Mark

Since this is an FAQ a possibly better option would be something to the effect of "There are many and varied possibilities". With a link to a longer article which clearly stated that the examples were not (intended to be) comprehensive or exhaustive then have a paragraph or so to describe these.

I'm wondering if Poe's Law is applicable to this Galilean moons based idea. Since it is so ridiculous in several ways. As I understand things, whilst an umbrella term, "queerplatonic" was never intended to apply to all non-romantic relationships or all relationships aromantic people could possibly be interested in. There's 5 Myths About Aromanticism where myth 3 is about "primary partners". Whilst this dosn't actually do the respectability politics of saying that "aros want normative relationships, just without the romance bit" it certainly could be interpreted that way. So far as I know there's no evidence to support "Aromantic asexuals typically want that best friendship to be both nonromantic and nonsexual." I don;t think there is any "typical", even for aro aces. The same applying to the previous notion "Instead of falling in love with someone and making that romantic companion the primary partner with whom to share all of those things, aromantic people who desire partnership basically want a best friend or friends who they can have that kind of bond with." Whilst it, undoubtedly, describes some aros it certainly dosn't apply to all. It's even possible that this is applicable to a minority of aros. There's Myths about aromantics which somewhat presents queerplatonic and romantic as a false dichotomy. I can find this quite alienating. Since these sort of things are often too romance like for me to want to be associated with. There's also the question: "WHAT KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS DO AROMANTICS HAVE?" which mentions "queerplationic relationships" in it's short and uncomprehensive list. I also feel that this somewhat conflates "partnered" and "committed". Which brings to mind some troublesome QPR definitions. I think part of the problem is that the likes of "sexual friendships", "sensual friendships", "(physically) affectionate friendships", "non-platonic friendships", "cuddle buddies", etc don't get mentioned anywhere near as often as "queerplatonic relationships".

This "different focus" is going to be very diverse. Any attempt to narrow it down to anything specific leading to the likes of Common Misconceptions About Aros, Can you be Aro and not/never have squishes?, etc. I can understand that being able to say "This is Y" is preferable to "This is NOT(X)" there is no meaningful or useful Y here.

Things hinge on what you understand "romantic feeling", "romantic desire" and "romantic attraction" to mean. Something which can be tricky with abstract concepts. The way I see is that romance is desire and motivation to form a quite specific type of interpersonal relationship. Which is described by ideas such as the relationship escalator and the definition of amantonormativity. Since "aromantic" is a definition of exclusion aromantic people are quite diverse in terms of the interpersonal relationships they seek/desire. I was more thinking of polyamoury, allos who avoid doing things like co-habiting (even if monogamous) and other relationships which are both romantic and non-normative. It even seems applicable to allo aces. Definitely overbroad in terms of scope. As well as working out how "romantic intimacy" relates to "romantic feeling", "romantic desire" and "romantic attraction". That's a great analogy.

To me it's not the definition of "platonic" so much as "platonic attraction" and "platonic bond(s)" which I struggle with. In a way like "purple friendship". Whereas "platonic friend(ship)", "platonic marriage" and "purple pen" make sense. This dictionary definition has both the scientific and colloquial versions of "theory". So an "aro space" specific definition seems more like jargon. Maybe if the bin is then used in an underground nuclear test to hold up the warhead. I'm not sure that works, given the existing term companionate marriage. With QPRs not being intrinsically child free. That dosn't make that much sense since it would make "platonic friend" akin to "river avon". I've heard it stated that it does not mean "friend adverse", such as here. The term "aplatonic" seems to be used for no squishes, disinterest in QPRs or both. Maybe there's a need for a term meaning "has squishes" and a term meaning "seeks a QPR". Especially if it were to be the case that most aros don't do these things. Though that's possibly also "too much wordsmithing". I wonder if this conflation is a result of romantic coding of sex and romance, amantonormativity and the majority of people being perioriented. None of these definitions appear to have much in common with what Plato was describing in The Symposium. Which seems to be that relationships should not involve eros without any other form of love also being present. Creating a new meaning for an existing word is also a form of neologism, though different from coining a new word. Romanticism as a culture dosn't appear to have had much to do with romance as a notion of love/relationship/attraction/etc. other than name.

In my experience "aro spaces" are just a few online forums. With there being no "meatspace" aro community anywhere near me. Not even something "aces & aros" derived from an ace group. Whereas "amatonormative society" is where I have to live virtually 24/7. I find "platonic bonds" to be just as much a WTF concept as "platonic attraction". My inclination would be to make chemistry jokes asking how it would compare with ionic, covalant or metallic bonds. It also appears to be an aro (possibly aspec) neologism...

That's something I find difficult to comprehend. Since I understand "platonic" to mean "non physical", "non sexual", "non sensual". Thus "platonic" and "sexual" are very much mutually exclusive adjectives to me. I think that it would be perioriented people (including aro aces) who'd be most likely to conflate and confuse romantic and sexual attractions. I don't understand what "platonic attraction" means. So would tend to see it as belonging on this kind of adjective-noun combination list. About the best I could come up with would be "It's some kind of abstract attraction which I don't grok." I also find it useful to consider that way. Though in the context of quoi.

An issue I see with that list is that omits cis gender definitions and includes non binary gender definitions. Mixing real, though maybe obscure, things with those which are fictional, satirical, parody, etc is a possible way to set up a poisoning the well type of attack.

The definition which comes up from an Internet search is "Aplatonic is simply a descriptor used by some aro people to explain that they do not experience squishes nor desire to be in qpps/qprs." Though the tumblr blog this appears to come from appears to be against using it as it's own orientation or identity. Even though this is implied by the way "platonic attraction" is often used... There might be more of a need for a term to describe aros who experience this kind of thing. There's this AVEN post covering various different usages of the term. That was my assumption too. A lot of writing about the subject does seem "squish normative", Conflating "romantic" and "emotional" seems rather an amantonormative POV. As does seeing "squish" as involving some kind of "diluted romance". There are multiple definitions of platonic around. AFAIK "just want to become friends" isn't in any dictionary. I couldn't find "platonic attraction" in any dictionary. It shows up most often contrasted with "romantic attraction" on AVEN, Quora and Typology Central. With "platonic attraction" vs "friendship" appearing in this Carnival of Aces piece. I suspect that current usage of "platonic" has about as little to do with Plato as "romance" does with the City (or Empire) of Rome.

Apart from a high level of "punary" this seems to just be a synonym for "allosexual". From a non binary POV I'd advocate fewer gendered terms. Multiple issues with this one. D/s relationships need not be romantic. No need they be sexual or queer platonic either. The idea of "dominant" or "submissive" is a false dichotomy, even for kinky relationships. Huge conflation of strength, initiation (of dates and affection), bill paying, protecting, looking after, etc with D/s dynamics. Its fairly trivial to find D/s relationships where the sub does things in the "strong" list and the dom(me) does things in the "soft" list. Most obviously with "service tops" and "fin dommes". Aros can be, highly, repulsed by romance, whilst also enjoying romantic coded activities. Someone's taste in fiction genre tells them you nothing about what they like in real life. It's also the case that Cupid was originally about sex, lust, physical desire, etc. In addition to hierarchy I see false dichotomies and conflations. That dosn't work since there are philemaphobic alloromantics and aromantics who like kissing.

I put up a poll about this. Which is showing some interesting results.

I think the problem with "grey-anything" is "normal level of attraction" is a highly subjective idea.

According to the coiner, Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, the "amorous" part was intended to mean "sexual". Thought the FAQ uses the rather convoluted Which is very much an umbrella term.

With "nonamorous" being a term which is likely to confuse people. Since it's a synonym, in Latin, for "asexual". Whilst meaning something entirely different. With the definition "Describes a person who does not wish to form a significant partnership with others." not excluding all sorts of attraction (even romantic). It seems to be about not following the relationship escalator and avoiding "nesting behaviour". With these being concepts which came from outside of the aro (or aroace) community... With the additional complication that terms like "platonic" can be used to mean different things from colloquial meaning. Not always in consistent ways within aro dialogue either. There's also the likes of this which uses the semi-major axis of the Galilean moons as a metaphor for "closeness". (Whilst ignoring both the properties of the moons or the origin of their names.) In the aro community physical affection appears to be a similarly divisive issue. Possibly also dating and other romantic coded activities.

Unfortunately any mainstream movie can come with romantic sub plot(s). Even where this makes literally no sense at all.

Yet, curiously, the term "just a phase" rarely gets applied to alloromantics. They might just get bored with it or realise that they were only into it because it's expected in an amantonormative society.

It might be worth also reading threads like Can you be Aro and not/never have squishes?.

Arranged marriages, including those which are forced and/or involve children are still very much around in 2019. Including "Western Countries" (Europe, North American and Australasia) rather that just The Indian subcontinent. The form of "love" involved here closely resembling one of the definitions of "pragma". There's little evidence to support "pair bonding" in humans as being anything other than a social meme. It's an unusual behaviour amongst mammals, especially apes. An alternative explanation of monogamy and polygamy marriage customs would be as a mechanism to determine paternity. There also exist cultures with polyandry and at least one (the Mosuo) which dosn't have marriage. It's also important to remember that far more that the 1-3% of people estimated to be aromantic never marry and this has been the case throughout recorded history. The difficulty is that the idea "romantic love" just didn't exist until the 16th century with "romantic marriages" only starting to become fashionable in the mid 19th. It's possible heteromonogamous marriage might be literally "romantic". In that it was imposed by the Roman Empire on Europe, North Africa and East Asia. Then to the rest of the planet by the Spanish, Portuguese, French, British, etc empires.

It's difficult to know what the original intentions are behind words and their definitions. There's also the possibility that respectability politics is playing a part here.

The same age at which it's OK for someone to start identifying as alloromantic. Which is definitely preteen.

Romance is a modern idea. Even though the word literally means "Roman style" it postdates the Roman Empire by around a thousand years. Whilst chastity can mean only having sex with a spouse romantic marriages have existed for, at most, two hundred years. With arranged marriages still being common even now. (Even in Europe.) Adultery is also about extra marital sex. Also predating romance (and romantic marriage) by thousands of years. The meaning of "Eros" is "sexual love". In addition to "agape": "Selfless Love" Koine Greek uses "Philia": "Brotherly/Friendship Love" and “Storge”: "Familiar Love". The New Testament, the most widely known Koine text in the modern world, mostly uses agape. Which is to be expected. In terms of Classical Greek there is also “Ludus”: "Playful Love", "Mania": "Obsessive Love", “Pragma”: "Enduring Love" and “Philautia”: "Self Love". In terms of "love" the usage of language has been changed. With this having happened recently. Also interpretation. Including retconning romance into classical texts and lionising the likes of "Romeo and Juliet".

Even within queer organisations you can find the idea of A=Ally. Even where there is some awareness there can be ideas like exclusively varioriented people don't exist. There's also seeing heterosexual aromantics (and asexual heteroromantics) as "non queer enough".

The definition on AVENwiki is "A queerplatonic (or quasiplatonic) relationship is a relationship that is not romantic but involves a close emotional connection (platonic) beyond what most people consider friendship. The commitment level in a queerplatonic relationship is often considered to be similar to that of a romantic relationship. People in a queerplatonic relationship may be of any romantic or sexual orientation. A partner in a queer platonic relationship is called a zucchini." Which does come over as both hierarchical and romance like. With 'QPRs' seeming rather different from this definition of platonic. "Platonic describes a relationship that is purely spiritual and not physical. If a guy and a girl hang out all the time but aren't boyfriend and girlfriend, they'd describe their friendship as platonic." Which is, also, why I feel 'platonic' is entirely inappropriate for anything which is sensual, sexual or involves physical attraction/desire. Concept also appears to support of seeing friendship and romance as dichotomous and the notion of romantic coding of behaviours.

Which can result in aros who don't go about things that way feeling uncomfortable, even excluded.

I thought this might be useful to ask considering the following threads Can you be Aro and not/never have squishes? What -isn't- attraction?