Very confused. Help would be appreciated:)

[Jett222]

I’ve found two sexualities that fit me well (cupioromantic and bi oriented-aroace), but I’m not sure if I can be both, one of them, or maybe I’m something different. The thing is that I do genuinely want to have a romantic relationship with someone (more specifically someone female or feminine, but gender doesn’t fully matter), but I just don’t care about the relationship when I’m actually in one even though I’ve only been in three. I’m just really confused by what I am because I’ve only had 2-3 crushes, and whenever I look at someone attractive I imagine myself being in a relationship with them, but I think it’s just aesthetic attraction since those feelings barely last (?). Just wondering what I am and if there is something I can look at, if I’m neither.

[Ekaterina]

Sounds a bit like lithromantic is described, when you have attraction but only as long as you aren't actually in the relationship? Have you considered this label? 

[Jett222]

Just now, Ekaterina said:

Sounds a bit like lithromantic is described, when you have attraction but only as long as you aren't actually in the relationship? Have you considered this label? 

I have, but it doesn’t really fit me since I’ve never actually fully fallen in love with anyone and I’ve only just had minor crushes. For me when it comes to attraction, it’s mainly just aesthetic attraction.

[Ekaterina]

27 minutes ago, Jett222 said:

I have, but it doesn’t really fit me since I’ve never actually fully fallen in love with anyone and I’ve only just had minor crushes. For me when it comes to attraction, it’s mainly just aesthetic attraction.

Probably exploring better what do you mean by "minor crushes" and what their difference from "fully in love" is could be helpful? For me, crushes (even very mild) and aesthetic attraction seem to be different, as in, as a fictoromantic I had situations when I really liked a character aesthetically without any semblance of a crush, or on the contrary, crushed on one whose existing visualization wasn't aesthetically attractive to me. But for you, your "minor crushes" happen only to people you are aesthetically attracted to, right? You said you had only 2-3, is there anything that differed them from other people you find aesthetically attractive? Could you explain why do you call them crushes, what is romantic about them? Or nothing and you just use it as an easier word? 

(Sorry for many questions, I just wanted to clarify to understand your situation better) 

[Jett222]

Just now, Ekaterina said:

Probably exploring better what do you mean by "minor crushes" and what their difference from "fully in love" is could be helpful? For me, crushes (even very mild) and aesthetic attraction seem to be different, as in, as a fictoromantic I had situations when I really liked a character aesthetically without any semblance of a crush, or on the contrary, crushed on one whose existing visualization wasn't aesthetically attractive to me. But for you, your "minor crushes" happen only to people you are aesthetically attracted to, right? You said you had only 2-3, is there anything that differed them from other people you find aesthetically attractive? Could you explain why do you call them crushes, what is romantic about them? Or nothing and you just use it as an easier word? 

(Sorry for many questions, I just wanted to clarify to understand your situation better) 

Okay it’s a bit weird. I’ve never really had crushes that last long as how I hear they do. I’ve found this online which might help because I’m really bad at explaining things, so sorry for that. (The red is the feelings I feel with the crushes). Also no for your first question it’s just how they look, like for example, that celebrity looks attractive and that’s really it.

[Ekaterina]

2 hours ago, Jett222 said:

Okay it’s a bit weird. I’ve never really had crushes that last long as how I hear they do. I’ve found this online which might help because I’m really bad at explaining things, so sorry for that. (The red is the feelings I feel with the crushes). Also no for your first question it’s just how they look, like for example, that celebrity looks attractive and that’s really it.

Thanks for explanation! I didn't understand through, the part on "a celebrity looks attractive and that's it" - does it describe your "crushes" or does it describe the general aesthetic attraction out of your "crushes"? Because if it's the first, then would it mean you found someone look attractive only 2-3 times in your life? (Which sounds a bit strange for me) Also you said in the first post that you imagine romantic relationship with your crushes, does it happen with everyone you find pretty/beautiful? 

(Good table by the way) 

[Jett222]

5 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

Thanks for explanation! I didn't understand through, the part on "a celebrity looks attractive and that's it" - does it describe your "crushes" or does it describe the general aesthetic attraction out of your "crushes"? Because if it's the first, then would it mean you found someone look attractive only 2-3 times in your life? (Which sounds a bit strange for me) Also you said in the first post that you imagine romantic relationship with your crushes, does it happen with everyone you find pretty/beautiful? 

(Good table by the way) 

Yeah I’m sorry if that didn’t make sense but the answer is a bit of a yes answer because I do just find the general aesthetic of the person to be attractive and with those 2-3 crushes I should have said that they were stronger than just me looking at someone who just looks nice. Also for your last question the answer is sorta. I don’t do that with every single person I meet, but most of the time I do.

(Sorry for the change in answers and for the late response)

[Ekaterina]

14 hours ago, Jett222 said:

Yeah I’m sorry if that didn’t make sense but the answer is a bit of a yes answer because I do just find the general aesthetic of the person to be attractive and with those 2-3 crushes I should have said that they were stronger than just me looking at someone who just looks nice. Also for your last question the answer is sorta. I don’t do that with every single person I meet, but most of the time I do.

(Sorry for the change in answers and for the late response)

I see. 

So about cupio and oriented aroace, I searched to learn more about oriented aroace, and the definition is if you find that non-romantic non-sexual attraction (aesthetic in your case) important enough to be expressed in your label, while the term cupio focuses on wanting a romantic relationship, so to choose between them you'd need to decide what is more relevant in your identity, wanting a romantic relationship specially or having specially strong aesthetic attraction? As for if you can have both, to me it looks like they aren't contradictory so there's no issue with having both if that's how you feel. 

[Jett222]

7 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

I see. 

So about cupio and oriented aroace, I searched to learn more about oriented aroace, and the definition is if you find that non-romantic non-sexual attraction (aesthetic in your case) important enough to be expressed in your label, while the term cupio focuses on wanting a romantic relationship, so to choose between them you'd need to decide what is more relevant in your identity, wanting a romantic relationship specially or having specially strong aesthetic attraction? As for if you can have both, to me it looks like they aren't contradictory so there's no issue with having both if that's how you feel. 

I would say wanting a relationship due to personal reasons and maybe I’ll just stick with those two since they match me more. Thank you very much for all of your help, it really means a lot to me.