[ SECRET POST #2957 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2957 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #423.
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

[(Anonymous)]

No, you were equating the OPs statement with an unequivalent one. "I think these are both ridiculous" is not enough to make the concepts at all the same.

[(Anonymous)]

If you think there can't be romance without sexual attraction, then logically, there can't be sexual attraction without romance. Whether you ignore those romantic feelings or not is on you.

Granted, I don't believe this, because I know plenty of ace people and this feels like another way to say they're "missing out" and people who are into sex being unable to comprehend that maybe, just maybe, romance isn't fucking exclusive to them. And I say this as someone with a sex drive.

It's not a hard fucking concept, and it's bullshit that people feel like there HAS to be sex to have a romantic relationship. There's other kinds of physical intimacy that I wouldn't do with my friends, and there's kinds of things I would do with my friends I wouldn't do with my partner. But hey, obviously all ace relationships are invalid on the romantic front because there's no sexual attraction because obviously sex and romance are the same fucking thing.

[(Anonymous)]

If you think there can't be romance without sexual attraction, then logically, there can't be sexual attraction without romance.

NO. If I think there can't be dessert without chocolate, that doesn't make mole a dessert because there chocolate in it.

And as for the previously asked "why is it logical?": If you accept that romantic and platonic relationships are different and acknowledge that romantic relationships seem to typically include sex at some point and platonic relationships seem typically to not, it is logical (though not *necessarily* accurate) to assume sexual attraction is a component of romantic relationships.

[(Anonymous)]

Except I don't assume all romantic relationships include sex or even sexual attraction? That's the entire point of my rant?

[(Anonymous)]

the entire point is that your logic was dead wrong. We know you were using hypotheticals that you disagreed with, but the argument was incorrect.

in the end, this is an issue of different people having different definitions of words, it seems.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it is. Tbh, I think it's sexual people inherently misunderstanding how anyone asexual can love. Because it's so ingrained in them that sex is an expression of love (and a lot of religious ideals don't help that, since we're bombarded by love = sex and sexual attraction by both religion and media).

I think more people need to sit and re-evaluate why sexual attraction is 100% necessary in their definition of romance.

[(Anonymous)]

It isn't that sex is absolutely necessary for romance. But sexual attraction is.

[(Anonymous)]

"If you think there can't be romance without sexual attraction, then logically, there can't be sexual attraction without romance. Whether you ignore those romantic feelings or not is on you."

Again, no. This is not logical. You're saying that because all squares are rectangles, all rectangles are therefore squares. That is not true. No one has claimed in this thread that the term romance equals the term sexual attraction. They've said romance by definition includes sexual attraction.

[(Anonymous)]

But it doesn't, and I never once assumed that romance has to include sexual attraction. It's another way to shame people who don't want sex as part of their life, another way to other people who aren't sexually attracted to anyone, and another way to feel superior and put asexual or even just people plain not interested in sex down.

We're a sexual society, and so many people have trouble with the idea that some people don't want or were never interested in sex, and thus tend to equate them to unfeeling robots who can never know love. Like, literally, can you not see how fucked up that is? Like, no, romance does not need sex or even sexual attraction, and I'm a very sexual person saying that. It's stupid, and needs to change.