platonic relationships

Oxford Languages (via Google) defines platonic as

(of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual

Merriam-Webster defines platonic as

of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex

with these definitions, surely most relationships are platonic. but the way it's used colloquially is to differentiate relationships that have sexual potential from those that don't, in a similar way as the "friend zone". if a relationship becomes sexual, was it ever platonic? was the non-platonic nature a result of cognitive dissonance? conditioned suppression? or did something deep down truly change? what if you glimpse an experience of attraction (however brief) and ignore or forget about it? was that real?

so do colloquially platonic relationships fundamentally exist? i.e. does any relationship exist between two people who align with each other's sexual orientations with zero potential to ever develop sexual or romantic intimacy. if they do not fundamentally exist, then the current state of platonic relationships in society, assuming the colloquial definition of sexual potential, is explained by conditioned ignorance, shame, or something adjacent.

i don't believe i have ever experienced a real platonic relationship—of course i mostly have platonic relationships, but it feels as though they are products of conditioned suppression, not some essential nature of reality. also, i may be polyamorous and/or pansexual, which certainly does not clarify things. as far as i can tell, this experience is extremely common among the men i know, but also among polyamorous and pansexual people i know. of course, my sample size is limited.

with all my biases hung out to dry, i'm inclined to think platonic relationships don't fundamentally exist and are much more likely a product of Western culture (right alongside the nuclear family and other "useful" isolating capitalist structures conditioned into us from birth).