Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
4 years ago  ::  Dec 17, 2009 - 8:03AM #31
appy20
Posts: 10,165

In real life, I haven't been able to pin a pattern for that.  I have known known individuals of both types that were wonderful and also known individuals of both types that were jerks.


I do like flowers.  That is a weakness.  My last boyfriend only sent them when he did something wrong so that took all the fun out of it. LOL   He did plan the best dates.  His major flaw was that he didn't accept himself.  He was constantly trying to be someone that he wasn't.  I thought who he was was wonderful but he felt it was inadequate.  I think he felt that I would not help him become who he wanted to be.  He was right.  I wanted him. I couldn't really do that very well when I respected who he was. In order to become who he wanted to be, he needed me to be someone else.


The men I like the most are the guys who are able to be content. With themselves, with life, with me.   Can roll with the punches and accept that life isn't always controllable.  Add to that an affection for me, a backbone to be able to do what is right rather than what one wants and that would have been great.


The bottom line for me is that whether they are romantic or not is irrelevant and their desirability depends on a whole host of other things.  Whatever they do, it must be authentic and not just going through the motions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 17, 2009 - 2:01PM #32
SatanicStalker
Posts: 719

I do have a more broad definition of romance than most. I've known this for years. I don't expect that my definition should be the right one for everyone.


To me, the link between romance (by my definition) and sex is obvious. Sex, itself, can be a very, very romantic experience (when done right). And, romance as a quality in a person is very sexy. So it's a positive feedback loop sort of a thing. 


I remember a passage from Terry Pratchett's novel The Fifth Elephant. I don't have the book in front of me, but to paraphrase...


A dog is watching a couple of humans talking by a campfire, and musing about how much more complicated sex is for humans than it is for dogs. He gets the impression that, somehow, sex for humans is still going on when they are both fully clothed, sitting apart, and apparently arguing. 


I think there is some truth in that. 


But, even beyond the complexities of human sexuality, there have been times I've been, say, taking a walk through a park with my mother, looking at the red autumn leaves, and been struck by the romance of the situation. And, whatever else you can say about me, I bear no covert sexual feelings toward my mother. Perhaps someone else in the same situation would be struck by the same feeling, but would mentally label it something other than "romantic."


~Stalker

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 17, 2009 - 3:42PM #33
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Romance is the idealized version of love.  If you ask any fifteen year old what 'love' is, she will describe romance instead.


Romance is mysterious, sometimes painful, sometimes frightening, sometimes infuriating, sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes enough to make you give up on love altogether, but always worth getting up in the morning for.  Romance is Cole Porter's 'Night and Day'. 


Love, on the other hand, is none of these things.  Love is warmth, friendship, acceptance, belief that the partner will be as steady and dependable tomorrow as he is today.  If romance is what you get up in the morning for, love is what you stay in bed til noon for, cuddled up with said partner, a couple of cups of tea, and two good books or the Sunday paper, shared with the dog and the kids and the telephone when your mother calls.  


Personally, I'll take love over romance any day of the week.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 17, 2009 - 4:43PM #34
SatanicStalker
Posts: 719

Dec 17, 2009 -- 3:42PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

... love is what you stay in bed til noon for, cuddled up with said partner, a couple of cups of tea, and two good books or the Sunday paper, shared with the dog and the kids and the telephone when your mother calls.  



See, now that sounds lovely and romantic to me Wink.


In seriousness, though I've thought much the opposite before... that romance is all the happy, pleasant aspects of love that people think they want, whereas love is the deeper, harder, more painful but stronger connection, that which you share when you're both exhausted but still trying to dig a car out of the ditch while standing in eight inches of slush, the thing that makes it hurt so much to fear for your loved one's life, the thing that never goes away even when you've been apart for years or decades, the thing that makes crying onto your loved one's shoulder so much more healing than crying onto anyone else's shoulder. 


Love is more important to me than romance, but I don't see them as competing forces. I enjoy both, and they complement one another so well. 


~Stalker

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 1:47PM #35
appy20
Posts: 10,165

I think mystery is the key word to romance. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 21, 2009 - 2:47PM #36
parkin
Posts: 490

romance is believing in fate and destiny


 


 


I am now, as of late, a convinced romantic. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 30, 2009 - 3:34PM #37
withfearandtrembling
Posts: 138

Romantic is the opposite of realistic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook