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 a bitter anti-love rant, just a Zero-trying-to-explain-the-inexplicable-again post. You do rather have a habit of putting things into boxes. And I agree that media portrayals of love very often miss the point, or make it seem more that it is, but I still think it's an absolute. You're an idealist, aren't you? I'm surprised you don't.
I thought you just might do that, that made me smile.
Nothing idealistic about that post tho, it how it should and does happen (tho by the looks of things not very often) - I'm just being realistic. i'm a realist rather than an idealist i think. Love between two people depends on the right two people meeting (as obvious as that sounds) an idealist would say that you would be destined to find your life-mate: As a realist i think the odds are stacked against it, as a cynic I think it's unlikely that most of us could finding anyone we can bear to be around for more than a week.
Comments 5
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 ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Nothing idealistic about that post tho, it how it should and does happen (tho by the looks of things not very often) - I'm just being realistic. i'm a realist rather than an idealist i think. Love between two people depends on the right two people meeting (as obvious as that sounds) an idealist would say that you would be destined to find your life-mate: As a realist i think the odds are stacked against it, as a cynic I think it's unlikely that most of us could finding anyone we can bear to be around for more than a week.
or in my case - a few hours.
Reply
Leave a comment