[ 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)]

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.