"....always sex with you people"
Posted on 06/17/2017 7:08:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Inquiring minds have often wondered why The New York Times makes the editorial decisions it does. Now we scratch our heads yet again at a recent piece entitled, “The Hottest Body Part? For a Sapiosexual, It’s the Brain.”
What is a sapiosexual, you ask? Anna North is here to answer that question—one you never would have asked had you not read this sexy headline from the Times. She profiles one Aboubacar Okeke-Diagne, 23, who says he’s disappointed in internet pornography for its use of “pointless small talk.” North writes,
For Mr. Okeke-Diagne, being sapiosexual means intellectual conversation is a key part of dating and sex. While some couples might exchange racy photos or texts, he once sent a woman he was seeing a multipage erotic story he had written that included references to the Julian calendar, the decimal system and global climate change. Writing the story was such a turn-on for him that he tried to find similar erotica online — with little success.
Other self-identified sapiosexuals reported their erotic experiences. Ms. Cohen said she’s had “purely sapiosexual” experiences defined by “intense conversation” and, confusingly, no sex. As she describes one encounter, “I was so amazed at how fluid the whole conversation was…I could feel something happening inside me.” These particular intellectuals aren’t short on drama.
North reports that the concept of sapiosexuality “has been quietly gaining traction in recent years.” (Very quietly.) But the term can now be found in an “expanded list” of sexual orientations on OKCupid, along with “transfeminine,” “genderfluid,” “two-spirit,” “heteroflexible,” and “demisexual.”
This last term, demisexual, has been described courtesy The Washington Post. Writing about her own sexuality, Meryl Williams explains her sexuality as “taking a while to warm up.” Williams now identifies with demisexuality after taking some time to “question” her sexuality and stumbling upon the term on Twitter.
“Demisexuality is when a person doesn’t feel physically and sexually attracted to another person unless they feel a deep, emotional connection to them,” she writes. She confesses how she “used to feel guilty” for not engaging sexually as quickly as her partners would want, but now feels relieved, even though she’s never met another demisexual, that “a term for her sexuality exists.”
Okeke-Diagne and Ms. Cohen come off as proud to be “sapiosexual,” while Williams merely expresses relief for her “demisexuality;” but as with practically every other term with a -sexual or -gender suffix, these are technical terms that, while they may or may not have scientific merit, give one’s feelings or preferences validity. Neither Aboubacar Okeke-Diagne or Williams need their labels as sick people do, as a brief way to explain a set of symptoms to others (i.e. “I have cancer” or “I’m clinically depressed”), or as an English teacher needs the term “dangling participle” to quickly point out a grammatical error.
After all, Williams and Okeke-Diagne must explain what “demisexual” and “sapiosexual” mean anyway (unless they’re conversing in a closed Facebook group or with the 0.5 percent of OKCupid users who share the identity), so it’s not as if they are communicating their “orientation” more effectively by using the word. Rather, “demisexuals” and “sapiosexuals” latch onto this term because it bestows legitimacy, even a sense of specialness, on an aspect of his or her personality. I do not believe they are seeking to be better understood so much as craving an identity, and perhaps camaraderie with others sharing in the shelter of the term’s umbrella.
It is no wonder, that Daren Stalder, who coined the term “sapiosexual” was not an academic seeking an appropriate term to describe a phenomenon he was studying, but simply an engineer from Seattle who conjured up a sciency latin-based word to denote his own romantic preference.
This culture is obsessed with granting validation and special acknowledgement, even privilege, by affixing a unique label to any characteristic or behavior that might ever so slightly deviate from the perceived norm. We all know there is power in names, but it’s been taken so far that to grant a special name is to cast a warm tingly bubble over the feelings of those who fall under its definition—as if we don’t have thick enough bubbles already.
Such individuals generally expect the majority who are “normal,” who don’t have special names, to treat their various orientations and identities with the appropriate deference, and to swallow every line from armchair activists about their “naturalism,” social legitimacy, even beneficence. If you identify as “pansexual,” we must assume that’s just how you’re wired. If you’re “transgender,” we must affirm that trying to live as the opposite sex, despite your biology, is a totally valid and healthy lifestyle. We might even be expected to believe gays and lesbians make better parents (even though they don’t).
Activists within the fields of social science, white-coated magicians, nudge our perspectives, tinkering with definitions related to “gender identity” and sexuality (changing “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria,” for instance).
You might say this work is progressive and enlightened. But regardless, you must acknowledge the power of names and consider how much credence is given to the PhDs that support both the new terms, and the new definitions for terms previously established.
This affinity for adopting new labels stems from a growing belief, especially among young adults, that one’s own feelings should be validated above morality, or even reality. For instance, Williams may not feel privileged, per se, to be “demisexual,” but she appears to need the term to excuse her lack of desire for engaging in sexual libertinism. To have a name for your brand of sexuality is to have validation—and in William’s case, if her community doesn’t accept a moral objection to libertinism, she has all the more need of a special label to shield her. Regardless, “demisexuality” brings her relief and affirmation, which are of utmost importance. It protects “the feels.”
Cultural and religious institutions, the social sciences, and even medicine have been harnessed for the expansion of this doctrine of “sola feels” (as aptly termed by The Babylon Bee). They house the credentialed wizards, from reverends to sociologists, who bestow names, create victim classes for the marginalized, and validate those who assert their own special identities.
Progressivism and the snowflake mentality together are a dangerous combination. On one side of the coin, academics seek to unravel reality, and on the other, insecure individuals crave the privilege or protection of a special designation. This country has already hit a major milestone on the agenda of the New Sexual Revolution (my placeholder for the ever-changing “LGBTQ+”) with gay marriage, re-imagined as “marriage equality.” The EEOC decided in 2012 that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII. Not to be outdone, federal courts have begun ruling that sexual orientation is protected under Title IX as well. Another milestone may soon be reached, as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a transgender student has the right to use the bathroom of his gender identity, and not his sex, under the same Title.
Interestingly, the EEOC’s website repeatedly refers to “LGBT” discrimination, yet just a few years after that decision, these mere four letters are ridiculously outdated. The New Sexual Revolution foments a ballooning conglomeration of letters, numbers and symbols representing a coalition of grievance-hawkers who demand new rights: it now often includes “Q,” sometimes “2” (for two-spirited), and, comically, the catch-all “+.”
To understand why new sexual identities multiplying and given enough credibility to be added to the drop-down list on dating sites, it helps to look back to 2015. Those who refer back to Obergefell as the “un-defining” of marriage, not its “redefining,” are quite right. It was defined as the union of a man and a woman, and that definition was supported by natural law. But now that emotions have largely replaced morality, the door is open for marriage to be anything: why not three, four, or five spouses? Why not a parent and child? Why not sologamy?
Because the landmark decision was based largely off emotive reasoning, not legal precedent, Obergefell catalyzed a potentially infinite expansion of terms and their definitions (and redefinitions) in the way of sexuality. Some of those are already codified in anti-discrimination laws. Yet if we deny that an objective moral standard exists by which we can judge a sexual behavior or attitude, which “sola feels” does, then we get what we are currently witnessing: the explosion of a libertine view of sexuality and the cementing of “personal truth” as the malleable rule by which we live our lives.
But “personal truth” is no truth at all; meaning must be grounded in reality. It isn’t just marriage that is being robbed of its significance (as the union of a man and a woman), but the whole of sexuality, and maybe even humanity itself.
And that is not unintentional. Left alone, “sola feels” has no higher purpose except affirming the self and affirming others who are affirming themselves. It is directionless except to circle back to one’s own desires, flinging grievances in the faces of moral objectors in an endless, self-absorbing cycle. Yet in the hands of progressives, who empower the government to control our relationships, its energy is directed toward that end, mostly unencumbered by the ever lessening weight of objective morality’s recognition within the culture. Feelings over reality can’t be thought of as merely a personal choice, then, but rather a doctrine dictated to the masses by elite progressive intellectuals.
This is how we got the Obergefell ruling and the continuing adoption of transgender “rights” throughout the U.S. It is how seeds of suppression are being sown regarding breastfeeding campaigns to protect the irreality of “transgender women.” It is how we got participation trophies and “safe spaces” on college campuses, journal essays celebrating “tranimal” identities, corporate micro-aggression training, and “parent 1 and parent 2” on federal forms.
In other words, it is the regression from morality that spawns modern progressivism in policy and “sola feels” in culture. “Sola feels” promotes further cultural degradation of morality through its relentless focus on the self and rejection of reality. Eventually, it comes round to influence policy. Ironically, it is through these policies that more morally predicated attitudes, outside the aggrieved alphabet (the holdouts for reality) will be ridiculed, censored, and—particularly for the youth under government education—conditioned out of them. If you’re branded a hater for saying men are men and women are women, then Stella Morabito’s claim that society is experiencing mass delusion isn’t radical at all.
You may just glance at a Time’s headline about “sapiosexuals” and hot brains, snicker, and thumb past it to more serious matters. But next time you see one like it, remember how we arrived at this manifold of sexual identities, and consider where it is leading us.
They know deviancy will destroy the country.
It’s no accident.
As has been said, "reality bats last."
Reality itself will rid us of "post-modernism."
Perverts take note: just because you demand that we say you are not perverts...doesn't mean that you are not perverts.
You are perverting reality...and it will bite back.
"....always sex with you people"
The lightweights among us just look and smile ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YvkZeLrjs&list=RD2VtlDNA7zZU&index=27
What’s this going to do to the 71 gender options recognized by Facebook?
“I’m rich! Get me a ____ to have sex with!”
“That’s illegal, sir.”
“Well then get the Democrat Party bundler on the line pronto.”
Dirty old joke: “I once met a gal with a glass eye. So I took it out and *!%#ed her brains out”.
Huxley predicted it: “Orgy-Porgy”
Feelz B4 Realz Bump
I find intelligence attractive, and I never wanted to have sex with someone I didn’t love.
I used to think that was ordinary, you know, normal, white bread even, but apparently I’ve got some kind of sapio-demi-sexual alternative identity.
Whoo-hoo! I’m intersectional, baby!
Over the years I’ve had many FReepers declare “perception is reality” and have been chastised for disagreeing. It’s not only the lefty loons that have been fooled.
....So we’ll keep making up new terms for sexual preference...
Modern Sodom and Gomorrah at work. Leave and don’t look back.
It’s a bizarre episode in American history for sure - and not a sign of a healthy society or political system
It’s a perfect storm of 1) a excess of the belief in traditional American individual rights taken to perverse extreme 2) a mutation of America’s civil rights movement again taken to a perverse extreme, 3) and an activist, leftist political system, unable to correct itself, being kept alive by massive debt, in a manipulated, fiat currency
It won’t last, but I have no idea when it all goes tits up
Deviancy happened even when we all ADMITTED it was wrong and drew a line.
But at least that way it was kept behind close doors or perhaps you felt bad enough to ask God for forgiveness and another chance.
Now the Churches and Temples are more and more saying “it’s all ok”.
So there’s NO barrier to doing whatever you want, wherever you want and with whomever you want.
The Horrifying thing is the toll it will take on the children.
It won’t last or the country won’t last?
I am trying to think of a country that non violently went from such depravity back to God without blood being spilled.
Or without spending 40 years in the desert!!
It isn’t complicated.
Sex is like a Cereal Box Top.
Tab A goes into Slot B.
It was probably a mistake for society to allow the civil authorities define marriage in the modern era. Civil law is only what judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks it should be at any one time. That’s it, the state in the modern era doesn’t have any other way to define marriage. Not one the religious groups that accepted it started to marry their same sex members before the state they happened to be in gave them permission to do so. For them, marriage comes from the state.
Freegards
Kickass Conservative. You’re right about the Cereal Boxtop analogy but what about the tongue in the Cheerio analogy?
And how about the California lunatics cereal of flakes, fruits and nuts?
Now that is a rainbow orgy you might want to pass over. Try putting some ‘Fruit” cocktail on it. That should make it taste better. Oops - (I really didn’t deliberately use that term “cocktail”. It’s just what’s on the can’s label).
This whole discussion is making me hungry. Vanilla and Chocolate ice-cream and Coca Cola for a sundae on Sunday. yum, yum!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.