PDA

View Full Version : asexuality/celibacy



rubberdingyrapids
27-02-2012, 10:02 AM
was reading a piece on this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/26/among-the-asexuals)in the observer yesterday.

now i know theres a diff between being celibate and being asexual, but i wonder if celibacy could be more of a lifestyle choice as a reaction to hypersexuality in the modern world.

Mr. Tea
27-02-2012, 10:07 AM
You sure she didn't just, you know, not fancy you?

rubberdingyrapids
27-02-2012, 10:16 AM
its possible lol

baboon2004
27-02-2012, 10:52 AM
it was an interesting article.

Also raises the q of what sexual desire actually is, given that it can be projected onto almost anything (ie anything can be a fetish). And so does being asexual mean lacking that ability or wish to project?

IdleRich
27-02-2012, 11:09 AM
Didn't read the article but I've read about this before. Interesting, especially in the world we live in. Also seen interviews with people who say that they lost their sex-drive totally after a certain age. I find that interesting because they can compare the two states. They definitely seemed (or claimed to be) happier when their dick stopped telling them what to do.

Mr. Tea
27-02-2012, 11:16 AM
it was an interesting article.

Also raises the q of what sexual desire actually is, given that it can be projected onto almost anything (ie anything can be a fetish). And so does being asexual mean lacking that ability or wish to project?

I don't think asexuality can be reduced to a tendency not to fetishize. A fetish is the sexualisation of something that's not inherently sexual, isn't it? If you're just attracted to someone because, er, you find them attractive, that's not a fetish, as I understand the term.

IdleRich
27-02-2012, 11:22 AM
Well you can fetishise things that are inherently sexual I think. Body parts or positions or whatever.

Mr. Tea
27-02-2012, 11:29 AM
Well yeah but if you fancy someone just because you think they're hot that's different from being massively obsessed with feet (or even tits, or whatever). I don't think fetishism is a precondition for sexual attraction, anyway.

rubberdingyrapids
27-02-2012, 11:29 AM
i used to find it funny when i was really into video games and reviewers would write about how sexy certain consoles were.

IdleRich
27-02-2012, 11:31 AM
Yeah, I don't think fetishisation is necessarily a pre-condition for sexual attraction. I'm just saying that it's not the fetishised thing that creates a fetish but rather the way that it is treated. That's my understanding anyway.

slowtrain
27-02-2012, 10:42 PM
I think I might be asexual.

It is very funny though, because really I think the main problem that I struggle with is - what the hell actually is sex?

I mean I love cuddling and snuggling and having make out sessions, I love bodies both mine and others.

But I have no interest in busting a nut in a bitch.


I think maybe I am not so much asexual as a lesbian woman trapped in a mans body.

So that is my question for this thread:

what actually is sex?!

baboon2004
27-02-2012, 10:45 PM
I don't think asexuality can be reduced to a tendency not to fetishize. A fetish is the sexualisation of something that's not inherently sexual, isn't it? If you're just attracted to someone because, er, you find them attractive, that's not a fetish, as I understand the term.

well, the idea is that everything is open to be fetishised, that nothing is inherently sexual (or not inherently sexual, depending on how you look at it, i guess). not saying i know where i stand on this, but it's certainly a body of thought (as it were)...

i always think of the derek and clive 'getting the horn' sketch when I have this conversation...

in (some) psychotherapeutic terms sexual desire would be linked to cathecting an object/investing it with libidinal energy (not sure if i have the terms right), i think.

and there's also the matter of why you find people attractive - it's so intensely subjective that it's bound up with lots of things in one's head. And how much finding 'typically attractive' people attractive because society deems them attractive and you've absorbed that throughout your life etc etc....

Mr. Tea
27-02-2012, 10:49 PM
well, the idea is that everything is a possible fetish, that nothing is inherently sexual (or not inherently sexual, depending on how you look at it, i guess).

I think whoever said that might have been talking out of their (no doubt highly fetishised) ringpiece.

baboon2004
27-02-2012, 10:53 PM
I think whoever said that might have been talking out of their (no doubt highly fetishised) ringpiece.

why? there's nothing that sex is necessarily about, other than some kind of exercise of libidinal energy (insert any less wanky term you like). it's (obv) not definitively about procreation, it's not about anything you can pin down very easily (which is totally consistent with the fact that for a lot of people it represents the same/very similar things, or at least seems to).

as slowtrain says, what is sex? very good question. Defining what it is/what is and what isn't 'natural' has of course been used in the past (and continues to be, obv) to very nefarious means.

that's why i'm not sure what 'asexual' would exactly mean, or whether it's another way of telling people they're not 'normal'.

baboon2004
27-02-2012, 11:08 PM
Well yeah but if you fancy someone just because you think they're hot that's different from being massively obsessed with feet (or even tits, or whatever). I don't think fetishism is a precondition for sexual attraction, anyway.

why do you think they're hot? cos their nose is just the right distance from their mouth, and their eyes are just *this* far apart? or because their personality has this something you can't define, which does it for you but for soemone sitting next to you is completely not there?

can't pretend i know the answer of course, but it's clear something is going on when one person finds another attractive, that is not just inexplicable 'magic'/is only expicable by 'because i just do'. Particularly when you don't know the person from Adam/Eve.

Edit: Point being that this is just as much a fetish as anything else, in the sense that it's something unique(ish) to you that leads you to project your libido onto that.

slowtrain
28-02-2012, 01:27 AM
Yeah wikipedia is no help in defining sex, it more often that not uses the word sex to explain what sex is.


Human sexual activities or human sexual practices or human sexual behavior refers to the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality. People engage in a variety of sexual acts from time to time, and for a wide variety of reasons. Sexual activity normally results in sexual arousal and physiological changes in the aroused person, some of which are pronounced while others are more subtle. Sexual activity also includes conduct and activities which are intended to arouse the sexual interest of another, such as strategies to find or attract partners (mating and display behavior), and personal interactions between individuals, such as flirting and foreplay.

Actually I been thinking about this and I guess it is just one of those silly words that are only defined in relation to a gazillion other things.

I think this is the difficulty with being 'asexual'

Mr. Tea
28-02-2012, 11:29 AM
why? there's nothing that sex is necessarily about, other than some kind of exercise of libidinal energy (insert any less wanky term you like). it's (obv) not definitively about procreation, it's not about anything you can pin down very easily (which is totally consistent with the fact that for a lot of people it represents the same/very similar things, or at least seems to).

Fair enough, but I would say that sex organs themselves are inherently sexual - I mean, that's what they're actually for - in a way that feet, say, are not. Yes some people have a foot 'thing', it's one of the commoner fetishes AFAIK, but for most of us they're a means of getting around the place rather than getting off. Whereas for the vast, vast majority of people, 'sexual activity' will at some point involve a man's outy bits and/or a woman's inny bits. Even foot nuts probably don't just rub their feet against someone else's feet (I should imagine!).

baboon2004
28-02-2012, 12:08 PM
Fair enough, but I would say that sex organs themselves are inherently sexual - I mean, that's what they're actually for - in a way that feet, say, are not. Yes some people have a foot 'thing', it's one of the commoner fetishes AFAIK, but for most of us they're a means of getting around the place rather than getting off. Whereas for the vast, vast majority of people, 'sexual activity' will at some point involve a man's outy bits and/or a woman's inny bits. Even foot nuts probably don't just rub their feet against someone else's feet (I should imagine!).

Yep, maybe as the subject for sexual activity, genitals are involved because they're so bound up with pleasure (clitoris particularly good example cos pleasure is its only function), but the object of sexual pleasure/arousal is far less defined. If it was just about genitals, anyone would fuck anyone/anything in any state as long as it had a vagina/penis (i know this is some people's sexual direction, but you know what i mean!).

And the sexual organs themselves of course can be fetishised to be seen as more or less attractive (vaginal surgery). Sex is fetish; why do people get excited by certain things? Also porn and many other societal representations of sex are massively interesting here in the way that they actually shape people's desires.

It's complicated. Need to read more!

Suppose this all connects with the idea that sexuality is not innate, but a consequence of things within oneself and one's history that can't simply be dismissed as genetic/'it just is'.

The pragmatic problem in discussing this is obviously that the right wing has defined the terms of the debate and cornered non-normative sexualities into fiercely adopting the "natural" discourse.

zhao
28-02-2012, 06:49 PM
this is the kind of thread that makes me miss, you know, my favorite dissensus poster evar.


genitals are involved because they're so bound up with pleasure (clitoris particularly good example cos pleasure is its only function), but the object of sexual pleasure/arousal is far less defined. If it was just about genitals, anyone would fuck anyone/anything in any state as long as it had a vagina/penis (i know this is some people's sexual direction, but you know what i mean!).

this is what i don't understand, how can asexuals not want sex when their genital AND visual/sexual stimulation seem to be at the same level of sensitivity and function seemingly the same way as sexuals?

from article:

research shows there is no gender split; men and women are equally likely to be asexual. However, asexual men are much more likely to masturbate than asexual women; as likely, it would seem, as men with "normal" sex drives, suggesting that they are responding to a physical imperative. When Brotto conducted an experiment to measure the vaginal reactions of female participants to visual sexual stimulus, the physical reactions among asexual women were the same as that of women who report an otherwise "normal" sex drive. Brotto also says there is nothing to suggest that asexual people are any more or less likely to have suffered childhood abuse than anyone else.

huh?


Also porn and many other societal representations of sex are massively interesting here in the way that they actually shape people's desires.

this is probably a different topic entirely but yes... people whose first sexual experiences, sometimes for years, are with various representations of a partner or physical objects rather than another human have got to be completely screwed up in some fundamental way.


Suppose this all connects with the idea that sexuality is not innate, but a consequence of things within oneself and one's history that can't simply be dismissed as genetic/'it just is'.

i would say Sexuality is entirely a cultural construct, yet one that is based on biological impulses. does that make sense? that it's not just a combination of the 2...

Mr. Tea
28-02-2012, 10:49 PM
This:


research shows there is no gender split; men and women are equally likely to be asexual. However, asexual men are much more likely to masturbate than asexual women; as likely, it would seem, as men with "normal" sex drives, suggesting that they are responding to a physical imperative.

is not necessarily paradoxical. Men's bodies produce semen all the time and if enough of it builds up, it can be physically uncomfortable. It needs to get out.

And it's not just asexuals that can divorce physical pleasure from sexual desire. An ex of mine, who generally had a pretty high sex drive, once told me that sometimes when she masturbates she isn't thinking about anything sexual at all, but just enjoying the sensation. Which, to me, sounds crazy, but there you go.

zhao
29-02-2012, 02:21 PM
An ex of mine, who generally had a pretty high sex drive, once told me that sometimes when she masturbates she isn't thinking about anything sexual at all, but just enjoying the sensation. Which, to me, sounds crazy, but there you go.

i've heard the same, many times. i think this MIGHT be, according to my VERY LIMITED, SECOND HAND knowledge, more common with women than men (is that sexist???)

Mr. Tea
29-02-2012, 02:36 PM
(is that sexist???)

It could just be true! Acknowledging differences between men and women is not sexism.

craner
29-02-2012, 03:23 PM
What's wrong with being sexy?

Mr. Tea
29-02-2012, 03:32 PM
"What's wrong with being racy?" works quite well, too.

craner
29-02-2012, 03:38 PM
Do you remember in the old days when people used to say, "I'm feeling so randy!" Or, "I was having a bonk" or "we were bonking."

Nobody feels randy any more, and nobody bonks.

Mr. Tea
29-02-2012, 04:05 PM
What's wrong with being sexy?

I suppose the more pertinent question for this thread is, what's wrong with not being sexy?

Re. "bonking" - hard to think of a word more redolent of the 80s/early 90s. I like the variant "boinking", which has a sort of Brooklyn-Jewish ring to it.

craner
29-02-2012, 04:29 PM
What is the etymology of 'to bonk'? You're right, though, it reeks of soft porn magazines and wine bar waitresses from 1991.

Mr. Tea
29-02-2012, 04:52 PM
Onomatopoeia, surely?

Books about bonking:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LyBHoKROmz4/Tiau7Cr5McI/AAAAAAAABv0/FCfp3HKINDY/s1600/Jackie+Collins+Novels.png

slowtrain
29-02-2012, 08:46 PM
This:



is not necessarily paradoxical. Men's bodies produce semen all the time and if enough of it builds up, it can be physically uncomfortable. It needs to get out.

And it's not just asexuals that can divorce physical pleasure from sexual desire. An ex of mine, who generally had a pretty high sex drive, once told me that sometimes when she masturbates she isn't thinking about anything sexual at all, but just enjoying the sensation. Which, to me, sounds crazy, but there you go.

I do that all the time.

Do people really not do that?

Just the same as like scratching yr armpit or rubbing your feet on the carpet to me

Mr. Tea
29-02-2012, 09:47 PM
Aint nuttin like scratching yer armpit to Armpit Slutz 7...

slowtrain
01-03-2012, 02:25 AM
Aint nuttin like scratching yer armpit to Armpit Slutz 7...

Man, I have seen this video but I can't find it.

Fuck, when I track it down I will post a link in this thread.

zhao
01-03-2012, 06:13 AM
I do that all the time.

Do people really not do that?

Just the same as like scratching yr armpit or rubbing your feet on the carpet to me

for me for sure not. sexual imagery, in real time or not, is just as if not more important than the physical sensations.

grizzleb
01-03-2012, 11:03 AM
I've heard the 'women like the physical sensation/men like sexual imagery' thing a load before. I think it's probably somehwhat accurate. At least to the extent that for men I'd imagine the feeling cannot be divorced from the imagery (used in the broadest sense). I wonder why that is. Wish the bold nomad was about to set us all straight.

Mr. Tea
01-03-2012, 12:25 PM
Fuck, when I track it down I will post a link in this thread.

The sad thing is, I bet it exists. Isn't that Rule #1 Of The Internet: "if you can think of it, there is porn of it"?

baboon2004
01-03-2012, 02:11 PM
No doubt there is some considerable correlation between the way men have used (and continue to use) women as status symbols that explains men's primary focus upon the visual. Whereas, in a historical sense, before any kind of labour equality, women have been encouraged to seek a good husband, meaning one who has resources, over looks.

Obviously just broad trends, but can't help but have had a profound effect on men's deviation from what sex is in and of itself, to a more alienated view that incorporates the mind's eye of other men. but hell, a human history is a difficult thing to undo. and anyways, it's a whole lot more complicated than that, sex is always about a lot of stuff. but that's maybe a start.

Mr. Tea
01-03-2012, 02:41 PM
Whereas, in a historical sense, before any kind of labour equality, women have been encouraged to seek a good husband, meaning one who has resources, over looks.


Looks and resources are not uncorrelated, though. A tall, well-built guy with good teeth, skin and so on can probably feed himself (and, by implication, any potential children) better than a scrawny, bow-legged runt with half his teeth missing.

Of course this still applies, when you look at how much people of both sexes spend on clothes, gym membership, hair and skincare regimes, tooth-related products and the rest. And that's before we even start talking about cosmetic surgery. (OK, so some spray-tanned tart with fake knockers probably isn't your or my idea of hot, but nonetheless, people who spend at least some money on their appearance tend to look more attractive than people who pay no regard to it at all.)

baboon2004
01-03-2012, 03:31 PM
I agree that they're not completely uncorrelated in extreme cases and more to the point when people get older then skincare regimes/good living begin to tell more, but put two twentysomethings' faces together and it'd be next to impossible to tell who is the richer.

Most men I have ever known/observed would at least be somewhat drawn towards an incredibly good looking girl with few career prospects over a plainish girl who has a good career*. Obviously there are extra problems once you start talking about this stuff, but my point is just that men use women's pulchritude to bolster their status, and so that this has taken on a sexual aspect whereby imagery turns a man on is unsurprising.

Obv definitively proving the argument I put forward would be very tricky, but it would seem to me a good starting point towards explaining what people have observed re men and women's sexual behaviours.

Edit: I'd say the point about 'beauty regimes' is very interesting though, but think it's slightly different. To me it's a natural extension of making money out of people's insecurities - telling them they need stuff they never knew they wanted, creating new markets etc. Obviously this has been going on with women for ages (and what are most women's magazines but continuous advertorials?), but with men there must've been an exploding market in this type of thing over the past decade. I blame Men's Health magazine.




Looks and resources are not uncorrelated, though. A tall, well-built guy with good teeth, skin and so on can probably feed himself (and, by implication, any potential children) better than a scrawny, bow-legged runt with half his teeth missing.

Of course this still applies, when you look at how much people of both sexes spend on clothes, gym membership, hair and skincare regimes, tooth-related products and the rest. And that's before we even start talking about cosmetic surgery. (OK, so some spray-tanned tart with fake knockers probably isn't your or my idea of hot, but nonetheless, people who spend at least some money on their appearance tend to look more attractive than people who pay no regard to it at all.)

Mr. Tea
01-03-2012, 05:15 PM
I agree that they're not completely uncorrelated in extreme cases and more to the point when people get older then skincare regimes/good living begin to tell more, but put two twentysomethings' faces together and it'd be next to impossible to tell who is the richer.

Hmm, you're probably right about it being more important as you get older but I reckon it would probably show even with young people. Ignoring cultural signifiers like hair style, there's still the effect of diet on hair and skin.

And even in terms of facial structure, I reckon there's an identifiable caste of posh people in this country. I see them in west London when I catch the coach to Oxford and they're all over Oxford too, of course. It's hard to describe but there is a certain look that's not just to do with clothes and hair.


Most men I have ever known/observed would at least be somewhat drawn towards an incredibly good looking girl with few career prospects over a plainish girl who has a good career*.

Thing is though, being incredibly good looking is a career prospect in itself, especially for women.


Edit: I'd say the point about 'beauty regimes' is very interesting though, but think it's slightly different. To me it's a natural extension of making money out of people's insecurities - telling them they need stuff they never knew they wanted, creating new markets etc. Obviously this has been going on with women for ages (and what are most women's magazines but continuous advertorials?), but with men there must've been an exploding market in this type of thing over the past decade. I blame Men's Health magazine.

Yeah, for sure. There are cultures where both men and women, or in some cases men moreso than women, go to extremes to conform with that culture's standard of beauty (what's that ethnic group on Africa that has a tradition of male beauty contests judged by women?). And there are places where the things people do to themselves to be 'beautiful' make boob jobs look pretty tame - those women with horribly distended necks held up by dozens of metal rings, foot binding in China, ritual scarification in parts of Africa - I guess the difference is that things like that are low-tech and 'home made', to some extent, whereas it's an enormous industry in the developed world. As well as parts of the developing world - you know how massive skin-lightening creams are in India, right? You can get them in chemists in London, too.

baboon2004
01-03-2012, 05:54 PM
And even in terms of facial structure, I reckon there's an identifiable caste of posh people in this country. I see them in west London when I catch the coach to Oxford and they're all over Oxford too, of course. It's hard to describe but there is a certain look that's not just to do with clothes and hair.



yes - 'horsey'. Too much inbreeding.

slowtrain
01-03-2012, 10:17 PM
The sad thing is, I bet it exists. Isn't that Rule #1 Of The Internet: "if you can think of it, there is porn of it"?

Oh it does and it is amazing.

I can only find wimpy japanese stuff though.

Mr. Tea
01-03-2012, 10:39 PM
yes - 'horsey'. Too much inbreeding.

Could well have something to do with it. Nobility is incestuous the world over.

zhao
02-03-2012, 03:43 PM
we are a generation raised with sexualized imagery and pornography basically everywhere. i think confusing, and not making a distinction between, representations/simulations and reality is second nature to many of us, and maybe even more so with the younger ones. the effects of this undifferentiation is i'm sure myriad and very significant... psychologically, behaviorally, socially, etc. effects which i'm sure will not become apparent until a later date when future anthropologists can properly analyze us and this period of social history.

it's incredible and shocking. i sometimes find myself getting a little aroused by a tiny 30X30 pixel avatar.

baboon2004
02-03-2012, 03:53 PM
we are a generation raised with sexualized imagery and pornography basically everywhere. i think confusing, and not making a distinction between, representations/simulations and reality is second nature to many of us, and maybe even more so with the younger ones. the effects of this undifferentiation is i'm sure myriad and very significant... psychologically, behaviorally, socially, etc. effects which i'm sure will not become apparent until a later date when future anthropologists can properly analyze us and this period of social history.

it's incredible and shocking. i sometimes find myself getting a little aroused by a tiny 30X30 pixel avatar.

i'm glad i was a teenager in the 90s rather than the 2000s if i'm honest - while i love the internet, glad it wasn't available to me until a bit later...

zhao
02-03-2012, 05:37 PM
i'm glad i was a teenager in the 90s rather than the 2000s if i'm honest - while i love the internet, glad it wasn't available to me until a bit later...

yes. but even with us... maybe this is too personal but a shit i give not: my first sexual experiences were with magazines. and it was many years before i did it with a real girl. i don't know about other people, but i have a feeling that there are many, if not most, who developed like this.

it is profoundly unnatural if you think about it. (theory types get the fuck outta here with that "nature doesn't exist" shit)

baboon2004
02-03-2012, 05:52 PM
similar, but the combination of going thru puberty and an internet filled to the rafters with porn - complete headfuck, though I guess for anyone born in the mid-80s or later it's jsut how it is.

swears
02-03-2012, 09:39 PM
this is the kind of thread that makes me miss, you know, my favorite dissensus poster evar.




Sex is OK, I guess.

mistersloane
03-03-2012, 11:17 AM
Sex is OK, I guess.

Yay!

Tentative Andy
03-03-2012, 06:10 PM
SWEARS

.. that is all I have to say here.

pattycakes
03-03-2012, 09:18 PM
And even in terms of facial structure, I reckon there's an identifiable caste of posh people in this country. I see them in west London when I catch the coach to Oxford and they're all over Oxford too, of course. It's hard to describe but there is a certain look that's not just to do with clothes and hair.

ruddy cheeks for the guys and as baboon (sort of) said, buck teeth for the ladies.

i'd say the highest concentration of exquisite english females can be found in oxford.

Mr. Tea
04-03-2012, 09:19 PM
ruddy cheeks for the guys and as baboon (sort of) said, buck teeth for the ladies.

For men, hair should be curly in a vaguely Roman way, blonde or light brown. A brow that a C19 novelist would describe as 'noble'. Mick Jagger lips. It's a curiously ugly-handsome mix.


i'd say the highest concentration of exquisite english females can be found in oxford.

I can hardly disagree since my girlfriend lives there. :) Though I find London takes some beating...

Sorry, this is all a bit off-topic.

slowtrain
04-03-2012, 10:11 PM
I like girls that look like 14 year old boys is this wrong?

(fyi i actually hate all 14 year olds with a passion)

Mr. Tea
04-03-2012, 10:30 PM
I like girls that look like 14 year old boys is this wrong?

(fyi i actually hate all 14 year olds with a passion)

Haha...

Feel free to fancy 14-year-olds of either sex as long as you don't fuck 'em.

(Also, be very careful about your browsing history.)

Edit: also, hi swears, good to see you.

mistersloane
05-03-2012, 12:01 AM
I reckon there's an identifiable caste of posh people in this country. I see them in west London when I catch the coach to Oxford and they're all over Oxford too, of course. It's hard to describe but there is a certain look that's not just to do with clothes and hair.


I was in the video shop today and the man in front of me had a West London arse. "Fuck me", I thought to myself,
"that's a fat fucking West London arse if ever I saw one, the East End really has gone to shit."
He had on a scarf and a niiice jumper and yellow tight jeans, the ones that are baggy round the arse and tight on the leg, only his arse was so fucking fat that they weren't baggy, they fitted really well over his really fucking fat oversized arse.
"That was bred to wear corduroys, not skinny jeans" I thought.
"Fat fucking fustian arse".

slowtrain
05-03-2012, 04:25 AM
Haha...

Feel free to fancy 14-year-olds of either sex as long as you don't fuck 'em.

(Also, be very careful about your browsing history.)

Edit: also, hi swears, good to see you.

I definitely don't fancy 14 year olds though - i hate 14 year olds.

I just like boyish looking girls.

zhao
05-03-2012, 05:14 AM
I just like boyish looking girls.you and boatloads of fashion designers

Mr. Tea
05-03-2012, 07:54 AM
FWIW most catwalk models do absolutely nothing for me. But I'm sure we've had this conversation in the New-Skool Babes thread...

slowtrain
05-03-2012, 08:32 PM
I love slender females but i wouldn't want to smang them.

Just a cuddle and some wrestling would be good enough for me.

slowtrain
05-03-2012, 08:33 PM
What do you do when the girl you are deeply in love with is a lesbian?

Is there a romantic comedy about this?

mistersloane
06-03-2012, 11:10 AM
What do you do when the girl you are deeply in love with is a lesbian?


Get a grip of yourself.

Mr. Tea
06-03-2012, 11:51 AM
What do you do when the girl you are deeply in love with is a lesbian?


Sex change! Or just fem it up so much she falls for you anyway?

mistersloane
06-03-2012, 11:55 AM
Sex change! Or just fem it up so much she falls for you anyway?

Butch it up more like.

baboon2004
06-03-2012, 01:50 PM
What do you do when the girl you are deeply in love with is a lesbian?

Is there a romantic comedy about this?

Probably Judd Apatow has done one.

slowtrain
06-03-2012, 09:47 PM
i've done some research i think i will be a 'lesbro' then i can stay asexy anyway

BareBones
14-03-2012, 12:38 PM
Probably Judd Apatow has done one.

Kevin Smith did it in 1997...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118842/

firefinga
23-01-2017, 06:09 PM
Of course this still applies, when you look at how much people of both sexes spend on clothes, gym membership, hair and skincare regimes, tooth-related products and the rest. And that's before we even start talking about cosmetic surgery. (OK, so some spray-tanned tart with fake knockers probably isn't your or my idea of hot, but nonetheless, people who spend at least some money on their appearance tend to look more attractive than people who pay no regard to it at all.)

Never underestimate the fact the beauty industry is huge, and always on the outlook of opportunities for expansion.

Benny B
23-01-2017, 07:11 PM
Never underestimate the fact the beauty industry is huge, and always on the outlook of opportunities for expansion.

Very true.

Timely bump for me this, I've never noticed this thread before. I've literally just finished reading 'Beauty and Misogyny' where Sheila Jeffreys makes a very convincing argument that western beauty practices meet the criteria for being harmful cultural practices. whether you think thats going too far or not, it really demonstrated well what a gruesome, fucked up industry it is.