| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:33:41 PM | Just a question that's been pondering in my mind.
Do you find that romance and true love go hand in hand?
My bf is SO not a romantic person, but claims it's just the way he is.
And I feel that if he loved me, like truly, that head over heels type of love,
being a romantic/non- romantic person wouldn't be an issue - it would just happen.
I'd like to get some view points.
Anybody in love or have been in love with no romance?
Anybody totally happy with no romance? No signs of affection from the other person?
Think it's possible?
Would you think of romance as a necessity? Would you move on without it, try and change him? Or accept it? Not looking for advice just general opinions. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:19:12 AM | | I think you need to nail down semantics first. Define what you consider to be 'romance'. Everybody's idea of it is different. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:31:46 AM | I have been in a couple of relationships where my partner was NOT romantic and like yours said, "that's just not me". I accepted it but looking back, I can see that romantics need to pair up. It's hard if you love to be romantic (doing things like leaving sexy notes in his lunch, planning romantic getaway weekends, going dancing just to be able to cuddle to music... all those things) and suddenly life with him is about watching his butt wiggle underneath the hood of a car all weekend, EVERY weekend.
A guy doesn't have to be fawning over someone all the time to be "romantic" but those tiny thoughtful things they do, make your relationship different from any other that you might have and I think they are the difference between the exciting and the mundane kind of relationship.
Most of the time now, when I hear that someone isn't romantic, what I actually hear behind the words is "I don't wanna have to show you I'm thinking about you the way a lover does" and personally, I wouldn't live that way again.
If they can be romantic enough to draw your attention while you're dating and they just drop it after you're living together, then it shows that they know how to be romantic and think they shouldn't have to be after they've got you. That's the same guy who's gonna complain of boredom down the road... | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:45:09 AM | Some people are more romantic then others. Your main concern should be, is that person capable of showing natural affection. Meaning, do they treat you with compassion, understanding, warmth, love. Do they freely let you know that your appreciated and that they let you know that they love you. If they don't do those things, then your with a "cold" person and not someone who is going to make you happy.
I'm a person who is romantic and that is something that I do want from a woman in a relationship as well. For me, I would not be in a relationship without romance and would exit very fast if that person was distant and cold when it came to them letting me know how they feel about me. | |
|
puaka
|
Joined: 6/13/2008
Msg: 5 | |
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:02:18 AM | Hes a practical man.
Our ancestors were mostly practical people. They mate to have children and acquire properties and a nest egg. Its like a business partnership. Ask your grandparents they will tell ya. For some of these people they remain that type of people right to the end and some LOVE is something they build together years down the trackg.
For most of us today I feel what we feel for another when we first meet is just lust ....and love is something we build on as we get to know each other better down the track.
I think aA modern practical man could be a product of an upbringing where they were victims of abuse or not much affection in the family. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:24:40 AM | I agree that everone's idea of romance is different, it depends on the person you are in the relationship with.
I would't try to change him as this may lead to uneccessary arguements, I would just go with the flow, if you love each other and have a good relationship .... hold on to it. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:21:03 AM | First - I do not equate "romance" with "showing affection." It's one way to show affection - but not affection in and of itself.
I'm not a romantic . . at all. I don't like to be wined, dined, or cheesified. I have most appearances of being cold. I do not like public displays of affection. I would be so pissed if someone proposed to me in front of other people. If I ever marry - I will elope. I don't want rose petals on my bed or text messages during the day.
That being said - I love to kiss, I love having sex, and I love falling asleep in my beau's arms and feeling his touch - and vice versa, and I love lingering in bed in the morning. I do think affection is a necessity - but not romance. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:37:55 AM | Re the Opost
The term "romance" is nowadays used so generically and/or liberally that it has lost its meaning.
Romance is related to Eros (being in love) not Love
And has nothing to do with who pays for dinner or the price of rings! lol lol
True romance is or is not evident in bed, IMO/IME, not semantics. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:49:07 AM | | The whole essence of being a romantic person is believing in true love. If you don't believe in true love, then you can't be a romantic person. If your guy is a true romantic, then he is a rare commodity, because plenty of people say they are, they WANT to believe in love, but they don't really. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:59:23 AM | Being romantic doesnt mean being in love! I know lots of guys who will do romantic things for thier ladies...and they make it clear they have no intention of settling down...they just like doing the romantic stuff.
Just try to ensure your man is being genuine no matter what he does to show interest. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 3:16:47 AM |
Being romantic doesnt mean being in love! I know lots of guys who will do romantic things for thier ladies...and they make it clear they have no intention of settling down...they just like doing the romantic stuff.
Sorry but romance is a little deeper than just doing nice things for people. What you call romantic stuff is really just nice stuff, romantic stuff is stuff that has a feeling of love behind it. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 3:30:45 AM | "Romance to me is an expression of love. I believe it also a feeling of excitement associated with love. Is it not one's deep emotional desires to connect with another person".  | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 3:35:23 AM | Do you find that romance and true love go hand in hand?
Not necessarily
My bf is SO not a romantic person, but claims it's just the way he is.
Probably is the way he is.
And I feel that if he loved me, like truly, that head over heels type of love,
being a romantic/non- romantic person wouldn't be an issue - it would just happen.
Here's where couples get into trouble. What is romantic to one isn't necessarily the same as romantic to the partner. Plus - no matter how many talents a person may have, mind reading isn't one of them. Sometimes, ya gotta draw the map in a loving and respectful way without being insecure about the relationship.
Anybody in love or have been in love with no romance?
Yes actually.
Anybody totally happy with no romance? No signs of affection from the other person?
Affection and romance are not synonymous. On the first part - didn't have to concern myself with the lack of romance as my daughters (young then) coached him unbeknownst to me at the time.
Would you think of romance as a necessity?
Not necessarily, as romance can mean entirely different things to different people.
Would you move on without it, try and change him? Or accept it?
At the end of the day, best practice is to love people where they are. Worst practice is to try to change anyone but oneself. Part of "getting to know" a person is learning whether their relationship language is a good "fit" with yours. Sometimes it isn't yet effectively communicating with each other results in a good compromise that works. Other times, it's simply not a good "fit". However, part of discerning the difference is seeing the whole person (i.e. big picture) rather than what the partner is not doing for you (little picture).
JMHO | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 4:26:22 AM | re post11
I agree with you, and was trying to say just that.
Many of my g-friends however confuse a guy doing romatic things for them as being in love with them...thats all I was getting at. They are not the same thing at all.
True romance is the actions someone will take to make sure thier SO is happy. They do it because they re compelled to do it on thier own free will.
I think too, that some men are just practical, and really do feel love, but dont see the need to be romantic about it...if you know what I mean? These men feel that by being true, showing courtesy, respect, always on time, never leaving you hanging, fixing your muffler. (LOL) that is good enough...and I dont see anything wrong with that point of view either.
The key is to be on the same wave length as your partner...in all categories...not just the level of romance we expect or require. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:42:03 AM |  I cannot imagine being in a relationship without romance.The act of lovemakeing is a very very small part of the entire relationship.Daily things you do for each other equate to romance.Small things,making the others life a bit simpler by doing something for them.Flowers sent to her work cause it's tuesday.Foot rub when she gets home.having her favorite breakfast made when she gets out of the shower before she goes to work.Leaveing her a note in her purse saying how much she means.Wow no I cannot ever imagine loving someone and not being romantic. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:57:22 AM | The sense of entitlement to romance is perhaps the biggest thing making women these days unlovable.
That's all the OP is expressing, and by doing so she's making things worse. You can't make someone 'love' you by nagging them.
| |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:38:41 AM | Romance and acting romantic is a two way street. The lady I'm dating right now is def not a traditionally "romantic" type. I have learned to decifer some of her behavior as her acting romantic as best she can though.
Romance isn't a necessity for love, however letting your lover know that you appreciate them is def a way to keep the spark going and burning a bit brighter. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:22:43 AM |
Do you find that romance and true love go hand in hand?
No. On the contrary, they seem to be opposites. What you're getting at is something different. If you think about this phrase for a while you should get it: "Birth in the presence of beauty".
Anybody totally happy with no romance?
Yeah, people who are 90. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:14:17 AM | It's so frustrating. He keeps telling me he used to be this romantic, compassionate guy until he went through this like woman hating phase after his ex, apparently. He says he's trying to get it back.
On the other end he's lacking effort in the relationship in it's entirety. He keeps saying he isn't putting in enough effort and he knows it.
My thoughts are that effort is only effort to that extent when it's not right.
If he felt the way he says he does this effort wouldn't be effort, these things - like wanting to help out around the house, wanting to say sweet things, or even wanting to go out on a date would just come a little more natural.
We're stuck in the
He says he'll change phase. He says he'll put in effort phase.
I love him and I know he loves me but that may not be enough, and
I'm trying to decide how many chances are too many. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:39:48 AM | I tend not to think in terms of romance. I do express my love and give attention and interest; some would say that is being romantic, others would not.
There is compatibility in romance as well. Google the “five languages of love” to learn more about the different ways people feel loved.
This seems contradictory, but it is how life works as far as I’m concerned. There are two areas you have control over: how you give love and how you accept it. There is no room in that for demanding or expecting him to express his love for me in the way I might wish. Arguably, that would be most unloving of me. If you are accepting your beloved exactly how he is flaws and all, then how can one say how he loves you is wrong?
Giving love is more powerful if you give it in a way that is valued by the other person. So I pay attention and while remaining true to my nature, for I can only ever be who I am, I look to express my love in ways that are meaningful to him.
Accepting love means, to me, to accept how he gives me his love. It may be acts of service, it may be time or conversation or gifts. He’ll express his love based on his nature and I, in loving him, accept his love however he serves it up.
If you can’t accept that it either means you’re incompatible, so move on rather than beat the poor man up for being who he is, or you have some growing to do in order to be a more loving person yourself. At least, that’s how it occurs to me. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:26:45 PM | I think a man can love you without showing romance. But it is kind of a selfish objectified love if it only has to do with what he wants and how he wants to express himself in a relationship.
Perfect example, You spend hours giving him massages, making him beautiful home cooked meals , treating him like a king. In return, he tells you he doesn`t know how to give massages, doesn`t know how to cook and is too tired to take you to dinner, but he loves you very much. Of course he does, why wouldn`t he. You are making his life very nice. So you see he loves you for what he is getting out of it, but does not enjoy doing things to make you happy. It`s called being selfish.
Another, you go to some boring conference or trade show that has to do with his hobby, help him with his projects, wait for him in the car while he has errands to run,endlessly without complaint. The minute you need to do things that have to do with your life, he says, Honey I love you," but do you mind doing that on your own time because I just can`t stand waiting around."
They may even propose marriage. They adore you because they have it made in the shade. You are a keeper. But I don`t mean to sound self centered, but what exactly are you getting out of this so called "love"?
I love you is alot easier to say than to actually showing it through their actions. If he
is not interested in learning and doing things that make you feel really loved and cherished, it is a selfish kind of love. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:35:07 PM | ok, first let me state I am a romantic, and it is as 2nd nature to me as breathing. So of course this colors my point of view. I would not choose to date someone incapable of returning that.
Can you have love with out romance. Depends what you mean by romance, I believe that love means (among other things) putting the needs of the other person ahead of your own. This includes their happiness, So if your needs include someone to do the little things for you, holding your hand in a mall, a gentle touch at the small of your back, a smile that is for you and you alone (as well as the bigger things, flowers, etc) And the person who loves you is not willing to do that, then I question whether the relationship will last.
Let me put it this way, Having sex is something that lasts 2-3 hours and involves a lot of sweating, mutual pleasure and afterglow. Sex is a wonderful thing and I enjoy it. Making Love is something that takes a lifetime, and is done in every kiss, every look, a private joke, bringing flowers, and during the day you are walking along and you just think of them and smile (of course your buddies ask why the stupid grin)
So if he is unwilling or incapable of romance, then is he capable of truly being in love? Or is he just looking for a comfortable sex partner that doesn't require too much effort? Many people settle for the comfortable sex partner and in my opinion go through life missing something. Of course the opposite extreme is the partner who makes a ton of demands be they for physical, monetary or mental concessions in the name of romance or "..if you loved me you would do this..."
What it boils down to, is what works for the both of you, can he (or she) be the person you need, and can you be the person they need. If either answer is no, move on and try again. Not always the easiest solution. But, we are talking a lifetime together if it works. And in some cases and even longer seeming lifetime together if it doesn't work.
-Dan | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:43:54 PM | I think people are just the way they are...but first you have to know which way they are. If he's romantic with some women but not others, then I'd say you are not of romantic interest to him. On the other hand if he's never been romantic with any women then that's just his way....although, he may at some point meet a woman that so excites him that he finds he is romantic with her. How can any of us know. The real question is, if you desire romance and aren't getting it will it make you resentful in the future and sour your relationship or is it something you can forget about getting and be happy? Don't answer too quickly, because this is very important. If this is going to make both of you miserable, you resenting not being romanced, and him resenting you expecting him to romance you, then what good is the two of you being miserable and calling it a relationship?
This whole set up is a lot like a sexless relationship, many think they could live without sex or good sex anyway or a whole lot more or less sex than they require/desire but in most cases they find they cannot really do it. So the fighting and the misery and the cheating and lying and general rotting of the relationship at its foundation kills what was good in the beginning. It is something to really think through and not kid yourself about, can you truly live in a romance-less relationship and be happy?
It's also important to figure out if he doesn't have a romantic bone in his body or if he's selfish and gets off on frustrating you or if he's controlling and refuses to give you what you want because he needs to feel he has the power...you need to really know a person before you take a big step into a relationship with them. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:02:01 PM |
It's so frustrating. He keeps telling me he used to be this romantic, compassionate guy until he went through this like woman hating phase after his ex, apparently. He says he's trying to get it back.
On the other end he's lacking effort in the relationship in it's entirety. He keeps saying he isn't putting in enough effort and he knows it.
My thoughts are that effort is only effort to that extent when it's not right.
If he felt the way he says he does this effort wouldn't be effort, these things - like wanting to help out around the house, wanting to say sweet things, or even wanting to go out on a date would just come a little more natural.
We're stuck in the
He says he'll change phase. He says he'll put in effort phase.
I love him and I know he loves me but that may not be enough, and
I'm trying to decide how many chances are too many.
I think that if you aren't going to be happy unless he makes more effort, it's something of a concern. Do you love him for him and for who he is or for the role you'd like him to play to perfection as what you expect a boyfriend should be?
Romance is wherever you see it to be. Mostly it is inside your own head and heart. Romance is when you look at your partner and they look like they've been living in a dust pile for the last six months and yet the curve of their neck or the way they hold their head or a tone in their voice makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and a wee bit intoxicated. Romance is in the heart of the beholder. He shouldn't need to make an effort (more than he naturally wants to) for you to feel that your relationship with him is romantic.
Loving behaviour often breeds loving behaviour, where the hearts are willing. I think it is very sad that he will say he's not putting in enough effort and you agree. Your agreement that he is not currently good enough for you shows a lack of romance and love in your attitude towards him. I wonder how often you show him love in the ways that he appreciates and values. I think that you're unwise to take the attitude you have done. If his behaviour isn't good enough for you, why did you get into this relationship with him? Haven't you heard enough times about the dangers of getting involved with someone hoping they'll change.
He may well change and open up and become more lovingly expressive in the particular ways you would like, but he's unlikely to feel secure enough to reach out in this way whilst you are standing there waiting for him to be good enough for you and telling him he isn't good enough right now, exactly as he is. | |
|
| Romance a necessity for love?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:03:10 PM | Make a list of the things he does for you. Those are probably the things that could could consider romantic.
It can be as simple as a call after work to ask how your day was, or as extravagant as a trip to Paris or something. | |
|
Home
login 
