i don't think men become less romantic...those who have romantic tendencies will always be romantic, just smarter and more tactful about it. when i was young, i was overly romantic and found out the hard way when that turned girls off. my tastes changed, refined and when i matured i saw the naivity and foolishness of my younger self.

caix wrote:i don't think men become less romantic...those who have romantic tendencies will always be romantic, just smarter and more tactful about it. when i was young, i was overly romantic and found out the hard way when that turned girls off. my tastes changed, refined and when i matured i saw the naivity and foolishness of my younger self.

You always won me over big guy. I'm sucker for you.

hellyes!! wrote:...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.

I dunno, I think you're angling for a Costanza trifecta here myself.

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.

By stating that you prefer loving to romance, you imply that it's a choice between one or the other, but not both. Of course romance can occur without love, just as caix said when two people are still dating and not quite yet in love. But romance without some form of affectionate and genuine feeling? No.

Love can certainly occur without romance, but it's pretty goddamn boring.

scott wrote: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.

Again, the fact that you think roses and a boat ride constitute romance reveals your stunted definition of the word, not some inherent flaw in the concept.

What Douchebag is doing is flattery and wooing, not romance.

Your definition of romance, please? Definition by example would be okay, though less desirable than an actual straight-up definition.

Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance%2C_Missouri

not my idea of romance but what the hell!

it proves it does exist and i see no mention of hopeless!




i always thought that considerate attention and going out of one's way is the best form of romance. some folks have a knack for pushing one's buttons better than others. i can send a lady friend a sweet letter full of severed heads and she would think it was funny and sweet (not like real heads, just celebrity's heads from glossy magazines). but that is just how it works with some people. i save chocolates and flowers for when i am in the "dog house."

How's this?

romance - the passionate display of affection through chilvarous thought and gesture


That's just a first stab at what is admittedly an amorphous concept. But it is not inherent in boxes of candy or skywriting. It is defined as much by the intent and feeling behind it as it is the gesture or display itself.

If Douchebag actually cared for Bikini Girl and took her on a boat ride because he knew she really loved boats and didn't often to get to go on rides for them, he would be romantic. He would be especially romantic if this entailed his making a sacrifice of some kind. Maybe he had use up his last day of vacation to arrange this boat ride. Maybe he tightened his belt and forewent some luxuries for himself in order to save up enough money for a boat charter.

But then, he wouldn't be a douchebag then, would he?

Ty Webb wrote:How's this?

romance - the passionate display of affection through chilvarous thought and gesture

Not bad, but that's very male-centric. Women aren't going to act chivalrously toward me, are they? I hope not.

If you take out the word chivalrous, which would make it apply to women as well as men, then it would be a better definition of lust than romance, I think.