PLP and aromantic label

[Gil12]

What are your thought about the possible questions that Platonic life partners raise regarding the usefulness of

the aromantic label to describe the lived experience of people who identify themselves as aromantics?

For those of who haven't heard about this concept, here is the link to the website which leads the movement to normalization of PLP.

Basically,people who are part of PLP partners are exclusive to their best friends which became their life partners,

and they put romance in second place in the hierarchy. 

My initial thoughts are that if the PLP demonsrate that you can separate romance from partnership,

and aromanticism separate sex from romantic relationship,

then the intersection of these arguments create a new insight that aromanticism is not just about romance, it is about the lack of desire to be committed to relationship in a particular manner.

Aromantic people may lead PLP or not, PLP is not just for people who identify themselves across the ace spectrum.

Both concepts challenge the very basic idea of why  exclusive commitment is a neccessary ingredient to have either sex or life together.  

PLP shows that you don't have to be aromantic in order to challenge the role of romance in society

, but it does it from a very different route than aromanticism. 

[WhiteCatandcherries]

10 minutes ago, Gil12 said:

hen the intersection of these arguments create a new insight that aromanticism is not just about romance, it is about the lack of desire to be committed to relationship in a particular manner.

I dont think that you can say this - as you say some aromantic people may choose to have a (queer) platonic life partner - thus not wanting a committed life partner is not inherent to aromanticism.  
For me it makes more sense to still see aromanticism as not feeling romantic attraction/wanting a romanting relationship, but that there also exist a separate parameter of if people even want any kind of committed life partnership.

[Gil12]

@WhiteCatandcherries for wider society it seems that romantic relationship should at one point lead to life partnership, this is why PLP is frowned upon.

I think that aromanticism is about not conflating sexual desire and romantic love feelings, so while for allosexual people who are romantically attracted, these things are interwined, for aromantics, sex doesn't produce those feelings that are related to romantic love. PLP tries something differnet, they say, with much difficulties, to their romantic mates, that consciously, they decided that the sex and the romantic relationship will not change the dynamics of the PLP although it could, the sex of PLP is romantic sex ,for aromantic people they can experience sex with so many feelings except romantic love. Basically, they reach to the same conclusion, relationship without love, but by different routes, and the insistence of PLP to stop romance from separating the PLP can't be explained in the same way aromantics don't want that their relationship will be based on love feelings. PLP, I say it with no intention to invalidate PLP, can have the potential to turn aromantic people, from the perspective of society,  to people who don't want to be in a romantic relationship which include patnership not because they feel that they can't but because they choose that they can't.

PLP put romance in second place by choice, aromantics don't put  romance second place, it is just not there.  

Maybe we should add to aromanticism discourse that the lack of romance attraction is not by choice, the word attraction doesn't explain it enough and it creates confusion since romance is a story and love feelings are biological. I don't think that if we change the label to romantic loveless persons we will get good publicity in the media which is heavily amatonroamtive. With this term people can think that aromanticism is  about people who don't get romantic love because of social anxiety,  and not people who can't experience it at all,  but maybe we will get one step closer to the truth of what is that constitues aromanticism. The shift that I suggest is is to leave aside the combination romantic attraction and to point  directly toward the feeling, aromantic can't feel romantic love as far as I understand.

Aromantic people are not unlovable in the sense that they can be in one sided way be loved romantically,

they are, rather ,unromantically lovable from their side of the emotions and feelings.