hellyes!! wrote:
still, i knew you were a romantic deep down...and not just deep down her throat either!

btw, recently discovered that ego waffles are tasty with some peanut butter smashed between 'em (sandwich style). great way to eat 'em on the go.

....I'm sorry, was this some sort of pun that I'm missing...in reference to marsup's ego?

I believe I am horrendously unromantic. That is my theory.

Also, I have been told that I was conceived on New Year's Eve during a drunken game of strip Scrabble.

I'm not good at saying "hey, let's go to this different restaurant that I researched in the interest of keeping your life fresh and exciting for you" or "hey, let's go see such and such play at such and such theatre, cause blah blah blah..."

I am, however... reliable, loyal, caring, I'm so there when she's sick and needs tending to, I can listen and try to understand her side of things, and I always open doors including the car door, every time. And I pay for dinner. And breakfast. And whatnot. I have never cheated on a girl and never will. I don't think I'm so romantic, or sexy, or any of that stuff. But I'm not so bad. Hey, I bring what I bring. Which often includes chocolate covered cherries. From the gas station. See how unromantic I am?

I don't know that I think romance means jack shit, anyways. Me, I prefer loving, and feeling like I am loved. And that exists outside of romance. Romance is bullshit that hollywood sells to housewives.

Are there actually guys out there who need a woman to provide "romance" or else they feel unfulfilled? Straight guys? Or is this just a wimmens thing?

How in the hell are loving and romance mutually exclusive?

Loving is the stuff you do - caring for her when she's sick, being loyal and being dependable.

Romance is the small stuff that over time adds up to a lot and that keeps her from getting bored with you. Thinking it's just some cannily marketed commodity (though it CAN be that) is narrow-minded. Romance didn't exist before Hollywood? Come on. This reveals your very limited notion of what is romance, not some cynical insight about the nature of romance itself.

And no, men don't need a lot of romance. Unless by "romance", you mean hard fucking.

Ty Webb wrote:How in the hell are loving and romance mutually exclusive?

Love absolutely exists outside of romance. Romance exists without love. The two can be related, but the absence of one does not preclude the other.

Sure romance existed before Hollywood. Romeo and Juliet, that's some romantic shit right there, huh?

scott wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:How in the hell are loving and romance mutually exclusive?

Love absolutely exists outside of romance. Romance exists without love. The two can be related, but the absence of one does not preclude the other.

Sure romance existed before Hollywood. Romeo and Juliet, that's some romantic shit right there, huh?

OK I'm having a hard time coming up with scenarios for romance without love and love without romance. Enlighten me! I think that even the most unromantic dolt can still be in love and will still make with the romantic gestures i.e. you purchasing chocolates from the gas station. This still qualifies for romance, and may even be much more romantic than a more grandiose gesture, to the "right" girl. I received one of those ultra cheesy looking velvet roses from a gas station once, it was the most romantic gesture I have ever been on the receiving end of. I don't think that you can romance, truly romance someone without having love for the target of your affections. Can you?

Sure you can. Shitbags do it nonstop. Say and do things that are romantic (remember, this word is purely subjective) in the eyes of their "target"-- excellent word choice, BTW. Douchebag has a yacht, and likes to bang chicks that look good in bikinis. Douchebag is gonna pull all kinda romantic shit, and he doesn't love her. Maybe that's only in the movies, but I swear I've actually seen douchebag. In fact, I know at least one of him.

example: you can go out on a romantic date with someone you find attractive, but maybe love would be too strong of a feeling. like, if you just started dating a girl and wanted to be romantic to woo her over, that doesn't necessarily mean you love her or would show love. it could be out of admiration or lust.

...alright I guess I have also seen douchebags pulling said "romance" out of their asses to bag some hot chick. Doesn't romance however, imply that you care or are showing that you care about the girl/guy? I guess it could be showing that you care about what is in their pants....hmm

First date, no love yet but romantic....hmm ok.....but there may still be a budding of love....yes?

OK I give up. romance sucks and is dead

I prefer Bromance.

I used to be of the excessively romantic variety. On one occasion I built a music box. I drilled holes in the top with a microbit and installed fiberoptic lights in the pattern of the position of the constellations on our first date; she told me on our first date that at one point in her young life she wanted to be an astronaut. It played a cheesy song that meant something humorous to the both of us. This was almost ten years ago. I have progressively lost my romantic tendencies over the course of subsequent relationships.

Jon