The Art Of Romance -- Gone?

[WisdomSeeker]

Well personal slights aside, some people brought up interesting questions. Is what I'm describing "romance," or just "romantic gestures?" Is there a difference? Is romance an emotional thing that cannot be explained? Or a physical, concrete showing? Or both? Can you have one without the other?

 

As in, romantic gestures for a casual partner, but for those in LTRs, do things that, while not inherently "romantic," are romantic because it's between two people in love?

 

Ahhh so many questions!

 

The only thing that separates genuine romance from what is only a romantic gesture is the spirit behind it. Objectively, they are indistinguishable. How else does one express romance, an abstract ideal, but by gesture, by action that brings that abstraction into the practical? Genuine romance however pairs gesture with genuine affection for and interest in the other party. Romantic gestures that never rise above gesture are, I guess, hollow in that they don't arise from a reservoir of emotion.

 

Hmmm. I suppose the natural argument that follows from that reasoning is that casual relationships cannot possibly generate genuine romance because there is not enough intimacy, enough shared emotion, to do so.

 

But we also have to neatly define casual don't we? I'm not very interested in marriage and parenting, but I have no qualms about emotionally investing in a partner. Would my romantic gestures, given that they would come from my heart, not fulfill the quality of true romance?

[Pyro]

The only thing that separates genuine romance from what is only a romantic gesture is the spirit behind it. Objectively, they are indistinguishable. How else does one express romance, an abstract ideal, but by gesture, by action that brings that abstraction into the practical? Genuine romance however pairs gesture with genuine affection for and interest in the other party. Romantic gestures that never rise above gesture are, I guess, hollow in that they don't arise from a reservoir of emotion.

 

Hmmm. I suppose the natural argument that follows from that reasoning is that casual relationships cannot possibly generate genuine romance because there is not enough intimacy, enough shared emotion, to do so.

 

But we also have to neatly define casual don't we? I'm not very interested in marriage and parenting, but I have no qualms about emotionally investing in a partner. Would my romantic gestures, given that they would come from my heart, not fulfill the quality of true romance?

 

Good post.

 

Being married or not or being parents has nothing to do with the quality of romance IMO. Those aside you are still emotionally connected with another human being and that emotional connection plays a pivotal role in genuine romance.

[MrCastle]

I think there is a disconnect on this site (or maybe in real life in general) between casual relationships and long term relationships.

 

Seems to me like most people here think casual relationships are two people who only care about sex and nothing more. That's the be all end all. As if I call a casual partner, ask her how her day is going, and she says "not good, my cat died yesterday," and I remark "bummer...so are we still on for sex tonight?"

 

Casual relationships don't mean you care nothing for the person and your only focus is to penetrate them. Believe it or not you can have meaningful casual relationships. You may not want a long term relationship with that person for a variety of reasons. A significant age gap, distance, coming off a bad break up, etc. Where both of you agree that while you really like each other, you can't see it working out long term for whatever reason.

 

You can be romantic and passionate and express signs of affection with someone you are seeing casually.

 

Just because you are in a committed relationship doesn't mean that all of a sudden whatever you do is now considered romantic because you're only with that one person.

 

And also let it be stated you can be seeing one person casually. Multi dating is a completely separate entity. You can be casual with one partner or you can see multiple others. Just because you're casual doesn't automatically mean you are sleeping with five other people.

 

I'd like to think what I do is a step up from finding a drunk chick at a bar and banging her once and not hearing from her again, but on this site, I'm no better than the men who do such things because I don't have a "girlfriend."

 

I would challenge those of you who feel that way to open your mind a little bit and see things differently. As black and white as I am in most areas of my life, romance is not one of them. It is not black and white. There is a lot of grey when it comes to relationships.

[ThaWholigan]

Call me high maintenance, but I find those things to be give ins.

I think that shows that different people find different things romantic. I find something like that sweet, but in no way would I label my man a romantic for it.

Precisely.

 

Which is why the "romance is dead" theory is kinda over-reaching in my opinion. It all depends on what you feel is romantic to you.

 

And it's interesting that you think this is a given, whereas for others they may be lucky to experience that kinda thing even when they really desire it more than the showy stuff.

[Divasu]

I think there is a disconnect on this site (or maybe in real life in general) between casual relationships and long term relationships.

 

The disconnect, is understanding the difference. Romance involves a priority towards emotions over libido.

 

A casual relationship is built on lust and sex. Sure, you can place candles and soft music in the background, but a duck, is still a duck...

[MrCastle]

The disconnect, is understanding the difference. Romance involves a priority towards emotions over libido.

 

A casual relationship is built on lust and sex. Sure, you can place candles and soft music in the background, but a duck, is still a duck...

 

That goes to my previous point, and Who touched on it as well, as what constitutes as being romantic? Is it subjective or objective?

 

And I don't think relationships are always the noble shining beacon of infinite love that you may think it is. I have known plenty of men who expressed to me pretty openly they entered a LTR with a woman for the sex so she wouldn't sleep with anyone else.

 

Again, I'd like to think what I do is a bit more romantic than that.

[Treasa]

I'm a very passionate, romantic person at times. I just don't want guys to get the wrong idea and think I want a relationship.

[MrCastle]

I'm a very passionate, romantic person at times. I just don't want guys to get the wrong idea and think I want a relationship.

 

 

(10 characters)

Edited August 3, 2013 by MrCastle

[miss_jaclynrae]

The disconnect, is understanding the difference. Romance involves a priority towards emotions over libido.

 

A casual relationship is built on lust and sex. Sure, you can place candles and soft music in the background, but a duck, is still a duck...

 

See, this is where I have a problem. Because just because something is casual doesn't mean there isn't any emotion.

Emotions tend run highest at the beginning of any relationship. [at least for me]

With casual relationships the great thing is that you can have that high emotion still, there just isn't any long term promise.

 

 

With the guy who I mentioned above, I want to add that there was a time when we went on 5 dates and didn't have sex after any of them. They were all very romantic and emotional. We connected very well, and even though we both sorta knew it wasn't going anywhere long term, that didn't mean we didn't have emotions and it was all about sex.

[Divasu]

That goes to my previous point, and Who touched on it as well, as what constitutes as being romantic? Is it subjective or objective?

 

I think, it's an action...

 

Let's compare actions:

 

Do you remain loyal? An action that requires acts of unselfishness.

Do you sacrifice your time, to be with her, with or without sex?

Do you remember important details, personal things about her and the two of you (that, aren't just sexually based)?

Are you there to hold her hand, if she's in the hospital?

Are you there to protect her and be a pillar of strength and provide emotional support?

Are you not only her lover, but also her best friend?

Do you hug her and console her, when she's crying?

Do you sometimes stop at that little store on the corner after leaving work, to pick up her favorite chocolate?

 

Again, boils down to what romance means to the individuals. Some equate romance with love, and the actions that are involved with loving someone, and some equate it with things like charm, mystery, passion, and the like.

[miss_jaclynrae]

Precisely.

 

Which is why the "romance is dead" theory is kinda over-reaching in my opinion. It all depends on what you feel is romantic to you.

 

And it's interesting that you think this is a given, whereas for others they may be lucky to experience that kinda thing even when they really desire it more than the showy stuff.

 

I find it a given because I wouldn't expect any less.

People only feel lucky when it isn't something they expect.

 

 

I am not saying I am not appreciative. I appreciate it more than anything.

I just wouldn't call my man romantic because he massages me feet and watches chick flicks with me.

[Divasu]

See, this is where I have a problem. Because just because something is casual doesn't mean there isn't any emotion.

Emotions tend run highest at the beginning of any relationship. [at least for me]

With casual relationships the great thing is that you can have that high emotion still, there just isn't any long term promise.

 

 

With the guy who I mentioned above, I want to add that there was a time when we went on 5 dates and didn't have sex after any of them. They were all very romantic and emotional. We connected very well, and even though we both sorta knew it wasn't going anywhere long term, that didn't mean we didn't have emotions and it was all about sex.

 

Well, no. It's not devoid of emotion entirely, it's devoid of a certain emotions.

 

What is distinguishing for you, between the demonstration of romance in a casual context as opposed to your current boyfriend?

[Southern Cal Dude]

[miss_jaclynrae]

Well, no. It's not devoid of emotion entirely, it's devoid of a certain emotions.

 

What is distinguishing for you, between the demonstration of romance in a casual context as opposed to your current boyfriend?

 

I consider all romantic acts to be romantic acts, no matter who does them.

The only thing is that it means more coming from my man because as we have become more comfortable, romantic acts are not as frequent, therefore when he does them they mean more.

 

Not to mention that my man knows me on a deeper level, so some romantic things he does wouldn't be romantic to anyone, just to me, also making them mean more.

[Sunshine87]

My take on casual relationships. Two scenarios.

 

a) Male and female are in a "casual" relationship because ONE of them wants to keep it that way even though the other wants something deeper.

 

B) Both parties want to keep things casual. To be honest, all the relationships I have witnessed like this are usually devoid of any deep emotional connection. These relationships are often founded on lust, lots of hot sex and good fun.

 

Truth is romance can be superficial and meaningless, it could also be real, mature and deep. Anyone could buy a woman flowers and take her to

dinner, even compose a poem for her simply because he is the honeymoon stage or excited about getting into her pants and exploring his new

adventure....only to dump her a few weeks after and run off to his next hump. This guy then proceeds to treat his new hump, the same way he

treated the previous. He comes up with some creative "romantic" gestures which might appear "sweet" on the surface, but really just one of his

gimmicks/temporary way of expressing his excitement at the new "relationship".

 

 

But the real romance...the type you observe between a solid couples is usually founded on deep affection, immense care, bonding emotions, love and friendship.

 

So I'd say there are two aspects of romance : the superficial and the meaningful. In my opinion, something that is superficial, cannot really be meaningful in real sense of the word I.e of significant value, serious, except of course, meaningful for sexual purposes

Edited August 3, 2013 by Sunshine87

[MrCastle]

I think, it's an action...

 

Let's compare actions:

 

Do you remain loyal? An action that requires acts of unselfishness.

Do you sacrifice your time, to be with her, with or without sex?

Do you remember important details, personal things about her and the two of you (that, aren't just sexually based)?

Are you there to hold her hand, if she's in the hospital?

Are you there to protect her and be a pillar of strength and provide emotional support?

Are you not only her lover, but also her best friend?

Do you hug her and console her, when she's crying?

Do you sometimes stop at that little store on the corner after leaving work, to pick up her favorite chocolate?

 

Again, boils down to what romance means to the individuals. Some equate romance with love, and the actions that are involved with loving someone, and some equate it with things like charm, mystery, passion, and the like.

 

I would answer yes to many of those. Most of those things don't require you to be attached to that one person.

 

I could see if we're discussing multi dating vs LTR, but as I said, not all casual daters are multi daters. It really could be a number of things preventing you from having a LTR (threads on this subject are made every day) and none of it has to do with you not having an emotional investment in the person.

 

I do sweet things for women all the time. Not to benfit sexually from it, but making women happy pleases me. Making their eyes light up, pleases me. Pleasuring them, pleases me.

 

As such, I go the extra mile romantically. I want her to experience something new and fun and interesting and passionate.

 

I have yet to meet someone who has wowed me to the point of me wanting to commit myself totally and exclusively to them. That doesn't mean, however, that the girls I date are nothing more than a vagina to me.

 

Like I said, there is a grey area. I'd like to think I'm different than some of the men I've seen, in regards to their motives and how they go about executing them.

[miss_jaclynrae]

I am curious about those who feel romance is only between established couples, if they have ever successful dated someone casually without it ending badly.

 

I have honestly dated a few guys casually, and they ended on friendly terms, which is why I don't find that romance to be "fake" by any means. Romance is real no matter what the status is.

 

All the men who were romantics actually DATED me. As in we went on more than one date and did have an actual relationship, it was just casual with no long term promise. No true commitment does not equal no emotional investment.

[Divasu]

I would answer yes to many of those. Most of those things don't require you to be attached to that one person.

 

But, have you actually done it?

 

Notions aside, I am talking about the actual action itself.

And by-the-by, loyalty in the context of a romantic relationship, does require being attached to ONE person.

[miss_jaclynrae]

I would answer yes to many of those. Most of those things don't require you to be attached to that one person.

 

I could see if we're discussing multi dating vs LTR, but as I said, not all casual daters are multi daters. It really could be a number of things preventing you from having a LTR (threads on this subject are made every day) and none of it has to do with you not having an emotional investment in the person.

 

I do sweet things for women all the time. Not to benfit sexually from it, but making women happy pleases me. Making their eyes light up, pleases me. Pleasuring them, pleases me.

 

As such, I go the extra mile romantically. I want her to experience something new and fun and interesting and passionate.

 

I have yet to meet someone who has wowed me to the point of me wanting to commit myself totally and exclusively to them. That doesn't mean, however, that the girls I date are nothing more than a vagina to me.

 

Like I said, there is a grey area. I'd like to think I'm different than some of the men I've seen, in regards to their motives and how they go about executing them.

 

 

Totally get what you are saying. & I agree, all the things she listed, even men who I was casually dating did such things.

[carhill]

Well, to that I'd say, you can be casual and still be romantic.

 

I agree. Some of the most polyamorous men I know, both single and married, are devout and natural romantics. They love women; all women.

 

Having courted every woman I was interested in, for myself I can say that the art of romance is not 'gone', but rather 'dormant'. Think of it as a seed which needs the right combination of soil conditions, moisture and warmth to germinate. That's about it.

[Sunshine87]

I do sweet things for women all the time. Not to benfit sexually from it, but making women happy pleases me. Making their eyes light up, pleases me. Pleasuring them, pleases me.

 

As such, I go the extra mile romantically. I want her to experience something new and fun and interesting and passionate.

 

I'd like to think I'm different than some of the men I've seen, in regards to their motives and how they go about executing them.

 

Maybe you are the EXCEPTION lol. But you must admit that you sound like you're experimenting or carrying out ome sort of project on these women lol.

 

By the way, I know of some guy who is a ROMANTIC....but it lasts for only three months. In fact, this is why he gets women so easily. He is very handsome and charming, and "romances" women. Alas! His attention span usually lasts for three months and off he goes. No thanks lol.

[Divasu]

Maybe you are the EXCEPTION lol. But you must admit that you sound like you're experimenting or carrying out ome sort of project on these women lol.

 

By the way, I know of some guy who is a ROMANTIC....but it lasts for only three months. In fact, this is why he gets women so easily. He is very handsome and charming, and "romances" women. Alas! His attention span usually lasts for three months and off he goes. No thanks lol.

 

I think a more appropriate title for this thread, should be:

 

The Art of Seduction.

 

PS.

Mr. Castle, you know I loves ya!

[Sunshine87]

I am curious about those who feel romance is only between established couples.

 

I don't think so. I just think that there is a difference between "romantic gestures" ( superficial) and deeper romance. The former is prevalent in casual relationships.

[MrCastle]

I think a more appropriate title for this thread, should be:

 

The Art of Seduction.

 

PS.

Mr. Castle, you know I loves ya!

 

That book, and The 48 Laws of Power are my two favorite books for what it's worth. Both by the same author

[tbf]

Castle, in being romantic and not wanting exclusivity, this sends a lot of mixed signals. For naive or competitive women, the setup is a hunting, proving and prize attainment trigger.

 

Are women only foils to your ego?