BFTP: A Digisexual?

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post December 20, 2006. This post had no socially redeeming value, but I thought the writing was clever. If one cannot amuse oneself, what hope does one have of amusing others? Oh, I added one of the more interesting reposnses.

 I was thankful to see the girlie poster hanging in my son's bedroom when I visited him yesterday. A shy young man, Brady has not shown a great deal of interest in romantic partners of any gender - or at least kept any such interest well hidden from Dad, whose damn business it is none of anyway.

What does concern me is that the objects of Brady's sexist objectification are not, well, really human, but computer generated. Very nicely formed virtual persons, but virtual none the less. Does this mean my son is a digisexual? (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

Oh, in my younger years, I too experimented with relationships involving alternative media - Burrough's La of ancient Opar in print,  Honey Ryder on the big screen in Dr. No, and TV's Barbara Eden in her little Jeannie costume were all fantasy creatures to be sure. Even the Eerie, ahem, "graphic novels" with their voluptuous, but always nipple-less, heroines were, I thought, pretty hot. But I will say this - I have always known my sexual orientation was analog, no matter how cheap and tawdry the paper or celluoid constructs where these characters lived.

I can only hope when Brady finds a real girlfriend, she can measure up to Laura Croft and her Flashy ilk. Or at least he will discover that cells may have some advantages to pixels, no matter how well programmed.

Comment to the original post:

You do realize that's not what a Digisexual is, right? While the term is ridiculous and does not denote an actual sexuality (since it has nothing to do with biological sex) it actually is used for people who do not wish to have "in-person" relationships because they think they will be distracted by their partner's looks. So instead have a strictly online relationship. It's idiotic and for me, someone who met their significant other online, there was nothing more fonder to be than meeting her in person.

However, what I had was a long-distance relationship. We talked on the phone, knew each other's lives, etc. A digisexual strictly types back and forth, though some use letters too.

Your son couldn't possibly be a digisexual just for thinking a CG-created woman is attractive. If he WAS digisexual he would at the very least have no interest having a relationship with a girl like her. ;) He'd want someone "real" but "far away". - uhh

My response:

uhh,

I think I coined the terms so it means what I want it to mean. Don't take it so seriously! If you can find a reference to the term prior to this post, I'll retract my statement.

Doug

 I received no documentation from uhh related to an official definition of digisexual. I did find a reference in the online Urban Dictionary which more or less was the same as my own. In doing a search on digisexual I also found this:

It's the third image that intrigued me. It's a picture from my blog of when I "elf-ed" myself. (Remember that?) What worries me is that my elf-self may be an erotic fixation for someone out there.

Mourn for our species.

Comments

[J.]

I dunno, pixels are pretty nice.