1

Specifically, I'm wondering about the definition about relationships:

of, relating to, or having a close relationship in which there is no romance or sex.

Is "platonic" generally appropriate?

It seems useful to describe non-romantic relationships, but most definitions emphasize the nonsexual part of the definition. Would it be appropriate to use in places where nonsexual would not be?

  • Yes, as in non-romantic. When you're flirting with someone, for example, that's neither Platonic nor necessarily sexual. Do you have a specific context in mind? – Cerberus_Reinstate_Monica Feb 2 '14 at 4:31
4

Yes. It is always a polite term for people who are not in a romantic relationship, but have a relationship that goes beyond mere acquaintance.

To my ear, it does not conjure any specific connotation of sexuality. Rather, it speaks about their relationship being non-romantic in nature.

It can be applied to heterosexual and homosexual relationships alike.

You would not use it for a case of a sexual relationship without romance. And, likewise, you would not use it to describe a romantic relationship without sex. (e.g. two 12 year-olds who are dating, but not having an actual sexual relationship.)

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.