[ SECRET POST #2523 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2523 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Carnivale]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[Madame LaLaurie from American Horror Story: Coven]


__________________________________________________



05.
[David Duchovny/The X-Files]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Lorax]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________
















[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]





















09. [SPOILERS for Blacklist]



__________________________________________________


















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]





















10. [WARNING for rape?]



__________________________________________________



11. [SPOILERS for Once Upon a Time]
[WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for incest]

[The Raven Cycle]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. You take issue with the idea of "true" in "true love." As in, if a love is true, it should be able to transcend all boundaries. I can agree with that.

However, I would say a newborn baby is not something you can "love" romantically. It has no distinct personality, thought process, or even awareness of self. So there is no possible "romantic love relationship" there. A baby is simply not eligible to take part in a romantic love, true or not.

[(Anonymous)]

To add to that: someone can logically always be your soulmate, as in A is B's soulmate, without them being necessarily in love the entire time. If A and B never speak but take the same train to work every day, they could conceivably be soulmates that never find each other. Or maybe in another universe, they one day talk and hit it off and find each other. They'd still be soulmates in both universes, but not in love in one.

I don't believe in soulmates, but the logic is consistent.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

And if you happen to stumble across your soulmate when they're a toddler, why can't you just track them down again later when they're actually capable of connecting with you as a romantic equal? Why does being a soulmate have to mean hovering?

[(Anonymous)]

but that's not what happened in the book.