Who peed in your Cheerios? [dictionary.com]

Intimacy has more than one definition, but it seems you chose just the one and have been running with it ever since... why is that? Why block out the other definitions? Could it be because the only way you can think of showing intimacy is through sex?

@demifeministgal
I am not blocking. Feel free to describe any way you want. Some people have said doing laundry together or cooking together also is intimacy to them. I am seeing on this platform that people have made weird descriptions of intimacy. That is what what I am debating. To me, romance and intimacy are two different things.

Yes, being intimate with someone meant being physical close all along to people. I never knew romance, cooking, security, trust, financial security... all meant intimacy. I though those were separate words for a reason.

@St-Sinner did you read the definition provided by @Sacrilege

@demifeministgal
Oxford = [oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com]

1. Formal or Law = sexual activity, especially an act of sexual intercourse
   ..........
2. The state of having a close personal relationship with someone
3. A thing that a person says or does to someone that they know very well

Where does a spiritual connection fit in here? But everybody is allowed to twist it to anything they want to it be on this platform.

@St-Sinner well yeaa and this post is clearly alligned with the 2nd definition: The state of having a close personal relationship with someone

as intellectual, physical AND "spiritual" connections are all associated with having a close relationship with someone... heck you can be close with someone without ever having sex/physical contact!

@demifeministgal Look at the formal definition.

You can have sex (physical intimacy) with someone without any emotional connection and can be emotionally close to someone without sex. Both are true. Physical intimacy and emotional closeness are two separate things. Both can be separate or together. Both together is not a requirement. In other words, sex does not need emotional closeness and vice versa in general.

However, a person can say I need an emotional connection to have sex. But is not called intimacy.

@St-Sinner are you assuming then that the general population uses formal or legal definitions, rather than colloquial or widely held definitions? Perhaps that is where the disconnect lies.

@St-Sinner IT seems, according to the recent onslaught of intimacy posts, that most people are using these types of definitions, which are just as valid as yours, because many words have more than 1 meaning after all

the state of being intimate.
a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group.
a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.:
an intimacy with Japan.
an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity, affection, or the like:
to allow the intimacy of using first names.
an amorously familiar act; liberty.

Well, speaking on definitions...intimacy means familiarity and if you get familiar with folks in physical ways so be it. And I would love to write a song about intimacy...are you willing to co-author it? With my romanticism and your passion I am sure we can create something rather Shakespearian.

@Naftusja
If you are asking me, I do not know how to write a song but I can be a great audience if you sang and danced to it. I will even bring beer and pizza.

@demifeministgal

Let us go ahead. If I like wrestling or boxing, can I say wrestling or boxing with a woman brings me intimacy?

@demifeministgal If we did colloquial for all, we will screw up the whole dictionary. Fine with me.

@St-Sinner those are not colloquial meanings they are the other non-legal definitions of intimacy.
And are we talking literal, technical wrestling or play wrestling as a type of foreplay? I would say no for the boxing though.

@demifeministgal Can we not keep it simple? Let intimacy be intimacy. let trust be trust, let love be love, let holding hands be holding hands and let all else be whatever it is defined as. Why are we screwing up with the standard definitions and making it complicated? Can life be not simple?

@St-Sinner We are keeping things simple. But language evolves and words then have multiple meanings and colloquial understandings... this is one such word. if ya cannot handle the complexity of it all, perhaps leave the intimacy group? XD

@demifeministgal
If you can explain to us how spirituality entered into intimacy, I am willing to listen. You have morphed intimacy into a ridiculous definition that leads to anything but intimacy.

@St-Sinner Well considering I specifically stated that spirituality should be replaced by emotional or psychological connection, I would not say I have morphed anything... though the OP has by your standards. And the definition I and you cited are provided by dictionaries... so if anyone is morphing anything it's those damn dictionary companies! DAMN THEM! XD

@demifeministgal
If someone comes up to you and says, I would like to be intimate with you, you would not take an offense, right? Because it is not sex. It should mean a lot more.

@St-Sinner But this is not about me.... it is about the way a word is defined and understood in broader society despite your or my personal understanding. duh

I like this edit and I am asexual outside of a monogamous relationship. I am very much a demisexual in a way that without intimacy (my definition of such that is) I am not interested in physical interactions nor can get pleasure from them.

@Naftusja I also am demisexual But do not label myself as asexual outside of a monogamous relationship though

@demifeministgal I am super old school with my views on relationships and hence have a lot of issues dating. I wish that I could a bit more casual, but I am just not wired that way.

@demifeministgal just noticed that you're from Toronto. I used to live in Parkdale for 4 years

@Naftusja For me, it used to be about religion and I could hide behind that as an excuse... oh u catholics are not to have sex before marriage, so it is normal! But then, as an agnostic, I still want to take things slow, albeit no more waiting until marriage or even wanting to get married! XD So it was not the religion after all, it was just how I naturally am.

On "Love at first sight", I think there is something very real and powerful about the biochemistry that happens for people and it can be felt and understood very quickly. Hence, the commonality of the phrase. I think you and I might agree that there is more to a relationship than just that connection, but that isn't a reason to discount it by my accounting. I'd rather say that it's a good place to springboard from into more important concerns. So I would mostly disagree with the characterization of calling it detrimental. I still find a first impression to be very helpful. For myself, I'd prefer to say that the error is relying on "love at first sight" and "happily ever after" solely as metrics for a relationship.