Tumblr is not letting me answer the ask directly so here it is:

I have no issue with the first interpretation or with any interpretation, really. The problem arises when others can’t simply coexist with differing views and instead come into my posts with accusations, disrespect, or the insinuation that including sex in a relationship dynamic is somehow inferior or reductive. It’s not about disagreeing, it’s about the way disagreement is delivered.

Personally, I’ve never commented on someone else’s meta to claim they’re wrong or to invalidate their perspective. My approach is live and let live. But since the question was raised: the reason I don’t align with the first interpretation is because it often comes with the implication that sex is unnecessary when a connection is truly deep or “mental.” That framing subtly positions sexual expression as something lesser, something that only enters the picture when the bond is lacking elsewhere.

I don’t view sex as a need or a filler. I see it as a symbolic, intentional act, an extension of desire, not deficiency. In my reading, Hannigram engages in sex not because they’re incomplete without it, but because it becomes a way of expressing a particular facet of their bond.