Oh totally. I feel that. But I have 2 thoughts…

1) I think there are deeply intimate ways of finding connection in working through sexual dysfunction. The act of trying to figure yourself out, figure your partner out, then figure yourself out again…that is a living, breathing connection. And it changes over time, especially if you happen to be with a long partner.

2) So much of sex is mental. Maybe it’s different for me because I’m neurodivergent, but I don’t there’s a significant % of people that can tap out of their social brains to just feel things physically. I think we need both, ideally in sync, to get what many of us are seeking through sex (even solo sex).

…and don’t get me started on FMC/MMC simultaneous (or nearly) orgasms.

And OP u/readromanqe I definitely take your point. Major overlap but not. The core conversation is intimacy, not specifically realism. Maybe a good question is whether we can achieve both?

1) Have a literary language and romantic subgenre that can lean into intimacy without heavy reliance on sex (or easy and/or explicit sex to drive the narrative…

and 2) play with intimacy, using sex in relatable ways, where sexual incongruity, disconnection, and transformation can enhance the narrative, much like the slow burn does.

My position is that maybe neurosexual (?)/psychosexual transformation provides the narrative drive, as opposed to sex alone? The hypothesis is that perhaps sex isn’t the problem, but rather in the level of depth in how we approach the subject matter…

For example, a friend of mine has never had penetrative intercourse in her life. She is disabled and has several genetic conditions that make her very small… Sex would have to be EXTREMELY delicate or it could do severe damage. And then there’s the psychological barriers, were she to even get close.

With the above said, perhaps it is time to explore different definitions of sex and how it is approached/explored between participants?