#for aplatonic folks who are likely sick of being told being nice is inherently platonic

[just-sg]

I mean, it can be but not necessarily? Like every kind of emotion, what qualifies as "platonic" and what qualifies as "love" are both subjective.

It's like how in your asexual example, the person is engaging in sex but is still asexual because they don't subjectively experience that attraction. Or like how friends with benefits could look exactly like a typical "romantic couple", or a romantic couple can look exactly like what most people would think of as "just friends", but whether or not it's romantic entirely depends on if the people involved feel like it is. Except also, sex is an objectively definable physical act, while, for example, kissing doesn't have to be romantic. Similarly, what an observer would call "friendly behavior" doesn't have to indicate internal platonic love.

Some people aren't comfortable describing feelings toward an acquaintance as "platonic love" because they feel like love is too strong a word. Some people associate "platonic" with "friendship" and define "friends" as people they actually know and are close to, and wouldn't describe their feelings for acquaintances or strangers as platonic as a result. Just as a few examples.

How would you describe the love felt for a kitten in a video you'll never meet, or a favorite story, or the feeling you get when the stars align and for just a while the world seems beautiful and hopeful? Is that still "if it's not romantic or sexual [or familial], it's platonic"? Or if you'd say that only applies to love for other people, what about fictional characters, artists one knows nothing about beyond their work, or for the bittersweet echoes of memories conveyed in the memoirs of someone long dead? Surely none of them could be called A Friend, but the love one might feel is still real.

Love can be ambiguous (and usually or always is for some folks!). Love can be unconditional. There are feelings that could be argued as types of love or as adjacent to it: admiration, appreciation, compassion for strangers, devotion that comes from duty rather than personal ties but still anchors on a person. Love can also be vicious and destructive and terrifying-- a consuming need for retribution, "I just want what's best for you", and more-- but that's a whole different ramble. The point is, trying to classify emotions into such a small number of limited boxes doesn't do anyone any favors.

Labels-- language in general-- exists to convey our ideas, not to limit them. And at the same time, our ability to convey things is inherently limited, because sometimes we can't find or simply don't have words to describe things sufficiently. Words do have meanings, and it's entirely fair to suggest to someone that what they're saying would fit a certain label, but if they say that's not it, please trust that they probably know they're feelings better than you do. Occasionally, they might not, but that's not something to assume, and even those cases are nicer if they come to that conclusion later themselves rather than have a conclusion pushed onto them.

Just let people feel what they feel. If they can't put it into words, there's a big difference between offering options and trying to decide their feelings for them.

---

Anyway OP, personally I would describe the Secret Fourth Thing as appreciation for both the content and the people who took the time to share it indirectly with you, but of course it's up to you if that sounds accurate or not. (Also I recognize the format was at least partly a joke but ya know.)

not romantic love not sexual love not platonic love but a secret fourth kind: i scroll your blog and like all of your posts