Distinguishing platonic vs asexual romantic attraction

[Sarah-Sylvia]

3 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

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 in romantic love but not want the physical side (or despite that not being possible, as in cases where there's been an accident or medical condition affecting one partner).

 

In my case, the 'platonic' would have to mean "I don't particularly care about the physical / sexual aspects, though that would be nice", 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 a definition for those words 😝

Well, going by some definitions:
" Platonic love (often lower-cased as platonic[1]) is a type of love, or close relationship, that is non-romantic. "

I can understand what @SithGrinch meant. But I also get what you mean But it's also because it's considered non-romantic that I think it pushes it back a little more towards less depth. Which is why I like the term alterous now that I know about it, to mean relationships that have more depth and closeness but aren't quite as romantic.

[SithLord]

7 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

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 in romantic love but not want the physical side (or despite that not being possible, as in cases where there's been an accident or medical condition affecting one partner).

 

In my case, the 'platonic' would have to mean "I don't particularly care about the physical / sexual aspects, though that would be nice", 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 a definition for those words 😝

While I can respect your right to use different definitions, I looked up "platonic definition" and found 3 different ones: not romantic (Wikipedia), not sexual (Google and Cambridge), and not sexual or romantic (Merriam-Webster). 

[a_subtle_reality]

@SithGrinch, @Sarah-Sylvia

 

Well, "sexual" and "romantic" are commonly conflated terms, so it's not terribly surprising that some sources would skip "non sexual" as a distinct definition.

 

I do agree that "not romantic" is one definition in use, but if that were a sufficiently dominant definition, describing what I'm talking about as a "deep platonic friendship" would be quite sufficient and unambiguous, and that's clearly not the case...

[SithLord]

Just now, a_subtle_reality said:

@SithGrinch, @Sarah-Sylvia

 

Well, "sexual" and "romantic" are commonly conflated terms, so it's not terribly surprising that some sources would skip "non sexual" as a distinct definition.

 

I do agree that "not romantic" is one definition in use, but if that were the dominant definition, describing what I'm talking about as a "deep platonic friendship" would be quite clear and unambiguous, and that's clearly not the case...

I understand "deep platonic friendship". It's what I understand QPRs to be. But what you've described as close friendships I'd only do with people I'm romantically linked to, or am incapable of doing with others. I've never had a friendship as deep as you've been describing, so it's an interesting idea.

 

But if I were to cement some firm differences, culture is what separates romantic actions from platonic ones. Some cultures can have boys holding hands without it being seen as gay. Some cultures have light kissing to strangers or relatives and it's not weird. Some cultures and people have friends who regularly cuddle. 

So any clear, hard lines between "platonic" and "romantic" would have to be isolated by culture and/or society. 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

11 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

@SithGrinch, @Sarah-Sylvia

 

Well, "sexual" and "romantic" are commonly conflated terms, so it's not terribly surprising that some sources would skip "non sexual" as a distinct definition.

 

I do agree that "not romantic" is one definition in use, but if that were the dominant definition, describing what I'm talking about as a "deep platonic friendship" would be quite sufficient and unambiguous, and that's clearly not the case...

I think the problem is that platonic is used in different ways,  But there are definitions that do allow for it to be deep and meaningful. But since it can be seen as non-romantic, and then even romance can be see as high levels of intimacy without having to include sexuality (while other definitions include it), it makes it hard to come to terms

It's just, if you want to use the term platonic for even the high levels of intimacy you mentioned, then there really aren't any differences besides physicality and exclusivity. And just like I take out sexuality from romance, since I know for a fact that they don't have to go together, I can also take out sensuality, and they might be about the same thing. Personally I can't go without sensuality, but I can imagine someone being romantic without having to be physical in that way.

So, I'm sure you must get what I mean. In the end it's all about love. How much you love someone. For me if I love someone very much it'll spill into romance, I'd just stare into their eyes while holding their hands in affection. Can that happen for platonic love? If so, then I have to say it's pretty darn romantic in my book

[a_subtle_reality]

 

1 hour ago, SithGrinch said:

I understand "deep platonic friendship". It's what I understand QPRs to be.

From my understanding, QPR typically refers to relationships having the kind of pattern of boy/girl/other-friends, but without the sexual and/or romantic side. The definition is somewhat loose so I guess it could stretch to what I'm talking about, but that's also true of a number of other terms we've discussed here 😕 ... and it has "Platonic" as the middle word so that's still an issue.

 

1 hour ago, SithGrinch said:

But if I were to cement some firm differences, culture is what separates romantic actions from platonic ones. Some cultures can have boys holding hands without it being seen as gay. Some cultures have light kissing to strangers or relatives and it's not weird. Some cultures and people have friends who regularly cuddle. 

So any clear, hard lines between "platonic" and "romantic" would have to be isolated by culture and/or society. 

Agreed. And some of those things I don't personally find weird in a non-romantic context, but it can be frightfully hard to go against local cultural convention like that.

 

1 hour ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

It's just, if you want to use the term platonic for even the high levels of intimacy you mentioned, then there really aren't any differences besides physicality and exclusivity. 

That's kind of what I was afraid of 😝 ...

 

1 hour ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

For me if I love someone very much it'll spill into romance, I'd just stare into their eyes while holding their hands in affection. Can that happen for platonic love? If so, then I have to say it's pretty darn romantic in my book

For platonic love? Absolutely it can. For me on the other hand, been there tried that, not my cup o tea apparently. Though with someone I really like as a friend there can be a heightened perception of aesthetic qualities - though again, this also happens in cases that (before today 😋) I would have described as definitely non romantic. 

 

---

 

The crux of the problem is when I try to express my intent (either in an intro/bio or as a direct answer to a question), "I want to be close friends" seems hugely closer to what I feel than "I want to date", but apparently both those statements are dead wrong (I thought the first was better but apparently not for everyone) and the "uncertainty" comes off as uncommitted, confusing or shifty. Which is silly, I know exactly what I mean 😅, it's finding a neat way to express it without a long confusing explanation which is the trick.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

33 minutes ago, a_subtle_reality said:

For platonic love? Absolutely it can. For me on the other hand, been there tried that, not my cup o tea apparently. Though with someone I really like as a friend there can be a heightened perception of aesthetic qualities - though again, this also happens in cases that (before today 😋) I would have described as definitely non romantic. 

 

---

 

The crux of the problem is when I try to express my intent (either in an intro/bio or as a direct answer to a question), "I want to be close friends" seems hugely closer to what I feel than "I want to date", but apparently both those statements are dead wrong (I thought the first was better but apparently not for everyone) and the "uncertainty" comes off as uncommitted, confusing or shifty. Which is silly, I know exactly what I mean 😅, it's finding a neat way to express it without a long confusing explanation which is the trick.

Yeah good luck finding a way to express it

QPR might be closer to what you're talking a bout than you think. But really I think that a close friendship could work if you add a little. Like maybe intimate close friendship, maybe adding that you're asexual and aromantic . That could maybe be enough.

I'm not sure why you brought up aesthetic attraction for what I said, and it makes me think maybe you thought staring someone in the eyes in an aesthetic sense? Because I really meant it far from that. I'm talking about connecting with someone. You look at them, they look at you, and there's something exchanged, beyond words. It's romantic, it's intimate, and there can be a recognition of closeness on a pretty high level just from it.
But anyway, if you say that platonic love can be like that, then to me it means there's no difference between that and romantic love. So, there needs to be some difference. Maybe it's just the intensity. I think that what you consider a close friendship is a bit too intense to be seen as platonic, it's either that or admitting that they are not opposed, that is to say that  how you feel about your close friendships IS romantic. (Or can have some). If you have high levels of affection and care and want to be close and intimate, it's pretty romantic to me. But who's to say

I gotta go, time to sleep. (zzzz)

[Anthracite_Impreza]

2 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

So I would rather the topic stay on relationships other people can relate to more.

So what you're saying is I should shut up cos my orientation is too weird for others to relate to? Do you see how that might be really fucking hurtful? I've already held back on multiple threads today but I thought this might be open-ended enough to have a shot at. But nvm, I'm used to my opinions being dismissed because of my orientation and beliefs.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

I dunno if I should've checked the forum again..
 

20 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

So what you're saying is I should shut up cos my orientation is too weird for others to relate to? Do you see how that might be really fucking hurtful? I've already held back on multiple threads today but I thought this might be open-ended enough to have a shot at. But nvm, I'm used to my opinions being dismissed because of my orientation and beliefs.

And you're obviously sensitive about it since I was mainly talking about me, not you. I will say though that there's some things I don't talk about unless I feel like it's an appropriate environment for it. I definitely have a different view, and maybe that would conflict with yours, I dunno, but I think it's normal that it can happen. If you think that was hurtful, then you could maybe consider a different approach, because there's bound to be differing views.
Anyway, just this talk has been off-topic, so I'd rather we stop after this post. (not that we couldn't pm or something)
I don't have anything tomorow, but I wanna go with my plan to go to bed, so ttyl.

[SithLord]

27 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

So what you're saying is I should shut up cos my orientation is too weird for others to relate to? Do you see how that might be really fucking hurtful? I've already held back on multiple threads today but I thought this might be open-ended enough to have a shot at. But nvm, I'm used to my opinions being dismissed because of my orientation and beliefs.

She repeatedly tried to make this not about being about your specific orientation but more the general idea of romanticism as a whole. Because indeed your conversation was getting into more mecha-based stuff than the topic at hand. 

[a_subtle_reality]

5 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Yeah good luck finding a way to express it

QPR might be closer to what you're talking a bout than you think. But really I think that a close friendship could work if you add a little. Like maybe intimate close friendship, maybe adding that you're asexual and aromantic . That could maybe be enough.

That has been kind of my strategy so far. Mentioning QPRs may help, that at least gives an external reference for the intensity of feeling I have, without getting into a game of 20 questions each of which compares "casual friendship" to "intense/full romance" as though there were nothing in between 🙄

 

5 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I'm not sure why you brought up aesthetic attraction for what I said, and it makes me think maybe you thought staring someone in the eyes in an aesthetic sense? Because I really meant it far from that. I'm talking about connecting with someone. You look at them, they look at you, and there's something exchanged, beyond words. It's romantic, it's intimate, and there can be a recognition of closeness on a pretty high level just from it.

What I was describing isn't that exactly, or "aesthetic attraction" per se - and not so much from the eyes as the face as a whole, and it needn't be in mutual eye contact. And it's not just 'aesthetic' in the way something might have a pleasing form or proportion, it's more like those moments where you encounter a scene of particular natural beauty or a transcendent passage of music, there's a sense of awe / wonder, joy, luminosity and yes, intimate connection. It tends to happen more when someone is animated in sharing their excitement about something (e.g. ideas, skills, or anything they find profound, special or particularly enjoyable), or excited about something I'm sharing in a similar way, or in rapt appreciation of something beautiful or interesting - it feels like more of a shared joy or wonder reflected and amplified by a personal connection, than a mutual contemplation.

 

I do find mutual contemplation mellow and cozy and pleasant (a feeling of being comfortable and 'at home' with someone, and not needing to "fill the space up with words" so to speak), and there is a sense of connection there too, but that's a pretty low key thing by comparison - eye contact isn't a required part of it, but a more direct regard isn't something you get so much in a friendship with too much tension or that edgy sort of energy present, so in that sense it is more intimate. But it certainly doesn't seem to match the kind of euphoric feeling typically described when people talk about gazing into eachothers eyes in a romantic sense though.

 

I don't think I'd call either feeling "romantic" as such (neither is confined to what I'd call close friendships, though theres a correlation with closeness), though there's certainly a particular sort of intimate connection in each - but I suppose it's arguable and opinions may differ 😁, if you regard those as romantic I'm not going to say that's wrong. I'm thinking at this point that "elements of both close friendship and romantic attraction" would come across as more accurate to some people, it doesn't really help clarify things much though, as a description 🙄

 

5 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I think that what you consider a close friendship is a bit too intense to be seen as platonic, it's either that or admitting that they are not opposed, that is to say that how you feel about your close friendships IS romantic. (Or can have some).

To be honest, instinctually I don't feel they are all that opposed (though having spent a good while reading up on descriptions of romantic attraction, there's a lot of the finer detail I don't relate to). And I feel like many people would feel a more intense non-romantic connection / love for their close friends if they let themselves and/or weren't conditioned against it by social norms - but this could all just be the bias of my personal perspective 😋. The awkward part for me is that so many people seem to put great stock in the distinction, and yes, see that as too intense to be platonic (... "therefore it must be romantic", and then they incorrectly infer a bunch of stuff they associate with romantic relationships). Which becomes an worrisome pitfall for communication.

[a_subtle_reality]

@Anthracite_Impreza - regardless of who your feelings happen to be directed to, I think I'm very much in agreement with your thoughts on the experience of close friendship... the challenge of course is communicating that to others who have a different conceptions of the feelings involved and how they ought to be described.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I literally described the difference between platonic and ace romance as I see it, which is the exact question posed by the thread. How exactly is that off topic? Everyone else has talked about their personal partners and friends so yeah, it does very much feel like I'm being singled out solely cos of what they happen to be.

 

@a_subtle_reality, I have no issue with us all having different views on what constitutes romance vs platonic feelings, that's the point, but to be told it's off topic cos of your orientation? Yes I have issues with that. The only reason I even brought it up is because it's a perfect example for me of the difference.

 

But whatever, I'm far too ill to be worrying about this. I will bother you all no more.

[a_subtle_reality]

@Anthracite_Impreza It may be hard for people to relate personally to your romantic orientation or the differences in how you feel about different cars, but the distinctions you made are still useful, and not off topic so far as I can see.  Certainly the level of intimacy you feel with your strictly platonic human friends is very relevant (being much closer than what other commentators considered 'friendship' as), and if I read you correctly, I believe what you were getting at by contrasting the cars was that you can feel even deeper / more intense levels of connection than that again, but still without considering it romantic?

 

To me that indicates (along with a couple of the other early commentators) that my internal view of the distinction isn't unique, which is helpful. The contrast between the range of views, on the other hand, confirms that there's still potential issues in communication between those who draw that line in different places. Making that distinction internally is only half the puzzle though, for me the other half is communicating that distinction, particularly to people I'm interested in (what I regard as) close friendships with, without avoidable misunderstandings (but preferably without having to go deep into things like QPRs and alterous attraction every time).

 

[Rynn]

Hey peeps, please remain civil, don't dismiss others' orientations, and remember that when emotions rise high, it may be better to step away from a discussion and come back to it later with a calm mind.

Laurann,

moderator

[Sarah-Sylvia]

This has definitely been an interesting talk, and not only for going around the distinctions and recognizing the differences between personal lines (of for platonic, romance,and all that), but also talking more with some aromantics. I'm going to step away from the thread for now, but thank you for keeping the talk going and making us think about things
As for @Anthracite_Impreza, I meant the last posts we made were off-topic, not your orientation. I have my own views on non-human relationships and I only wanted to mention that to hint at that I may not connect in the same way. It's not something I want to get into unless it feels right, and it doesn't feel right for me, so take it as you will, but I'm done talking about it for now. I'd rather move on, but maybe i'll check back the thread sometime in the future. Take care.

[Custard Cream]

14 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

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.

excuse me for saying this, Sarah-Sylvia, but you are not the OP on this thread, so it isn't for you to decide what is, or is not, off-topic.  Please allow people to post relevant comments.  If you feel any comments are seriously derailing the thread, please use appropriate channels to complain.  Personally, I don't see how someone's choice of partner being non -bio precludes them having anything to say on the nature of attraction.   

[Sarah-Sylvia]

36 minutes ago, Custard Cream said:

excuse me for saying this, Sarah-Sylvia, but you are not the OP on this thread, so it isn't for you to decide what is, or is not, off-topic.  Please allow people to post relevant comments.  If you feel any comments are seriously derailing the thread, please use appropriate channels to complain.  Personally, I don't see how someone's choice of partner being non -bio precludes them having anything to say on the nature of attraction.   

I don't know why you brought this up after I said it wasn't about that and I'm stepping away from this thread. Also, stating what I think is off-topic doesn't disallow others from saying anything.
Like, talking about this just crowds the thread with drama. I hate drama...anyway. IF you want to talk about anything, you can pm me. Now let it be. I'd rather your post be deleted as well as this one. Because THIS is off-topic.

[Custard Cream]

15 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I don't know why you brought this up after I said it wasn't about that and I'm stepping away from this thread. Also, stating what I think is off-topic doesn't disallow others from saying anything.
Like, talking about this just crowds the thread with drama. I hate drama. IF you want to talk about anything, you can pm me. Now let it be. I'd rather your post be deleted as well as this one. Because THIS is off-topic.
 

Err... fine. I won't be saying anything more. I am not one for drama. Just for fairness.

[Janus the Fox]

None to the above for me, but I’m aromantic for the lack of any of those, but not non-romantic in behaviour with the BF... also I’m mono, I prefer to stay exclusive to one Person at a time.

[BeakLove]

On 12/22/2019 at 11:34 PM, a_subtle_reality said:

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?

I think the answer to your question is rather simple. In the absence of those two things I don't think it's romantic attraction. If you don't have that possessive feeling for someone, the desire to be entangled with them, the infatuation, and you lack sexual attraction to them, or if you want to be even more general; any kind of significant physical attraction, then how is it romantic? 

 

Personally I think it's romantic if you're infatuated with the person - you romanticise them. From there leads all the typical romantic silliness that feels wonderful with someone for whom you have those feelings and often crappy and embarrassing when you don't: the touching, the eye gazing, the "sweet nothings", even the cliche candle meals which are referenced incessantly. But those are the symptoms of the underlying phenomenon.

 

As for your bullet points; I think for most people an "intense" attraction almost inevitably becomes romantic. And an intense attraction usually comes coupled with the desire for physical closeness and contact, generally sexual. So I think the first two are particularly relevant. Is there a meaningful distinction? Only if you settle on a definition of "romantic" which for reasons unknown to me this forum seems reluctant to do. 

[Rynn]

This topic has been inactive for a long time and is now being locked, if anyone would like to discuss the topic further, feel free to start a new thread about it.

Ryn, moderator