pwfaith
Active Member
There's no reason to distinguish it by the label 'casual' then, since we have such 'relationships' with various people already, without that moniker. For example, your boss, your mailman.
'Casual' in current usage still implies a romance. And a romance which denies sexuality is doomed to fail, since romance requires communication, and sexuality is an integral part of communication.
Hmmm I don't know. I don't have a 'relationship' with my mailman at all, beyond "thanks for the mail" if/when I see him. However, a casual relationship would be more one of going to lunch together with someone of the opposite sex whom you have no romantic feelings for. Or like you said, your boss. If I worked and had a male boss I would not go to lunch alone with him, doing that imo would be considered more than mere aquantanace and forming a close relationship/friendship. But I would consider our relationship casual b/c we don't really interact unless necessary at work or the very surface level conversations of weather/family/ect.
(I'm not a fan of close/friendship relationships between genders, but that's a whole nother debate )