Is romanticism a dangerous quality to have in the 21st century?

April 18, 2004

Is romanticism a dangerous quality to have in the 21st century? Since I was a little girl, I have been one of the last true romantic souls. I long for adventure, for beautiful experience and for my happy ending. When I fell in love, I never ceased to feel amazed at the sudden beauty all around me. I was always appreciative of what I had, and I put everything I had into keeping it. Being a romantic, I was completely oblivious to the possible outcomes of a relationship and when he broke it off with me a year later, indeed every philosophy I had once held so dear was completely shattered.

I am the type of individual who believes in love lasting forever. But I come from a broken family, and the likelihood of ever attaining this type of relationship is extremely unlikely. How do I protect myself from the rocky world of relationships, while still retaining some of my romantic nature - because I truly believe that without this side of me, I would never be able to fall in love completely again.

April 18, 2004

Here are 2 lines of advice I have for you:

1. Do not read a romance novel or watch a romantic television show or movie if you cannot separate fiction from reality. Real romantic love is not like it's portrayed in the movies. If it were, LoveShack.org would probably not exist. People come here because they want advice on how to deal with relationships in the real world.

2. I too believe it's possible to find a lasting love. But true love is more about friendship than it is about romance. Romane does not make you honest, faithful, loyal, considerate, selfless, or accomodating...yet, these are qualities that we look for in a mate. These qualities have to be there BEFORE there's romance, and you cultivated them by being a good friend. So, if you want to know how good a person is going to treat you, look at how they treat their family and their friends. More than likely, they will eventually end up treating you the same way.

April 18, 2004

I thoroughally agree with you actually. I believe you should be best friends first and formost to being lovers. Perhaps my romantic side is slowly fading away anyway. One to many broken hearts has left me feeling jaded. But yes - I suppose you should look at how somebody treats their friends and family, I never thought to do that. Do you think you should also look at how that person has dealt with past relationships? Say if they kicked an ex to the curb and were generally unpleasant about it - the likelihood of them doing the same thing to you is increased?

April 18, 2004

All I have to say is, welcome to life. I mean that in the nicest possible way

April 18, 2004

Maybe this is a stage that you have to go through to become more in touch with reality. It's not realistic to believe in love at first sight, and love conquers all and all that other rubbish - because it's a very long life, things always change and nothing was designed to last.

I really believe now that you have to be happy within yourself, and you really have to appreciate yourself. That way, you have the self-esteem to pick yourself up if anything should happen. That way, you won't put up with everything that bothers you in a romantic relationship without saying a thing.

I have answered my own question. Down with Romanticism! Up with Realism :-)

April 18, 2004

Placing so much value on romance is a detrimental quality, in any century. The reason romance stories are unrealistic is NOT because that beauty doesn't exist, but only because it takes so much effort to maintain that delusion, that a lifelong romance is impossible.

To be a romantic is to delude yourself, and your partner, because you're placing your effort on maintaining a delusion. That's not to say that it's not totally fun, but when it's the glue that holds it together, you can't expect a relationship to last.

April 18, 2004

I don't know if the question would be if you would think your dreams of love are impossible to fulfill OR if your dreams are high enough that you will never accept anything less.

I'm like the latter. I'm not prone to accept this isn't what I wanted but I'll settle for it. If it's not ALL I want in a relationship, I would rather be alone. It's a lonely stand......but a stand. LOL!

Be sure what it will take to make you happy. From there, decide if you can compromise.

April 18, 2004

lol i was always as romantic as i could be....when i used to pick up my girlfriend from college every now and then i used to buy a red rose and put it on the passenger seat for her...she loved that.

id been going out with her for 4 months and i organised a holiday to paris as well for valentines day and i bought her an expensive diamond necklace.

every now and then i would send her a text message saying ' i love you x '

in some ways i was too romantic...i know that sounds stupid....didnt help that i was too clingy as well

April 18, 2004

Originally posted by Arabess
I don't know if the question would be if you would think your dreams of love are impossible to fulfill OR if your dreams are high enough that you will never accept anything less.

I'm like the latter. I'm not prone to accept this isn't what I wanted but I'll settle for it. If it's not ALL I want in a relationship, I would rather be alone. It's a lonely stand......but a stand. LOL!

Be sure what it will take to make you happy. From there, decide if you can compromise.

This is what I've come to learn through time and experiences. I've been accused of having an all or nothing attitude. I say, so what?!?

April 18, 2004

Do you think you should also look at how that person has dealt with past relationships? Say if they kicked an ex to the curb and were generally unpleasant about it - the likelihood of them doing the same thing to you is increased?

Yes you should look at past relationships. You should look at how soon they became involved, how long it lasted, how soon it ended and why it ended. If you think you're in love with someone after dating them for a month, you're deluting yourself. You're not seeing the real person. You're seeing what you want to see or who that person wants you to see. And if a person has been in a series of relationships that started quickly and ended quickly, then red flags should come up.

Also, some people feel that discussing past relationships should be off-limits. But in order for you to know where you're going with this person, or even if you want to go anywhere with him, you have to know where he is coming from. That's not to say you have to get all detailed about the past, but if a person's not comfortable talking about his past relationships or insist that it doesn't matter, then another red flag should go up. They may have something to hide, or if it's still painful talking about past relationships, then they're not completely over them. I was dating a guy who dogged all of his past girlfriends. Everything that went bad was there fault and not his. It was hard for me to believe that out of all the girlfriends he had, he NEVER contributed to the relationship's demise.

Now some people do make mistakes and they realize the mistakes they've made in past relationships. A humble person would be willing to own up to his mistakes and not feel embarrassed that if he tells you about them, you would think he's less of a good man (or good woman). People do make mistakes. Dating is alot of trial and error. But don't give up.

April 18, 2004

To be a romantic is to delude yourself

I agree...but you are only deluding yourself if you don't accept yourself as you are. I have accepted the fact that I am an incurable, hopeless romantic, and with that acceptance comes confidence. You are only deluding yourself if you want to be "rescued" by another person, and are unhappy, or insecure with your own life, and want someone to take you away from it all.

True romantic women need to be independant and secure before it can work, otherwise they will live sad and lonely lives, always searching for that "Prince Charming" to come and take them away...

I think some people (particularly women), who have security issues, tend to confuse their insecurities with the concept of "Romanticism."

you're placing your effort on maintaining a delusion.

Only if you expect the other person to change, in order to accomodate YOUR delusion of romanticism. Sometimes, no effort is involved, when both are on the same wavelength. This is why it is important to find partners who hold the same beliefs, ideals that you do.

when it's the glue that holds it together, you can't expect a relationship to last

Again...this is only true if the two people involved do not share the same views about romanticism.

Bottom Line: One must be FIRST and FOREMOST be secure with themselves, and make a life for themselves as individuals, or NO kind of relationship is going to work for them.

People don't generally seek out partners who are insecure, or totally dependent on them, this will push the other person away, and this is NOT romantic, so if you really like adventure and romance, offer that to the person you want to be with, and if they are the romantic type, they will offer it in return.

Life is only lonely when you expect another person to live it for you.

Dependence = slavery, Independence = freedom, freedom = happiness, happiness = security. I have never met a secure person who was unhappy.

[color=red]Gypsy "Those who hear not the music, think the dancers mad"[/color]

April 18, 2004

Gypsy, I still totally disagree.

Even if two people are completely on the same wavelength, romanticism is still a delusion. I don't mean to debase it's value to the self-acclaimed hopeless romantic, I understand that it's a pleasant delusion worth living for--but the fact that you found someone who feels like you does not make it less delusional.

With that train of thought, you're valuing the way something feels over the way something is. I didn't claim it was unhealthy, only that maintaining the delusion--or whatever you want to call it--takes a lot of effort, because feelings are valued over reality--so when reality changes, it's perceived that the feelings are changing as well.

And even though you found someone who has the same hopes, dreams, and ideals as you in March of 2004--a connection based on hopes, dreams, ideals, and feelings will only last as long as is exciting.

April 18, 2004

I suppose there's one way to combine the romantic and the realist in you - write romance novels yourself!

They sell like hotcakes even in this day and age for a reason, it seems. I know I would if I had that sort of talent!!

April 18, 2004

With that train of thought, you're valuing the way something feels over the way something is. I didn't claim it was unhealthy, only that maintaining the delusion--or whatever you want to call it--takes a lot of effort, because feelings are valued over reality--so when reality changes, it's perceived that the feelings are changing as well.

Well Dyer, you are a guy.

Only one of us would have written this.

For women, feelings are reality.

April 18, 2004

Even if two people are completely on the same wavelength, romanticism is still a delusion

.

YES, it is (to both people), for as long as it lasts...and when if both people involved are realistic about this fact from the beginning, nobody gets hurt. I do not stay in relationships that don't work for me, and try to seek partners who are as realistic about romantacism as I am, or it definately will not work. I have been able to remain friends with all my fabulous exes, and vice versa, with no hard feelings, because we were both upfront and realistic about our expectations in the beginning. When it's over, it's over, but we remain life-long friends.

I don't mean to debase it's value to the self-acclaimed hopeless romantic, I understand that it's a pleasant delusion worth living for--but the fact that you found someone who feels like you does not make it less delusional.

As long as you share the same delusions, and it's fun, what difference does it make?...I am not saying romanticism ISN'T delusional, I am saying that if you are both "delusional" about similar things, it may work, but whether it's romantic or utilitarian love, NO relationships are guaranteed to last forever, and one just has to be realistic about who they are, in order to maintain any kind of happiness in their lives.

If you KNOW that you are a person who's life would be turned upside down by the passion and freedom of a dramatic, emotional and romantic type - then go find someone who is more like yourself.

Some people prefer to live predictable, safe and utilitarian lives, minus any kind of drama, and they should look for people who are the same. Some people think romantic love is silly, and non-productive, that's fine for them, but not for me...Every time I fall in love, it is REAL, for as long as it lasts, and that's good enough for me...I can't even comprehend the notion of a "soul-mate" or that there is only one love in your life...I want to LIVE, and then I can write beautiful, deep poetry with great passion and feeling about all my beautiful life experiences!!!

For we romantic, dramatic types, it is fun to experience several loves in our lives, and we are secure with who we are, and what our expectations are of our romantic partners.

I think it much more delusional when people are swayed by media images of the "perfect person," and what others are "supposed to look like."

With that train of thought, you're valuing the way something feelsover the way something is.

The way I FEEL in my relationships is the way it IS for me, as is the same with anyone. If it doesn't FEEL good (no matter what kind of relationship you are in), it isn't good for you. Some people stay in unhappy relationships for years and years, because it is "safer" than breaking up.

I didn't claim it was unhealthy, only that maintaining the delusion--or whatever you want to call it--takes a lot of effort, because feelings are valued over reality--so when reality changes, it's perceived that the feelings are changing as well.

Doesn't it take effort (emotionally) to stay in an unhappy, or unfullfilled relationship as well?

FEELINGS ARE REALITY!!! Feelings change in relationships whether they are "romantic" or "utialitarian." That is life...all about change...how we cope with the changes together, as a couple, determines the longevity of ANY relationship.

[color=red]Gypsy "I will believe only in a god, who knows how to dance."-------- Nietschze[/color]

April 18, 2004

I think I was beleiving in romanticism. I've been in a long distance relationship for 3.5 years and I thought the love between us was un-breakable, because their are simplier ways of having a relationship.

Now I've realised that the nicer your are, the more your partner takes advantage of you.....What a real shame!

April 18, 2004

realistic about romantacism

I'm thinking 'oxymoron'

April 18, 2004

Romantic realism? That's like delusional straight-shooting--an oxymoron at best.

When you place your emphasis on the way it feels, you cannot be realistic.

Yes, it can last, but only as long as you're both willing to maintain the delusion.

As long as you share the same delusions, and it's fun, what difference does it make?...I am not saying romanticism ISN'T delusional, I am saying that if you are both "delusional" about similar things, it may work

That's what I'm saying. For you, shared delusions and fun may be what you're seeking. I have different preferences than you, and I created a thread about this earlier. The major flaw I found with shared delusion is that the effort it takes to maintain it doesn't pay off--at least not to me, I feel dishonest about it. Even when you're up front with your expectations, there comes a time when you have to face the fact that you're bored of meeting them.

Additionally, the opposite of romantic love is not utilitarian love. There are people who love one another, and who are in relationships, not because they're conceding to something, or because they lack passion, but simply because they maintain a firm grasp on reality. The feelings are still there, there's just something beneath it.

What's good enough for the goose...

April 18, 2004

Romantic realism? That's like delusional straight-shooting--an oxymoron at best.

"

So what I gather you are saying is that "Romantacism," or being "Romantic" is in no way a reality...? How sad for you. For me romance and passion are reality...and I am not delusional about it al all.

When you place your emphasis on the way it feels, you cannot be realistic.

Tell that to all the people in the world who are abused by their spouses, or people they care about...are they being unrealistic for FEELING abused....? Talk about oxymorons!!!

Generally, if you FEEL a certain way, it is REAL for you, whatever that feeling may be.

Furthermore...I would like you to define "REALITY"... What is real for you, does not make it real for others...

For those who are diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, or Psychosis, the voices they hear in their heads are a REALITY to them...just ask one and find out.

To a woman who has been sexually abused, her feelings of guilt and inadequacy, and fear of men is a REALITY to her, and if she is uncomfortable with her man watching porn, this is her REALITY...

Need I go on........?

There are people who love one another, and who are in relationships, not because they're conceding to something, or because they lack passion, but simply because they maintain a firm grasp on reality

Again with the REALITY....Don't you mean YOUR reality??? How very judgemental of you to assume that your definition of reality is the same as everone elses.

Believe me, I have a VERY FIRM GRASP on reality...and I don't assume that everyone elses reality is the same as mine.

What's good enough for the goose...

This is an oxymoron, coming from you, after you have spent so much time writing your views, and telling others why they are being 'UNREALISTIC" because they happen to believe in Romantic Love. If you really believed this statement, you wouldn't have wasted your time and energy writing all this stuff, you would simply have said "What's good enough for the goose"...and left it like that.

[color=red]Gypsy "Live and let live"[/color]

April 18, 2004

Originally posted by gypsygem
Furthermore...I would like you to define "REALITY"... What is real for you, does not make it real for others...

For those who are diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, or Psychosis, the voices they hear in their heads are a REALITY to them...just ask one and find out.

I don't believe reality is subjective. I do not believe that THINKING something is real is enough to make it not be a delusion.

The concept of personal reality is flawed, because it denies the possibility of delusion. I'm certain someone else can say it better.

April 18, 2004

The concept of personal reality is flawed, because it denies the possibility of delusion.

.....Ahhhhh, what IS reality, and what IS delusion......?

Are our delusions our reality.....?

...Or are our realities delusions.....? ...Or, are reality and delusion the same thing...?

People with Psychosis are hospitalized because they are "dilusional," but if we were all Psychotic, our delusions would be reality, and we would lock up those who were "sane."

This is a whole other thread, altogether...

[color=red]Gypsy "Am I real.......or am I someone else's dilusion?"[/color]

April 18, 2004

Samson
For women, feelings are reality.

I bet those feelings can make a heaven out of hell or a hell out of heaven.

gypsygem
Furthermore...I would like you to define "REALITY"... What is real for you, does not make it real for others...

There are different points of view and interpretations, but there is only one reality.

A delusion is a delusion, and reality is reality. When you delude yourself, you basically fool yourself into believing something. For example, you fool yourself into believing your boyfriend is this perfect man who is incapable of wronging you.

Romance is a delusion, and it will always fade away. Real love requires effort, and it can last.

April 18, 2004

So what I gather you are saying is that "Romantacism," or being "Romantic" is in no way a reality

Then you misconstrue my meaning. What I meant was that nobody being that realistic could actually be swept up in any genuine romanticizing, since that involves idealism - the antithesis of realism.

For women, feelings are reality

Um. No. Feelings are reactions to our interpretations of 'reality'. However, if our interpretation is flawed, then our feelings will engage improperly; for instance when people are jealous even though their spouses are not doing anything to warrant it. You confuse the internal world (self) with the external world (reality). You have to always question what you believe to be true, since you can be misinterpreting what you see, as you did with my remark.

April 18, 2004

A delusion is a delusion, and reality is reality. When you delude yourself, you basically fool yourself into believing something. For example, you fool yourself into believing your boyfriend is this perfect man who is incapable of wronging you.

So then...you are deluding yourself into believing that peoples' feelings are not reality?

Real love requires effort, and it can last.

You are assuming that romantic love is not "real love?" .

Some of the greatest art, music and writings known to man have been inspired by the hearts and minds of romantic, passionate people who have loved...if this is not real love, then I don't know what is.

Romance is a delusion, and it will always fade away.

Speak for yourself! Romance lasts as long as both involved have the desire to keep it going. You probably just don't have that desire, so to justify it, you say that romantic love is not "real love." Sounds like you are "deluding" yourself.

What I gathered from your post is that your reality consists of a lack of feelings and lack of romance, and that you are deluding yourself into believing that peoples' feelings are not reality?

[color=red]Gypsy [/color]

April 18, 2004

Originally posted by gypsygem
Some of the greatest art, music and writings known to man have been inspired by the hearts and minds of romantic, passionate people who have loved

This is because romantic love makes great art, music, and writings. Art, literature, and other mediums of expression depicting companionate love would be extremely boring. Just ask Helen Hunt and Paul Reiser.

...if this is not real love, then I don't know what is.

Precisely.

Sign In

Is romanticism a dangerous quality to have in the 21st century?

Recommended Posts

emeraldcity

ThisGirlNameKD

emeraldcity

Fedup&givingup

emeraldcity

dyermaker

Arabess

tom_gbr

Fedup&givingup

ThisGirlNameKD

gypsygem

dyermaker

reasontosigh

Samson

gypsygem

wecancope

moimeme

dyermaker

gypsygem

dyermaker

gypsygem

BlockHead

moimeme

gypsygem

dyermaker

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...