arias_hollow | Mini Terminology Rant

I've seen a few times now in aro and aplatonic circles the argument that 'platonic is not synonymous with nonromantic/nonsexual, and people who use it that way are wrong and harmful'. Now, I am very much on the aplatonic spectrum. But I just can't agree with this statement wholesale, even if I understand and sympathize with the feelings that drive it.

So, the actual dictionary definition of platonic varies but the two I found right away online is 'an affectionate relationship that is non-sexual' (very slightly paraphrased) and "of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex" (exact quote), excluding the definitions that are specifically about Plato and more general philosophy. But as people often point out, what matters more than a dictionary definition is how the word is actually used culturally.

But in most of my experience, at least, nearly everyone I've met outside of the a-spec communities do use the term that way. Most people outside of a-spec communities, for example, if asked if familial relations were platonic, will give you a 'uh I mean I sure hope so o_O' since the only literal alternative in their minds is incest; while in the a-spec community, it's a complicated discussion with different takes because the a-spec community fundamentally uses the word completely differently than most other people.

And, to be clear, I don't think this is fundamentally a bad thing. The word has evolved to have more meanings and be of better to use to more people, that is fine! And obviously I don't think it's wrong for plato-repulsed folks to want people to use nonromantic or nonsexual in regard to any relationships involving them instead of platonic - if a term makes you uncomfortable and doesn't work for you, it should be discarded on the individual level.

But other people using it, in general, in the dictionary-defined way isn't an attack or inherently wrong either, they're just using one of now multiple meanings for the word.

Why does this nag at me enough to write a post about it? Because I really wish the word having multiple, contradictory meanings would be accepted enough that it became more of a norm to clarify in a discussion which definition you're using. And the reason I care about THAT enough to write about it is, I honestly would have realized I was aplatonic so much faster if people were up front about what they actually meant and that the a-spec communities were largely operating with a different definition of it than most everyone else.

When I was first really getting into the aro communities, I saw a lot of posts about how platonic feelings could be as strong and important as romantic and sexual ones. Since I completely thought they meant platonic as in the entire spectrum of feeling and lack of it outside of romance, I agreed easily and didn't question it. I DID find the entire concept of platonic attraction and squishes to be confusing the more I learned about them, though. Because to me, all my relationships were 'platonic' and I did not at all think platonic was any kind of specific feeling, since I often didn't 'feel' anything in particular for people I knew. I accepted of course that people were experiencing platonic attraction and queerplatonic attraction even if I didn't get it, but it didn't occur to me some of the confusion was coming from starting with a different foundation/context for the whole conversation.

Likewise, (though this is also in part due to just how little info there was about aplatonicism at the time) when I first saw posts about people being aplatonic, I genuinely thought it meant 'someone who can only feel dislike or romantic feelings for someone' and I was like 'I know I gotta support everyone's identities but I do think a person like that would be rather stressful for me to be around' lkljklsdjfsid. IT WASN'T EVEN CLEAR TO ME IT WAS AN IDENTITY MOST COMMON AMONG ARO-SPECS. Or that it was an identity an aro-spec could have, since they seemed opposed by definition to me. But even once a lot of misunderstandings had been cleared up on that front, I still didn't think I was apl-spec because I still...considered all of my low-feeling relationships 'platonic' as an important distinction from being romantic, especially in irl contexts where platonic and romantic were typically the only options.

Eventually obviously I learned a lot more about the experiences of apl-spec people and plato-experiencing people and saw more open conversations about defining terms and realized I was, in fact, on the aplatonic spectrum. But a great deal of questioning and doubting and feeling confused could have been spared if folks had been upfront about the fact that when they said platonic feelings, they largely meant ACTUAL SPECIFIC FEELINGS that don't include indifference.

So...yes, platonic relationships can be sexual. Platonic relationships can overlap with romantic ones, or the distinction can blur. It's completely reasonable for some apl-specs, especially ones in the often overly-plato-obsessed greater aro community, to want their non-romantic and/or non-sexual relationships to NOT be called platonic. But platonic, contextually, still can and often does mean simply 'not romantic/sexual', and people aren't like...out to get you or woefully ignorant if they use it that way for themselves or in broad conversations about society. The word just has multiple, contradictory definitions now and that's fine.