[ SECRET POST #2823 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2823 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #403.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: What's the difference between asexual romance and really close friendship?

[(Anonymous)]

To me (and dare I say, to most people), "romantic feelings" means by definition, emotional AND sexual interest. No one is saying sex is love (though it can be!), and I think most people's image of "romance" is something more personal and tender than simple sexual arousal. But the phrase "romantic feelings" absolutely is founded upon, to probably 99.999% of the population, sexual interest. I get that you're trying to separate being emotionally intimate with someone from actual sexuality, but to me that just isn't what romance means. I'm not trying to say you can't or shouldn't describe your relationships in whatever way you want, but just pointing out why the language is jarring to me.

Re: What's the difference between asexual romance and really close friendship?

[saku]

i can guarantee you most people don't think that way, and your way of thinking is flawed. romance does not inherently include sex, even if they both are often present in a relationship.

there is a reason why some romantically involved people aren't sexual, and why many sexually involved people aren't romantic with each other. the two concepts are separate and merely collide sometimes in relationships where people love each other and also find each other sexually attractive.

your definition of romance is outdated and often incorrect.

Re: What's the difference between asexual romance and really close friendship?

[(Anonymous)]

You can guarantee that most people don't consider romance to be sexual? Really? I am very curious about how you can guarantee this, because I've never met anyone outside Internet asexuals and SJWs that would claim this.

And you're basically saying "romance and sexuality are two completely different concepts because I say so" without actually providing any explanation. I would say, friendship and sexuality are different concepts that can collide. But you're insisting on the word romance, which I maintain to the vast, vast majority of people must include, by definition, some notion of sexuality.

Maybe your definition of romance is what's incorrect?

Re: What's the difference between asexual romance and really close friendship?

[saku]

lol how is this a sjw issue?

you act as if i came up with this idea and in the same paragraph use your own experiences to back up your own flawed view, so i don't see how you can turn around and act like i'm wrong for how i came to my conclusion.

people who are in love but wait until marriage for sex aren't just close friends. people with low libidos who are in love aren't just friends. people without any interest or desire for sex aren't just close friends if they tell you they're in love. ldrs who are in love aren't just friends either. people with medical conditions (like paralysis) that render it impossible (or very very difficult) to have any form of sexual activity with each other, but still maintain that they are in love, aren't just close friends. adding sex into the mix doesn't suddenly make friendships romantic, it doesn't fulfill some requirement that makes love "real" or whatever.

if you think no-strings-attached sex can exist between platonic friends without adding romance to their friendship then you're conceding that sex isn't what causes romance. it's that simple.

if you aren't open to seeing how your opinion is flawed then idk why you chimed in and made yourself a part of this discussion in the first place. you are empirically and observably wrong. ask anybody with a romantic relationship that doesn't have sex. their feelings and their relationships aren't invalid just because you're skeptic. just concede that you've been wrong and that you don't know what you're talking about, accept that others operate differently than you and move on. i'm not interested in having this discussion with you if you insist on being a dense idiot.

Re: What's the difference between asexual romance and really close friendship?

[(Anonymous)]

"if you think no-strings-attached sex can exist between platonic friends without adding romance to their friendship then you're conceding that sex isn't what causes romance. it's that simple."

...what? Of course no strings attached sex can exist between friends without adding romance. Here's why: all sex is not romance. And no one ever claimed that. That doesn't have anything to do with the definition of romance. Romance relies on sexual interest by definition, or at least, the vast majority of people's definitions, so the butthurt when people don't understand is kind of uncalled for.

People who wait until marriage to have sex or have low libidos still are perfectly capable of having sexual interest. Here's something else you don't seem to understand: having sexual interest doesn't mean you're having sex. You can be sexually attracted to someone without having sex with them, or even having a particularly great sex life with them. Or do you think non-asexuals run around banging each other the moment they feel attracted, or what? And you know what, anyone can say they are "in love" if they want - I find the terminology vague and misleading, so whatever. But unless you can give concrete examples of what romance without sexuality is that couldn't also describe a close, intimate friendship, I'm not sure why you have the right to be offended when people don't think of it as romance.

And I just think it's really funny that you seem under the impression that most people have a distinct idea on what romance is if you strip it of sexuality. You're doing a lot of righteously offended bantering without actually providing any substance to this conversation, for the entire thread. I'm actually impressed on how quickly you resorted to name calling, too, very nice.

Re: What's the difference between asexual romance and really close friendship?

[(Anonymous)]

But if you can understand that sex without romance exists, why can't you understand it the other way around? Or is it a case of "all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares"?

Re: What's the difference between asexual romance and really close friendship?

[(Anonymous)]

It's exactly that. A latte is more than coffee, but it still needs coffee to exist, otherwise it's just hot milk - same with romance. I don't even get how that's a serious argument, the act of sex itself is just that - an act - but sexual feelings exist with or without action, and a sexual interest plus emotional interest is what romance really is. You don't need to actually have sex with someone to have a romantic relationship, but if there's no feeling of sexual interest at all, I cannot see how it is distinct from a friendship.