What is "romantic love"? Is it a good or bad thing?

River

Active member
What is romantic love?

Is it a good or a bad thing?
 
It's potentially fantastic fun, so long as the parties involved remain aware that it's fundamentally irrational.
________________

Someone once wrote that "Romance is the bridge netween the head & the heart." This stayed with me because it seemed close, but not entirely accurate. Now that I think about it, I'd say Romance is a (the?) bridge between the brain & the groin, between thought & f^cking, betwen historicity & of-the-moment.

A bridge, that is, between two REALLY big territories, yet not itself a territory.

Romance is commonly presented as more important than the territories, because (the thinking goes) they would be meaningless without it. Yet, for all we know, they might function as well, or even better, if the bridge were restricted or even removed entirely.
________________

There's no sensible reason for me to bring some gift to my lover, except perhaps as a bribe. Aside from that, it's not as though flowers will improve our intellectual connection or make the sex hotter (or even more likely).

Look at the ridiculous marketing that's put into diamonds -- rocks that're actually rather common, with megatons warehoused at all times. Now they're pushing ugly brown stones that 30 years ago would've been made into drillbits, but're presently commanding MORE than the vaunted yellow-white stone that up until recently was THE ideal. You can probably scale your own gullibility -- & quite possibly your slavery to Romance -- by how much you've spent on diamonds.:p

(Here's a funny note. A friend was speaking with an energy healer from India. He said that diamonds are terrible for your energies, especially when worn on the third finger! Something about invading your dreams with fear of losing love. Dunno that I believe any of it... but just to play safe, you might want to take off diamond rings before going to sleep!)
 
Last edited:
I just use "romantic love" to differentiate how I feel about my partners from how I feel about, say, a close friend (for which I say just "love" or "deep caring") or my kids ("familial love). To me, all "romantic love" means is the love you feel for a relationship partner.
 
I think KC43 nailed it. No need to complicate things.
 
e.g., can an asexual person feel/carry out romantic love?
 
That begs the question "what is love?"

For that matter, how is "love" different from "affection"?

(Which will only lead to "wtf is affection?" but that's for later.;))

I think all forms of love are ultimately about appreciation. But it's more complex than that, isn't it? Appreciation isn't quite enough, I think, to be called love. There must also be the wanting for our beloved (whether 'romantic' or platonic) to be well, healthy, happy.... Love involves the desire for our beloved to flourish. This is obviously related to appreciation, but one could perhaps appreciate someone without also significantly encouraging their flourishing.

I started this thread because I thought some folks in the forum had something in particular to say about "romantic love" -- due to words from another thread. I thought there'd be some discussion of the historical development of "romantic" love ... and how it differs from other kinds of love ... and how it ties in with the idea / ideal of marriage (and how marriage changed in modern times...).
 
Heh, and here I sit, eating my popcorn. ;)

I suppose that the Romantic Era (c. 19th Century) had a way of romanticizing everything, including courtship and marriage. But it's hard to believe that romantic love was *never* felt before that era.
 
I would say romantic love has *existed* as long as human beings have existed. The point being made in the other thread, as I understood it, was that *marriage* based on romantic love didn't exist until recently, "recently" being a relative term given that we're talking about thousands of years of history.

And love and sex *can* coexist but obviously don't have to. Fucking someone isn't a requirement for being in love (a/k/a feeling romantic love) with them, just as being in love with someone isn't a requirement for fucking them.

Or, as Kevin pointed out (I think it was his point), people who are asexual are entirely capable of feeling romantic love toward others, despite not experiencing any *sexual* attraction and often--though not always--not having sex.
 
I wonder why marriage was invented in the first place. I suppose it was a way to determine who fathered a given woman's children? Otherwise, why make marriage a man-and-woman arrangement?
 
I wonder why marriage was invented in the first place. I suppose it was a way to determine who fathered a given woman's children? Otherwise, why make marriage a man-and-woman arrangement?

It seems (from a little research) that the word "marriage" can be used to refer to something which has been extremely diverse through the ages and cultures of the world. It is not entirely clear what, if anything, is common among all of these myriad social forms and conventions.

Google "marriage history" and ... good luck!

Here's a highly abbreviated history of marriage.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSTdKLrA7nU Things are actually much more complex than this version if we look at all human cultural evidence through all times -- including the non-civilized peoples of the world (with "civilized" meaning "a way of life centered on the existence of cities).
 
Last edited:
e.g., can an asexual person feel/carry out romantic love?

Can Romantic love exist without the possibility of sex?

Apparently, yes. At least according to the literature on the asexuality experience I've read on the internet. There appears to be no necessary relationship between "romantic love" and sexual desire -- unless one subscribes to another method of "policing" the use of the phrase. But the asexuals are pretty convincing in their stories of passionate and romantic love experience, and I believe they do experience "romantic love".

Some (not all) asexual people very much enjoy sensual, though non-sexual, relationships (hugging, cuddling, maybe kissing...).

I used to suspect that pretty much all asexuals were "asexual" as a consequence of some kind of trauma, usually sexual abuse in childhood. Now I accept asexuality as (at least sometimes) part of the natural variability within the human experience.
 
I wonder why marriage was invented in the first place. I suppose it was a way to determine who fathered a given woman's children? Otherwise, why make marriage a man-and-woman arrangement?

Yes. Around 3-4000 years ago, children were raised by the tribe, considered the children of all. Some indigenous cultures still practice this. Kids might know who their bio mom is, and maybe their bio dad, but all members of the tribe are considered aunts and uncles and many will have what we in modern times consider parental rights and duties.

Once humans figured out intercourse causes conception, things began to change. But again, in certain indigenous cultures in the present day, women who are newly pregnant will have intercourse with several men, thinking their "essence" will influence the fetus and give it certain of their qualities. So all these men are considered fathers of the child, no matter whose sperm actually pierced her egg.

In the early days of the patriarchy (as shown in the Bible and other literature of that time), men were allowed several wives, while each wife was expected to only have one husband. Or woe betide her. It was a death sentence for a woman to stray.

The children of these multiple wives often considered all of their father's wives to be their mothers. And each father had complete say over who their daughters married. This is all hinted at in the Bible, and interestingly fleshed out in the novel based on the story of Dinah, The Red Tent. In that book, the author suggests that Dinah dared to choose to marry a man she fell in love with. He was from a different tribe that her tribe had issues with. Despite his nobility and wealth, Dinah's father and brothers attacked all the men of the tribe, first circumcising them, and then murdering them. Dinah's lover-husband was killed. So much for romance!

As far as I can tell, the only romance around was between the females who shared a husband, and the wives of his brothers. I've read and reread The Old Testament and that's what I have concluded

There was romance between men in ancient Greece, both Athens and Sparta. Young adolescent males were chosen by older men, and given to them, for love, sex and training in warfare and other manly arts. The older men seemed to choose their young partners based on their good looks and other charms. Which jives with romance.
 
Last edited:
What is romantic love?

Is it a good or a bad thing?
__________________

Love is where your happiness depends on the happiness of another(s) its never about me and its the opposite of selfish and jealousy, its not dependant on being loved back.

You can't choose it, it "happens instantly" and I am so lucky to be a person who is so evolved I can love and has not one but two wonderful people to love.

Never a bad thing, life and love is wonderful,
 
This is such a tricky topic. I agree with the "love based on the happiness of another, not selfish or jealous, don't have to be loved back." However...

For me, love means that I enjoy another person, I see something there (whether anyone else does or not) that I treasure, it excites me, and it makes me want them in my life. I can love someone in an instant, and yet forever, no matter what they ever do. Wisely or unwisely. I cannot choose to NOT feel love, if it is there, it's there. I can choose not to express it, act upon it, dwell on it, nurture it. I can isolate myself from others and avoid letting myself connect in the first place. But once I've let someone in...love sparks and burns or it doesn't. I can't choose to love or un-love.

Now I can say all of these words. Some people will disagree. Some will agree, yes, they are pretty words and I think they make sense. But when applied to an example...I have heard so many people come down on me for loving someone too fast, and how said person was justified in running away.

As though there is a set period of time where you are NOT ALLOWED TO FEEL LOVE UNLESS YOU'RE CRAZY. Well. This is why I try very hard to EXPLAIN what I mean by love. It's not a trap. I'm not demanding anything. It just means, I really enjoy our time together, I hope for more of it, and I think you're just the bees knees. It doesn't mean I want to steal your soul or move into your house or make your babies. It's not, actually, a big deal.

But then...there are some who make a face at that. I am devaluing "true love." And we are taught by Disney, are we not, that true love is once in a lifetime, with only one special someone, Prince Charming to your Princess, and me loving so easily and not demanding all sorts of commitments cheapens love. I don't think it does. I think that something need not be rare and hard to find, to have value. And even the most casual of loves...once I've felt love for them, I'll always carry the memory of it in my heart. I'll always care about them. Even if they hurt me so badly I can never be near them again...I will still LOVE them. And I think maybe that's a big difference with those who can accept and live with polyamory, it's the ability to understand that you can't dilute or cheapen love, by having more of it for others.
 
As though there is a set period of time where you are NOT ALLOWED TO FEEL LOVE UNLESS YOU'RE CRAZY. Well. This is why I try very hard to EXPLAIN what I mean by love. It's not a trap. I'm not demanding anything. It just means, I really enjoy our time together, I hope for more of it, and I think you're just the bees knees. It doesn't mean I want to steal your soul or move into your house or make your babies. It's not, actually, a big deal.

I so totally resonate with these words! Thanks.
 
I've been poking at Wikipedia, & it's stirred up all sorts of stuff from decades past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(love)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalric_romance

Romantic love begins from the basis that there is some sort of narrative storyline being followed, hence its derivation from High Medieval tales of brave knights going forth on quests -- Don Quixote is an intentional burlesque of 15th-century chivalric romance tales.

For centuries, marriage was almost entirely a matter of utility, whether for inheritance purposes at the upper end, or making babies & working together for the serfs. Romantic love seems to have evolved as a counterpoint to this, encouraging a poetic or affectional side that had no clear place in churchly marriage. So, from the beginning there's a basis for "committed" vs. "illicit" relationships -- which seems to say that romantic love inherently requires some degree of dishonesty.

There's a case to be made that "romance" purposely embraces components of irrationality & even absurdity. For instance, though the practices of "the cult of Romance" (as discussed in The Hoax of Romance) seem intended to sublimate (rather than bury -- an important differentiation!) the "animalistic" sexual desires, modern notions of romantic love seems unable to exist without eroticism, particularly frustrated eroticism.

Thirty years ago, I wrote that "for most relationships, growth of deep connection stops when sex starts" -- or, as Ling Woo said on Ally McBeal, "If I have sex with you, you'll go blind." :D In many ways, romantic love works "best" when any deep emotional or intellectual closeness is heavily controlled.

Jealousy, rage, violence, passive aggression, punishment, humiliation, self-chastisement... none of these has any place in a loving relationship based upon a desire for self-understanding & a willing emotional/intellectual openness to understand others.

Yet they are components of romantic love.

Is that a bad thing? Dunno: there's people who find deep satisfaction in being thoroughly beaten, & I support them in enjoying their kinkiness, so I guess I'm fine with people turning off their rationality & indulging in romantic love.;)

...but I sometimes get a little short-tempered when people demand the right toplay out their little tragic melodramas... only to expect that, when the obvious conclusion of the skit is finally reached, they'll get all kinds of rewards... so that they can start the show all over again, possibly with some new dialogue & a few cast changes.

If people want to get flogged, then I say they should be free to enjoy it, so long as they don't demand special treatment because of their little owies.

(Ever notice how people whose lives are stereotype hackneyed melodramas are often the ones who natter on endless about how much they "hate drama"...?)
 
Wow! I...I'm sorry, but no. To any of this. Just...no.

If I contemplate that there are many people who believe that in order to have romantic love for another, there must be frustrated sexual desire, and the moment one has satisfaction thereof, love and romance is out the window, that's downright depressing. For me, if I have sex with someone, either there is a good experience encompassing mutual satisfaction, nothing that puts either of us off, and a general feeling of connection and compatibility, and it makes me love them MORE. Much more. Or it is for some reason an incompatible pairing and the best that will result is a warm friendship.

I'm very glad that I know people who don't share your view as stated below.

There is a great deal of romantic love between me and all four of my present lovers, and all of them have sexual access to me, so it's not...transactional...or frustrated. Or any of this stuff. But I also do not conflate romance with courtship and the path to "happily ever after" either. And I can most certainly enjoy romantic love with no rage or jealousy or any of that.

EDIT: Forgot about the flogging bit...I love flogging, but you know, I don't need much in the way of aftercare. I have found, however, that my tops usually are the ones who need the snuggles after we do a scene. I'm flying high on endorphins and they need reassurance that what they just did was enjoyed and I still love them...and those who for some reason got skimpy aftercare experiences or none at all, had "top drop" in the days to follow and reached out to me for reassurance.

Funny how things work sometimes.

I've been poking at Wikipedia, & it's stirred up all sorts of stuff from decades past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(love)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalric_romance

Romantic love begins from the basis that there is some sort of narrative storyline being followed, hence its derivation from High Medieval tales of brave knights going forth on quests -- Don Quixote is an intentional burlesque of 15th-century chivalric romance tales.

For centuries, marriage was almost entirely a matter of utility, whether for inheritance purposes at the upper end, or making babies & working together for the serfs. Romantic love seems to have evolved as a counterpoint to this, encouraging a poetic or affectional side that had no clear place in churchly marriage. So, from the beginning there's a basis for "committed" vs. "illicit" relationships -- which seems to say that romantic love inherently requires some degree of dishonesty.

There's a case to be made that "romance" purposely embraces components of irrationality & even absurdity. For instance, though the practices of "the cult of Romance" (as discussed in The Hoax of Romance) seem intended to sublimate (rather than bury -- an important differentiation!) the "animalistic" sexual desires, modern notions of romantic love seems unable to exist without eroticism, particularly frustrated eroticism.

Thirty years ago, I wrote that "for most relationships, growth of deep connection stops when sex starts" -- or, as Ling Woo said on Ally McBeal, "If I have sex with you, you'll go blind." :D In many ways, romantic love works "best" when any deep emotional or intellectual closeness is heavily controlled.

Jealousy, rage, violence, passive aggression, punishment, humiliation, self-chastisement... none of these has any place in a loving relationship based upon a desire for self-understanding & a willing emotional/intellectual openness to understand others.

Yet they are components of romantic love.

Is that a bad thing? Dunno: there's people who find deep satisfaction in being thoroughly beaten, & I support them in enjoying their kinkiness, so I guess I'm fine with people turning off their rationality & indulging in romantic love.;)

...but I sometimes get a little short-tempered when people demand the right toplay out their little tragic melodramas... only to expect that, when the obvious conclusion of the skit is finally reached, they'll get all kinds of rewards... so that they can start the show all over again, possibly with some new dialogue & a few cast changes.

If people want to get flogged, then I say they should be free to enjoy it, so long as they don't demand special treatment because of their little owies.

(Ever notice how people whose lives are stereotype hackneyed melodramas are often the ones who natter on endless about how much they "hate drama"...?)
 
I'm very glad that I know people who don't share your view as stated below.
Generally, I enjoy your thoughts, so I'll just whisper passive aggression to this.:)

One symptom of people infected with the cult of Romance is that they cannot see that doing it any other way is... well, choose a term: sane; healthy; intelligent; acceptable.

To say that Romance is NOT some fundamental rule of the Universe & there are (calm/rational/sane) alternatives is often to invite attack & abuse, usually irrational & emotional, & often outright threatening, as though responding to a highly personal assault. (That's a narrative component: since each person's Romantic experience follows some variation of the master script, then questioning the script holds each individual Romantic up to scorn & ridicule. Again: not in the least a response from intellect.)

Hey, I didn't write the title of the thread. If it's not phrased as a debate proposal, then it was merely setting up a straw man to be easily defeated by the righteous forces of Romance.:D
 
Back
Top