Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-26225812-20150625072936/@comment-24674051-20150625154012

Honestly, I would prefer to keep sexuality out of it entirely.

I don't mind relationships, but a relationship does not have to be sexual in nature. In fact, in Websters, a relationship is defined first as a connection, association, or involvement. Yes, Websters also includes sexual involvment, but that is only one aspect. There are many kinds of relationships.

SwanQueen is, in my opinion, a good example of a non-sexual relationship. There is a strong, natural bond developing between the two women. But, imo, there is absolutly nothing sexual about it. It is simple and deep friendship. (BTW, Friendship is a relationship). And by the broader definition of relationship, SwanQueen is very much a canon relationship (just not sexual).

I can't see any storyline that benefits from the sexual orientation of a character being important.