"Because I conceive of sex solely as flesh intersection, I have to mock anyone who thinks about sex as anything more as thinking about sex solely in terms of penises and vaginas"
-
-
-
that's a really weird way to parse what Helen says.
-
I've interacted with you before, and I know you care about intellectual honesty to a degree, so you need to see the original context here. My main disagreement is with the idea that 'people who think "sex is necessary for real depth"' are shallow https://twitter.com/DM_Berger/status/967556940309000192 ….
-
She doesnt seem to be saying there isnt a unique depth that comes with sex, but rather there can be a depth in emotion without it. Its not a competing set, but rather just different ones. Why quibble about where the "real" depth is if you're lucky enough to experience either?
-
Because in the original tweet (https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/967553894451642368 …), she mocked people who think sex makes for a truly deep connection as "lack[ing] emotion depth". I think this attitude is false, and pernicious for those for whom sex is not so trivial.
-
That isn't what it says, is it?
-
It says that you don't have much requirements for what counts for people to "deeply connect", and that anyone who thinks sex is such a requirement (i.e. has stricter standards) is shallow. Not everyone needs to see such connections as "deep connections".
-
It's like a weird inversion of "tradmarriage / muh developed relationship" stuff (which usually operate on a variant of "a deep connection is necessary to justify having sex")
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Who is this odd person pontificating at you?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A shared sexual experience that gives a feeling of the sublime?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.