I really don't know what Romance is.

JazzManJim

On the Downbeat
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
27,360
This post includes adult rambling and scenes of a confused nature. Parental Guidance is suggested...

I've been spending a lot of time reading the thread about Romance that GreenEyedGirl started.

It's a good thread. There are an awful lot of great points in it.

Absolutely none of it resonates with me. None of it speaks to me in any way that puuls my soul and lets me know that it's real for me. None of it, save my posts, really is me at all.

Maybe it is that I honestly don't know anymore what romance is. Perhaps what I've lived has burned that part out of me. Perhaps I've never really had it right all along. What I know about it isn't much - just a few sentences - and it certainly isn't anything I read in the thread.

But that thread covered an awful lot. It covered the full range from hearts and violins to hopeful pragmatism. I don't know what was left that wasn't introduced in some way or another about how we approach romance, and how it works for people. What that leaves me thinking is that, if I'm not fitting into that range, then just maybe I don't have romance in me at all.

I was raised to treat women a certain way. I was raised that there are things you do and don't do around them. Some of that has changed over the years, but most of it stays in place. I open car and building doors. I carry packages and bags. I say "Ma'am" when I meet them. I generally don't curse around them. I give complements freely, even to strangers. I treat them with respect and admiration. You could probably say that I put womankind on a pedestal. It's something I've known since I was a small child and I don't know that I'll ever change that.

In my relationships, though they've not been many, I buy flowers. I remember birthdays as best I can (I write them down, usually). I send cards and leave notes. I write letters sometimes. I've even been known to write poetry. I do as many of the little things as I can to make her life easier. I take as much of the burdens as I can to make her life easier. I try to let her know just how important she is to me and how much I care for her. When my ex was pregnant and we only had a single bed, I slept on the floor so she'd have more room to stretch out and get comfortable. I used to stay awake after she had fallen asleep and started to dream because she often had nightmares and I'd nudge her slightly to break the dream and allow her to rest well. I would watch over her when she was sick, staying up to make sure she rested comfortably.

I didn't do those things out of anysense of romance. I did them because that's how I was raised to act. That just the way things are supposed to be between two people who care for each other. You're supposed to make them feel special. You're supposed to allow them to have flaws, even if they drive you batty sometimes. You're supposed to give of yourself to them.

What it's always come down to for me is the reason I do those things is because I'm a man and that's my job. I don't see those things as romantic. I never have. Don't get me wrong. It makes me very happy when I've done those things and my partner was appreciative. It makes it so much easier for me to do them when she was. But I have the niggling feeling that I would have done them anyway - appreciated or not. No..that's not right. I did do those things when they weren't appreciated - far longer than I should have. But I kept doing them because that's how a man is supposed to treat a woman he loves.

Now, I don't know whether I've been romantic all these years, or just a guy doing what he believes are the right things to do. I lean toward the latter. I don't take credit for any of it. My parents instilled these things in me and they've always been the right and proper thigns to do.

I'm not disparaging how other folks approach romance. I'm not downing those who hear birds chirping and choirs singing. I've just never heard those things. It's just been who I am and how I act. It's never been anything out of the ordinary or special to me. I think in many ways that hasn't been good, though I can't say exactly how. Perhaps it's diminished the sense of wonder I feel in relationships and romance in general.

But was it all romance, or just the way I'm wired? That's what I truly can't figure. Does it even matter which one it is? Is it important that things many find as "big deals" are things I"ve done all my life, because it was right to do them? Or do I have too high an opinion of myself in this? Hell...am I just talking right straight out of my ass?

I'm just meandering. I'm fine. Just been thinking a lot these past couple days.
 
Oh geez

According to the Oxford Mini-dictionary :), romance as a verb means "to distort the truth or invent imaginatively". Who would have guessed?
 
Romance is a language, so I've been told.

It's also a perfume, a paint, and a lipstick color.
 
Laurel said:
Romance is a language, so I've been told.

It's also a perfume, a paint, and a lipstick color.

I've heard those things, too.

It only adds to my meanderings. :(
 
Romance.... from my experience a wasted and very unappreciative act practiced upon those who have little use or appreciation for it. Course that's just me being bitter. ;)
 
I don't hear birds chirping or little floating hearts don't appear around my head....

Romance in my eyes is the simple things .... when a man does some thing out of the goodness of his heart ... those things which he does without realizing he just did .... that is what romance is to me... rather simple in my eyes. :heart:
 
JazzManJim said:


Now, I don't know whether I've been romantic all these years, or just a guy doing what he believes are the right things to do. I lean toward the latter.

only you can answer that for yourself, jim...and i think perhaps you already have


i've been sitting here a long time reading your post...you wrote that from the heart, didn't you?...i could feel it...i'm not sure, really, what to say to you about all this...it seems in fact oddly intrusive to comment at all...

but you know, "a guy doing what he believes are the right things to do" is a very special kind of guy, regardless of what alleged romantic heart he may or may not have

imagine if everyone did what he or she truly believed was the right thing to do
 
Jazzmanjim. I've read your post and recognise a lot of myself in my marriage there. I lived many years in my belief that it was my role to make my wife happy - do all I could to ensure her happiness. It nearly killed me and did nothing for her happiness. I have only realised this very late and my kids, raised in this perverted relational system now say to me,

"Dad, you can't do that. It'll make mum unhappy." or

"Why haven't you mown the lawn yet, you know mum will won't be pleased when she gets back!"

Only two years ago, I was 50 for fucksake, I learned that I could listen to myself and say, "My position on this is........" I'd NEVER done that. I'd always tried to put myself in her position, divine what she wanted and try to do that.

This did her no favours either. In doing that I wasn't taking any responsibilty for my own life - because it was ill-defined - nor for anyone else's.


I know that's not about romance - but in that relational system, romance was in very short supply because I was unhappy. Being romantic demands a freedom of spirit, a gay mischeviousness, a spontanaeity.
Laurel says it is a language - it is a behaviour, too. Francois Dolto says all behaviour is language. It is a free outpouring of love in words and deeds.

I was clearing out my dad's house, came across an old book, slipped it in an enveloppe and sent it to a friend.

"It's the most romantic gesture I've received in years she said."

The way she received it made my act romantic. It is possible to confer romance on another by receiving joyously. That feels good too. It is essentially a relational act.
 
Re: Re: I really don't know what Romance is.

sigh said:
it seems in fact oddly intrusive to comment at all...

Please, feel free to comment. That's why I posted it here instead of that three-ring binder I call a journal, but folks after my death will call a Manifesto. ;)

Thank you. What you said was very sweet, and quite appreciated.
 
freescorfr said:

I know that's not about romance - but in that relational system, romance was in very short supply because I was unhappy. Being romantic demands a freedom of spirit, a gay mischeviousness, a spontanaeity.
Laurel says it is a language - it is a behaviour, too. Francois Dolto says all behaviour is language. It is a free outpouring of love in words and deeds.

The way she received it made my act romantic. It is possible to confer romance on another by receiving joyously. That feels good too. It is essentially a relational act.

So you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter if I believe what I'm doing is romantic or not. It's what she sees in it that makes it so?

I suppose that, when it comes down to it, I have much less freedom of spirit than it takes to be a good romantic. I have the other things I mentioned in my original post, and I think it may be enough to live with. :) Maybe...:)
 
Oooh, Oooh, Lemee try....

Okay...romance. You want to know how I define romance? Making other people happy. If that definition doesn't mesh with yours, you might as well skip this post, cause we're starting here. :)

So, is doing things like being kind to women in general, doing nice things for them, behaving like a gentleman, is that romantic? Yes. Of course it's romantic. Putting selfishness aside, putting personal conserns aside, doings special things that most guys don't do, but should (remembering birthdays et. al.), all of this is romantic, wonderfull stuff. And I like doing those things too, because it makes them happy and that makes me happy. Yay for happiness. We need more of it.

But consider this: would anyone read a romance novel if all it consisted of was guys doing things like holding open the door for a woman or even just 'not being a jerk?' Course not.

Know where I think the best parts of romance lie? In the exceptional spots. Doing kind things for women, smiling, paying attention, all of that makes you a good person (applause). But if you ask me (you didn't, but let's pretend you did...) in order to be a true romantic, you have to go above and beyond the call of 'duty', because that's where things get interesting.

Treating a woman like she is the most important thing in the world, doing something she doesn't expect that leaves her breathless. Making her *more*happy so that you become *more* happy too. That's the kind of romance that gets to me, the exceptional, interesting, crazy things that come about in fits of inspiration and make a woman think 'wow, he's creative.'

That's the kind of romance I like, the kind of extra-pleasing stuff that get's my blood pumping as fast as hers. I hope my diatribe has given you some insight into...something. :)

-I
 
JazzManJim said:


So you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter if I believe what I'm doing is romantic or not. It's what she sees in it that makes it so?

I suppose that, when it comes down to it, I have much less freedom of spirit than it takes to be a good romantic. I have the other things I mentioned in my original post, and I think it may be enough to live with. :) Maybe...:)


Jazzmanjim, I understand well from your post that you do all th "right" things. Unless they're genuinely your things, they'll not be romantic.

I'm not saying it depends on how something offered is received by the other - only pointing out that it is possible that in receiving we can help the other to experience the romance in the gesture.
 
freescorfr said:



Jazzmanjim, I understand well from your post that you do all th "right" things. Unless they're genuinely your things, they'll not be romantic.

I'm not saying it depends on how something offered is received by the other - only pointing out that it is possible that in receiving we can help the other to experience the romance in the gesture.

What you're saying makes good sense to me. It rings true.

The thigns I do really are my things. I couldn't imagine acting otherwise. I just don't see them as all that spectacular, that's all.

I guess I think that Romance should be spectacular, sort of like Impetus said.
 
JMJ -

The thread I started was a rant against romance as a contrived and "Hallmark" expression. I felt that romance as an emotion, as a gesture, as an act was dead. I've since changed my mind.
And I do not believe that romance has to be choirs, roses, and angels. Hell, if I heard choirs when I met someone, I'd run to the psychiatrist.
What you did for your ex-wife, sleeping on the floor while she was pregnant, is just about the most romantic thing I have ever heard. Doing something for someone because you want to with little thought to yourself is a romantic gesture. And being raised to think that way is wonderful, yet if you did not want to do this, you would not have. You wrote:
"That just the way things are supposed to be between two people who care for each other. You're supposed to make them feel special. You're supposed to allow them to have flaws, even if they drive you batty sometimes. You're supposed to give of yourself to them. "
This simple statement of yours is the epitome of what I thought was dead. It is not dead. It lives in you, and it lives in anyone who believes as you do.
I do not believe in romance as lace or roses or the colour pink. I think of it as an offering of yourself to another, a gesture that makes your love known. Romance is not the large gesture, it is the small offering.
You, my friend, are a romantic. Welcome to the fold!
 
It's, oh, so quiet
It's, oh, so still
You're all alone
And so peaceful until...
You fall in love
Zing boom
The sky up above
Zing boom
Is caving in
Wow bam
You've never been so nuts about a guy
You wanna laugh you wanna cry
You cross your heart and hope to die
'Til it's over and then
Shhh, Shhh
It's nice and quiet
 
Jimmie,

You're warm, intelligent, witty, sexy, caring, giving, etc. And, I think you are extremely hard on yourself. Romance is relative. It can't be defined with vague, broad statements. There are no rules. Romance varies from person to person and relationship to relationship.
Be yourself and I'm sure the deserving lady will swoon.
:)
 
GreenEyedGirl said:
You, my friend, are a romantic. Welcome to the fold!

I will say, just to make sure, that I wasn't saying anything at all bad about your thread. In fact, I enjoyed reading it very much.

You have some true, exuberant, romantics there. I'm afraid that compared to most of them, I'm but a rank amateur in the games of love. :)
 
Impetus said:
Treating a woman like she is the most important thing in the world, doing something she doesn't expect that leaves her breathless. Making her *more*happy so that you become *more* happy too. That's the kind of romance that gets to me, the exceptional, interesting, crazy things that come about in fits of inspiration and make a woman think 'wow, he's creative.'

That's the kind of romance I like, the kind of extra-pleasing stuff that get's my blood pumping as fast as hers. I hope my diatribe has given you some insight into...something. :)

-I

Perfect. That goes vice versa. You can't really pinpoint a romantic gesture. They are personal, intimate things between two people, and like Laurel said.. it could even be a movie.

Romance means thinking of the other person first, doing things, saying things, acting in a way that shows you're thinking of them first above everything else. That's romance.
 
JMJ -

I did not think you were speaking ill of my thread, I am honored that you thought enough of it to start your own thread based on the concepts brought out from mine.

Sometimes the "true, exuberant romantics" are exhausting.
And an amateur is comforting.
We can not all be Cassanova, and I thank whatever powers that be for that!
 
GreenEyedGirl said:
JMJ -

I did not think you were speaking ill of my thread, I am honored that you thought enough of it to start your own thread based on the concepts brought out from mine.

Sometimes the "true, exuberant romantics" are exhausting.
And an amateur is comforting.
We can not all be Cassanova, and I thank whatever powers that be for that!

Well, sometimes a thread really brings out a long, protracted thought with themes I can't fully develop in my own head. In those cases, which happen pretty rarely, I start a new thread for it - it helps a bit to have other folks look at it and see what they can do with the thoughts.

Heh. Amateur. I guess that means I've never been paid for being a Romantic. I'm still eligible for the Romantic Olympics! :)

But thank you very much for what you've said. You're very sweet to do so. :rose:
 
Jimmy,

You may not recognize in concrete terms what "romance" is. However, I know that you are a romantic soul.


I dare not say too much more about it, but just remember some of the conversations we have had and you will find that you have an ability and longing for romance. There is no doubt in my mind.


Of course, you may have to dust off the cobwebs of your memory to get there....but.....it is so.

Romance is not those programmed acts....flowers at every date, opening the door because you feel you have to to be chivalrous. Rather it is the impromptu things....the time and attention paid to one another that says, "I like you. You're special."

Sometimes, it is simply a look over the chaos of screaming children. Othertimes, it is "You take a shower and relax, I will clean up." Other times, it is that strength and support offered during times of need. Whatever it is, it says..."You are special and worthy. I like knowing you." Of course, the impromptu flowers, the walk in the park holding hands, the staying up all night talking about books and theories and backgrounds and philosophies. It is never forgetting where you have been together and always planning for the future.....

Those things add to romance. Well, at least they do for me.

Take care Jim....

In just making this post, you have, once again, shown that you can be and are a romantic heart.

:rose:
 
Back
Top