[ 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)]

"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.