Men are More Romantic than Women

[Woggle]

I think it depends. Men who are all of sudden blindsided when a seemingly happy marriage crumbles become depressed and angry because their identity and sense of pride was derived from being a good husband and father to their family and they have no clue what they did to cause it. They are just dumbfounded because their whole world has been torn apart. As much as men get a bad rap for being bad husbands and fathers for most family men it is their whole reason for living.

 

Confirmed bachelors on the other hand at least in my experience seem as happy as can be because they are not bound to the idea that their self worth comes from being a good husband and a good provider. I know quite a few men who have been through the divorce meat grinder that have come out of the other much stronger and happier people. The divorce experience for men can either kill us or make us stronger. My father is the happiest I have ever seen him in his life and he is not the only case.

 

I am happily married but my sense of self worth does not derive from being a good husband. I know I am a good husband though not perfect because nobody is and if she does not get that and wants out that is her problem. I will still thrive regardless. Everything in my life just got better after my first divorce because I took that self destructive energy and used it to rebuild my life. Too many men who get blindsided get stuck in a cycle of self loathing.

[Kamille]

I think its more social conditioning.

 

For ages until a few decades ago, women were properties under the guardianship of male relatives who would only 'sell' the women to the most worthy suitor. So men learned to come up with all sorts of ways to compete with other men in order to convince a woman and her guardians that they were the most worthy suitors.

 

In fact, I have to admit that often men become romantic not for the women but for themselves. It makes them feel good thinking that they are Cassanova or something.

 

I thought of that explanation too. For a long time women's only chance of social promotion was marriage, therefore it was important for women to be extremely practical while picking a partner. Men had to impress, dazzle and romance. So yes, maybe you're right and it is just residual social conditioning.

 

I even think the yours and my explanation can be correlated: men stood to gain the most from a happy marriage with a caring-providing-homemaking (practical) partner, whereas women stood to gain the most from a financially secure one.

[Jazzari]

I think its more social conditioning.

 

For ages until a few decades ago, women were properties under the guardianship of male relatives who would only 'sell' the women to the most worthy suitor. So men learned to come up with all sorts of ways to compete with other men in order to convince a woman and her guardians that they were the most worthy suitors.

 

In fact, I have to admit that often men become romantic not for the women but for themselves. It makes them feel good thinking that they are Cassanova or something.

 

Regardless the true intentions though, still the reality is men do most of the romancing, not women. Therefore, men are more romantic.

Using romance to get what you want does not make you a romantic person.

 

A guy brings his girl flowers in the hopes of getting laid or at least getting some positive reaction. He takes a few minutes to buy the flowers and scribbles the first thing that pops into his head on the card. Once delivered, he promptly forgets about it.

 

The girl keeps the note that came with the flowers and reads it several times a day. She may call her friends and analyze ever single word on it and spin fantasies about what it all might mean. She may even pin it to her fridge or put it in a scrapbook. She keeps the flowers in a prominant spot in her home and dreams about the guy every time she sees them. She will probably select one bloom to take to work with her. When they begin to wilt she will dry them and put the petals in a bowl on her dresser. She hopes to use them someday on her marriage bed.

 

I think its the one who appreciates and enjoys romance who is the more romantic. In most cases (not all), that would be the girl.

[zengirl]

I say we show our romance in different ways.

 

Very true, and basically the way I view the whole discussion, but some interesting points:

 

If I sent a love poem or flowers, I have no doubt that I would be accused of trying to emasculate my man. Can you imagine if a man got flowers in an office setting? He'd probably be ragged on for weeks. Most men wouldn't appreciate it.

 

Neither my BF, nor I, dig flowers, but I have sent him a fruit bouquet at work. And he loved it. I'm sure there was some light 'ribbing' about it, but I doubt the guys seriously ragged on him --- in an emasculating way --- and I'm sure most of them were more like, "Wow, sweet GF," more than, "Whoa, whipped man."

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with showing affection and romance through action to men once you're in a LTR. The men it scares off are the men I'd rather be rid of anyway.

 

Where in the world did you hear. Men love when women do romantic things for us. If you constantly make him be the pursuer he will eventually get sick of it. Is this really the kind of relationship you prefer? I made the mistake of thinking I could never do anything for my wife because it will turn her off and she will lose attraction but then I thought about it and realized that any woman I want to be married to will appreciate those gestures and be willing to do the same for me.

 

This power play approach will get men to chase you but will never get you a happy relationship.

 

I agree with you, Woggle. And it's been my experience that men like being romanced from time to time as well. I do think that it comes a bit later---men tend to rush to romantic gestures earlier (most of these, I don't need early on), whereas I'll wait till I know a guy is for real.

 

What I found interesting about the linked article is that it wasn't actually about gestures (who does what) but about beliefs. Men expressed a stronger belief in "the one", "soul mates", "love at first sight" than women did.

 

A part of me thinks it makes perfect sense. All stats show that men benefit greatly from marriage: their life expectancy increases as does their reported levels of happiness. (Women's remain unchanged in both cases). Married men also fare better on the job market and are more likely to get promotions than their single counterparts (married women's career opportunities, on the other hand, take a hit, both in opportunities and promotions). The article reports that men even derive a sense of physical well-being out of long term partnerships. In other words: Men believe in romance because successful long-term romance actually has a tremendous pay-off for most men.

 

Their belief in romance might also explain why they report being blindsided if their relationships fails. They draw such benefits from long term relationships that they might experience an increased sense of betrayal and-or failure then women.

 

It all makes perfect sense to me.

 

This makes sense to me, too, for another reason:

 

Women talk about and analyze relationships more than men. The more you talk about something, the less deeply you feel it, the less instinctual it seems. That's my experience.

[Kamille]

V

 

This makes sense to me, too, for another reason:

 

Women talk about and analyze relationships more than men. The more you talk about something, the less deeply you feel it, the less instinctual it seems. That's my experience.

 

Yes! Good point. (I'm really thinking this through as the thread unfolds). But what if women's propensity to over-analyze is the consequence rather than the cause of our un-romanticism:

 

I'm trying to formulate something that would go: Since marriage brings men many benefits, they likely need to worry about the practicality of it less. Women gain more by realistically analyzing their partners.

[GooseChaser]

Although, of course unfortunately in reality women dont recognize the little things that men do in their day to day lives like picking them up, driving them around, carrying their stuff, or holding their purses and instead complain about how they rarely say "I love you", they dont bring flowers often enough, or they forget about the anniversaries.

I don't see you "recognizing the little things that women do in their day-to-day lives"....

[carhill]

You're certainly entitled to your jadedness, but it kills a little spark of hope in me when you talk about turning your back on your sensitive nature. Being single can be bleak enough without worrying that any man I'm compatible with is going to turn into a cold battle-hardened wreck before I find him.

 

Not that I'm saying you're a wreck, or cold, or... nevermind.

That's your perception and you're entitled to it, but I disagree. I spent about five hours on the phone last night with someone who wanted to end themselves and we worked through it. The last thing I am is uncaring. 20,000 posts of caring on this wretched web site is proof of it. I am *selective* in how I care and who I care for. That's what a lifetime of abandonment and abuse at the hands of women has taught me. I was lucky. I had loving parents who provided me with a great life. Now I live it alone. My choice. Take care

[GooseChaser]

You know me?

Nooo , I'm talking about in this thread. Here, it's all about minimizing women's romanticism. I don't see any "recognition," which you want women to give to men.

[zengirl]

But today, I cant really say marriage is as beneficial for men as in the olden days.

 

As beneficial? Maybe not. Having an extra piece of property that had very little control over the relationship was maybe more beneficial in some ways, but most statistics bear out that married men do better overall than single men in the various statistics she mentioned.

 

When men say men benefit very little from marriage, they're usually looking at it through the lens of divorce (a failed marriage).

 

Being romantic is simply doing something in the hope of making your partner happy. Its an action.

 

Romantic can be in words, too, and not all happy-making activities are traditionally considered romantic. For instance, I often help my BF with things like making appointments, running errands, etc. I don't consider this "romantic" even though I do it to make him happy. It's not flowery or in a romantic vein. I do things to make lots of people happy who are not romantic partners.

 

You think guys like waiting for women shopping for hours? No, but by waiting, they feel that they are making a sacrifice for their loved ones which is the idea of romance for men. Although, of course unfortunately in reality women dont recognize the little things that men do in their day to day lives like picking them up, driving them around, carrying their stuff, or holding their purses and instead complain about how they rarely say "I love you", they dont bring flowers often enough, or they forget about the anniversaries.

 

Well, I think both types of things are important --- the special occasion things and the day-to-day things --- or at least, they are to me. I notice the day-to-day things my BF does more, but I do need some special occasion things. That said, I express what I need, and he's good at being thoughftul, so we have no issues. I also make sure I do a mix of both things for him, though the type of romantic gestures we like do differ.

 

As far as "sacrifice," I've always thought that was lame. For the most part, I don't want to drag a guy around the mall, make him come to a chick flick with me, or ask him to do anything like that he doesn't enjoy, unless it's purely practical (i.e. Help me move, I'd want, but I can go to the chick flick with a friend or by myself, thanks). I certainly don't want him to do it with an attitude of "Well, I hate this, but I'll sacrifice." That'd be lame.

[zengirl]

That's your perception and you're entitled to it, but I disagree. I spent about five hours on the phone last night with someone who wanted to end themselves and we worked through it. The last thing I am is uncaring. 20,000 posts of caring on this wretched web site is proof of it. I am *selective* in how I care and who I care for. That's what a lifetime of abandonment and abuse at the hands of women has taught me. I was lucky. I had loving parents who provided me with a great life. Now I live it alone. My choice. Take care

 

Just wanted to say, I've read loads of your posts, carhill -- agreed, disagreed, whatever -- and I've never gotten the idea you were uncaring towards people in the least. (Cynical, sometimes? Maybe a bit. But I always figured that was a product of age and circumstance.)

[Woggle]

There is a huge difference between cynical and uncaring. I am very cynical but despite the fact that I have tried I can't be uncaring. I will be honest and admit there were times between my marriages that I wish could use and abuse women so heartlessly like many players do but I just don't have it in me to treat people that way. I will say that for the most part I feel men like that have much easier lives and much less heartache than men that care. It is sad but it is true.

[Jazzari]

In the past, men did benefit greatly from having a wife as much as the wife benefited from the men's financial wealth and status. You know, back in the days there were no microwave or laundry machine. Also having a wife meant a man had someone to help him working in the field or at the store. So having a wife really increased the quality of life of a man.

 

But today, I cant really say marriage is as beneficial for men as in the olden days.

 

 

Yea well, if the boy didnt buy the flowers in the first place, there wouldnt even be any romance, would there?

 

I think you are confusing being romantic and being emotional.

 

Being romantic is simply doing something in the hope of making your partner happy. Its an action.

 

The person who takes the initiative to do romantic things is of course the more romantic one than the one who simply receives the gesture.

 

As for your claim that a boy can just buy flowers to give to his gf and simply forgets about it, of course he does. He is a boy. He thinks flowers are stupid, but he does it anyway because he knows his gf will be happy. You think guys like waiting for women shopping for hours? No, but by waiting, they feel that they are making a sacrifice for their loved ones which is the idea of romance for men. Although, of course unfortunately in reality women dont recognize the little things that men do in their day to day lives like picking them up, driving them around, carrying their stuff, or holding their purses and instead complain about how they rarely say "I love you", they dont bring flowers often enough, or they forget about the anniversaries.

We disagree on definition. If my SO bought me a new dishwasher, it would make me happy. It would not be romantic in the slightest.

 

The guy who buys the "stupid" flowers is not a romantic. He's doing things by the numbers. He gets points for trying and its appreciated. But it doesn't make him a romantic in the slightest.

 

If I go to a football game with my SO, I'm doing it to make him happy. But it doesn't make me a sports fan. Same thing.

[Knittress]

That's your perception and you're entitled to it, but I disagree. I spent about five hours on the phone last night with someone who wanted to end themselves and we worked through it. The last thing I am is uncaring. 20,000 posts of caring on this wretched web site is proof of it. I am *selective* in how I care and who I care for. That's what a lifetime of abandonment and abuse at the hands of women has taught me. I was lucky. I had loving parents who provided me with a great life. Now I live it alone. My choice. Take care

 

I didn't say you came across as uncaring! You talk about your close relationships with other people and altruistic actions all the time. I said what I said because when you talk about your younger years you seem deeply romantic and closely bonded in relationships but now write in a far more detached and clinical manner. It's a tad disheartening.

[carhill]

So, if you choose more compatible people to be in close and bonded relationships with, you won't be writing in a far more detached and clinical manner when you reach my age. Pretty simple.

 

BTW, 'jadedness' pretty much equals 'uncaring', in my book anyway. Let me examine the definitions:

 

Jadedness:

1. Worn out; wearied: "My father's words had left me jaded and depressed" (William Styron).

2. Dulled by surfeit; sated: "the sickeningly sweet life of the amoral, jaded, bored upper classes" (John Simon).

3. Cynically or pretentiously callous.

 

Uncaring:

Devoid of concern or sympathy.

 

In your experience in life, how many people whom you would describe as jaded have shown proactive care, concern or empathy for you? IME, such people are like black holes which suck all the pleasure of life out of those who surround them, to the extent it is allowed. Their cup is perpetually half-empty. Depressed, dejected, sullen. A drag.

 

Do my posts really come across that way? If so, maybe I need to get back to therapy and get away from LS. I certainly don't want to drag people down. I will submit that people often choose what they wish to hear, no matter what is said or written. In fact, the ways in which the romantic prose I penned was received in the past may have been and appears to have been received as decidedly unromantic and perhaps unwelcome, even by those who superficially appeared to love me, with my exW as an example, so feeling pain, hurt, and rejection in response to those perceptions is part of the healthy process of acceptance. To feel joy one must accept pain. Obviously, on a site like LS, for a man to speak of his pain is not popular and not often welcome. That's OK. The men out there who don't post but do read appreciate such perspectives on romance and relationship dynamics. It's for them I write, not for you. That's the god-honest truth.

[january2011]

Obviously, on a site like LS, for a man to speak of his pain is not popular and not often welcome.

 

This is a sad state of affairs. If one cannot speak about one's pain on a site like this, regardless of one's gender, where can one find solace or peace?

[northern_sky]

Carhill: I like you a lot, but you do come off as extremely bitter and depressed with a veneer of pleasantness. I get the vibe you are in total denial about this, though.

[carhill]

OK, accepted. I'll shift my focus onto those people in real life who perceive me differently, including those LS'ers who know me in real life. You're entitled to your opinion.

[january2011]

OK, accepted. I'll shift my focus onto those people in real life who perceive me differently, including those LS'ers who know me in real life. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Carhill, you're not leaving, are you?

[northern_sky]

OK, accepted. I'll shift my focus onto those people in real life who perceive me differently, including those LS'ers who know me in real life. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Hey, I didn't mean to offend or alienate you. I think it might be wise to consider my perspective, because I feel like you're in a bit of a daze. Obviously, I want to see you happy. Please don't leave!

[carhill]

No, but I won't devote my efforts and care to those who choose to believe such efforts and care are not genuine. This is in the same vein as not being romantic towards women who do not value nor appreciate romance. It's a great life lesson.

[northern_sky]

No, but I won't devote my efforts and care to those who choose to believe such efforts and care are not genuine. This is in the same vein as not being romantic towards women who do not value nor appreciate romance. It's a great life lesson.

 

no, no! that's not what i meant. I very much do believe your efforts to be helpful are genuine, and I appreciate them. This is a separate issue. I get the sense you are unhappy, and it concerns me.

[northern_sky]

Really, Carhill, you're one of the sweetest, most caring LSers. And many people (including me) appreciate your advice. This is separate.

[january2011]

No, but I won't devote my efforts and care to those who choose to believe such efforts and care are not genuine. This is in the same vein as not being romantic towards women who do not value nor appreciate romance. It's a great life lesson.

 

Carhill, I don't know what to say. I enjoy reading your posts. You are one of the few posters who have a lot of insight and valuable experience to share. You get straight to the point and I think many appreciate that, though they might not see it at the time. I would hate to see it end like this for you.

[northern_sky]

I'm just tactless. I want you to be happy, and I was hoping I might be able to shake you out of what I perceived as denial. But I guess I crossed a line. I'm sorry.

[northern_sky]

I guess I hit a nerve. I hope he returns.