hello, i'm really sorry for asking this because you must get this a lot, but i'm still a bit confused about the idea of being aplatonic? to me it sounds less like an identity like aromanticism and more like... i don't want to say "an issue" because that's rude, but something that maybe shouldn't be happening? obviously you can be happy just with yourself, not everyone is really extroverted, but humans still need to interact with other humans to be like, mentally healthy. (that's been proven in studies). at best it sort of sounds like a neutral character trait, not necessarily an identity.
(i am asking this in good faith and i really want to understand- i'm aro myself, and i'm sure your experiences are real, i don't want to gatekeep or anything, i'm just genuinely confused & want to understand!)
you're fine, don't worry! this is actually the first ask i've ever received here. and i'm sorry if you sent this a while ago; i use tumblr on my phone's web browser and have to manually check for asks.
i think the biggest gaps in our respective understandings of âaplatonicâ, just based on your message, are:
0. some aplatonic people have friends, or want friends, and use the term because they don't feel platonic attraction and/or they struggle to form friendships. most modern definitions of aplatonic will point to those two things, after all! a lot of these friending apls have found aplatonic terms useful for explaining their complicated feelings about platonic relationships, and helpful for navigating their friendships. this only applies to some aplatonic people, and it's often used as our only defense, so i'll focus on other things here, but i would be leaving out a lot of apls â maybe even the majority â if i didn't at least mention this.
1. friendship is not the only way of interacting with, and connecting with, other humans. i'm on the aro and ace spectrums, but i have a long-term partner i live with, and family members and coworkers who i interact with. lots of nonfriending aplatonic people will still seek out social interaction, often in groups that talk about topics they're interested in. one of the reasons i use the word âaplatonicâ, and post here at all, is to push against the idea of friendship as a default human connection, or something that happens automatically when you're around someone enough.
2. even if someone is very isolated, and doesn't want any sustained human connection at all...i think that's fine, and it has historical precedent. hermits, anchorites, stylites, partially-eremetic monks, and all kinds of other recluses...through much of our recorded history, for a variety of reasons, some people have lived alone. many of these people lived in a much more complete solitude than nonfriending apls today â and even then, few of them managed to have absolutely no social interaction. some would have visitors, or people who brought them meals, or shopkeepers they met when they went into town for supplies. something happening frequently in the past doesn't mean it's good, but in this case it does suggest there's a kind of natural tendency towards it in some humans.
3. i don't think we should put too much weight on what psychology and the social sciences say is ânormalâ, anyway. there's a huge replication crisis in scientific research, especially in those fields. there are also studies showing people in romantic relationships are, generally, happier...and that obviously isn't true for a lot of aros! there are nearly always outliers in studies like that, even in the most well-done and rigorous ones. i completely believe social isolation is harmful for most humans, but the keyword here is most. and the kind of studies you describe usually focus on involuntary solitude; chosen solitude is much different. most apls aren't very isolated at all, so this point might not be as important...but if there's an aplatonic hermit somewhere in the woods who hasn't talked to another person in years, i support them.
4. there is âsomething wrongâ with a lot of us, and that's fine. the term âaplatonicâ was coined in 2012 by an alloromantic ace who theorized his experiences were caused by parental abuse, so that sort of thing has been woven into aplatonicism since day one. some people attribute their aromanticism to neurodivergence and/or trauma, too; for many aroapls, both of those identities will be tied up in it. i'm traumatized, and i'm schizoid, and both of these things interact with my aplatonicism. someone's self-concept, and their words for themself, can very often be tied up in their unusual experiences and their suffering. i don't think that makes any identity illegitimate.
if i've misunderstood any part of your ask, i'm sorry, and i'd be happy to adjust my answer. i'm also leaving out a lot of details and caveats to stop this post from being too long â and with ask length limits, i'm sure you had to do that much more than me. i agree with you that aplatonicism seems a markedly different thing to aromanticism and asexuality, and fits less comfortably into an âorientationâ framework, but i wasn't sure what you meant by âneutral character traitâ vs âidentityâ here and didn't want to assume. if you have any questions, need any clarifications, or want to elaborate on what you've already said, feel free to send a followup and i'll answer when i can. (i also welcome asks from anyone else, especially other apls; i'm only one person, with weird experiences, and i don't speak for the community.)
