Topic of the day > Is romance dead?

Nicholas King said:The term "partner" actually traces its roots back to the Latin word "partitio," which fundamentally refers to a division.

The real point I'm trying to make here—and it’s an important distinction—is that we aren't talking about a "divisive" kind of split, like a divider separating things, but rather about parts that constitute a single whole.

In that specific sense, my partner is the one who completes me to form that whole. To me, there's something quite beautiful about that idea 😍.

I feel the exact same way. Even if the word sounds totally unromantic at first glance, it actually captures everything it needs to say better than most other terms.

Ethan Bennett16 said:Why would it be lost? It’s right where it has always been... tucked away in the intimacy between two people, found in those small, quiet gestures that bring a smile to someone's face and make the mundane parts of the day feel a little lighter.
Or am I missing the mark on what real romance is?

Maybe the opening question is referring to those grand, sweeping gestures—the kind where one person performs for an audience of mutual friends just to prove how serious and deep their connection is. If that's the case, I'm fairly certain that isn't romance; it's just a desperate craving to have everyone staring at their "epic" love story.

Precisely that.

Robert Reyes4 said:Look, if you bring someone up in conversation and say, "Oh, my mistress is this and that..." I don't know. Calling someone a "mistress" implies something else entirely.
And saying "friend" just sounds like you're trying to hide what's actually going on between you.
Honestly, neither works for me. In fact, none of the words feel right. Sometimes I genuinely have no clue how to put it into words.
I'm talking about those moments when you mention someone you're seeing to someone you aren't particularly close with.

Even back when I was married, my dear wife would occasionally introduce me as her lover, and I would do the same for her. 😍

I mean, we were business associates and tennis partners for a stretch, but she never saw fit to degrade our bond with such terminology, nor did I. And certainly, I wouldn't refer to my current girlfriend as merely a "partner."

But there is a prevailing trend here; people are drafting prenuptial agreements left and right, and the whole concept of romance is—quite literally and figuratively—devolving into a mere partnership rather than being rooted in love.

Of course, this pervasive trend isn't exactly "romantic," but that is precisely the topic of the day...

feralranger said:Even back when I was married, my dear wife would occasionally introduce me as her lover, and I would do the same for her. 😍

I mean, we were business associates and tennis partners for a stretch, but she never saw fit to degrade our bond with such terminology, nor did I. And certainly, I wouldn't refer to my current girlfriend as merely a "partner."

But there is a prevailing trend here; people are drafting prenuptial agreements left and right, and the whole concept of romance is—quite literally and figuratively—devolving into a mere partnership rather than being rooted in love.

Of course, this pervasive trend isn't exactly "romantic," but that is precisely the topic of the day...

Have you ever actually felt a connection with a woman based purely on lust and physical gratification?

feralranger said:Even back when I was married, my dear wife would occasionally introduce me as her lover, and I would do the same for her. 😍

I mean, we were business associates and tennis partners for a stretch, but she never saw fit to degrade our bond with such terminology, nor did I. And certainly, I wouldn't refer to my current girlfriend as merely a "partner."

But there is a prevailing trend here; people are drafting prenuptial agreements left and right, and the whole concept of romance is—quite literally and figuratively—devolving into a mere partnership rather than being rooted in love.

Of course, this pervasive trend isn't exactly "romantic," but that is precisely the topic of the day...

I’m talking about more formal situations.
Like telling a delivery driver I won't be home, but my... lover will pick up the laundry.

The whole lover/mistress thing doesn't even accurately describe the nature of the relationship; it’s just socially awkward to use those terms when you aren't talking to someone close to you.

Nicholas Bailey3 said:Have you ever actually felt a connection with a woman based purely on lust and physical gratification?

In my entire life, I have only had one single experience that was truly impoverished in that regard—utterly devoid of any emotional substance. On the other hand, I did have one rather lovely 'ménage à trois' experience, though even that was shared with two dear, close friends.

Given the nature of my professional circles, I occasionally encounter women who would be considered absolutely 'irresistible' by most standards; however, if I find myself lacking even the slightest inclination to grab a coffee with her, she becomes completely incapable of being sexually attractive to me, regardless of how 'phenomenal' her appearance might be.

feralranger said:In my entire life, I have only had one single experience that was truly impoverished in that regard—utterly devoid of any emotional substance. On the other hand, I did have one rather lovely 'ménage à trois' experience, though even that was shared with two dear, close friends.

Given the nature of my professional circles, I occasionally encounter women who would be considered absolutely 'irresistible' by most standards; however, if I find myself lacking even the slightest inclination to grab a coffee with her, she becomes completely incapable of being sexually attractive to me, regardless of how 'phenomenal' her appearance might be.

So, you aren't.
It’s a shame—I think you’re really missing out on that specific experience. You know, when two people just aren't right for each other, yet they can't seem to stay away—falling back into that same loop over and over again. It’s like being stuck in a cycle you’re supposed to break, but somehow, you just can't.

Robert Reyes4 said:I’m talking about more formal situations.
Like telling a delivery driver I won't be home, but my... lover will pick up the laundry.

The whole lover/mistress thing doesn't even accurately describe the nature of the relationship; it’s just socially awkward to use those terms when you aren't talking to someone close to you.

"It isn't," you say, but by what metric? Love and affairs are hardly things one should feel compelled to hide in shame; rather, they are experiences that ought to persist, provided the connection is genuine.

That being said, I follow your logic... and one could certainly opt for safer terms like "my boyfriend" or "my husband," regardless of how formal the situation dictates.

Personally, I find myself unable to reach for the clinical label of "partner" when describing someone I truly love, for the exact same intuitive and connotative reasons that would prevent any decent poet from ever touching that word.

feralranger said:"It isn't," you say, but by what metric? Love and affairs are hardly things one should feel compelled to hide in shame; rather, they are experiences that ought to persist, provided the connection is genuine.

That being said, I follow your logic... and one could certainly opt for safer terms like "my boyfriend" or "my husband," regardless of how formal the situation dictates.

Personally, I find myself unable to reach for the clinical label of "partner" when describing someone I truly love, for the exact same intuitive and connotative reasons that would prevent any decent poet from ever touching that word.

It feels wrong to call someone my husband if they aren't, but calling an adult "my girlfriend" or "my boyfriend" sounds pretty ridiculous too. You just end up stuck not knowing what to say.

Nicholas Bailey3 said:So, you aren't.
It’s a shame—I think you’re really missing out on that specific experience. You know, when two people just aren't right for each other, yet they can't seem to stay away—falling back into that same loop over and over again. It’s like being stuck in a cycle you’re supposed to break, but somehow, you just can't.

Oh, I certainly have, if we're counting that one girl... but compared to what follows, that was rather meager. Once a man experiences something far more profound and complete (with all its accompanying complexities), it becomes incredibly difficult to settle for something so thin.

As for that irresistible magnetism and passion that even the passage of time failed to erode, I experienced precisely that with my wife. (Perhaps that is why I have always been so hesitant to diminish her role by merely calling her a 'partner.')

feralranger said:"It isn't," you say, but by what metric? Love and affairs are hardly things one should feel compelled to hide in shame; rather, they are experiences that ought to persist, provided the connection is genuine.

That being said, I follow your logic... and one could certainly opt for safer terms like "my boyfriend" or "my husband," regardless of how formal the situation dictates.

Personally, I find myself unable to reach for the clinical label of "partner" when describing someone I truly love, for the exact same intuitive and connotative reasons that would prevent any decent poet from ever touching that word.

It's just that, usually, calling someone a "lover" implies a relationship centered mostly on sex and romance, without much else involving shared life or daily activities.

Thomas Hernandez4 said:Dec 20th. Is romance officially dead?

The other day, Aljehin asked me on the chat what romance actually means to me. I’ll admit, I had to pause and really think before I could give an answer.
How do you all define romance? And when was the last time you actually did something romantic—or better yet, experienced it?

___________________________________
This topic was pulled from the 146th post of the topic of the day.

Every single day, Ludica!
I'm fully immersed in it—honestly, in my nickname, the "R" in Dennis Bennett28 stands for romance.

To be fair, I can't quite recall the last time I did something romantic myself... though that might just be because "R" is tucked away at the very end. If I were going by Runol, it would be a completely different story. She’s just better at it.

I once swept someone else's apartment clean—once or twice, maybe? Does that count? Personally, I've always preferred actions over sweet talk. And, of course, high-quality brooms.

Romance isn't lost. I refuse to believe that.
It's just that some of us happen to be a little lost ourselves.

Robert Reyes4 said:It's just that, usually, calling someone a "lover" implies a relationship centered mostly on sex and romance, without much else involving shared life or daily activities.

I cannot be held responsible for the general public's tendency to misuse the word love and its various derivatives, nor do I intend to embrace this modern trend of reducing everything to mere "partnerships," drafting prenuptial agreements, and so forth. If that was the implication, then quite simply—it is not.

However, I did mention that one always retains the options of saying "my boyfriend" or "my husband."

feralranger said:I cannot be held responsible for the general public's tendency to misuse the word love and its various derivatives, nor do I intend to embrace this modern trend of reducing everything to mere "partnerships," drafting prenuptial agreements, and so forth. If that was the implication, then quite simply—it is not.

However, I did mention that one always retains the options of saying "my boyfriend" or "my husband."

Look, I already explained why neither of those terms really works for me.

Robert Reyes4 said:Look, I already explained why neither of those terms really works for me.

And really, what more can I say? You could certainly call yourselves "cooperators" if you truly wish; at the end of the day, it’s your prerogative. But let’s be honest: the term "partners" possesses absolutely zero romantic flair or poetic resonance—which is precisely why poets tend to avoid it while lawyers embrace it with open arms. That is why I find the word so utterly "pitiful," but goodness knows, if you are satisfied with it, then far be it from me to argue.

feralranger said:And really, what more can I say? You could certainly call yourselves "cooperators" if you truly wish; at the end of the day, it’s your prerogative. But let’s be honest: the term "partners" possesses absolutely zero romantic flair or poetic resonance—which is precisely why poets tend to avoid it while lawyers embrace it with open arms. That is why I find the word so utterly "pitiful," but goodness knows, if you are satisfied with it, then far be it from me to argue.

I never actually said the word "partner" was okay.
My point is, there just isn't a right word for this.

hm, what was the 🤔 topic of the day
again? is romance a lost cause? honestly, I haven't the slightest clue... 🕺 I truly hope it isn't.

Dennis Bennett28 said:Every single day, Ludica!
I'm fully immersed in it—honestly, in my nickname, the "R" in Dennis Bennett28 stands for romance.

To be fair, I can't quite recall the last time I did something romantic myself... though that might just be because "R" is tucked away at the very end. If I were going by Runol, it would be a completely different story. She’s just better at it.

I once swept someone else's apartment clean—once or twice, maybe? Does that count? Personally, I've always preferred actions over sweet talk. And, of course, high-quality brooms.

Romance isn't lost. I refuse to believe that.
It's just that some of us happen to be a little lost ourselves.

That’s pretty much how I see it too.🙂

Dennis Bennett28 said:Every single day, Ludica!
I'm fully immersed in it—honestly, in my nickname, the "R" in Dennis Bennett28 stands for romance.

To be fair, I can't quite recall the last time I did something romantic myself... though that might just be because "R" is tucked away at the very end. If I were going by Runol, it would be a completely different story. She’s just better at it.

I once swept someone else's apartment clean—once or twice, maybe? Does that count? Personally, I've always preferred actions over sweet talk. And, of course, high-quality brooms.

Romance isn't lost. I refuse to believe that.
It's just that some of us happen to be a little lost ourselves.

The L in Lunar could also stand for Love.
No matter how you slice it, it works.

feralranger said:And really, what more can I say? You could certainly call yourselves "cooperators" if you truly wish; at the end of the day, it’s your prerogative. But let’s be honest: the term "partners" possesses absolutely zero romantic flair or poetic resonance—which is precisely why poets tend to avoid it while lawyers embrace it with open arms. That is why I find the word so utterly "pitiful," but goodness knows, if you are satisfied with it, then far be it from me to argue.

It’s a curious thing to observe how poets navigate the landscape of affection; they weave these incredibly lush, romantic expressions into their verses and intimate moments, yet when it comes time to introduce their wives or girlfriends in more formal, public settings, the language shifts entirely to something far more reserved... It is as if there exists a distinct boundary between the soul's private passion and the social mask one wears in polite company...

Just like someone is going to pull their boyfriend aside for a private chat... I’m just calling it like it is... 🤣And before he even gets to his boss, they’ll probably just call him a partner...

It all boils down to context, and that is exactly what mantissa keeps pressing us on...

When you choose to use the word "partner" instead of "mistress," you’re essentially making a statement to any stranger listening—you're confirming that there is a depth to your connection that goes far beyond just what happens in the bedroom. Now, if you want to call her whatever you like when the doors are closed, and if the two of you find some sort of twisted satisfaction in that, then frankly, I couldn't care less... 🤷