Is Romance dead?

[GBRaul]

I'd like to meet girls like you PAgirl

[meremale]

Romance is far from dead, its just a little rare. I myself open a door and let the lady go first, or surprise them with a gift of flowers or chocalates for no reason.

[cyberken]

Romance is not dead, I see it eveyday ! It really is still there

Cyberken

[Illusional]

haha, wait till you see the negatives eat away at people everyday. it's a totally different side. raverboy

[nomas]

"Love, actually, is all around us"...is this the case for romance too?

How do you define romance? Chivalry? Opening doors, paying the bill, not even trying to hold your hand on the first date, kissing the hand to say "good night"??

There's different levels and I would say little by little (if those things are in fact how romance is defined) are dying.

I don't know that it's evolving as some suggest. Rod said something to the effect of paintball or snowball fights. I wouldn't classify this as romance at all, rather than fun activities between couples. Tickets to a show? Probably the element of surprise is "romantic"..it is in my book anyway. I believe that's what won't die. The surprising someone with something tied to old-school romanticism..like the flower pedals leading to a bed, or the candle-lit dinner for two. But everyday behavior like opening doors, pulling out chairs, standing up when a lady leaves the table...that's dying for sure. The fact remains that less and less girls go for these guys, and that snowballs into less interest in guys to do these things. It's supply and demand. While PA girl and maybe a few others in this forum may claim they are suckers for those things, my own practical experience in what I've seen, the majority of girls will go for the alpha male, which today is the big handsome jock...not the nerdy, fat, geeky, whatever.

I think it's also a matter of age/maturity. I think these very same girls that went through the jock/jerk can later appreciate the man with substance who will treat them well, contrary to the jock.

So later on in life, people generally tend to lean toward the conservative side of the issue.

Can any of the older members confirm? Have you noticed that the older you got, the more you see romanticism of old?

Freddie

[LucidDream]

I wonder what happens to the little girls dreams of fairytale romance once they turn into a teenager?

[Breezy18]

I wonder what happens to the little girls dreams of fairytale romance once they turn into a teenager?

They become teenage girl's dreams of fairytale romance. And once they are grown into women, they become women's dreams of fairytale romance. I think every girl, (no matter how minute) still swoons, as Alexi said, at romance. And I agree with nomas on most points. Opening doors, standing up when a woman enters the room or rises, (geesh! did they REALLY do that? haha), holding a chair out for her....those are all acts of chivalry. Just consideration to the sex once known as the weaker of the two. (Weaker I believe meaning, more fragile and emotional). And as far as I was concerned, the jocks held NO fasination for me. Give me a pensive, sensitive soul any day of the week. EVEN in when I was in highschool. Poetry is what I find truly romantic. It gets the heart pumping to no end. But rose petals, candle light, sweet music (even better if he can make it himself) or a call in the middle of the day to say, hey, I miss you and I can't wait to get you in my arms. These things, to me are still alive and kicking. Even if some people don't want to admit it, it is thriving in the hearts of men.

Freddie, I think the older we get, the LESS romanticism there is. Seriously! It's like guys don't have to try anymore. Well, ya know, babe, this is me. Take me or leave me. Bah! Or maybe that's just here in good old nowheresville!

[Illusional]

lucid,..it's like their virginity. they lose it. raverboy

[MVPlaya]

Wow, I see some awesome misconceptions here.

Firstly, everyone here seems to have this believe that suddenly things are becoming about sex and that this is somehow a new feature of modern society, something that has developed after the sexual revolution. This, by itself, is completely false. First of all, if you look at the 50's, which you all believe to be that idyllic age of sexual prudence and social conservatism, American men and women had plenty of sexual partners and tended to be fairly sexually experienced. Look for the Kinsey report, Kinsey was a psychologist/sociologist in the 50's who interviewed tens of thousands of couples on their sex lives and compiled a book known as the Kinsey Report, where he summarized his findings. His work is apparently being made into a Hollywood movie, should be out in theaters if you're interested.

Second of all, open sexuality is not a feature new to the post-1950's era. Racy sex poems can be found in classic Latin literature where poets talk, in detail, about what they want to do to their lovers. Scriptures of these poems have been found in public forums in Roman ruins, showing that society was accepting or understanding of sexuality. Pliny himself wrote about how noble women looked at gladiators as sex objects and wrote on the sexual objectification of gladiators, both men and women. Women gladiators, btw, often kept their left breast uncovered to please the audience, and were depicted as half-naked in the official invitations and later depictions of fights. Even games, such as the Olympics in Greece, were known for turning into sexual orgies at times.

But also, look to the Victorian age, a simple example to point to is the works of William Shakespeare. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of Shakespeare's works you will found countless allusions to sex and simple crude sex jokes. Shakespeare's plays are filled with these, completely filled with them, take a Shakespearean Lit class with a real professor and you will see that quickly enough. These plays of his were designed for the common audience, who was understanding of the sexual humor involved and often rowdy in their responses there to. In fact, the majority of renaissance and victorian love poetry was not "romance" and all that "how do I love thee, let me count the ways" crap. In fact, countless scholars have said how these poems were meant to seduce women, how they operated as preludes to one night stands. Several poems made blatant references to how the poets themselves new where in the city they could find ass, they called it "hind," meaning that they knew the spots in the city to pick up chicks.

Victorian society in England was also very open about sexuality. During the Victorian era people did not stop talking about sex and it did not become socially taboo, instead people started talking about it more. People did not talk just about the act of sex, but everything surrounding it. People talked about how they felt before, during, and after sex; about what they wanted in sex, what they dreamed about, what they fantasized about, what they did prior to sex, what they did after the sex, how they felt during and after, who they did it with, who they wanted to do it with, etc. See, during the Victorian age, another institution was being born as social sexuality was supposedly being suppressed: the confessional. Religion became extremely interested in sex and the confessional became more and more focused on this aspect of our lives.

The act of the confessional did not stay in religion either, it spread throughout many parts of society and Victorian England became a “confessional-based society.” Psychiatry was very interested in sex and everything else you could have told them. Sexual health, reproduction, and attitudes became a strong focus for the medical establishment.

Essentially, what this means is that the social dialectic has always focused on sex and that people wanting sex, people playing women, and people being promiscuous are not new things that our generations are discovering, they have been around for ages. A lot of people believe in these myths about the good old conservative days that are based on popular misconceptions about sexuality.

If you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend reading Foucault's History of Sexuality, Part I. Reading Foucault can go a long way in advancing this conversation and understanding how society transitioned from focusing on bio-power to juridical power and consequently, how society's dialectic on sexuality is spawned from a false dualism of repression and enticement as contradictory states of submissiveness and liberation and how this false dichotomy is inherently based on a hypocritical puritan deontology.

If you got any questions, feel free to ask.

[nomas]

MV, okay, so your statement is that sexuality has been an open issue in many societies in many eras. I like that you provided lots of sources..that's good.

For my part, I agree, people have always been sexual, but I do believe that in past generations there has been more of a muffle to the subject matter than in current times. I don't know, I wasn't there, but just from practical experience I notice we are becoming more and more liberal. Think of your grandparents, compared to your parents, compared to you and see if you don't see it. I know in my case I do. The way hip-hop is danced these days is nothing short of dry sex. Did your grandparents dance this way so openly in public? Probably not. I'm not saying they never did these things in private, maybe, but it is not as you see it today.

But I'm interested in your thoughts on the topic that was initially asked. Is romanticism dead? Do you have thoughts on this matter?

Freddie

[blue_moon2]

romance is dead even is France, the capital of love.

[MVPlaya]

Freddie,

But I'm interested in your thoughts on the topic that was initially asked. Is romanticism dead? Do you have thoughts on this matter?

Freddie

'

For something to be dead it had to have been alive at some point. I argue that the romanticism as you all describe was never alive to begin with. People here argue that they miss the days of chivalry and gallantry when guys held open doors, courted them, and wore silly wigs, my argument is that they did the same thing I do, play women, they just had a different format. If people here really think that those "noble" guys who held open doors weren't just thinking about how to get the girl inside to bend her over their mahogany tables then you got another thing coming.

I'm just going to point out that sexual promiscuity is a common feature of humans throughout history, rather than looking at the puritan standards that people tried to enforce during the 16-, 17-, 1800's and thinking "wow, they must've been really conservative," think to yourself "how horny must these people have been that there were so many rules against sex?" Basically, promiscuity, playing people, and wanting sex are not new features and, furthermore, they are defining characteristics of the olden days.

Basically, when girls think of romance they tend to envision these gallant males who are solely interested in their personality, now, while I really do care about the girls personality, yeah right if sex doesn't come to my mind. And I think its the same in the 20's. When people listened to Nat King Cole and did ballroom dancing, they were just as much out on the hunt to seduce women as I am when I go to the clubs. Also, Nat King Cole can work to seduce women even today.

So what I'm saying is this, romance hasn't change that much. We dress differently and we listen to different music, but all in all, society is not becoming more sex driven, its simply beginning to admit it.

[Breezy18]

For something to be dead it had to have been alive at some point. I argue that the romanticism as you all describe was never alive to begin with.

I am disinclined to agree here MVP. Maybe there were a select few who "played" women as you say, but I firmly believe there were and still are men who are gallant, chivalrous and down-right romantic. The men who are "playing" a woman to get her into bed stop with the antics immediately following the encounter. I know men who continue to "woo" their g/f's or wives long after the honeymoon is over. This is romance and it is still alive today.

but all in all, society is not becoming more sex driven, its simply beginning to admit it.

Now THIS I agree with. I think it's not a matter of sex being more or less the driving factor, (on this I would also agree with you), but its more of a moral issue really. In days of old, morals were much more strict, but that's not to say they didn't enjoy sex to the fullest just as men and women do now. MVP is right. We are just more open or accepting now. It's okay to enjoy it and even TALK about it now. But I still hold true to my original thought. Sex does not equate with romanticism. They are two entirely different things. If a man, (or woman, for that matter; equal opportunity here), uses romance to GET sex, that does not mean romance is dead. Just that it serves a purpose to those types of people.

[LucidDream]

Hmmm I 4got about this thread somehow, and I am always clicking on the new posts

Anyway, Interesting points you have raised.
Im glad some people are so passionate about this matter too, its a little comforting.

[Fawn]

I am in agreement with Breezy.
MVP believes the world began with "players" and thats how romance, in a form, has began. I don't believe this. MVP is a "player" to begin with. Not all men are players.

There has always been the sweet guys, the shy ones, the waiting till marriage ones (all example's). These types of men don't "play" women just for sex. There are many here on the boards that are just like them too.

If romance was dead, why would we all long for it? Why would even care about it if it was never hear to begin with (as MVP says). Romance is something that makes us feel special. It will always be something thats important to us.