fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2990 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2990 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

(Transformers Prime)

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

(Transformers Prime)

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

[Wish / Clamp / Manga in this artstyle in general]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Terry Pratchett]

__________________________________________________

10.

[STRAIN: Strategic Armored Infantry]

__________________________________________________

11.

[CSI Cyber]

__________________________________________________

12.

[POTC & One Piece]

__________________________________________________

13.

[Marvel Comics' Black Widow]

__________________________________________________

14.

[James Corden, new host of the LATE LATE SHOW (and for DOCTOR WHO)]

__________________________________________________

15.

[Harry Potter]

__________________________________________________

16.

[Fallen London]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 017 secrets from Secret Submission Post #427.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Is it possible to be in love with someone without it being romantic? I know you can love someone as a friend, but can you be in love with them, like the way you would (hopefully) be in love with a spouse, only without the romantic or sexual aspect?

I feel like conversations like this always come down to what your definition of love is, and everyone has a different one.

But to answer your question, yes I think it's possible.

I would say yes, but I'm aware that I'm in the minority, because most people think the person you want to spend the rest of your life with should be a romantic partner, and your platonic relationships should be secondary to that.

I've always felt like that should be the other way around. Thankfully, so has my best friend.

Not unless you consider familial love comparable to romantic love.

I don't think it has to be familial love.

Back in the days of the Greek and Roman empires, the term to describe what OP is talking about was "platonic" love. It denoted a love between friends so intense and passionate as to be equal to or above your wife, but with no sexual connection. It was said to be an ideal love, in fact- one to aspire to more than romantic love (because sexism, but that's another story).

Now, platonic love means something a bit different... but I think the platonic love of old still exists out there. It's just no longer talked about in quite the same manner.

Hmmm, I think what you're describing would probably be described as romantic nowadays, though. Or at least it would be romantic to people who think romance and sex can be separate, which is obviously not everyone.

I don't know, the last time this topic came up, it made me realize that everyone has such different ideas of where the line between friendship and romance is.

I would say so, yes.

I'm writing such a relationship, between two widow(ers) whose children (a married couple) tragically died. They're not in love because I think writing that would be weird, and they're the sort to carry on without really needing a new spouse, but they're effectively raising a grandchild together and are ultimately the most important persons in one another's lives, with the exception of the child. It's not romantic or sexual, it's just... a partnership. I don't see why such a relationship couldn't happen in reality.

I think you can be in love with someone you're not sexually attracted to, but using the term in a non-romantic context seems weird to me. Why not just say you love the person?

Same. It doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, but to me, you can love someone and it can mean anything, but being "in love" implies romance.

No, I don't think so.

My first instinct was "no" but...maybe it is possible.

I've always thought of being "in love" as implying romance because that's the context I've always heard it in, and I've never really questioned it for some reason, but if you feel like you're in love with someone in a platonic way, why not?

I mean, after all, you frequently hear mothers talk about being in love with their children and obviously that isn't romantic.

I'm gonna have to think about this...I've never looked at it this way before, and I'm actually finding it really interesting.

I've... never heard a mother say she was in love with her child. Not saying it doesn't happen, but that would get you some seriously weirded out looks where I'm from.

I think you can be in love with someone without wanting to have sex with them. But if you have no romantic feelings towards someone, you might love them but you're not in love with them. At best, you're "in love with them" in the same way that people are "in love with rock climbing." It's a hyperbolic statement indicating that you like them more than you like a lot of other things.

ayrt

I probably should have specified, but yeah, where I'm from women say that all the time. I've definitely seen people get weirded out by it, but a lot of people (here, anyway) don't seem to find it strange, I guess because they're used to it, and because it obviously has a very different context than the usual one.

But, like I said above, my initial reaction (about the usage of the phrase) was "it's definitely romantic", and I had to actually stop and think about it to realize it was the same wording. So if someone wanted to say it in the same context about a friend as a mom would about her kid (not that they necessarily feel parental towards their friend, just that it's not romantic), then I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense, but that's obviously not the standard usage.

I think I personally would probably stick to using it in the romantic context just to avoid confusion, and if someone told me they were in love with someone else, my first thought would definitely be that they meant it in a romantic way. But if someone wants to use it in other ways, I'm not going to say they can't. Especially since people can't even seem to agree on what romantic love is...so like if someone says "I'm in love with this person" and their feelings are what I'd consider romantic, but they don't call it romantic, it's hard to say.

I don't know, language can be confusing!

[ SECRET POST #2990 ]

Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates

Re: Inspired by the thread with the aromantic person who dates