Oook, so, since aromanticism was brought up, this seems like a good place to ask. I'm writing a pair that might be in a queerplatonic relationship, and I'm still trying to fully grasp the difference between romantic relationships and qprs to figure that out.
Briefly: Character A experiences crushes, but isn't interested in exclusive lifelong commitment or deep physical intimacy (really mostly like to be snuggled/hugged, though they do like the occasional mouth kiss ig). Character B is quoiromantic I think; for them, there is nothing emotionally distinguishing romantic from platonic, and they think you can simply express love without putting it in a box. They are pleased to receive and express affection in whatever form both parties consent to, and what matters to them is that it's an expression of trust and care.
Ultimately, they probably carve out a space that they are both comfortable in, defining the boundaries of their relationship based on their own wishes instead of any externally imposed model.
I'm not aromantic myself, so something tells me there's some aspect of the concept that I'm missing. Is it enough for me to think that their relationship doesn't fit into the traditional model and say they're in a queerplatonic relationship, even if they might sometimes do romantic-esque things? Something tells me this has a lot to do with cultural standards of intimacy as well.
Also...do you think things like blushing and embarrassment can be a response to receiving platonic affection, or does that signal "romantic"? I feel like this might just be me clinging to affection tropes but maybe it is actually common to be flustered by affection of any kind, not just romantic?
EDIT: and what do aromantic people in general think of relationships where only one party is romantically attracted to the other? I imagine this one could be bordering on that sort of situation, but they're both OK with it. Is this a thing?