73
by hellyes!!_Archive
Interesting debate going on here, men. Good insight from all. I think maybe Scott's definition of romance is based on a more "pre-packaged" idea of romance such as roses, candlelit dinner, theater, etc. In this case, yes, it's easy for a douchebag to be so-called romantic, at least by Scott's definition.
However, in my opinion, romance is more about the feeling of romance; an experience as opposed to an "act" of romance. In other words, just because some guy buys me roses and takes me out to a fancy dinner doesn't mean I will experience romance. This is not to say that these things aren't romantic but there would have to be a connection going on in addition to these gestures for it to truly be romantic. Ya know, what Beelzebubbles said.
"Be who you are and say what you feel,
because those who mind don't matter
and those who matter don't mind."
-- Dr. Seuss