Topic of the day > Is romance dead?

Paul Grant67 said:According to whose definition isn't it? A partnership can apply to any duo. Business, romantic, platonic... As far as I'm concerned, a partnership can absolutely be erotic. A partner is simply someone you share something with—whether that's a business, a game, or intimacy... it all depends on the nature of the bond. A partnership is a serious commitment. 🙂
Still, obviously everything comes down to perspective, but claiming something is "sad" just because your own subjective view differs from theirs seems a bit radical, doesn't it?

No poet in history would ever refer to his beloved as a "partner." That is a term born from the boardroom and corporate offices. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the concept of a pair but is instead derived from being a part (a component). Partnership and equity are inherently unromantic, decidedly anti-erotic concepts. No poet would ever feel the need to clarify this; it is simply understood.

I have certainly never degraded a woman by using such a clinical term.

Nicholas King said:The reactions you're describing—contempt and disgust—are incredibly visceral. It’s also somewhat telling that when asked to explain the "why" behind those feelings, you immediately pivot to discussing your own supposed inability to express strong emotions.

If I were in your shoes, I would probably try to dig deep into the roots of those reactions—really get under the surface—and then systematically tear them out by the source.

Fine, so today I learned that expressing emotions is nothing more than empty, mindless chatter.

I explicitly stated that I show how I feel through my actions. My boyfriend knows he is loved, just as everyone close to me does.

It isn't some grand, sweeping surge of contempt; I simply used to make jokes at others' expense when I was younger, and I stopped because it’s simply bad manners now...

feralranger said:No poet in history would ever refer to his beloved as a "partner." That is a term born from the boardroom and corporate offices. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the concept of a pair but is instead derived from being a part (a component). Partnership and equity are inherently unromantic, decidedly anti-erotic concepts. No poet would ever feel the need to clarify this; it is simply understood.

I have certainly never degraded a woman by using such a clinical term.

Calling it "degrading" is just your personal opinion. What does that have to do with poets? Are they supposed to be the ultimate authority on how love should be expressed and lived?

I’ve always had a soft spot for the word "partner." To me, being called that feels like a profound compliment...😍

Paul Grant67 said:Calling it "degrading" is just your personal opinion. What does that have to do with poets? Are they supposed to be the ultimate authority on how love should be expressed and lived?

Poets are just anomalies in this world.
Just like Sisyphus.

Paul Grant67 said:Calling it "degrading" is just your personal opinion. What does that have to do with poets? Are they supposed to be the ultimate authority on how love should be expressed and lived?

Poets possess a certain mastery over language; they understand the weight of a word and the nuance of an emotion, which makes it quite impossible for them to reach for a term borrowed from the sterile world of corporate business. I was merely making a point. It is precisely for that reason that I feel compelled to emphasize that this is by no means a matter of mere coincidence. And that is merely my own personal opinion, which, quite frankly, seems to have fallen straight from Mars.

On the other hand, one could argue this is merely another symptom of that pervasive modern trend where eroticism is stripped down to mere mechanics, and romance is reduced to nothing more than a business partnership. Personally, I have always found a certain grim satisfaction in swimming against such a current, even when the tide seems determined to pull everyone else toward mediocrity.

feralranger said:No poet in history would ever refer to his beloved as a "partner." That is a term born from the boardroom and corporate offices. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the concept of a pair but is instead derived from being a part (a component). Partnership and equity are inherently unromantic, decidedly anti-erotic concepts. No poet would ever feel the need to clarify this; it is simply understood.

I have certainly never degraded a woman by using such a clinical term.

Look, if you ask me, I’d say only one of them actually managed to rise to that level... barely... 😬.
Look, maybe it doesn't sound all poetic or romantic at first glance, but there’s more to it than meets the eye. It touches on so many different layers of a relationship... things you just can't really capture if you only use a word like "lover."

Kimberly Lopez65 said:Poets are just anomalies in this world.
Just like Sisyphus.

🤣

I don't know, I've just never been really into those big grand gestures or that whole "classic" romance thing... though, honestly, you could probably argue about what even counts as romance in the first place.
I honestly don't know... I’m starting to think romance isn't actually dead, it's just hidden. Like, maybe it's still out there exactly like it's always been, we just can't see it anymore...

To me, being romantic is all about that initial rush... that way you see someone else at first. It’s about how you perceive your partner, you know? That whole idealized vision of them... 😬So, how does that actually play out? Honestly, it all just comes down to whatever someone’s personal preference happens to be in any given situation... it's all subjective...

feralranger said:Poets possess a certain mastery over language; they understand the weight of a word and the nuance of an emotion, which makes it quite impossible for them to reach for a term borrowed from the sterile world of corporate business. I was merely making a point. It is precisely for that reason that I feel compelled to emphasize that this is by no means a matter of mere coincidence. And that is merely my own personal opinion, which, quite frankly, seems to have fallen straight from Mars.

On the other hand, one could argue this is merely another symptom of that pervasive modern trend where eroticism is stripped down to mere mechanics, and romance is reduced to nothing more than a business partnership. Personally, I have always found a certain grim satisfaction in swimming against such a current, even when the tide seems determined to pull everyone else toward mediocrity.

Sometimes love actually needs to be pragmatic and grounded if you want to have any real basis for romanticizing it. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than an illusion built on empty words. My point is, you have to actually live it, not just daydream about it.

jadeowl2 said:Look, if you ask me, I’d say only one of them actually managed to rise to that level... barely... 😬.
Look, maybe it doesn't sound all poetic or romantic at first glance, but there’s more to it than meets the eye. It touches on so many different layers of a relationship... things you just can't really capture if you only use a word like "lover."

🤣

I don't know, I've just never been really into those big grand gestures or that whole "classic" romance thing... though, honestly, you could probably argue about what even counts as romance in the first place.
I honestly don't know... I’m starting to think romance isn't actually dead, it's just hidden. Like, maybe it's still out there exactly like it's always been, we just can't see it anymore...

To me, being romantic is all about that initial rush... that way you see someone else at first. It’s about how you perceive your partner, you know? That whole idealized vision of them... 😬So, how does that actually play out? Honestly, it all just comes down to whatever someone’s personal preference happens to be in any given situation... it's all subjective...

A partnership or a shared stake implies a community of interest. An affair, both by its etymological roots and its actual substance, is an entirely different beast altogether.

Paul Grant67 said:Sometimes love actually needs to be pragmatic and grounded if you want to have any real basis for romanticizing it. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than an illusion built on empty words. My point is, you have to actually live it, not just daydream about it.

Romance isn't just some ethereal concept confined to the realm of fantasy; it exists quite tangibly in the real world.

She isn't just some girl you're seeing or even a wife; she’s just a mistress at best... what you really need is a true partner, someone who stands right there beside you in the trenches, a teammate through it all

I'm totally with Limerica on this one... to me, a partner isn't just some lover or someone you're just riding the romantic/physical high with. It’s about having a life partner by your side, you know?

A companion can be both a lover and a confidante, and when two people share a bond built on true passion and deep friendship, I refuse to reduce that connection to some mere transactional arrangement or a simple business partnership.

But then again, to each their own. Personally, I would find a world without music—along with many other things—to be an utterly desolate place, yet for someone without a sense of rhythm or melody, music holds no significance at all. People are fundamentally different in that regard.

George Rivera3 said:Fine, so today I learned that expressing emotions is nothing more than empty, mindless chatter.

I explicitly stated that I show how I feel through my actions. My boyfriend knows he is loved, just as everyone close to me does.

It isn't some grand, sweeping surge of contempt; I simply used to make jokes at others' expense when I was younger, and I stopped because it’s simply bad manners now...

And I have learned that you are prone to passive aggression—and that's even after failing to read the entire post (nobody, for that matter, was talking about empty chatter, let alone *only* empty chatter.

What a shame.

BTW, saying "I'm polite now, so I don't mock people anymore" isn't exactly a shift in attitude from "I despise and loathe them."

Nicholas King said:And I have learned that you are prone to passive aggression—and that's even after failing to read the entire post (nobody, for that matter, was talking about empty chatter, let alone *only* empty chatter.

What a shame.

BTW, saying "I'm polite now, so I don't mock people anymore" isn't exactly a shift in attitude from "I despise and loathe them."

Who would have thought your comprehension was so limited? 🤔

How peculiar...

jadeowl2 said:I'm totally with Limerica on this one... to me, a partner isn't just some lover or someone you're just riding the romantic/physical high with. It’s about having a life partner by your side, you know?

And let’s not forget the necessity of an equal partnership. Perhaps that specific lack of balance is exactly what is rubbing some people the wrong way...😁

feralranger said:A companion can be both a lover and a confidante, and when two people share a bond built on true passion and deep friendship, I refuse to reduce that connection to some mere transactional arrangement or a simple business partnership.

But then again, to each their own. Personally, I would find a world without music—along with many other things—to be an utterly desolate place, yet for someone without a sense of rhythm or melody, music holds no significance at all. People are fundamentally different in that regard.

Well, on that point, we can actually agree 😉.

feralranger said:A companion can be both a lover and a confidante, and when two people share a bond built on true passion and deep friendship, I refuse to reduce that connection to some mere transactional arrangement or a simple business partnership.

But then again, to each their own. Personally, I would find a world without music—along with many other things—to be an utterly desolate place, yet for someone without a sense of rhythm or melody, music holds no significance at all. People are fundamentally different in that regard.

What a subtle way to belittle someone else's perspective. Just because you feel that way doesn't mean anyone else is wrong; it just means they're different from you. Honestly, that kind of narrow-mindedness is exactly what makes someone radical... you could easily turn that comment about "lacking an ear" back on yourself instead of throwing it at others.

Not everyone is cut out for it—which doesn't automatically make one person better than the other. That’s just the core of liberalism...

Paul Grant67 said:What a subtle way to belittle someone else's perspective. Just because you feel that way doesn't mean anyone else is wrong; it just means they're different from you. Honestly, that kind of narrow-mindedness is exactly what makes someone radical... you could easily turn that comment about "lacking an ear" back on yourself instead of throwing it at others.

Subtle? 🤔I wouldn't call it that... 🤣it's far more transparent than that...