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

[chronarchy]

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

Comments

[chronarchy]

DOOM :)

No, what I like about the possibility of going to the ballet is that she'll like it. I may not like the ballet, but I like it when she's happy, and so that's what I'll get out of it.

Just because I'm unlikely to get anything out of people contorting themselves to music doesn't mean I can't enjoy something else at the same time.

[wishesofastar]

That was a large part of the reason my parents got divorced, actually. My own views on this are below.

[wishesofastar]

I enjoy the end result (that mushy, melty pile of woman that I end up with if I manage to play my cards right), but getting there is somewhat calculated and cold.

So, let me get this straight: you partake in an activity you don't enjoy so you'll end up with a mushy pile of woman. Basically, you've reduced the woman to a vending machine. You put in the proper currency and get something out (a pliable, mushy mass). This is possibly the most manipulative view of women I have ever read, and I spend a lot of time on Fark. I think you might be better off with one of these-- WARNING: LINK NSFW!

[chronarchy]

No, vending machines come out with stale, sticky treats of sugar that receive no value from the transaction. Are you suggesting that women have no value, and that no woman derives value from the actions that are romantic?

Further on in the post, I noted that removing the coldness involves recontextualizing the actions as a game. By setting the rules and then following or bending them, the actions find warmth.

I'm not sure why you assume that manipulation is bad in this context. I think the word you use has connotations I wouldn't place on it here.

[wishesofastar]

I am not saying that women have no value. I am saying that your portrayel of a "romantic" exchange is not focused on an experience of intimacy, but rather the end result of having a passive woman at your disposal. To me, that sounds like you're not valuing the person, but rather the end state of passivity (a "mushy pile") that you can get her to. Intimacy requires connection, not a cold exchange. I don't see how framing the encounter as a game helps matters; if you follow "the rules", the woman ends up as your obedient object.

[chronarchy]

I didn't mention intimacy at all, though. What I mentioned was romance. I'm not sure one leads to the other. I didn't mention "passivity" either: you read that in. I've no use for a passive woman under any circumstance. They don't excite me nor do they impress me.

Your definition of play is also imported into the conversation. "Play" and "game" have different connotations to me than they do to you: they are not made up of "winners" and "losers", nor is any level of "obedience" implied.

Play, in the context here, is not about the traditional connotations you seem to have with "winning," "losing," or anything like that. Play is simply the manner in which we interact: consider all generally courtship-style antics as "play" and you'll have a better understanding.

Here are some particular aspects of play, as I see it (re: Huizinga's Homo Ludens for further information):

1. The end (as you would see it, "winning") result is defined by the players as an agreement.
2. Rules are enforced by those inside the game: sometimes, those inside may

romance

[duriyah]

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]

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*.

Re: romance

[chronarchy]

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

[qorinda]

It reminds me of a conversation I had with Avery yesterday regarding picking out cabinets and countertops. (How romantic is THAT???)

Basically, we would look at stuff and he'd say, "I like that." And I would say, "Oh, but it doesn't really go. See? How about this?" and he would say, "Whatever you want." And then I said, "But I want YOU to like it too." And he said, "Well, I would rather you be happy than I like it."

I suddenly realized that this is his modus operandi with me.

And he means it.

AND I am happy. ;)

However, I do have this inkling of guilt now, knowing he is foregoing his own pleasure at my expense, so I am on a new campaign to find common ground in our immense diversity of tastes.

[chronarchy]

I wonder if he would say the same thing I would, I were the other person in your relationship, which is, centrally, "The fact that you are willing means a lot to me, but you don't have to do it, and, in fact, I might be happier if we maintain this dynamic. What you have found *is* what makes me happy."

[qorinda]

Yeah, that was basically his response. ;)

[gothicdruid]

Waking up after 11 years together to realize that I was deferring to my first wife's aesthetic because it was a level of our relationship that seemed more important to her than to me and coming to the understanding that I had gradually come to resent that fact was actually the deciding factor in my choosing to end the marriage. (There were other factors, but that was the final one that I couldn't get past.) We stay in touch and I still like and respect her, but it really is important to strive for mutuality in the way other posters have suggested. Just my two cents.

[viedansante]

I get it. No, really.

I'm too tired to write any more. It's been a long and difficult day. So all of my other insights and brilliant ideas will have to stay unformed.

Hope that the night is enjoyed by the pertinent party. As long as she gets you and appreciates your intent, that's all that matters.

[chronarchy]

I thought/hoped you would. I'm in an awkward position, personally, as far as this stuff goes, and it's nice to know that at least you see what I mean. It means I'm not completely crazy.

[viedansante]

Well, the other option is that we're both crazy.

At least we'd be in good company.

And, really, I am in as awkward or more an awkward position as you are in all this stuff. You succeed more than I do at present, and that means either you're doing something right or you're with someone incredibly forgiving (or both ;-).

[chronarchy]

I succeed through optimism about the process, generally speaking. I'm willing to take certain risks without knowing whether they'll pan out.

I suppose that the fact that I haven't been slapped yet means that my intuition is pretty good, even if I can't manage to figure out how it works. . .