Aromantic or aromatic? Or both?

That previous post of mine caused me an urgent need to look up the term "aromantic" that  was first misread by me (and at least one other reader) as "aromatic".

The answer appears in an offshoot of Wiki called AVENWiki (?) and is so... so different, shall I say? - that I have no choice but to bring it all here:

An aromantic is a person who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others. Where romantic people have an emotional need to be with another person in a romantic relationship, aromantics are often satisfied with friendships and other non-romantic relationships. What distinguishes romantic relationships from a non-romantic relationships can vary diversely, but often includes physical connection (holding hands, cuddling, etc.) The aromantic attribute is usually considered to be innate and not a personal choice, just as the lack of sexual attraction is innate to asexuals. It is important to note that aromantics do not lack emotional/personal connection, but simply have no instinctual need to develop connections of a romantic nature. Aromantics can have needs for just as much empathetic support as romantics, but these needs can be fulfilled in a platonic way.

It is possible for an aromantic individual to be involved in, and enjoy, a devoted relationship with another person, but these relations are often closer friendships, naturally reflecting the closeness of the two individuals and not a purposely initiated monogamous separation as is often found in romantic couples. Aromantics may experience squishes which are the aromantic or platonic equivalent of a romantic crush. When an aromatic get's into a relationship that's more than friends - but less than romantic - that is known as a queerplatonic relationship.

Like all romantic identities aromatics can be of any sexual orientation.

I have to say that it is not a simple text and should be mentally parsed several times to be understood. Unfortunately, the punchline (see the last sentence in the quote above) destroys your last chance to get an answer to the question asked in the headline.

So there.

For posterity: snapshot of the quoted above page (click to embiggen):