Hoogstwaarschijnlijk wrote:I was raised without any religion and rules (I recognise what Jurgen mentions about that!), ...
It is nice to hear about shared experiences.
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:None, probably (unless you count Casablanca and similar)
Why wouldn't I?
Lines of the type "This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship." do not necessarily have any covert meanings. People can work and act together without being lovers.
linguoboy wrote:No Grimm's tale for you when you were growing up?
Hänsel und Gretel or Little Red Ridinghood or Snow White or Dornrösschen or Cinderella never appeared to me back then to be focussing on coupling. Anything like that was only done to end the story, while the important stuff was the action in the middle.
linguoboy wrote:No Hans Christian Anderson?
The emperor's new clothes or The girl with the matches or The ugly duckling do not describe any sexual relations, as I remember them.
linguoboy wrote:No Disney films?
The Disney characters are definitely odd, with all their uncles and nephews, but no parents or children. Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse had girlfriends, but they never actually did proceed anywhere in those relations. The film with those dogs in 1900 did have a heteroromantic relation with a childbirth at the end, and Mowgli ended up manipulated by some cunning girl, but as above, the important stuff was what happened before, between friends and enemies. Fernando the bull only loved flowers, and was solitary.
linguoboy wrote:Tintin seems asexual if anything. I don't recall him ever evincing any romantic or sexual attraction towards anyone, male or female. (Homosociality is quite a different thing from homosexuality.)
Perhaps things were just described in a decent way. If HBO made a Tintin TV series, those relations might be more explicit. Anyway, the point was if it was heteronormative or not, and I suppose, as you say, that it is not, since it does not really point in any direction.
linguoboy wrote:The whole notion of splitting "romance" from "sexuality" in this way is very recent. (As she said in the OP, she created the thread specifically because no one else here had ever divided the question up in that way.)
Where is that original post, and in what thread? I searched (only a little) but did not find it.
EDIT: It was probably this one: http://www.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39598#p855971
linguoboy wrote:The only people I've known who romanced a different sex than the one they were sexually interested in were forced into it by circumstance.
Does romancing imply activity as well? Otherwise I do not see how it would be possible to be forced to fall in love with someone.