The term demisexuality was coined in 2006 and is on the spectrum of asexuality: sexual attraction only comes after an emotional connection has been built.
Wasn’t all that long ago that this was considered normal for female sexuality. Not unusual in male either.
Now, of course, that was also pushing a bit too much the control who women are bonking way too. Plenty of women have indeed been happy with going with the glint in the eye rather than only bonking special folk.
Not fancying anyone at first sight is further along the spectrum than me. But not wanting to have sex without an emotional connection? Surely that’s everyone over the age of 25.
Sure there’s a spectrum. But not being willing to share bodily fluids with every passing rando is not all that unusual a stance.
I pity those who need gimp suits and dog masks to get turned on, but nevertheless don’t want to have sex without an emotional connection. There must be some of ’em about.
During my sex drought, a single friend of mine signed up to Feeld, a sex-positive dating app where people list their kinks instead of their hobbies, which she used to meet men for sex, no strings attached. One was a model, while she met another in a bar and had sex with him in the toilets between rounds. Everything was safe, consensual. I think she’s a goddess for doing exactly what she wants, and told her so.
She thinks her friend is a whore, but called her a goddess because women are cruel.
Tulisa and I are the same age: 36. The younger generations might be having open conversations about sexuality but I grew up with all sorts of shame and stigma around sex.
Ah, the Victorian-like prudery of (checks notes) the year 2009.
It was validation of desirability. The first girls at school to have sex, aged 13 and 14, had bragging rights, talking down to the rest of us and forming a little clique. On the TV throughout my teens Sex and the City’s Samantha Jones was the face of sexual liberation, which meant having lots of sex and wanting lots of sex: sex outdoors, passionate argument sex, sex with strangers. By my twenties, living in an era of sexual liberation and preferring to say “No thanks, not until we’ve really established a deep connection” felt like being a bad feminist. Only the devoutly religious waited longer than a third date, if that.
Her dad must be proud.
This woman (I assume it’s a woman) thinks “Sex and the City” is real.
And yet, people are mad at men for thinking p*rn is realistic.
Did she not actually look at the characters and think “These people are really messed up.”
Oh well, women mad at men. Film at 11.
Being able to fake was good also.
You do come out with some bollox, Steve.
It also shows the ongoing mutilation of language, there must be something about “wokeness” that destroys the language centres of the brain. There is absolutely nothing in the term “demisexual” that actually refers to what they are using the term for. “demi”? So, half? You’re half-sexual? Wots that then? The *whole* *point* of language is to communicate, if you use words that make no sense to the other participants, it’s not communication.
If they want to make up greek terms, maybe:
koinosexual – partnership
sunaphosexual – connection
sinkinsisexual – emotion
syncrosexual – intimately connected
symbiosexual – interdependant
Charlie Gowans-Eglinton will probably die a lonely cat-lady. God knows what her parents must think of her serial, narcissistic, over-sharings in The Times. The T2 supplement in The Times is essentially a daily women’s magazine, so the aim is presumably to mildly titillate many women of the Gowans-Eglinton demographic. The feminisation of our culture continues apace.
“Sex and the City” was a drama series set in New York written by, for and about gay men. It’s just that the actors chosen to portray the characters were women. Once you realise that, it almost starts to make sense.
BiS – what are you on about now?
Jgh – The *whole* *point* of language is to communicate
A lot of language isn’t communicative, it’s status signalling or (in this case) attention seeking. *You* might see language as a communication tool, but Two Tier sees it as a way of gaining control over you. The gypsy sitting outside Sainsbury’s sees it as a way of separating you from your small change.
Yebbut, to signal status you need to communicate. If you think saying “I’M A TWAT!” is signalling status, but the receivers think “I’M A TWAT” is signalling stupidity, then there is no communication.
In order to communicate *ANYTHING*, whether is be status or the fact you need a shit, you *NEED* to use content that both ends recognise the same meaning for.
Speaking of demisexuality, I’m watching a horror/sci fi film called “The Substance” and Demi Moore shows you everything.
She is 62 tho.
This all makes it quite clear why abortion is now a sacrament to the religion of Being A Young Woman.
Theo: ’…so the aim is presumably to mildly titillate many women of the Gowans-Eglinton demographic.’
With this? *shrugs* Takes all sorts, I suppose..
Update on the film, “The Substance”.
The first half is great, Demi and Andie McDowell’s daughter show you their JaGUar growlers and there’s loads of boobs and bum closeups.
But that’s a trap. The second half is what Nelson Muntz said about “The Naked Lunch”:
“I can think of at least two things wrong with that title”.
BiS – what are you on about now?
The idea that women’s desire to put it about started somewhere in the 70s
Women have never really been any different to men. What cramped their style was the risk of pregnancies & the social stigma attached to inconvenient ones. Thankfully for me, that went away with the Pill in the 60s. I can only think you lived a very sheltered life.
Actually, the Sex in the City era she’s referring to was towards the end of a dry period for rampant totty. Because so many had swallowed the CoolAid of the heterosexual Aids Epidemic* that never happened. So the show was actually rather atypical for the period.
*Did they ever find a single case of two heterosexual indigenous Brit people passing Aids between them? I rather lost touch