answering a question
i was going to make a rambling post of random-daily-update content, then someone asked a question somewhere else, and suddenly, there's something more important than my miscellaneous ramblings (which i might or might not get to later, like dealing with the fact that someone i otherwise adore as being One Of The Cool Kids secretly grooves to Michael Jackson's "Thriller", and now i feel all... tainted, or dirty, or something...).
someone, somewhere (and no, you don't need to know who, nor do you need to know where) asked thusly:
Does your (personal) definition of 'romance/romantic' include a physical component? (i.e. sex) Can you have a 'romance' with someone and not have it include a physical component?
and, of course, being the sexual, sensual, Thinking Man's Hedonist, i find i have some opinion on this matter.
in short, and in order:
for me, personally, it almost always will eventually, and
well... *duh*.
yes, i know that latter comment isn't going to help the original seeker any, but only because, personally, i think the question points up a loss of perspective in the "bigger picture" of relationship cycles.
"romance" is a mindset created by various kinds of *idealized* behaviours that fit our preconceptions of what an interested party does with and for the object of his or her interest. generating romance is, by and large, an expected part of the human mating ritual. in short, romance is what we do to generate and secure reciprocal affection and sexual interest, followed by permission to advance. romance exists above and beyond and outside of any sexual interaction.
for me, like someone else commented, "romance" is about the little things that advance that mindset: little notes left on the mirror; small touches; gentle, appreciative comments; how someone holds my hand; how they spare time for me when one of us wants company, wants to talk, wants to cuddle. dinners prepared and enjoyed together, walks in the evening... the stuff that ChickLit novels have become to self-satirizing and embittered to appreciate as classic rituals that still have great meaning to many of us.
please note: nowhere in my list have i yet mentioned the s-e-x, and with reason.
IMO, sex by definition isn't romantic. it can be fun, it can be pleasurable, it can be drawn out as an excruciating act of tension and control and release; it can be nothing more than a banging and mashing of pink bits garned to get at least an inch or so of column space in a future issue of Penthouse Forum.
if romance is the seeking of permission, sex is (sometimes) the act of granting that permission. the asking and the granting? two very different things. great tastes that happen to taste great together, but given that the granting of permission isn't always a guranteed outcome, we have to treat the romance component of the relationship cycle as something distinct unto itself.
something else i have to point up to the questioner, and to others who have bemoaned a similar issue at times past: periodically you have complained about the lack or lapse of "romance" in one relationship or another, and i know for a fact (because we've talked about it) that it isn't a lack of the s-e-x you're missing, but the lack of *all those other little things* that let you know your intimate partner is *thinking* of you.
give that some thought for a moment while that lightbulb glows above your head. welcome to the proof that even *you* think of "romance" as being distinct from the sexual component of the relationship, or at least you have in the past. now think about the number of times you've had romantic dates that didn't culminate in sex. and yet, the lack of sex in those instances doesn't change the fact that you felt that sense of romance, does it?
nuh-uhn, i didn't think so.
so the two items are distinct, even in your own experience. you, like me, tend to gravitate towards people and relationships with the *potential* to combine them, because we're hedonists who want as much pleasure from any situation or relationship as we can get, but combining them doesn't make them permanently unseparable.
i have great, torrid romances with people that never become sexual. sometimes, *they* don't even know it's happening (trust me, my inner landscape is a steamy Danielle Steele/Lawrence Sanders novel just waiting to explode, and you can all thank me later for not letting any of the gooey bits drip on you). romance is all about the feelings rolling around in my head - actions and words on the part of someone else that provoke in me that great gooey warm fuzzy feeling, like a favoured lollipop someone's just picked up off the carpet. (no, wait, that's not quite right...) in my world view, romance is a psychological state that exists in and for itself. sex is a physical function. sometimes the two are entwined, sometimes one is nowhere in sight of the other. for me they are components of the relationships i develop with lovers, but not all relationships contain both elements. sometimes romance is all i can have, given rules and boundaries that we have to respect.
and sometimes, all i want is that inch of column space in Forum, without the investment of romantic effort. hell, sometimes without even knowing the other party's name...
someone, somewhere (and no, you don't need to know who, nor do you need to know where) asked thusly:
Does your (personal) definition of 'romance/romantic' include a physical component? (i.e. sex) Can you have a 'romance' with someone and not have it include a physical component?
and, of course, being the sexual, sensual, Thinking Man's Hedonist, i find i have some opinion on this matter.
in short, and in order:
for me, personally, it almost always will eventually, and
well... *duh*.
yes, i know that latter comment isn't going to help the original seeker any, but only because, personally, i think the question points up a loss of perspective in the "bigger picture" of relationship cycles.
"romance" is a mindset created by various kinds of *idealized* behaviours that fit our preconceptions of what an interested party does with and for the object of his or her interest. generating romance is, by and large, an expected part of the human mating ritual. in short, romance is what we do to generate and secure reciprocal affection and sexual interest, followed by permission to advance. romance exists above and beyond and outside of any sexual interaction.
for me, like someone else commented, "romance" is about the little things that advance that mindset: little notes left on the mirror; small touches; gentle, appreciative comments; how someone holds my hand; how they spare time for me when one of us wants company, wants to talk, wants to cuddle. dinners prepared and enjoyed together, walks in the evening... the stuff that ChickLit novels have become to self-satirizing and embittered to appreciate as classic rituals that still have great meaning to many of us.
please note: nowhere in my list have i yet mentioned the s-e-x, and with reason.
IMO, sex by definition isn't romantic. it can be fun, it can be pleasurable, it can be drawn out as an excruciating act of tension and control and release; it can be nothing more than a banging and mashing of pink bits garned to get at least an inch or so of column space in a future issue of Penthouse Forum.
if romance is the seeking of permission, sex is (sometimes) the act of granting that permission. the asking and the granting? two very different things. great tastes that happen to taste great together, but given that the granting of permission isn't always a guranteed outcome, we have to treat the romance component of the relationship cycle as something distinct unto itself.
something else i have to point up to the questioner, and to others who have bemoaned a similar issue at times past: periodically you have complained about the lack or lapse of "romance" in one relationship or another, and i know for a fact (because we've talked about it) that it isn't a lack of the s-e-x you're missing, but the lack of *all those other little things* that let you know your intimate partner is *thinking* of you.
give that some thought for a moment while that lightbulb glows above your head. welcome to the proof that even *you* think of "romance" as being distinct from the sexual component of the relationship, or at least you have in the past. now think about the number of times you've had romantic dates that didn't culminate in sex. and yet, the lack of sex in those instances doesn't change the fact that you felt that sense of romance, does it?
nuh-uhn, i didn't think so.
so the two items are distinct, even in your own experience. you, like me, tend to gravitate towards people and relationships with the *potential* to combine them, because we're hedonists who want as much pleasure from any situation or relationship as we can get, but combining them doesn't make them permanently unseparable.
i have great, torrid romances with people that never become sexual. sometimes, *they* don't even know it's happening (trust me, my inner landscape is a steamy Danielle Steele/Lawrence Sanders novel just waiting to explode, and you can all thank me later for not letting any of the gooey bits drip on you). romance is all about the feelings rolling around in my head - actions and words on the part of someone else that provoke in me that great gooey warm fuzzy feeling, like a favoured lollipop someone's just picked up off the carpet. (no, wait, that's not quite right...) in my world view, romance is a psychological state that exists in and for itself. sex is a physical function. sometimes the two are entwined, sometimes one is nowhere in sight of the other. for me they are components of the relationships i develop with lovers, but not all relationships contain both elements. sometimes romance is all i can have, given rules and boundaries that we have to respect.
and sometimes, all i want is that inch of column space in Forum, without the investment of romantic effort. hell, sometimes without even knowing the other party's name...