My opinion is that love in itself *is* romantic. Romance can be found in many many different places and doesn't need hearts, flowers and chocolates to symbolise it. If anything, I believe that those things aren't romantic.
Romance, to me, is something that is very pliable and what is romantic in one relationship may not be in the next.
The problem here is not that romance is dead but that the *meaning* of romance has actually been distorted over the years.
In the olden days maybe a Knight on a horse riding at break-neck speed would have been considered romantic but these days it would simply be misplaced.
However, what romance *is* depends heavily on the people involved. I don't believe that romance can exist without love. Love means that you *understand* and for a romantic gesture to work as such there must be a connection between the parties involved. The gestue would otherwise be wasted.
I don't personally believe in romantic gestures but instead *do* believe in the concept of romance. Romance is about the way we *feel*, not what we get or what is done for us.
Romance, to me, is something that is very pliable and what is romantic in one relationship may not be in the next.
The problem here is not that romance is dead but that the *meaning* of romance has actually been distorted over the years.
In the olden days maybe a Knight on a horse riding at break-neck speed would have been considered romantic but these days it would simply be misplaced.
However, what romance *is* depends heavily on the people involved. I don't believe that romance can exist without love. Love means that you *understand* and for a romantic gesture to work as such there must be a connection between the parties involved. The gestue would otherwise be wasted.
I don't personally believe in romantic gestures but instead *do* believe in the concept of romance. Romance is about the way we *feel*, not what we get or what is done for us.
There. There's my tuppence-worth!
Reply
Leave a comment