some kinks are downright unsafe to do alone, others just impossible. (And I'm not talking about silk scarves stuff here. There's a lot more options in kink than people realize. Some of the options are not, by themselves, to most people, actually sexual. But for a kinky person into that kink, they are).

 

But it's not about the person, it's about the situation or the object, etc. To be honest, I do not understand or get cupiosexuals who are not kinky. Why would someone want a sexual relationship if kink wasn't the reason? It doesn't make sense to me. If kink didn't exist, I'd be indifferent to sex with a partner. Why do it with someone else when you can do it just as well by yourself, sometimes better? Maybe to make them happy? But hey, just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I completely do not understand how non-gender binary people are, but I accept them.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Homer said:

Mmmmmkay :huh:

 

I don't get it.

Explained above. You still may not get it, but thats ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
autumnlao

I thought cupiosexual was another word for a sex-positive asexual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gray-a girl

I also want to thank people for not invalidating me specifically. This has become an interesting conversation, and I really appreciate that it's not gotten de-railed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gray-a girl
3 minutes ago, autumnlao said:

I thought cupiosexual was another word for a sex-positive asexual

The definition of cupiosexual is "someone who does not experience sexual attraction, but wants to be in a sexual relationship". I was IDing as sex favorable asexual, but the definition for that is "someone who does not experience sexual attraction, and enjoys sex, but does not necessarily seek it out". So cupiosexual fits me better. Plus it side-steps any arguments over definitions.

Sex positive asexuals or aspecs, are people who are whatever orientation they are, but believe sex is a healthy, positive thing and they don't discourage other people (who want it) from doing it. It's more like a values stance than an orientation. So in theory, you could have a sex positive, but sex repulsed asexual. That person would think positively of sexual activity, for other people, just not for themselves. (vs someone who isn't sex positive might say that all sex is bad and nobody, not even sexuals, should be that into it).

That's my understanding anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
autumnlao
15 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

The definition of cupiosexual is "someone who does not experience sexual attraction, but wants to be in a sexual relationship". I was IDing as sex favorable asexual, but the definition for that is "someone who does not experience sexual attraction, and enjoys sex, but does not necessarily seek it out". So cupiosexual fits me better. Plus it side-steps any arguments over definitions.

Sex positive asexuals or aspecs, are people who are whatever orientation they are, but believe sex is a healthy, positive thing and they don't discourage other people (who want it) from doing it. It's more like a values stance than an orientation. So in theory, you could have a sex positive, but sex repulsed asexual. That person would think positively of sexual activity, for other people, just not for themselves. (vs someone who isn't sex positive might say that all sex is bad and nobody, not even sexuals, should be that into it).

That's my understanding anyway.

I think when I said sex positive, I meant sex favorable. I thought of them as the same thing. I don't really understand the difference between those two definitions though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gray-a girl
16 minutes ago, autumnlao said:

I think when I said sex positive, I meant sex favorable. I thought of them as the same thing. I don't really understand the difference between those two definitions though?

From what I understand, sex positive is a stance that people take. It's like saying they are climate change positive. Sex positive people are people who don't believe sexually is bad, and that anyone who wants to engage in it should be free to do so without shame, or repression, or etc. (Even if that someone excludes themselves) Someone who isn't sex positive might complain all the time about how gross and horrible sex is, and why on earth would anyone (even sexuals) do it, and its terrible. The world would be a better place without sex, according to them. But I think, as I understand it, its more of a stance or value just like some people are open and encouraging on certain political issues. Its maybe akin to thinking positively about gay people (sex positive) vs someone who thinks all gay people should go to hell. More of an opinion than an orientation. You can be a sex repulsed asexual (orientation) and a sex positive asexual (stance + orientation) at the same time.

 

Sex favorable asexuals are more of an orientation. Sometimes they are used interchangeably with cupiosexuals, but other people define them slightly differently. Definition of sex favorable asexuals: Sex-favorable. Sex-favorable is a term that is most commonly used by asexual individuals (aces) to indicate that they enjoy the act of sex or the concept of sex. Sex-favorable aces do not experience sexual attraction, but they may enjoy sex or sexual acts, and/or seek out sexual relationships.

In this particular version of sex favorable asexuals, its indistinguishable from cupiosexuals. But I've seen other versions that say that sex favorable asexuals enjoy sex and wouldn't mind doing it again, but don't seek it out. Whereas cupiosexuals don't have sexual attraction but want to be in a sexual relationship. There is some debate on which term to use for people that fall here. And since I just googled it, it seems that the terms and their definitions are not quite solidified yet. There is some variation in wording that slightly affects meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone (me)
18 minutes ago, autumnlao said:

I think when I said sex positive, I meant sex favorable. I thought of them as the same thing. I don't really understand the difference between those two definitions though?

I might be inviting being yelled at again by posting this, but... https://asexuality.org/?q=attitudes.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KiraS

"Sex positivity" was a political movement of the 80s and 90s that developed as a reaction to radical feminism. While radical feminists like Dworkin took the perspective that the power differences between men and women made sexual consent difficult, sex-positive feminists held that mutually supportive sexual activity was possible given explicit education and communication among partners. That doesn't mean that a sex-positive feminist was necessarily sexually active. Suzie Bright wrote about choosing celibacy for extended periods of time, and celibacy should be one of many supported lifestyle choices. But sexual activity (or inactivity) must be grounded on informed, mutual, and affirmative consent and negotiation. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GiftedWithSingleness
5 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

Basically, I'm kinky, and as someone else explained it quite well, sexually its like someone else is another set of hands. You cannot do certain kinks alone. Some kinks are downright unsafe to do alone, others just impossible.

I just don't see how this relevant when it comes to defining your sexuality.

 

Suppose that Fred wants to have his dick sucked. He would suck his own dick, but he's not flexible enough for that. So, he searches for someone else who will suck his dick for him. Amy doesn't want to suck his dick. Bob wants to suck his dick, but Bob seems very creepy and Fred doesn't feel safe around him. Carl and Emily both want to suck his dick, but Emily has more of a reputation for being really good at sucking dick. Because of this, Fred decides to hook up with Emily so that she can suck his dick and give him the pleasure he desires.

 

Is this situation analogous to what you're describing? If not, why not? And if so, why do you not consider that a form of sexual attraction? As far as I'm concerned, it seems perfectly reasonable to say that Fred is sexually attracted to Emily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SithApprentice
11 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

Except some of us don't really relate to sexuals. Ok, fine, you don't like asexuals to include gray as, demis, cupios, etc. But whats wrong with having a word to define someone that falls in between asexuality as you want to define it, and sexual? I just do not relate to sexuals so I don't ID as such.

That's what aspec is though? 

 

For one, I'm someone of the opinion that grey-sexuality was also a spectrum between sexual and asexual, not fully being either or, like bisexuality. But even so, I now view that spectrum as "aspec" when one insists asexualiy has a spectrum. 

 

However,

Aspec =/= Asexuality.

 

If someone is handing out apples, "I don't want one" is different from "I only want one". "No" is not "a little." 0 is not 0.0001. That's why many people don't believe in the spectrum. 

 

I'm more of the opinion that if greys, demis, or anyone else in the weird realm of orientations wants to identify as aspec, let them. If they want to use asexual as a generalized term (as in on a doctor's sheet, or when you're only given four options, or otherwise in situations where nuance is not really expected) then sure. But they aren't asexual.

 

That's like saying a man who's in a loving, committed relationship with another man is straight, despite actively desiring and engaging in sex with his male partner many times and continuing to desire it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
14 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

That's what aspec is though? 

What is between "X does happen" and "X doesn't happen"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone (me)
2 minutes ago, Homer said:

What is between "X does happen" and "X doesn't happen"?

"While X is technically not impossible, it is still very much improbable"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SithApprentice
1 minute ago, Homer said:

What is between "X does happen" and "X doesn't happen"?

Nothing is between it.

 

It's why I understand that asexuality itself is not a spectrum.

 

I just acknowledge that some people, like the OP, are 0.000001 and would rather identify themselves closer to 0 than to 1. For these people I acknowledge them as not 0 but also not what most people are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SithApprentice
3 minutes ago, Homer said:

What is between "X does happen" and "X doesn't happen"?

Oh! I know! Schrödinger's Asexuality! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
2 minutes ago, Snao Cone (me) said:

"While X is technically not impossible, it is still very much improbable"

So it still either does happen (sexual) or it does not (asexual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone (me)
3 minutes ago, Homer said:

So it still either does happen (sexual) or it does not (asexual).

I know, Homer. I know your opinion on this. I know how diligently anal you are about emphasizing that logical technicality. I am not new to this. I know that you will not acknowledge pragmatism as an option, and that in even facetiously suggesting leniency when it comes to establishing human understanding, I have strayed from your line of thinking and am thus classified as in opposition to you, and thus incorrect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC
14 hours ago, Homer said:
16 hours ago, Serran said:

The cupio will never "desire sex with a person" - they will desire partnered sex...

Mmmmmkay :huh:

 

I don't get it.

Mm, me neither.

 

Well, ok, I'll be more clear. I do get the difference between a strong desire for sex with a specific person... experiencing passion for them... and "I want to have The Sex and you're an acceptable person with whom to have The Sex".

 

What I don't get is how the first reason is indicative of being sexual and the second one is somehow compatible with being asexual. Both people want sex.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone (me)
6 hours ago, CBC said:

What I don't get is how the first reason is indicative of being sexual and the second one is somehow compatible with being asexual. Both people want sex.

Just trying to stretch my mind here - maybe one just feels incompatible with the concept of "having sex" as the person's come to understand it. Maybe it's more dissociative. Maybe it feels like a burdensome need rather than part of their overall self, and maybe that's why they relate to asexuality. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
timewarp
On 7/1/2020 at 4:35 PM, Serran said:

The cupio will never "desire sex with a person" - they will desire partnered sex

You mean they only ever have sex in a car like this?

 

kastenwagen-peugeot-partner-leasingangeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GiftedWithSingleness
3 hours ago, Snao Cone (me) said:

Just trying to stretch my mind here - maybe one just feels incompatible with the concept of "having sex" as the person's come to understand it. Maybe it's more dissociative. Maybe it feels like a burdensome need rather than part of their overall self, and maybe that's why they relate to asexuality. 

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at here, but let me try.

 

When we talk about sexual orientation, we're talking about sexual feelings that exist in the mind. And one of the weird quirks of the human mind is that it's entirely possible to think of something that can't exist in reality. Because of this, while it's impossible to have partnered sex by yourself, it's still possible to want partnered sex by yourself. Sometimes people just want contradictory things. And trying to categorize contradictory desires into a sexual orientation framework is ... weird. You can't say that they're sexually attracted to anyone, since there is no one with whom they want to have sex. But you also can't say that they only want masturbation, since masturbation isn't partnered sex. These people are effectively living in a weird limbo land of cognitive dissonance that can't easily be resolved.

 

This does seem to be a common problem on AVEN, by the way. A lot of people seem to have a very hard time recognizing the fact that partnered sex requires a partner. People seem to treat (partnered) sex as if it's a thing in a box, abstracted away from the person you're having sex with. And if you tried to have sex with someone while having this mentality, then yeah, you'd probably dissociate. It wouldn't quite feel like "having sex" the way that people typically understand it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone (me)
3 minutes ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at here, but let me try.

 

When we talk about sexual orientation, we're talking about sexual feelings that exist in the mind. And one of the weird quirks of the human mind is that it's entirely possible to think of something that can't exist in reality. Because of this, while it's impossible to have partnered sex by yourself, it's still possible to want partnered sex by yourself. Sometimes people just want contradictory things. And trying to categorize contradictory desires into a sexual orientation framework is ... weird. You can't say that they're sexually attracted to anyone, since there is no one with whom they want to have sex. But you also can't say that they only want masturbation, since masturbation isn't partnered sex. These people are effectively living in a weird limbo land of cognitive dissonance that can't easily be resolved.

 

This does seem to be a common problem on AVEN, by the way. A lot of people seem to have a very hard time recognizing the fact that partnered sex requires a partner. People seem to treat (partnered) sex as if it's a thing in a box, abstracted away from the person you're having sex with. And if you tried to have sex with someone while having this mentality, then yeah, you'd probably dissociate. It wouldn't quite feel like "having sex" the way that people typically understand it.

Yeah, that's more or less what I'm getting at. I can imagine a person who wants sex but doesn't want the other person to have anything to do with the experience. No emotional connection, no chemistry between the people involved, not even lust after the other person's body. A person like this is probably going to feel much more at ease and in a comfortable space with aces who don't talk about sexual relationships than they will be with people who desire other people through sexual attraction, find sexual intimacy to be thrilling, and of key importance to a fulfilling relationship. And that's exactly why we need to continue to acknowledge a grey area, and to be inclusive of it in the community. My dumbfuck naivete believes that we can be inclusive of these folks in an ace community while also acknowledging that they're sexual. Just, you know, not sexual enough to feel comfortable with incorporating sexuality into authentic interpersonal relationships.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GiftedWithSingleness
15 minutes ago, Snao Cone (me) said:

And that's exactly why we need to continue to acknowledge a grey area, and to be inclusive of it in the community. My dumbfuck naivete believes that we can be inclusive of these folks in an ace community while also acknowledging that they're sexual. Just, you know, not sexual enough to feel comfortable with incorporating sexuality into authentic interpersonal relationships.

Honestly, the way these people would come across to me is "extremely closeted asexuals". You don't even need a gray area. I say that because, while I've never had sex myself, I can see a bit of myself in this description. Growing up, I had been so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that everyone wants sex that, if you had asked me whether I experience sexual desire, I would have said yes without hesitation.

 

"Do you want to have sex?"

Of course I want to have sex. I'm male, I get aroused, I've seen porn, sex is intellectually interesting, and I'm supposed to have sex at some point anyway.

"Okay, who do you want to have sex with?"

...

 

This is why I can't be as viscerally opposed to the "attraction" definition as some people are. To me, the "attraction" definition helps clarify that, if you want to have sex, there will be someone you want to have sex with. Or at the very least, you're going to be looking for the right person. It brings to light the fact that sex requires a partner.

 

How would I respond to these "extremely closeted asexuals"? Probably something like, "I don't think you actually want to have sex. You think you want to have sex, but that's probably due to social conditioning. To truly desire sex is to desire a sex partner, because that's an inherent part of what makes sex sex. The fact that you don't want a sex partner suggests to me that you don't actually want to have sex at all. Why else would you have a dissociative episode every single time sex happens?"

 

I don't think giving contradictory desires a microlabel does anyone any good. If you find yourself having contradictory desires, I think what you need to do is to spend some time sorting out what it is that you actually want so that your desires won't contradict each other anymore. Then and only then will you understand what your sexual orientation actually is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...