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: intimacy chronarchy February 5 2007, 19:58:42 UTC

*nods* That's generally how I see it. It's interesting, the implications above that I'm looking for a passive woman (perfectly understandable from the terms I used, if others' definitions of those terms don't match), when really I only associate myself with women I consider strong and independent.

Part of me would like a woman who would integrate perfectly into my life. Sure, it'd be nice on some level. But as it stands, I'm less concerned about the woman fitting into my life and more concerned that she thinks I fit into hers.

Besides, taking the ballet as a continued example, I officially don't mind the ballet. I wouldn't be going there of my own free will, no way no how. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to say, "You know, the ballet doesn't excite me. I don't really care if it excites you. Let's do something we're both excited about, instead." That, there, seems to be what people are urging me to say, and I could never, ever say that in a million years.

Re: intimacy duriyah February 5 2007, 20:14:48 UTC

I really should leave for class, but quickly ( ... )

Re: intimacy wishesofastar February 5 2007, 23:01:36 UTC

I've no use for things I like in a relationship. They're outside the bounds of the game.

Okay, I'm very confused here. How can you ever feel comfortable around someone you're in a relationship with if what you enjoy isn't any part of that relationship? How could you possibly experience any intimacy at all? Wouldn't you always feel like there's a constant space between you, and she could never really be close to you? I honestly have no idea how you work in regards to this.

Re: intimacy chronarchy February 5 2007, 23:10:23 UTC

I don't believe that my concept of "intimacy" would be a concept that you could fully grasp. . . it's been determined that my idea of intimacy is different than most.

Suffice it to say that I find happiness in my relationships without requiring it be all about me, or even partly about me. My happiness is not "We do things I like to do." My happiness is found in "We do stuff that makes her happy, which is what makes me happy."

Happiness happens without me seeking it for myself. *shrugs* I find that seeking it for myself is a problem in most of my relationships. I have this general feeling that "If she's happy, I'm happy. She comes first." And it works.

Re: intimacy duriyah February 7 2007, 01:05:26 UTC

Add to this the fact that there is a lot of me that I can't share with others...

Why?

Re: intimacy chronarchy February 7 2007, 13:31:52 UTC

Clergy stuff, mostly. I can't tell anyone why I do a lot of things. I can't say why I have to take a call, who the call is from, or where I'm going if the call requires me to go elsewhere.

I can't talk about a large part of my life, and I never will be able to. I'm, personally, fine with that: it's how it has to be for me.

In the end, I'm not free to give all of me to anyone. That's just never going to happen.

Back to all threads