Distinguishing platonic vs asexual romantic attraction

[a_subtle_reality]

So, a question both for those who identify as ace and polyamorous, and those who don't (for the "what's generally understood by this" perspective): in the absence of posessive feelings or sexual attraction, how do you distinguish between an intense platonic attraction and a romantic attraction?

 

Is it:

- Some particular threshold of intensity

- Desiring / caring about physical intimacy / sensuality

- Different reactions in particular situations (e.g. missing someone when absent)

- Something else (?)

- Is there even a meaningful distinction?

 

It does seem to be regarded as a fundamental difference (perhaps one of THE fundamental distinctions) in wider society, so it matters a lot when communicating with people, but I'm having trouble teasing out the difference. What I regard as platonic attractions have some of the emotional markers often associated with romantic attractions (e.g. intensity, anticipation and enjoyment of spending time - particularly one-on-one) but without other factors like sexual attraction, posessive feelings, or it being directed at exclusively one person (though the latter two are more of a mono vs polyamorous distinction, rather than platonic vs romantic). Describing such feelings as platonic seems to carry an implication of them being less intense / important / worth less time and energy, I'm wondering if describing those as 'romantic' would be more readily understood, or just cause a different kind of misunderstanding. Perhaps a third word might work, though that may add another unhelpful layer of having-to-tediously-explain-things.

 

P.S. I know this is kind of in the FAQ - though the answer there seems something like 'nobody knows' - I'm interested to see what people have to say particularly using polyamorous romantic feeling as a reference point, and the communication aspect.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

Well, the way you're talking about platonic, it almost sounds alterous, which makes it even harder to distinguish between it and romance.
To me, romance means more intimacy, more exclusivity (even if it's possible to be poly, someone could say that a monoamourous relatiionship is more romantic), and deeper and higher levels of affection and care. This 'can' lead to more intimate touching, but obviously doesn't have to, and it really depends on someone's language of love. But there are many ways to make someone know you care deeply, and want to be with them, and love them strongly.

 

But let's say the language is sensual then platonically it would only go as far as cuddling and hugging, maybe a little bit of caressing but much more light. In romance, it could get to much more caressing, kissing, even kissing the body (and it doesn't have to be sexual), and the affection just becomes more intensely loving, and bringing the two closer. Connecting emotionally could make it more personalized, where you know more how and what someone feels more from, and carry and answer feelings in an intimate manner. It's hard to give examples other than sensual for me, but there are definitely other ways to be romantic. When people talk of a candlelit dinner or something. There's just a tone of deeper personal intimacy. Staring into each other's eyes, conveying more than something platonic, which wouldn't go as deep or exclusive.

It's not to say some platonic or alterous relationships can't be deep, but they would still have a different tone, and it'd be more like how you'd care for a good friend or a sibling, not a depth that conveys you want to be there with them all the way (and maybe see parts of them they wouldn't show someone else). Romantic love means you hold them very dear in your heart, and want to be with them, connected as deep as you can. And in the case of monogamy, may want to be with them and close for your entire life (within reason and depending on how strongly you feel about them). There would definitely be more attachment, and missing them more when they're not there. (not sure how that would change in a poly relationship tho, even if I am slightly poly myself.)

I would say if I put attraction to that, you would feel a pull to be those ways with them, depending on the attraction you have.
Anyway, that's my take on it It's honestly a bit hard to explain the differences in some ways, it's not the first thread around this. 😜

 

[SithLord]

I'm not poly and I tend to not feel intense platonic attraction towards someone (a bit confused about alterous attraction so leaving that aside for now), but I don't get possessive of my bf. I trust him and if he slept with someone else then as long as he ran it by me first, I'd be fine with that. I don't mind an open relationship but since I'm not the one would would have multiple partners, I don't consider myself poly (though if my bf were to ever get a lover, I would want this person to be someone I know and can talk to, and not have it be where my bf has two separate lives). 

 

With my bf, I enjoy being with him and spending time with him to a more intense degree than I've ever felt with friends. I don't get tired of being with him even after hours together, and I want to keep talking to him and hearing what he has to say, I want to share part of myself with him and have him share part of himself with me. I don't feel that with friends, even my best friends. I imagine if I were to have multiple partners, I'd feel the same way. 

[Lichley]

Alterous attraction is sort of the middle ground between platonic and romantic. It blurs the lines a lot and makes it hard to pin down a specific definition.

 

The Aromantics Wiki says:  

 

Alterous is described as neither being (entirely/completely) platonic nor romantic, & is an attraction best described as wanting emotional closeness without necessarily being (at all or entirely) platonic &/or romantic, & is used in the place of -romantic or -platonic (so say bi-alterous instead of bi-romantic).

Someone can be both alterous & romantic &/or platonic & can have varying degrees on attraction, ultimately feel discomfort / unease / or just a sense of inaccuracy in calling it wholly romantic or platonic.

[Firefly8]

12 minutes ago, Lichley said:

Alterous attraction is sort of the middle ground between platonic and romantic. It blurs the lines a lot and makes it hard to pin down a specific definition.

 

The Aromantics Wiki says:  

 

Alterous is described as neither being (entirely/completely) platonic nor romantic, & is an attraction best described as wanting emotional closeness without necessarily being (at all or entirely) platonic &/or romantic, & is used in the place of -romantic or -platonic (so say bi-alterous instead of bi-romantic).

Someone can be both alterous & romantic &/or platonic & can have varying degrees on attraction, ultimately feel discomfort / unease / or just a sense of inaccuracy in calling it wholly romantic or platonic.

Woah woah woah....There's an Aromantics Wiki!?
*goes to wiki page*
Well I'll be.
There's overlap of course with the main Wikipedia aro page and the AVEN wiki aro page, but the more aro wiki pages the merrier I guess.

[a_subtle_reality]

1 hour ago, SithGrinch said:

With my bf, I enjoy being with him and spending time with him to a more intense degree than I've ever felt with friends. I don't get tired of being with him even after hours together, and I want to keep talking to him and hearing what he has to say, I want to share part of myself with him and have him share part of himself with me. I don't feel that with friends, even my best friends. I imagine if I were to have multiple partners, I'd feel the same way. 

 

1 hour ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

It's not to say some platonic or alterous relationships can't be deep, but they would still have a different tone, and it'd be more like how you'd care for a good friend or a sibling, not a depth that conveys you want to be there with them all the way (and maybe see parts of them they wouldn't show someone else). Romantic love means you hold them very dear in your heart, and want to be with them, connected as deep as you can. And in the case of monogamy, may want to be with them and close for your entire life (within reason and depending on how strongly you feel about them). There would definitely be more attachment, and missing them more when they're not there. (not sure how that would change in a poly relationship tho, even if I am slightly poly myself.)

 

Interesting - the way you describe friendship here isn't how I would. Someone who's company you grow tired of, or with whom you wouldn't want to share the deeper parts of yourself, or don't hold especially dear in your heart, or don't miss their absence (when you think of them, which would be often enough though perhaps not constantly) , or wouldn't want in your life for the indefinitely-long-term if possible - that sounds more like a well-liked colleague or aquaintence, a drinking buddy, a "work friend" or just someone you get on with and share interests. In those cases I might use a phrase like "I've been doing X with a friend of mine" (where X is some project or activity) or "my friends at Y" where Y is some sports club where I get on particularly well with a couple of people and hang out with them after events... for lack of better words and for the sake of succinctness, but I wouldn't think of them as particularly close friends by any stretch. Kind of just-inside-the-line purely on account of "aquaintence" implying you haven't spent much time with them / don't know them that well. Though those sorts of things could certainly lead to friendships proper, or close friendship.

 

Perhaps it's because I've never really gone in for (or felt comfortable in) large social groups? I've had maybe three or four friendships that I've maintained for a while though I didn't feel particularly close, but for the most part I've had somewhere between one and three close friends at any time. Tending more to male side when I was younger, more to the female side in the last decade or so, but it's an individual thing.

 

This is consistent with my observation that "friends" tends to be often taken as a loose association without a particularly close connection though 😕. Calling close friendship 'alterous' doesn't seem right, on the other hand, though the Greek concept of 'philia' rings true for those cases.

 

The kind of situations I was confused about were like what I'd call "close friendship" but with a somewhat higher intensity than usual... now I'm wondering if I was using a well understood definition for "close friendship" to start with 🤣🧐😖

[Sarah-Sylvia]

20 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

 

 

Interesting - the way you describe friendship here isn't how I would. Someone who's company you grow tired of, or with whom you wouldn't want to share the deeper parts of yourself, or don't hold especially dear in your heart, or don't miss their absence (when you think of them, which would be often enough though perhaps not constantly) , or wouldn't want in your life for the indefinitely-long-term if possible - that sounds more like a well-liked colleague or aquaintence, a drinking buddy, a "work friend" or just someone you get on with and share interests. In those cases I might use a phrase like "I've been doing X with a friend of mine" (where X is some project or activity) or "my friends at Y" where Y is some sports club where I get on particularly well with a couple of people and hang out with them after events... for lack of better words and for the sake of succinctness, but I wouldn't think of them as particularly close friends by any stretch. Kind of just-inside-the-line purely on account of "aquaintence" implying you haven't spent much time with them / don't know them that well. Though those sorts of things could certainly lead to friendships proper, or close friendship.

 

Perhaps it's because I've never really gone in for (or felt comfortable in) large social groups? I've had maybe three or four friendships that I've maintained for a while though I didn't feel particularly close, but for the most part I've had somewhere between one and three close friends at any time. Tending more to male side when I was younger, more to the female side in the last decade or so, but it's an individual thing.

 

This is consistent with my observation that "friends" tends to be often taken as a loose association without a particularly close connection though 😕. Calling close friendship 'alterous' doesn't seem right, on the other hand, though the Greek concept of 'philia' rings true for those cases.

I wouldn't consider a close friendship to be about being alterous. I would just say it's a higher level of platonic love
I don't consider friends acquaintances at all, it's way different, so maybe there's a few layers missing in the range you're looking at?

I know it's hard by words alone to be able to tell the differences, but to me a close friend would be someone that I 'can' feel close with, but definitely not all the time, and it wouldn't feel as intimate, and there's some things they might not connect with even if they care and may want to help me or support me. Getting closer would be on occasions, or when  one of us is feeling a certain way and need some attention and maybe even friendly love (and it wouldn't be the same level of affection as romantic by a good bit). I wouldn't want to be with a friend all the time, but not because I'd be tired of them, but because we'd want to go on with our lives after hanging out. If I love someone romantically then I may have to pry myself away from them lol.

Edit: I have noticed though, that people who're aromantic tend to put more into their friendships, or have more depth to the ones that are close.

[elizabeth17]

my partner and I had trouble distinguishing between different types of attraction when we decided to label our relationship a partnership. We had been friends for over a year before we became emotionally closer/intimate and then became more physically intimate. Because the physical/emotional intimacy progressed slowly and very naturally we had trouble telling what was platonic, romantic, and sensual attraction (i hadn't heard of alterous attraction at the time; that actually makes a lot of sense to me now). At the end of the day we decided we wanted to call each other partners to express our commitment to each other and importance of the relationship in our lives. We chose the word partner because it doesn't necessarily imply the type of attraction in the partnership. So I don't necessarily think distinguishing between platonic and romantic attraction is important as long as there is communication in the partnership. 

[a_subtle_reality]

21 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I wouldn't consider a close friendship to be about being alterous. I would just say it's a higher level of platonic love
I don't consider friends acquaintances at all, it's way different, so maybe there's a few layers missing in the range you're looking at?

I know it's hard by words alone to be able to tell the differences, but to me a close friend would be someone that I 'can' feel close with, but definitely not all the time, and it wouldn't feel as intimate, and there's some things they might not connect with even if they care and may want to help me or support me. Getting closer would be on occasions, or when  one of us is feeling a certain way and need some attention and maybe even friendly love (and it wouldn't be the same level of affection as romantic by a good bit). I wouldn't want to be with a friend all the time, but not because I'd be tired of them, but because we'd want to go on with our lives after hanging out. If I love someone romantically then I may have to pry myself away from them lol.

I think you're right, there's a few layers in there... where you use "close friend" there I'd use "friend" but wouldn't add "close"... For me "close" implies a steady deeper connection and affection, quite likely someone you would have to pry yourself away from - excepting perhaps that you usually know, without planning or arrangement, that you'll next see each other very soon and can pick up where you left off. A close friend, to me, is someone you can have stay over for months, talking late into the night about anything and nothing, and enjoy every moment of it and miss them when they go.

[SithLord]

18 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

Someone who's company you grow tired of

I'm just going to point out that literally with none of my friends can I spend an entire day with them and not want to be alone at some point. I spent a 5 day stretch with one particular friend where we were stuck together and by god was I sick of her by the end of it. We also faught a few different times during the 5-day stretch. 

That's what I mean. I don't mean like talking to someone for an hour and then being over it. 

 

19 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

with whom you wouldn't want to share the deeper parts of yourself

I talk about a lot of things with my friends, most notably my best friends. But there are things that I only share with my sister and boyfriend. My friends don't need to know about medical shit or stuff I wouldn't post on AVEN. I love my friends, but they aren't connected to me in the same deep way.

If we define friendships seperately, then sure, that's on you.

 

21 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

don't hold especially dear in your heart

Would need a clarification on this as it's vague. Would I miss my friends if they were gone? Yeah. Would I be brought to tears over missing them? No. I feel empty when I can't talk to my sister and/or my boyfriend at least once a day. I feel isolated and broken and hollow, and none of my friends can truely fill that for me. They'd be like putting a bandaid on a giant gash in my arm: helps a little but not  in the grand scheme of things. Though it's better when I'm around more friends. It's mostly how I feel now since I'm in Japan.

 

24 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

don't miss their absence (when you think of them, which would be often enough though perhaps not constantly)

Like I said above. I miss them, just don't feel empty by their abcense. I don't think of my friends every day, just maybe once a week like "Hey, I wonder what they're up to" and likely not enough to actually reach out and ask them. 

 

25 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

wouldn't want in your life for the indefinitely-long-term if possible

Never said that. Though I would say "don't need them in your life for the indefinitely-long-term." My closest friends I haven't talked to in months. Well, one I messaged a few times last week. It's different because of the schedule we're on, but I also don't feel the need to have them fill my life. I like being alone and hanging out with my boyfriend and will hang out with my sister when I can. I like my friends and would like to have them long term, but other than my friend who has been there since 9th grade, the closest friends I have I became friends with only a couple years ago. And realistically? Probably not going to last until death, especially if my plan to move to Europe works out.

 

 

But yeah, I'd say you need to define what you mean by "close friendship." For me, friends are who I enjoy talking to on a regular basis. Close friends are one's I'd actually ask to hang out together. The closest ones are who I talk about periods and gross/weird shit with. The only ones for me who seem to fit your definition for are my bf and my sister. But I was a navy brat who grew up learning relationships are easily broken and don't last long, so only attach yourself to those around and let the others fade. Only exception for this has been my bf and blood relations.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

I think you're right, there's a few layers in there... where you use "close friend" there I'd use "friend" but wouldn't add "close"... For me "close" implies a steady deeper connection and affection, quite likely someone you would have to pry yourself away from - excepting perhaps that you usually know, without planning or arrangement, that you'll next see each other very soon and can pick up where you left off. A close friend is someone you can have stay over for months, talking late into the night about anything and nothing, and enjoy every moment of it and miss them when they go.

Mhm. I think here we see the difference between someone romantic and someone aromantic. It's not the first time that someone aromantic has made me see that they put more into their friendships. To me that would be more than a close friend, ... like, a soul sister/brother or something. I don't know exactly how I'd put it in normal terms. I think most romantic people get their fill from their partners, and don't get quite as close with their friends. That's my theory anyway.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I don't think this is a romantic vs aromantic thing at all, cos I'm romantic and am incredibly close with my besties. We know pretty much everything about each other (within reason, their bedroom activities are not my business even though I may hear about them from time to time). I'd be devastated to lose them, miss them when I don't see them and could live with them for months on end if we needed to. Yet I'm hella romantic, incredibly soppy and need private time with my beau too, away from everyone else. One of the reasons I was confused as to whether I was romantic is that my partner is basically a bestie I desire sensual contact with and want to say "sweet nothings" to; there really aren't many other differences. But I experienced limerence and an embarrassing amount of crushing around him at first so, yeah, romantic.

 

To me, if someone isn't close enough you don't miss them or want to spend time with them, they aren't a friend but an acquaintance.

[a_subtle_reality]

4 minutes ago, SithGrinch said:

I'm just going to point out that literally with none of my friends can I spend an entire day with them and not want to be alone at some point. I spent a 5 day stretch with one particular friend where we were stuck together and by god was I sick of her by the end of it. We also faught a few different times during the 5-day stretch. 

That's what I mean. I don't mean like talking to someone for an hour and then being over it. 

Yeah that's firmly in "somewhat liked aquaintence" category for me 🤣. "Fun in some contexts and tolerable in small doses" isn't quite what I'd call "friends".

 

6 minutes ago, SithGrinch said:

My friends don't need to know about medical shit or stuff I wouldn't post on AVEN.

 

I'm with you there on the first point definitely (though it depends on the person, it wouldn't make me uncomfortable and i have some friends who are in medical fields and it doesn't phase them in the least in either direction, but thats not true for all my friends, and there's really no need in general), on the second point there are particular things I'd share with some friends and vice versa that are more emotionally significant than I'd be comfortable sharing on a forum, anonymously or not.

 

20 minutes ago, SithGrinch said:

I feel isolated and broken and hollow, and none of my friends can truely fill that for me. They'd be like putting a bandaid on a giant gash in my arm: helps a little but not  in the grand scheme of things. Though it's better when I'm around more friends. It's mostly how I feel now since I'm in Japan.

 

 

That's... actually a really, really good description of where I'd distinguish between "aquaintence / friends", "friends" and "close friends". In the absence of close friends, having only "aquaintence / friends" around makes little difference, regular friends is helpful particularly if there's a few, but only to a point. I suppose the differences are I have a few close friends whose company I find fulfilling in the absence of others, rather than just a couple of people I'd miss deeply. I can get by well enough just on my own as well (I lean toward the introverted side) but definitely feel the absence of close friends quite regularly, in times where there haven't been many around) 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

31 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I don't think this is a romantic vs aromantic thing at all, cos I'm romantic and am incredibly close with my besties. We know pretty much everything about each other (within reason, their bedroom activities are not my business even though I may hear about them from time to time). I'd be devastated to lose them, miss them when I don't see them and could live with them for months on end if we needed to. Yet I'm hella romantic, incredibly soppy and need private time with my beau too, away from everyone else. One of the reasons I was confused as to whether I was romantic is that my partner is basically a bestie I desire sensual contact with and want to say "sweet nothings" to; there really aren't many other differences. But I experienced limerence and an embarrassing amount of crushing around him at first so, yeah, romantic.

 

To me, if someone isn't close enough you don't miss them or want to spend time with them, they aren't a friend but an acquaintance.

Well, whether you're romantic or not, it's not quite the norm to be romantic with friends, I think mane people would disagree about what you consider the level of friendship. An acquaintance is someone you see at work or connected through your friends or family that you may just talk a little to or hang out because they're there. A friend is someone you actually enjoy and go out of your way to hang out with. My idea of a close friend is a little more close than @SithGrinch's, but I think it's quite common for someone to have friends that they enjoy being with but wouldn't necessarily miss when they're away. There can be attachment to friends, but personally I would consider that a good friend at least, probably.

It's mostly semantics, but I hope it's not too hard to understand
(I think it's normal to have a bit of different takes on it too, especially on this site)

[SithLord]

For me:

Acquaintance = someone I get along with and am around because of the context, but will not continue the relationship once the context changes (coworkers, classmates, etc.). I do not miss them when there are not there unless there are no friends or acquaintances nearby.

Friends = people I regularly get along with and will seek out in certain contexts (coworkers I enjoy shifts with and miss when we're not working together, classmates I talk to between classes and prefer to work on projects with, etc.). I miss them when they're not there and enjoy talking with them, but if the relationship ends then I'm going to let it fade and not be too sad about it.

Close friends = people I hang out with outside of the context when I met them and regularly interacted with them through. Ones I will go out of my way with to connect with on social media and check in on them through it. Ones I will miss if the relationship fades and will bother trying to maintain the relationship. 

 

Mostly what you, OP, describe as close friends doesn't exist in my world. Only with blood relations or my bf. But I'm with Sarah-Sylvia in that I often see aromantics with much closer friendships than I have.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

17 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Well, whether you're romantic or not, I think mane people would disagree about what you consider the level of friendship. An acquaintance is someone you see at work or connected through your friends or family that you just talk a little to. A friend is someone you actually enjoy and go out of your way to hang out with. My idea of a close friend is a little more close than @SithGrinch's, but I think it's quite common for someone to have friends that they enjoy being with but wouldn't miss when they're away. It seems very odd for me to consider that an acquaintance. There can be attachment to friends, but personally I would consider that a good friend, probably.

It's mostly semantics, but I hope it's not too hard to understand

It's not hard to understand, it just doesn't align with my view of friendship. Proper friendship is very important to me, especially since I'm not close to my human family and can only allow myself to be close-close with two vehicles (who are legally mine, thus cannot be taken away without my permission). If I consider you a true friend you've probably seen me cry, have a mental breakdown or confess my innermost feelings, because they're the only ones who get to see that (willingly).

 

12 minutes ago, SithGrinch said:

Mostly what you, OP, describe as close friends doesn't exist in my world. Only with blood relations or my bf. But I'm with Sarah-Sylvia in that I often see aromantics with much closer friendships than I have.

Which I can't grasp, because I'm not remotely close enough to my family to even comprehend telling them personal things or actually wanting to spend time with them. My partner, yes, my car-uncle-bro, yes again, my close human friends, absolutely. Perhaps it's because I'm aro-ace with humans, that I only value friendship with (some) of them and there are no competing romantic interests, but the cars are on an altogether, fundamental and deeper plane entirely.

[SithLord]

2 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Which I can't grasp, because I'm not remotely close enough to my family to even comprehend telling them personal things or actually wanting to spend time with them.

I was a navy brat. Until I was around 10, I had moved around and lost friendship after friendship with people because suddenly I'm hours away and in a different timezone. By the time we settled down, I was now a shy, nervous, introverted child who was the new kid and therefore isolated by everyone around. It was easiest to turn to my sister (we're twins) when I needed companionship, my older brother when I wanted someone to emulate, my parents for advice/help, etc. There were no other constants in my life until then and I got used to it.

Now, as an adult, I let friendships fade and am super close to my sister and partner, and if I'm hit hard with emotions, I'd turn to them or my mom before I'd turn to my friends. She's always been there for me and I know she always will. 

[a_subtle_reality]

54 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

[...] I'd be devastated to lose them, miss them when I don't see them and could live with them for months on end if we needed to. [...]

 

To me, if someone isn't close enough you don't miss them or want to spend time with them, they aren't a friend but an acquaintance.

100% this, for me.

 

With close friends I do get what seems to fit some aspects of the descriptions of limerance (not at first, it's something that develops)... but doesn't quite match all the aspects that described for 'soppy' / new love.

 

As for sensuality... the typical English/American uptightness about physical touch has never sat well with me, so maybe I'm operating from a different baseline there. I find sensuality very fulfilling and I do feel the lack of it generally, but it doesn't seem linked with other emotions, or even be a desire with particular people, so much. I'd have to like someone a fair bit and be comfortable with them for more intimate (but non sexual) sensuality to feel right (plus some other quality I'm not sure of, and usually with someone of the opposite sex), but it doesn't necessarily correspond to that friendship-limerance one way or the other, for example. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

1 minute ago, SithGrinch said:

I was a navy brat. Until I was around 10, I had moved around and lost friendship after friendship with people because suddenly I'm hours away and in a different timezone. By the time we settled down, I was now a shy, nervous, introverted child who was the new kid and therefore isolated by everyone around. It was easiest to turn to my sister (we're twins) when I needed companionship, my older brother when I wanted someone to emulate, my parents for advice/help, etc. There were no other constants in my life until then and I got used to it.

Now, as an adult, I let friendships fade and am super close to my sister and partner, and if I'm hit hard with emotions, I'd turn to them or my mom before I'd turn to my friends. She's always been there for me and I know she always will. 

Yeah, I absolutely don't get that. I was passed around like an orphan, abandoned and abused by people who were supposed to care and only ever had a very few actual friends (who didn't turn out to bully me behind my back) who I could turn to, and initially I isolated myself from them too. I have no biological siblings, though it could be argued my closest friends have taken that role. Cars have pretty much been the only ones I've ever felt truly safe and at home with; I was telling them all my feelings long before I ever admitted them to a human, a trait I continue to this day.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

26 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

It's not hard to understand, it just doesn't align with my view of friendship. Proper friendship is very important to me, especially since I'm not close to my human family and can only allow myself to be close-close with two vehicles (who are legally mine, thus cannot be taken away without my permission). If I consider you a true friend you've probably seen me cry, have a mental breakdown or confess my innermost feelings, because they're the only ones who get to see that (willingly).

 

Which I can't grasp, because I'm not remotely close enough to my family to even comprehend telling them personal things or actually wanting to spend time with them. My partner, yes, my car-uncle-bro, yes again, my close human friends, absolutely. Perhaps it's because I'm aro-ace with humans, that I only value friendship with (some) of them and there are no competing romantic interests, but the cars are on an altogether, fundamental and deeper plane entirely.

Oh I would consider a true friend to be like that too. but 'true friend' is like a very close friend, in my terms at least. I would be able to share a whole lot with a true friend. To me openness and transparency or 'rawness' doesn't mean romance. I could be like that with a friend, and share quite a bit with them if I trust them.

Now I'm a little confused though, and I hope you can understand since this is my first time talking with someone mecha-anything. But I thought you meant you were romantic with your (human) friends. I guess this means in the end you are aromantic then, at least for human relations. I'm not saying there aren't romantic people who can also be very intimate with their friends in the same way some aromantics I've seen here can be, but I think it's rare. (including especially for cis men)

Anyway, going back to the topic, I think that it can be hard for some aromantics to understand romantic attraction, not just because they don't experience it, but also because some of them are still able to love deeply and see some depths of intimacy in friendships, and it ends up being more alterous than just platonic.

As for sensuality, I really like touching, so if I did have a close friend, who also liked touching or being touched, I could see myself being sensual with them. And typically that's something I'd consider more romantic, so I don't know where the line would be, but it's possible in those case that a little romance would leak out

[Anthracite_Impreza]

1 minute ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Now I'm a little confused though, and I hope you can understand since this is my first time talking with someone mecha-anything. But I thought you meant you were romantic with your (human) friends. I guess this means in the end you are aromantic then, when it comes to it. I'm not saying there aren't romantic people who can also be very intimate with their friends in the same way some aromantics I've seen here can be, but I think it's very rare.

No I'm romantically oriented to machines (mecha = machine), so I'm not aro, but I'm not romantic towards humans.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

No I'm romantically oriented to machines (mecha = machine), so I'm not aro, but I'm not romantic towards humans.

Yes I understand. It's just humans have a lot more barriers to intimacy, among other things. That's why I think it makes a difference.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Just now, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Yes I understand. It's just humans have a lot more barriers to intimacy. That's why I think it makes a difference.

I mean you say that, but I absolutely couldn't get away with being as physically close with Blitz as Clutch, he'd hate it (been there, done that, got the chastisement). Every machine has their limit.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

3 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I mean you say that, but I absolutely couldn't get away with being as physically close with Blitz as Clutch, he'd hate it (been there, done that, got the chastisement). Every machine has their limit.

Well, I suppose that gets me an idea of how you relate there. Now that I do I'll stop commenting on it, including to not go too off-topic 😜

[a_subtle_reality]

54 minutes ago, SithGrinch said:

Mostly what you, OP, describe as close friends doesn't exist in my world. Only with blood relations or my bf. But I'm with Sarah-Sylvia in that I often see aromantics with much closer friendships than I have.

This is kind of the motivation behind the original question. Finding those close friendships without it being mistaken for something else to one side or the other isn't always easy, which is where the trouble with definitions and communication comes in... dating carries an expectation of at least romantic feeling on one hand, outside of dating, expressing the desire for (or experience of) more than what @SithGrinch and @Sarah-Sylvia have described can lead to confusion about what the intent is.

 

I think based on the above discussion, "friends" or "platonic friends" has too much potential for confusion, as different people have very different definitions.. "alterous" is good but a bit obscure. "Platonic romantic" would be great apart from all the words being incorrect 🤣 (when read the common ways) 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

13 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

This is kind of the motivation behind the original question. Finding those close friendships without it being mistaken for something else to one side or the other isn't always easy, which is where the trouble with definitions and communication comes in... dating carries an expectation of at least romantic feeling on one hand, outside of dating, expressing the desire for (or experience of) more than what @SithGrinch and @Sarah-Sylvia have described can lead to confusion about what the intent is.

 

I think based on the above discussion, "friends" or "platonic friends" has too much potential for confusion, as different people have very different definitions.. "alterous" is good but a bit obscure. "Platonic romantic" would be great apart from all the words being incorrect 🤣

Honestly you're probably onto something as much as anyone who's thought about it I don't feel that it's been thought about quite as much as 'normal' relationships. I definitely think it's interesting, especially that I'm maybe 28% poly or more, and to me, to some degree, it can mean just not limiting the intimacy I could have with different people. It could be possible for me be intimate and romantic with someone but not feel like I'd want them as an exclusive partner, but in my thoughts I'd still consider it a romantic relationship, it's just not 'as' romantic as one that would be monoamorous to me (which would mean I love them enough to feel like I wouldn't need anyone else).
I'm not entirely sure about all my feelings around this, I have to speculate a tiny bit 😜

I think that if I were to get very close to a friend and it'd turn very intimate like in the cases you mentioned, it would probably roll into romance at some point too,.. so it makes it hard for me to think of a relationship on that line. It would have to be because of how they feel about romance (like if they didn't feel good about me or us being romantic). I'd feel a bit under pressure inside though, like maybe I'd have trouble not getting romantic or sensual

[SithLord]

7 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

I think based on the above discussion, "friends" or "platonic friends" has too much potential for confusion, as different people have very different definitions.. "alterous" is good but a bit obscure. "Platonic romantic" would be great apart from all the words being incorrect 🤣 (when read the common ways) 

"Friends" I consider to always be a platonic term. Yes, I'm friends with family and partners, but if romance or familial ties are connected, calling the person my friend feels only correct when it's also clarified how they are connected to me on a deeper level. Like if I introduced my bf as my friend, that would not be good unless I was denying our relationship, but if I said to someone "I love brbdogsonfire. He's my friend and partner." then it would make sense. 

 

Also, I consider "platonic romantic" to be an oxymoron. It's self-contradictory as romantic and platonic cannot coexist. If I'm romantically interested in someone, I'm no longer platonically interested in them. I can hang out with my bf platonically, like interacting in ways friends might, but if I was with my friends romantically then there's something going on there. 

 

I think these are the terms we're never going to hammer out "one true" definition for. If the definitions are important, you can just define yourself and ask others to respect those definitions for the sake of the discussion. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

15 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Well, I suppose that gets me an idea of how you relate there. Now that I do I'll stop commenting on it, including to not go too off-topic 😜

I think it's perfectly on topic, in fact for me it shows the obvious difference between platonic and romantic actions and feelings. There are some things I will do with Clutch I would never with Blitz, some things I would say, some things I would feel. I love them both equally, but differently. Describing the difference comes back to the same old "you know it when you feel it" description.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

4 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I think it's perfectly on topic, in fact for me it shows the obvious difference between platonic and romantic actions and feelings. There are some things I will do with Clutch I would never with Blitz, some things I would say, some things I would feel. I love them both equally, but differently. Describing the difference comes back to the same old "you know it when you feel it" description.

What I meant is that it would be off-topic for me to say what's on my mind, because I have a totally different view of relationships with non-biological. (And I do have some, btw, so I'm not saying I'm against them, just that I view romance there as different enough) So I would rather the topic stay on relationships other people can relate to more.

[a_subtle_reality]

19 minutes ago, SithGrinch said:

Also, I consider "platonic romantic" to be an oxymoron. It's self-contradictory as romantic and platonic cannot coexist. If I'm romantically interested in someone, I'm no longer platonically interested in them. I can hang out with my bf platonically, like interacting in ways friends might, but if I was with my friends romantically then there's something going on there.

Well, two common definition of a "Platonic" relationship are "non physical" and "non sexual".  And "romantic" is commonly taken to be a particular kind of emotion, rather than being about physicality. Under those definitions it's not an oxymoron - someone can be deeply in romantic love but not want the physical side (or be in love despite the physical side not being possible, as in cases where there's been an accident or medical condition affecting one or both people).

 

In my case, the 'platonic' would have to mean "I don't particularly care about the physical / sexual aspects, though that would be nice (in some cases) ", and the 'romantic' would have to mean "deeper, more intimate and more committed than what many people consider the very closest friendship, but not being in love per se". Neither of which matches the definitions which come to mind for those words very well 😝