I’ve seen a lot of talk in queer spaces in recent years about decoupling romantic attraction and sexual attraction. So you can have different responses on each axis. A lot of it has been in the context of asexuals who nevertheless have romantic relationships which don’t involve sex but do include the things we’d expect from romance, but it applies to others as well.

For instance, I currently identify as a biromantic lesbian, since I certainly could (and have) feel romantic attraction to male-identified folks, I’m not actually interested in fucking one. From what I’ve seen it’s a pretty useful distinction.

What is romantic attraction, without sexual desire? An urge to be with them all of the time? Being soothed by their words, their presence, their touch? A desire to be able to the same for them? A possessive feeling, of wanting them all to yourself? Well that is plutonic attraction,

Forgive me for not being woke, but what is a biromantic lesbian?

Nezchan posted:

romantic attraction and sexual attraction.

Those 2 things were always separate for me, so I really can't understand the issue. You can love someone romantically, while not being sexually attracted to them, the same way you can be attracted to someone sexually, while not having any romantic feelings whatsoever. I'm not inherently against calling it platonic love instead, but most people associate it more with admiration and strong, deep friendship than love, so I feel like using this term in more than more occasions, actually does more harm than good. Let's face it, word romance is very heavy integrated into our culture, so trying to use different word to describe the same feeling, just make people confuse and think there is some difference between two.

I think for me at least, the idea of Platonic love doesn’t carry the desire for exclusivity or intimacy that the modern concept of romance does. Like a more idealized sort of hands-off love.

Plutonic love simply means love without sex.

This is getting ridiculous.

You’ve got a choice, folks. Take it to the Dynasty Cafe thread, or take it off-site. Just don’t continue it here.

I mean it's on topic, but you're the boss.
Woe is us.

@johnb
Just as a closing statement on the "sexual desire is necessary for a romantic relationship" thing and why I said your stance is revolting (and made those joke comparisons to other close-minded things) is that you are straight up denying real people having romantic relationships just because they don't fit your closeminded standard, based on nebulous definitions. Even if you can't see that somehow, I hope you at least understand why I was so strongly opposed to it from my perspective, aye? If you still need clarification I don't mind taking this to the Cafe.

Now anyway, all the sexual stuff aside and back to a topic we might be allowed to discuss here...
You ignored the part where I gave you solid proof of how Sakurako loves and is physically attracted to Kasumi... like 3 times in a row. We/you might have gotten distracted from the original point a bit.

I think We're at an impass on the romantic thing. In my mind it's simply a matter of semantics. I wouldn't call a close asexual friendship romantic. I think, you think, l see plutonic love as less importance, or inferior to romantic love. I don't, a plutonic love can be just as close and intimate as romantic love, there is just no sex involved. From the angry responses I got on this site, I see you are not alone. Thats cool. Meanings of words are subjective. We could all wake up tomorrow and collectively deside the word dog really means cat, and boom thats what it means. I'll check the dynasty cafe thread, to see if you respond to this, but I don't think we're going to change each others minds.

As for Sakurako and Kasumi's relationship I actually agree with you. There is something there between the two, especially from Sakurako's side. However I've been down this road before, with other series. I'm convinced the main pair is well on there way to happy yuri town, and suddenly something will happen, that will prove it was all just me jumping to conclusions.

last edited at Nov 10, 2018 5:27PM

Stop starin, ya pervert! I think she was talking to the reader too.

That was a total tease.

One more thing. I would like to give a genuine thank you to random. for correcting me on corroborative. Nothing says this jerk doesn't know what their talking about, like using the wrong word.

Somehow the latest parts of the A Room for Two forums became the early parts of the Bloom into You forums..

I like that series, but really haven't visited the message board for it. I can't see what there was to argue about. Even I, the supposed cynic, saw where that one was going right away.

This is getting ridiculous.

You’ve got a choice, folks. Take it to the Dynasty Cafe thread, or take it off-site. Just don’t continue it here.

Sorry, I was writing my post while this one came out. I'm done though.

What's the dynasty cafe thread?

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 7:49PM

You sure seem to be treating it like a big deal.

Also not sure how Random Thing I McFound On Google counts as collaborative [sic]*, quote, evidence, unquote, especially when nothing about the site gives cause to believe it is written by people with relevant credentials.

Also just to quote this from that same site:

Some in psychology today see intimacy as more than just being close or being sexually intimate. The true definition of intimacy is not just about two bodies merging together for sex. Intimacy could have a different meaning for different people.

*the word you're looking for is corroborative

I'm fighting this so hard, because, BugDevil pretty much insulted me, by telling me, saying romantic love, by definition, has a sexual component, is revolting. Remembering my human sexuality class. I knew that was wrong, so I'm on a mission to prove it. I couldn't remember complete details, so I goggled it. Goggle agreed with me so I'm pretty sure we're good.

In all fairness I could be suffering a bit from confirmation bias, but who cares. I think it's widely accepted that we use the term romantic love, to distinguish between love with sexual attraction, and love without. I don't see a problem with it. I am at a loss to see why other people do. I see no deep insulting issue with labeling a couple in an asexual relationship as in plutonic love.

Like I said, I could have cited a psychology text book, but couldn't remember the details. just saying.

Then don't try to invoke it in the first place. I trust I need not point out why it might not be the best of ideas to rely on a vague memory for detailed definitions of something?

I wouldn't have if, I didn't get collaborative evidence, off goggle.
Jeeze people what the big deal. Who cares what you call a close exclusive asexual relationship. I'm mean would you call two siblings who spend there life together, a romantic relationship. I wouldn't but, a rose by any other name etc. etc....
I don't think Sakurako, and Kasumi are asexual at all. So it's all moot. Well maybe Kasumi.

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 6:22PM

Totally asexual people can form close platonic bonds, but by definition they aren't romantic ones. They can be just as close, just as intense, they're just not romantic.

Asexual =/= Aromantic
You can be with someone without being attracted to their body, or having any sexual desire towards them. Even physical intimacy doesn't equal sexual attraction. So an asexual person can be in a romantic relationship with someone.

Fine whatever. This reminds me of the time I nearly got run out of class for pointing out what Jesus did fit the technical definition of suicide.

marriage.com. It was what goggle read to me when I goggled it. Plus It agreed with what I remembered from my Human Sexuality class back in collage. I could cite my text book from that, but I don't remember it's name.

Look this is getting us nowhere. Lets just call a truce.

Yeeaaahhhh I think you need a bit more authoritative sources before making such grandiose declarations about definitions. Just sayin'.

Like I said, I could have cited a psychology text book, but couldn't remember the details. just saying.

Easy there dude. Your getting a little insulting. The very clinical definition of romantic love is love with sexual desire. Look it up. It's there in black and white. Love without sexual desire is called platonic love i.e. close friendships.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence that Sakurako, and Kasumi are in love. What I'm saying is, there is no definitive proof. That's all.

I might have come on a bit strong, but that is what happens when I see terrible argumentation. So sorry~

Oho, I didn't know I was talking to a real true blooded cynic! What a delight. And by that you mean your definition, right? I don't need to repost the actual definition, @random was quicker.
Just remember that you basically just said that impotent men, people with low sex drive, asexuals and almost anybody above the age of 50 cannot be in a "solid romantic relationship" due to their lack of sex. Wanna also add that homosexuals aren't actually in real relationships because they can't procreate? Lesbian sex isn't real sex because it doesn't involve penetration? lol

Yeah, no. Sakurako literally confessed in the previous two chapters. Kasumi might be more ambivalent about it, but you'd have to be awfully cynical to think all the collective hints and realizations she had until now are not evidence enough.

Woe there partner. Your putting words in my mouth. I never said the lack of sex makes it not a romantic relationship. It's not seeing your partner as sexually desirable. So, people who can't have sex can still be in a romantic relationship. Totally asexual people can form close platonic bonds, but by definition they aren't romantic ones. They can be just as close, just as intense, they're just not romantic.
Look, romantic is just the word we normally use to make the destinction between love with sexual attraction, and love without. So as far as I can tell we are just arguing semantic here.
The crap rant, about me thinking homosexuals are not in a true relationship, and lesbian sex is not real sex is not only not me, but also insulting. I'm not some narrow minded pig.
Look I'm not even sure how we got here. Lets just let this go before the admins get mad and shut this down.

I tried looking it up. The definitions I could find out of hand did not consider sexual desire any kind of key ingredient. Relatedly Merriam-Webster (which doesn't seem to have an entry for "romantic love" specifically) had this:

English Language Learners Definition of love affair
: a romantic or sexual relationship especially between two people who are not married to each other

Notice the "or"?
Also M-W:

Definition of romantic
5 b: marked by expressions of love or affection
c: conducive to or suitable for lovemaking

...I think you might want to start citing your sources if you're claiming definitions about this.

marriage.com. It was what goggle read to me when I goggled it. Plus It agreed with what I remembered from my Human Sexuality class back in collage. I could cite my text book from that, but I don't remember it's name.

Look this is getting us nowhere. Lets just call a truce.

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 4:26PM

(sigh) I have seen many manga and anime where girls do everything Sakurako, and Kasumi do here together, and it means nothing romantic. Sharing a bed, bathing together, even playing with each others boobs, are all acceptable for close friends in manga and anime. it's just the innocence of girlhood, before they discover that special boy that catches there eye, and pushes them into adulthood.
If Sakurako, and Kasumi aren't sexually attacted to each others, then they're just friends. No matter how close they are. Sex is one of the pillars of a romantic relationship.
That's my point I want Sakurako, and Kasumi to end up a solid couple, but I'm afraid the story will leave their relationship in subtext, which will disappoint me.

1. Wow, did you even read this manga? There is way more than the things you mentioned and most of it has nothing to do with "friendship". I'm not going to bother making a list, because you will just ignore it.
2. You are plain wrong. This is the same intrepid argument I hear all the time, but it never gets any less revolting. Sex is not necessary for a romantic relationship. Period.
3. Is kissing subtext to you? Is confessing subtext to you? Is saying they are into each other subtext to you? Because you are just trying to be ignorant.

Easy there dude. Your getting a little insulting. The very clinical definition of romantic love is love with sexual desire. Look it up. It's there in black and white. Love without sexual desire is called platonic love i.e. close friendships.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence that Sakurako, and Kasumi are in love. What I'm saying is, there is no definitive proof. That's all.

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 3:22PM

For one moment I was impressed by Sakurako's subtle confession using the literary "The moon is beautiful, isn't it?" line. So impressed!
And then I remembered who we are dealing with.

Subtlety can also be used as a hammer in this case.

I don't think either of them is the blushing type.

My point is, there seems to be no physical attraction, between Sakurako and Kasumi.

Yeah, if we ignore every single time Sakurako said that she thinks Kasumi is pretty, beautiful and her type. That she basically fell in love with her on first sight etc. I guess that doesn't count as physical attraction to you? What about their constant casual skinship that goes way beyond what friends or even family do? They don't need to feel embarrassed about it or get aroused to have intimate physical moments.

And even if they really had no sexual tension.... what's wrong with that? Asexual people exist, but they are still able to love each other.

(sigh) I have seen many manga and anime where girls do everything Sakurako, and Kasumi do here together, and it means nothing romantic. Sharing a bed, bathing together, even playing with each others boobs, are all acceptable for close friends in manga and anime. it's just the innocence of girlhood, before they discover that special boy that catches there eye, and pushes them into adulthood.
If Sakurako, and Kasumi aren't sexually attacted to each others, then they're just friends. No matter how close they are. Sex is one of the pillars of a romantic relationship.
That's my point I want Sakurako, and Kasumi to end up a solid couple, but I'm afraid the story will leave their relationship in subtext, which will disappoint me.

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 4:52AM

Wow, miss protagonist is a total perv! I mean, how dare a girl walk into the girl's locker room! That is a totally scandalous!

I don't think either of them is the blushing type.

My point is, there seems to be no physical attraction, between Sakurako and Kasumi.

The Kohai pair is gay, but Sakurako and Kasumi outgay them in every possible way

They pretty much out gay every lesbian pair no matter what series it is.

Agree 1000000%. They unconsciously do gay things without ever worrying about “but we’re both girls, it’s weird.” No one could possibly outgay Sakurako and Kasumi, but I’d say Nanofate and Chidori/Nanoha are on par with them

Well hell, They have a more intimate relationship than a lot of official couples in other series. They sleep together they take baths together they are very physical with each other touching or cuddling up. Kasumi evan walks around their place naked like its a normal thing.

That's just it. There is 0 sexual tension between the two of them. I'd expect at least some shy blushing.

I can't tell, if there is actual romantic tension between Kasumi and Sakurako, or I'm just looking through my yuri goggles, and seeing what I want to see.

It sounds like they treat human and beastkin relationships like bestiality, in Mel and Master's world. That sucks a bit of cuteness away from their relationship.

oh no she's a whale

???

A whale is somebody who spends shitloads of money on a game.

I have honestly never heard that before. Is it a japanese term?

No, it’s a gambling term. From the pov of say, casino owners, “whales” (i.e., really big spenders who don’t care how much they lose) can be a major income stream. (aka, “high rollers.”)

There are people who think nothing of dropping a couple million dollars over a weekend.

A well known whale, usually gets their room and food comped, because casino owners knows they will make up the losses on the casino floor.
My friend likes to gamble. He was always traveling around, to casinos all over the country, despite only working at a corner convenience store. We use to jokingly call him "The jet setting store clerk." and "The poor man's whale"'

Iori's sister keeped calling Minami a man. Didn't she realise Minami was a woman? Or, was it just a generation, to lump Minami in with all Iori's exs?

Edit: instead of generation I ment generalization.

last edited at Nov 4, 2018 1:59AM

This is good stuff.

Excuse me, what the fuck?

You know, "Split" was directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Was this doujin directed by him too? The plot was all over the place.

What a twist.