Thread:Gilgameshkun/@comment-6028837-20141031023809/@comment-995426-20141103033624

Trigger009: After careful consideration of this issue, I have come to some conclusions and possible options.

First of all, I must stress that I do not seek to make edits in that article of sexual nature. Indeed, I sought to diffuse all questions of sexuality by noting chastity in the comparison.

Secondly, I referenced romance not in the specific sense of official couples or shipping, but as an objectively measurable quality&mdash;according to the particular definition of "romance" that includes strong emotional attachment, affection and intimacy greater than seen between typical friends. Combine these, and it can be objectively characterized as a "romantic" situation, even if they are not actually a couple. And, again, it doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual.

However, I can see that my approach to edits can be very cerebral while lacking in common sense, and I can fail to fully honor the cultural baggage of words like "romance". It has come to my understanding that what I was attempting to describe may be better described as "bromance", a recent word (coined c. 2000-2005) that implies romance while avoiding all sexual connotations. Incidentally, "bromance" would also accurately describe the artist Michelangelo's romances, except that historians call them "romances" even though they were chaste, as "bromance" is still informal slang.

I still find it very interesting trivia especially because it gives the real Michelangelo and the fictional 2012 Michelangelo something special in common, but I'm not sure how to mention it as a trivia bullet in all the ways I specifically mean&mdash;and I do mean without sexual connotations or speculation; they were never my intention to begin with. Is there any way I can still do this (with better, more appropriate wording) without violating the rules?

And, I have to admit that I'm not always entirely certain what can be considered kid-friendly. I was never really an average child; I was a well-read cosmopolitan intellectual with a lot of book sense and not much common sense, and that's still pretty much the case.