Topic of the day > Is romance dead?

Robert Reyes4 said:I never actually said the word "partner" was okay.
My point is, there just isn't a right word for this.

True, but that’s only because people have managed to trivialize and degrade language through sheer misuse; in this twisted reality, a word like "mistress"—which, at its very core, carries the essence of love—now carries such sordid connotations, whereas the term "partner" feels like a sanitized byproduct of Americanization (filtered through our media and films rather than derived from Latin roots).

Aside from when it involves technology, I tend to view Americanization as a form of linguistic impoverishment, often manifesting as a pervasive, trendy descent into stupidity across various contexts, though I suppose that’s drifting away from our current topic of the day...

George Rivera3 said: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... 🤷

I would argue the exact opposite. If I refer to someone as my partner, most people will simply assume she's the woman joining me for doubles tennis in our local club's four-person rotation. At best, they might wonder if I've suddenly taken on a new business venture.

In fact, my partner has accompanied me to sign contracts regarding co-owned real estate holdings, and we have even collaborated on some rather significant business deals together.

feralranger said:True, but that’s only because people have managed to trivialize and degrade language through sheer misuse; in this twisted reality, a word like "mistress"—which, at its very core, carries the essence of love—now carries such sordid connotations, whereas the term "partner" feels like a sanitized byproduct of Americanization (filtered through our media and films rather than derived from Latin roots).

Aside from when it involves technology, I tend to view Americanization as a form of linguistic impoverishment, often manifesting as a pervasive, trendy descent into stupidity across various contexts, though I suppose that’s drifting away from our current topic of the day...

It isn't just a matter of opinion; the definition of a paramour is a settled social agreement.

A paramour is someone with whom you share an intimate connection that lacks formality and is frequently kept secret.

In our society, the term is most commonly applied to married men and women engaged in extramarital affairs.

feralranger said:I would argue the exact opposite. If I refer to someone as my partner, most people will simply assume she's the woman joining me for doubles tennis in our local club's four-person rotation. At best, they might wonder if I've suddenly taken on a new business venture.

In fact, my partner has accompanied me to sign contracts regarding co-owned real estate holdings, and we have even collaborated on some rather significant business deals together.

They won't, but if you walk into a room full of strangers and tell them your wife is your "partner," they’re going to assume you’re having an extramarital affair with that woman...

exclamation point fled

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.

I find this quite well put, actually. 🙂

frozenangler12 said: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.

🤣

I’ve been observing as well, noting how the discussion has drifted into entirely different realms. One could argue the whole debate regarding presentation boils down to whether you prioritize the intimacy within your own four walls or the image you project to the world. Theoretically, it shouldn't matter how you present yourself to a boss in a professional setting if, behind closed doors, they are your entire world and that mutual understanding is clearly felt.
Then again, for some, the outward perception is everything.

As for romance, perhaps it requires a complete redefinition, given that it has become—much like everything else—a sort of competition fueled by social media clout. A friend of mine recently planned a proposal specifically designed to be highly shareable on Instagram, knowing full well that's what matters most to his partner. In one sense, it is sweet, as he is honoring her specific desires, however trivial they might seem to an outsider. On the other hand, there is something vaguely depressing about it all. God, social media. ☕

ruggedscout76 said:I find this quite well put, actually. 🙂

🤣

I’ve been observing as well, noting how the discussion has drifted into entirely different realms. One could argue the whole debate regarding presentation boils down to whether you prioritize the intimacy within your own four walls or the image you project to the world. Theoretically, it shouldn't matter how you present yourself to a boss in a professional setting if, behind closed doors, they are your entire world and that mutual understanding is clearly felt.
Then again, for some, the outward perception is everything.

As for romance, perhaps it requires a complete redefinition, given that it has become—much like everything else—a sort of competition fueled by social media clout. A friend of mine recently planned a proposal specifically designed to be highly shareable on Instagram, knowing full well that's what matters most to his partner. In one sense, it is sweet, as he is honoring her specific desires, however trivial they might seem to an outsider. On the other hand, there is something vaguely depressing about it all. God, social media. ☕

look no further... Like being at a Bruno Mars concert. ☕

When it comes to romance, I guess it doesn't really matter what label you use for the person you love when you're around others.
It’s not like you suddenly become more romantic just because you tell some coworker, "Hey, this is my mistress." 🙂

🤦

George Rivera3 said:They won't, but if you walk into a room full of strangers and tell them your wife is your "partner," they’re going to assume you’re having an extramarital affair with that woman...

exclamation point fled

Precisely; quite a lot of people are essentially living through a state of emotional poverty within their marriages or long-term relationships, which has caused the concept of being a "mistress" to become entirely decoupled from the actual marital bond. It’s no wonder we’re seeing such a massive surge in domestic partnerships and prenuptial agreements lately.

If my own relationship is woven together by genuine passion and deep, soulful friendship—that beautiful blend of Eros and Philia—then I certainly refuse to reduce it to a mere "partnership," a "joint venture," or some clinical "cooperative arrangement."

I mean, as a layman, I’ve managed to stumble my way into a few legal skirmishes, including one rather landmark dispute against a particularly arrogant and predatory mega-corporation, but when it comes to matters of the heart, I simply cannot abide reducing love to such transactional terminology.

feralranger said:Precisely; quite a lot of people are essentially living through a state of emotional poverty within their marriages or long-term relationships, which has caused the concept of being a "mistress" to become entirely decoupled from the actual marital bond. It’s no wonder we’re seeing such a massive surge in domestic partnerships and prenuptial agreements lately.

If my own relationship is woven together by genuine passion and deep, soulful friendship—that beautiful blend of Eros and Philia—then I certainly refuse to reduce it to a mere "partnership," a "joint venture," or some clinical "cooperative arrangement."

I mean, as a layman, I’ve managed to stumble my way into a few legal skirmishes, including one rather landmark dispute against a particularly arrogant and predatory mega-corporation, but when it comes to matters of the heart, I simply cannot abide reducing love to such transactional terminology.

Look, fine, don't call it that. Why does it even bother you so much what other people choose to call their significant others? Like, why do they interpret the word differently? Why are you getting so hung up on this specific terminology? I just don't get it 🤔.

feralranger said:Precisely; quite a lot of people are essentially living through a state of emotional poverty within their marriages or long-term relationships, which has caused the concept of being a "mistress" to become entirely decoupled from the actual marital bond. It’s no wonder we’re seeing such a massive surge in domestic partnerships and prenuptial agreements lately.

If my own relationship is woven together by genuine passion and deep, soulful friendship—that beautiful blend of Eros and Philia—then I certainly refuse to reduce it to a mere "partnership," a "joint venture," or some clinical "cooperative arrangement."

I mean, as a layman, I’ve managed to stumble my way into a few legal skirmishes, including one rather landmark dispute against a particularly arrogant and predatory mega-corporation, but when it comes to matters of the heart, I simply cannot abide reducing love to such transactional terminology.

We're talking about words used to help people understand each other, but meanings tend to drift away from their roots all the time.
In close relationships, we can pretty much make up our own definitions for things.
The reason there isn't a specific word for this is likely because, until recently, living with someone outside of marriage wasn't really the norm once you grew up.

Drew Ross2 said:When it comes to romance, I guess it doesn't really matter what label you use for the person you love when you're around others.
It’s not like you suddenly become more romantic just because you tell some coworker, "Hey, this is my mistress." 🙂

🤦

Nobody even claimed that bolded sentence was true, so feel free to give yourself a massive facepalm since your comment was entirely misplaced to begin with. 😁

Ethan Bennett16 said:look no further... Like being at a Bruno Mars concert. ☕

No, that’s likely been done to death already; we need something on a higher tier, perhaps something that would prompt BuzzFeed to publish an article titled, "He knelt before her, and you won't believe what happened next." 🍿

Robert Reyes4 said:We're talking about words used to help people understand each other, but meanings tend to drift away from their roots all the time.
In close relationships, we can pretty much make up our own definitions for things.
The reason there isn't a specific word for this is likely because, until recently, living with someone outside of marriage wasn't really the norm once you grew up.

So, in your estimation, how and why exactly did this linguistic distortion occur?

Ethan Bennett16 said:look no further... Like being at a Bruno Mars concert. ☕

And for the first dance—if they even ask, of course... 🙂
Honestly, I’d kill for him to do that for me. I suppose I am quite the romantic at heart... 🥳

feralranger said:Nobody even claimed that bolded sentence was true, so feel free to give yourself a massive facepalm since your comment was entirely misplaced to begin with. 😁

Maybe not, but you seem stuck on this whole 'partner' thing like some kind of simpleton. You're suggesting people are romantically destitute if they tell a plumber, "Oh, my partner might get back to you," 😁

Of course, I don't fall into that category of the needy. I tell the plumber: if the king of my universe, the apple of my eye, and my sexual God feels like reaching out, he will. 😁

feralranger said:So, in your estimation, how and why exactly did this linguistic distortion occur?

We probably need to figure out when the terms "lover" or "mistress" actually started being used in the way they are today—and if they ever meant something else entirely back in the day.

Drew Ross2 said:Maybe not, but you seem stuck on this whole 'partner' thing like some kind of simpleton. You're suggesting people are romantically destitute if they tell a plumber, "Oh, my partner might get back to you," 😁

Of course, I don't fall into that category of the needy. I tell the plumber: if the king of my universe, the apple of my eye, and my sexual God feels like reaching out, he will. 😁

I haven't "clung" to anything out of sheer stupidity; rather, my responses simply tend to fall outside the standard mold, which leads the usual conformists in these groups to jump on my posts quite frequently—though I make it a point to reply to everyone. Do you truly believe I should just ignore such forum users and treat them as fools unworthy of a response? 🤷

For instance, why did you go out of your way to plant that specific sentence, acting as if someone had actually uttered it? (I am not expecting an answer, but I do expect you to give it some thought.)

ruggedscout76 said:No, that’s likely been done to death already; we need something on a higher tier, perhaps something that would prompt BuzzFeed to publish an article titled, "He knelt before her, and you won't believe what happened next." 🍿

I've been watching the discussions lately, and honestly, it feels like we're just spinning our wheels. It’s that classic Sisyphus vibe—pushing the boulder up the hill only to have it roll right back down the moment you think you've made progress. I was reading what feralranger had to say earlier, and I have to agree with their perspective on the current state of things. There’s a certain level of exhaustion that sets in when you realize how little actually changes despite all the noise. Even when people like ruggedscout76 try to point out the obvious flaws in the system, it feels like the momentum just carries us right past the point of meaningful correction. It’s easy to get swept up in the optimism, but if you look at the data, the patterns are pretty grim. I saw a comment from Gerald Jackson5 suggesting there might be an uptick in engagement, but I'm not buying it. To me, it looks like more of the same. It's hard to stay motivated when nobody seems willing to address the root causes of why we're stuck in this loop. We can talk about it indefinitely, but until the underlying structure shifts, we're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s a weary cycle, and frankly, I’m getting tired of watching it play out. kaže:
And for the first dance—if anyone actually bothers to ask, that is. 🙂
Honestly, if he actually pulled that off, I might just kill him. I know, I know—I’m supposed to be such a hopeless romantic, but still. 🥳

You've got a point... we aren't being ambitious enough.

A young couple is strolling through a downtown plaza when, out of nowhere, the guy just stops dead in his tracks. He looks at his girlfriend and says, "Hold on, my ringtone just went off," before dropping down onto one knee. Right at that exact moment, the beat for Senna m's "Tuc Tuc" starts blasting from a nearby loudspeaker. Suddenly, it’s like something out of a movie—every passerby just happens to freeze mid-step before breaking into synchronized Bollywood-style choreography. While the girl is still trying to process the sheer absurdity of the situation, the guy pulls a ring from his coat pocket, takes her hand, and asks her to marry him.

🎉

feralranger said:I haven't "clung" to anything out of sheer stupidity; rather, my responses simply tend to fall outside the standard mold, which leads the usual conformists in these groups to jump on my posts quite frequently—though I make it a point to reply to everyone. Do you truly believe I should just ignore such forum users and treat them as fools unworthy of a response? 🤷

For instance, why did you go out of your way to plant that specific sentence, acting as if someone had actually uttered it? (I am not expecting an answer, but I do expect you to give it some thought.)

Well, you are stuck—that's why we're wasting time debating idiots instead of staying on topic. 😁

feralranger said:Precisely; quite a lot of people are essentially living through a state of emotional poverty within their marriages or long-term relationships, which has caused the concept of being a "mistress" to become entirely decoupled from the actual marital bond. It’s no wonder we’re seeing such a massive surge in domestic partnerships and prenuptial agreements lately.

If my own relationship is woven together by genuine passion and deep, soulful friendship—that beautiful blend of Eros and Philia—then I certainly refuse to reduce it to a mere "partnership," a "joint venture," or some clinical "cooperative arrangement."

I mean, as a layman, I’ve managed to stumble my way into a few legal skirmishes, including one rather landmark dispute against a particularly arrogant and predatory mega-corporation, but when it comes to matters of the heart, I simply cannot abide reducing love to such transactional terminology.

Look at this, what you're saying... it's all "eroticism this," "philia that," I'm the aristocrat while you commoners have no clue what love actually is. That's how your post reads to me. 😳

Robert Reyes4 said:We probably need to figure out when the terms "lover" or "mistress" actually started being used in the way they are today—and if they ever meant something else entirely back in the day.

I must ask: is your boyfriend—or husband (though I shall refrain from using the rather sterile term "partner," if you'll permit me 😁)—actually a good lover and a true friend to you? And if he satisfies those requirements, what could possibly exist "above" that level of connection (eros and philia)? Splitting the rent and paying off the mortgage?