nessnote
mujhe hi rakhi बाँध di 😭
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
were you aware ki isme LIGHT JALTI HAI?????
❤10😭2
platonic relationships are some of the purest forms of human connection, yet they remain among the most misunderstood. people struggle to accept the idea that emotional intimacy can exist without a romantic or sexual layer. especially when it’s between two different genders. somehow, if a boy and a girl are close, society needs to add a romantic subplot. it’s as if we can’t process love unless it fits the romance mould. but platonic love is its own kind of intimacy. two people can love each other, protect each other, and find comfort in each other’s presence without being in love in the conventional sense. these bonds have existed for as long as human relationships have. they are often the safest, most grounding connections we have. yet the myth persists that “ek ladka or ek ladki kabhi dost nahi ho sakte.” but this also the case vice-versa. queer relationships are often boxed as platonic when they are so not.
the problem isn’t limited to the present. history is full of this reframing. take achilles and patroclus. in many historical interpretations, their relationship was reduced to a “purely platonic” bond, despite strong textual evidence suggesting romantic love. this rewriting wasn’t accidental. it aligned with what society could accept. if a queer relationship didn’t fit the moral codes of the time, it was stripped of its romance. on the flip side, when two straight people form a deep platonic bond, media and culture tend to romanticise it, as though platonic intimacy cannot stand on its own.
this reveals a larger pattern:
if society can’t accept it as queer, label it platonic. if society can’t accept it as platonic, turn it romantic.
both approaches erase the value of platonic love, as if it’s somehow “less” than romantic love. but it isn’t. these relationships can be the definition of comfort.
the problem isn’t limited to the present. history is full of this reframing. take achilles and patroclus. in many historical interpretations, their relationship was reduced to a “purely platonic” bond, despite strong textual evidence suggesting romantic love. this rewriting wasn’t accidental. it aligned with what society could accept. if a queer relationship didn’t fit the moral codes of the time, it was stripped of its romance. on the flip side, when two straight people form a deep platonic bond, media and culture tend to romanticise it, as though platonic intimacy cannot stand on its own.
this reveals a larger pattern:
if society can’t accept it as queer, label it platonic. if society can’t accept it as platonic, turn it romantic.
both approaches erase the value of platonic love, as if it’s somehow “less” than romantic love. but it isn’t. these relationships can be the definition of comfort.
❤9
btw i’m directing a play for the first time. i’ve always wanted to direct something to see how it feels, and now that the moment is here, i’m really excited. i’ll be personally taking the auditions starting today, and i hope everything goes smoothly.
❤11💘1
"if you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." - plato
❤13