Comments | chronarchy: Failing at romance is a pattern I know well. . .

chronarchy

Failing at romance is a pattern I know well. . .

Feb 05, 2007 11:24

MJD: So, for Valentine's Day, I'm apparently going the the ballet.
Tina: Does she know you hate ballet?
M: I don't hate ballet. I hated Dracula. I don't mind the classical stuff, and can even get excited about it. I don't necessarly get it, but there's good music and nifty things going on. I just can't wrap my head around the more modern styles at ( Read more... )

hiking, art, kissing, hotties, dating, flowers, writings, huizinga, movies, reflections, friends

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

romance duriyah February 5 2007, 18:01:43 UTC

I just don't get you, MJD. Putting up with something that you don't want to do because your partner likes it is nice. It's sweet. But it is NOT romantic. Romance is shared intimacy that is thoughtful, sweet, and is "special" between the two of you. Romance IS doing something that lets your partner know you want to make her happy. But just because it is something you also enjoy does not mean it isn't romantic.

Romance says "you are special to me and I like showing you that." What it sounds to me like you are saying is: "you are special to me and let me show you how much by putting up with something I don't like." I can see that as sweet, and nice and giving. But not romantic. Because if my partner isn't enjoying the experience, then we don't have the shared intimacy that is essential to what is romance. I want my partner to be happy, and enjoy his time with me. If he's not enjoying himself I wouldn't be happy, I wouldn't feel that we were sharing a happy intimate moment, and I wouldn't feel he was being romantic.

Re: romance chronarchy February 5 2007, 18:06:15 UTC

Here, then, may be the issue: I do not grasp the concept of "intimacy" as most people use it. I do not find intimacy, as I define it, as "within", but "without." I am not sure how it relates to *me*.

(The comment has been removed)

Re: romance chronarchy February 5 2007, 18:44:41 UTC

*nods* Your last sentence is what I consider "intimacy". It's one of those "rules" in the "game" above ( ... )

Re: romance singingwren February 5 2007, 19:26:35 UTC

Manipulative isn't a bad thing. Surprise birthday parties are manipulative. Most surprises in general are manipulative. Pre-arranged settings or really any pre-planning at all designed to influence someone's decision are all manipulative... but there ain't nothin' wrong with that. It's part of how we play!

What's alarming to ME is the 'cold and calculating' part. The apathy, the reluctance, the vague annoyance... I don't want that underlying anything.

I would stay with a guy who was manipulative if he was warm-hearted, mischievous, and well-intentioned, but I would not stay with a guy who was cold and calculating even if he WAS well-intentioned.

But then, that's me: I like warmth and radiance. I play candle-stick tag, not chess.

(The comment has been removed)

Re: romance chronarchy February 5 2007, 19:59:39 UTC

No, I think it's a euphemism. . .

Re: romance singingwren February 5 2007, 20:01:55 UTC

Not if you get between my legs before I melt to the floor...

*suddenly concerned that her innocent childhood antics no longer seem as innocent as they used to.......*

this is related, i swear your post made me think of it.. singingwren February 5 2007, 20:03:45 UTC

When's crayfish season start? Like, about when can they be found moving around in the creeks around here? March?

(The comment has been removed)

Re: romance singingwren February 5 2007, 20:41:35 UTC

Yes, I think the primary danger lies in the coldness.

I like men chill, not frigid. :)

(The comment has been removed)

Re: romance chronarchy February 5 2007, 20:40:01 UTC

"feeling it" is a lot harder for clergy than it is for congregant. That's why I'm such a huge proponent of solitary work for clergy. Interestingly, though, Pagans shouldn't get all up tight about their clergy "feeling it". . . so long as their clergy are "doing it".

And, yeah, display over thought is a point well taken, but where I apparently run into problems is expressing that often enough. More than one girl has told me that I don't do those displays often enough.

intimacy duriyah February 5 2007, 19:02:27 UTC

Yeah, okay, I don't understand that either. It's good to be are aware we define our terms differently.

I guess the part of your post that struck me the most was the bit about being "cold and calculating". I've done romantic things before, and the experience of planning them is far from cold or calculating. I find planning a romantic event or gift to be fun and playful, even exciting. I guess that's the kind of person I am. Maybe I'm not being truly romantic because I have as much fun being romantic as I do being romanced.

But hey, people are different. And if your way of romance works for you and yours, that's great. I just wanted you to be aware that there are women out there who have a different idea of what makes something romantic.

Re: intimacy chronarchy February 5 2007, 19:24:46 UTC

That bit can stick in a craw, can't it ( ... )

Re: intimacy duriyah February 5 2007, 19:40:37 UTC

Your approach to relationships is about 180 degrees from mine, but that's not to say it isn't valid or can't work. It is nice to hear a man say he wants to give the woman what she wants. I've been on too many dates with men who seemed to want a set of characteristics rather than a person--who seemed to want a woman who fit seemlessly into his life, regardless of her own needs and desires. Needless to say that doesn't work well with my strong personality ;)

It sounds like you are trying to be true to your own needs and the way you work, and that's good. Pretending to be something you aren't is doomed to failure.

Back to all threads