Alot of what used to be considered Romantic seems to be Cheesy now for alot of people... whats the world coming too?
Is Romance 'Cheesy' now, and to what extent?
Any opinions would be appreciated, especialy from the girls.
Printable View
Alot of what used to be considered Romantic seems to be Cheesy now for alot of people... whats the world coming too?
Is Romance 'Cheesy' now, and to what extent?
Any opinions would be appreciated, especialy from the girls.
I think that so many people are afraid of real love and commitment... They think that people who are willing to open themselves up to that kind of vulnerability are insane, and pretty much stupid. That's just what I've picked up from it. But I know romance still exists. I see it every day in my relationship, and I'm not ashamed of it.
Is Romance Cheesy? Deep question, but I'd rather try to figure out if with the new fall fashions Pink has become the new green, because my life revolves around stupid questions.
So, is pink the new green?
Start a new thread MVPlaya :D
Anyway... I think romance is becoming extinct but not dead yet. People nowadays are living very fast-paced lives and usually do not have the time to do any of that romantic stuff. Also, romantic guys are usually seen as pussies by girls and end up not getting the chick. In the long run, romance disappears. The romantic male lead of old is no longer hot.
everything is based on sex now. raverboy
...that sucks :upset:
Romance is changing. No longer is holding doors open and showing up with a bouquet of roses what is necessary to make a girl "swoon" (figure old school romance, old school vocab).
Not to mention different girls want different "romance". Old fashioned, conservative girls may like opening doors, paying for the bill, etc. Some girls like that "build-a-bear" workshop thing. That could be considered 'new' romance. Some girls think that a playful snowball fight would be romantic. Some girls would opt for a paintball fight. Some girls want tickets to a broadway play. Others to a blink 182 concert.
Just figure out what type of girl a certain person is and don't be afraid to try new things.
Rod Steele
Romance changes with the how the world changes.. I hope that makes sense?
I still think there is romance there. Sure, sex has become a big part, but even in sex there is romance (lighting candles, flower petals on the bed, etc.).
I adore all the old fashioned romance. I still love to get flowers, to have the door opened for me, etc. Plus the little things count too. Such as holding hands, taking a walk in the park, watching the sunset, unexpected kisses or hugs, etc.
Theres so much that has a meaning. I prefer guys that have a romantic side. Romance shows that you care for that person and that the person deserves to feel special.
Yeah, I think that's true. It's not that romance is dead... It's just different than it used to be. Romeo and Juliet wouldn't last ten seconds in the world we live in today. I am a hopeless romantic, but there are so few of us left... It's hard to find anything meant for us anymore.
Ohh god thats a strange feeling...
I read what Fawn said and my eyes started to water a bit, then I started laughing at myself because of it :horror:
... I think I must have lost more sleep than I thought over the past week of partys, cos I hardly ever cry, and that was a totaly random time to start.
Well, thanks everyone, its nice to know that is just less common and not completly dead. It could have been better, but this will do.
Actualy, while typing this I realised, that it being more rare might be a good thing, since when you find someone compatable they will be extra special.
Your so sweet Lucid :)
Romance is a rare thing today. Your right though. Once you find it. It feels like the most incredible feeling imaginable. Its so hard to describe. Showing a side, such as romance, is something to treasure.
helpful advice...quick replys...god I love this forum!
hehe... Amen to that!! lol
I think romantics are more or less non-existant nowadays though cos it seems that the jocks are getting all the girls and everyone wants to be like them. So romantics just have to wait on the sidelines for the girls to notice us :( Which is why romance is changing. (But since it changed, isn't the original romance non-existant? That's why I said it's almost extinct)
See here's the thing though. You've got the popular "jock" figures that APPEAR to be getting all the girls... But really there are plenty of girls like me who don't really care for that group. I have always been drawn to what society would label as "nerds" or "fat kids" or "rejects". Mostly because I don't see them that way, and they are the guys that care more about others than themselves.
I'd like to meet girls like you PAgirl :(
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.
Romance is not dead, I see it eveyday ! It really is still there :)
Cyberken
haha, wait till you see the negatives eat away at people everyday. it's a totally different side. raverboy
"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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream
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!
lucid,..it's like their virginity. they lose it. raverboy
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.
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
romance is dead even is France, the capital of love.
Freddie,
'Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPlaya
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPlaya
Hmmm I 4got about this thread somehow, and I am always clicking on the new posts :awe:
Anyway, Interesting points you have raised.
Im glad some people are so passionate about this matter too, its a little comforting.
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.
I'm sorry to day this, but I disagree with everyone but MVP, because I have lost all faith in women and men. Men are bastards and women are bitches, ummmkay?
Warning: Highly cynical content. May cause disappointment. Keep away from children.
After an internal war within myself and externally with the entire world consisting of women and men, I have finally derived to an inevitable conclusion, that there is no such thing as romance and, surely enough, "sacred marriage".
If we go back in time, or perhaps just open up the Holy book and read into say, Leviticus or any other book in the Hebrew Bible (previously, the "Old Testament") - we will be taken into a wild journey of fornification, adultury, incest, and surely enough polygamy ie harem. People, and men in particular, have always enjoyed sexual diversity. Women are ****ing whores and were always willing to sleep with whoever, be it her best friend's man. We're worth each other.
So, my conclusion is - there is no romance, at least not for too long. That is to say, that there IS romance, when a guy falls hard for a girl, but as time goes by romance withers away.
Romance, the life-long kind of romance is nothing but a delusional product of aging housewifes who write silly novels about puppy love. Take any romance novel, a sappy movie script and you'll be overwhelmed by cynicism (well, if you've come to the point of understanding the nature of men). It seems to me, that people who write those scripts just scribble and laugh to themselves at every other corny phrase they write. Those scripts, books, whatever, are too surreal in terms of defining love. "Romantic" things like that never happen to real women.
Take "Gone With the Wind" for example. Rhett Butler, a sexy product of Margaret Mitchell's love-starved, sex-crazed imagination portrays everything a woman wants to see in a man, and does everything to make a woman go wild, tear off her clothes and hop on top. To cut the crap short, everything that happens thorughout the book is a silly fairy tale. However, Margaret wasn't your typical housewife, so she had to compensate for Rhett's unbelievable love for Scarlett by having him dump her in the end. For that realistic ending I respect Margaret Mitchell.
Now let's examine a romance novel by a male author. My favorite author ever is Erich Maria Remarque (male author, ignore the feminine middle name). One of my favorite books by Remarque is "Three Comrades", a romance novel which took place in Germany, during the Great Depression years. The book is not exactly a romance novel, because for men there IS no such thing as romance of course. The book breathes with philosophical deliberation (a brilliant school of thought), economic hopelessness and moral desperation, and encompasses the biggest tragedy of all times - taking love and life for granted.
Unlike silly women's literature, the book delivers a sad story how one young man kept playing a girl that loved him to death (literally), and only having found out at the end that she has a fatal sickness - tuberculosis, he realizes that he is losing the very essense, the very source of joy, and the love if his life. Only then he commits himself to her and they spend every day of her remaining life together.
Thing is, there HAS to be some obstacle for a man to love a woman. It's always got to be an issue of life or death, an issue of now or never. But what we forget in our never-ending pursuit of complete satisfaction, in our daily quest for happiness against the odds of this dull life, is that there IS an end to everything, and if we don't appreciate what we have and take comfort in the simple pleasures in life... we night end up regretting the losses. We are so neglecting to the most importnant things in life - health, loved ones - that we only regret the loss when it's too late. You never know what you have until it's gone - but DEATH should be a reminder to us how valuable and dear life is. Personally I think it's a shame to play one another - at least in the world we live in today. With the recent tragedy in Beslan (the school massacre), and worldwide natural disasters, it's about time we learned to value each other's lives and take care of one another, instead of playing foolish games when fate itself is playing cruel games with people's lives.
i feel that romance does exist i see it everyday when it comes to my grandparents they have been togther for 40 years and the romance is still alive shit they have sex more often than i do and thats the truth they kiss hold hands and caress eachother. romance exist but relationships take work, it is not a fairy tale everyday couples are faced with money problems and all kinds of issues it takes work and it takes work from both parties to keep the romance alive. communication is key!!!
Reading Killerbabes post reminded me of one of my favourite books - Anna Karenina. Oh so sad but a great book.
At the moment I'm most firmly in the camp that romance is not really alive and kicking. Unfortunately I've become very cynical about romantic gestures such as flowers etc... maybe I'll learn to take them at face value again, maybe not.Romance is the superficial layer and as far as I'm concerned it's pretty much take it or leave it. It's not until you get deeper down and have a true and deep friendship with great mutual respect between two people that a relationship really works.
In theory, much of what each of us believe is opinion, while there are subjects that a group as a whole will fall into, there are some that are different thus we can never say what something truly is...reason being that nobody has a whole view of the world to generalize a thought, simply we do not know each and everyone and thus can only gain an hypotic opinion based on a group and never the individual.
Far too many factors involved with love or romance to command to say what exists and what doesn't. For the many that fall out of romance could do with something as simple as a character change. The phenom. that seems to happen over night and "Seem" to become somebody else. Love "can" last a lifetime in my opinion, but so can "Romance". I think though with romance is the fact that as time goes on..your willingness to do so is much increased in length, however I don't think it can die? But then again perhaps love and romance are intertwined..they should be, for you cannot romanace someone (Taking out he lust part of the definition) without loving them.
As with any question that involves life and its entity, there are many different angles, many different words that could discribe such a thing, and in doing so the world will have several different views and understandings..and its in our own opinion or view of a pasts history that allows us to believe which we may feel is right.
There is a misinterpretation of what I wrote, per Breezy, Fawn, Killer...
The title of this thread is "Is Romance Dead?" By itself, it seems to suggest that there was a period of time when people were all about love and that somehow, modern society, in its intricate technological superstructure, its gluttonous hedonistic media, and increasingly disillusioned populace, has suddenly gone from that pursuit of love to pursuit of sex. I disagree with that. I disagree not because I believe there is no romance, (I do believe there are men and women out there who truly believe in romance and would practice it, if given the chance and a partner they'd be satisfied with), I disagree because I don't believe this romance has somehow been significantly more widespread back then than today.
Essentially, I disagree with this notion that society is transforming. I believe that society still has the same social make up, society still has its players, nice men, nice guys, and losers. Society still has playsters, independent women, dopy eyed girls, hoes, and the undesirable. The only thing that has changed over the centuries is how this group of people, these actors, behave. They still have the same goals, same desires, and same skills, the only thing that has changed is the rules. In modern society we have a different way of attracting people, but we still do it. People tend to look at society's transformation on a superficial level, as if the fact that a woman dresses more revealing indicates a complete transformation of her personality. The fact that people dress differently, talk differently, and appear more open about sexuality does not mean they are more sexually inclined, it simply means its more evident for people to see. If you think romance was how they behaved in the 1950's, 1600's, 50BCE, then romance is alive and well. However, if you believe that romance is what people read in Danielle Steele books, see on Lifetime, or hear on the radio, then it was never there to the extent you believe to begin with. People haven't changed that much.
I agree 100%, there really is nothing more I can say...that last post of MVP pretty much hit it. There are more people in the world today, and with techological advances/media its far easier to see as such. Sure we try new things, perhaps try something different..but eventually a circle will repeat itself.
Okay, I agree with MVP's last statement.
I never said there was a period in which there was just romance. Although it would be nice. I find the only thing that has changed is society's structure and rules towards romance, sex, and individualism. Through all the movements and decades we've gone through, the change is evident.
Ahh how I love romance *sigh* No wonder the romance novel industry is worth billions.
Is Romance Dead?
Everyone posts their opinions with reference to their definition of romance. Some people's definition of romance is intertwined and sampled from a meltingpot of chivalry, sex, love, old-fashioned, conservative values, courtship, manners, etc.
To me, romance is a little bit of each. But I also believe that my definition of romance is different than say a girl I'm courting.
In the end, I think it's not really dead. Whatever your definition of romance, I'm sure you will find examples of it, REAL LIFE examples of it in the world. The world is too big and you cannot know it all, see what goes on elsewhere. I have constant contact with north-mexican culture because this is where my roots are. I have friends and family I frequently visit in the city of Chihuahua, so I'm not so far removed from living that culture. I live in the States so I see this side of it as well..the southwest portion anyway. In all the posts here, I notice a trend that is more Western than anything else. I know there is diveristy, but the fact that we all post in english tells you there is some HUGE level of influence from the western society.
Independant of what your definition of romance is, back to what I was saying, I think there is examples of it in most big cities at least. Big cities are culturally diverse so it's a safe bet that you'll find people courting others in accordance with the romanticism defined by it's culture. The thing to understand, however, is that behavior, like life, is a rollercoaster. It is this way because we humans would get bored seing the same thing everyday. If you are surprised with a flower one day, for no reason, you feel so happy..because it doesn't happen everyday. But if you get a flower every day for ten years, you are not going to feel the same way after your 500th daily flower as you did from the first surprise flower.
Same with romantic behavior. I think that we should not get discouraged and say romance is dead and everyone is so cold now because romance isn't a constant thing. In Chihuahua, guys know what each color of roses signifies: yellow for friendship, red for passion, white for..I don't even know them, but they have their own rules of romanticism to follow for their courtship (as per my definition of romance). Now this doesn't mean they do it 24-7. It's like saying manners no longer exist because not everyone says "thank you" as much or "good morning" to every stranger you pass down the street.
My argument, in a nut shell, is that whatever your definition of romance..you will find it in real life, even if it's just at select periods...but expecting the novel/movie fictional character to happen in the real world..that's a little harder to come by.
Freddie
I know what most of the colours of roses represent...
Yellow - Happiness, Friendship & Freedom - Used to represent Jealousy 'back in the day'
Red - Passion, Love & Desire - Symbolises that 'Love is stronger than thorns'
White - Purity, Innocence & Loyalty - Symbolises that 'Love is stronger than death'. Commonly found at weddings
Purple - Fantasy, Enchantment & Mystery - Sometimes used in Royal and catholic ceremonies.
Black - Perfection, Certanty & Goodbye - Mostly interperated as a symbol of death.
Ummmm...
Blue - *strains* ... "oh yeah!" - Miracles, Possibilitys & New Beginings - Often used to symbolise the birth of a baby.
Pink - Apreciation, Appology & Sympathy - The flower of nice thoughts
Im sure there is more but I cant think of any...
oh Orange, almost forgot!
Orange - Warmth, Exitement & Pride - This one is sometimes given to someone who has achived something that others would be proud of.
... damn Im hopeless! lol :P
Anyway, I love reading everyones replys, you have obviousoly put alot of thought into them! :cool:
Hahaha,
All this talk of roses reminds me of a story my French teacher once told us about a massive booboo an English guy made with one of her friends. Basically, in France chrysanthemums (sp?) are the flowers of the dead, you put them on peoples graves etc... and to give one to a living person is tantamount to saying I wish you were dead. So this guy turns up for a date with this french woman with a MASSIVE bunch of, you guessed it, chrysanthemums. Apparently she wasn't too impressed.