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

[FallenAngelina]

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.

Emotional aftercare, even days later, is standard for a lot of people who engage in kink. The emotional aftercare can be very intimate and romantic or it can be a friendly presence - depends on the relationship. Being there for your partner can take many forms and "drama" ensues when two people engage in drama, not because of the style of sexual expression. Same for romance.

 

[Spork]

If this mode of operation gives you sane, happy, healthy results, then right on for managing your intimate life in the manner most pleasing to thee.

Getting involved with those who found love and romance to be...drama?...threatening?...negative in such fashion, has resulted in hurt for me. It is part of my own policy of relationship management at this time to tell people very early on (before I have sex with them) that I love easily, reserve the right to have loving and/or romantic feelings towards them should we become intimate, and if they don't like that, then they need to find someone else to have relations with.

I am calling your views highly incompatible with my own. Not unacceptable in an "we all must think alike" sort of fashion. I say, "No thank you" insofar as I would not wish to play the game by those rules. I am no longer interested in sex without love or romance being at least allowable.

I don't tell my partners what to feel. I would be put off by one who tries to tell me what I'm NOT allowed to feel. Your condemnation of romance seems of that flavor to me.

Now if you are referring to elaborate things that a man is supposed to do to "win fair lady"...I can agree that setting up an obstacle course for a potential suitor is silly. I'm just as likely to hold open a door or pay for dinner as anyone, and I'm a woman. But I also think that the only place for gifts and gestures in a relationship is when they are voluntary. "I love you and I want to see you happy. This reminded me of you and I bought it for you." Not "I hope to buy your emotional obligation with bribery and good behavior."

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.

 

[Ravenscroft]

actual meanings

Okay, this thread popped into my head at work yesterday, & I jotted a few notes on my grocery list.

A major (& unacknowledged) pothole in this discussion is that words suck. So let's start there.
________________

There's rampant conflation of "love" & "romance" & "romantic love," & I'm guilty too. As a result, I criticise Romantic self-blindness & am characterised as belittling people who love their kids & I probably kick puppies in my spare time. (Though playing Snidely Whiplash can be lots of fun, this is not the time/place for it.)

To the roots, then. While imperfect -- an analogue system in a digital world! -- the classic Greek philosophers defined four types of love --

• philia
• storge
• agape
• eros

Respectively, they could be typified as "affection/empathy for friends," "affection for family, especially one's own children" (but in a sorta lukewarm, tolerating way, so it fell into disuse), "affection for core family/household," & of course "erotic/sensual/sexual desire."

When we studied the Greeks in college, I didn't like that these were often presented as clearly demarcated categories. How I feel about a particular person will often shift depending on time, mood, situation, & so on. And maybe I feel more than one sort of love at a given moment.

NRE is eros; for most, compersion is almost entirely agape. Being amongst peers at a poly get-together (or here) is primarily philia.

In all its forms, "love" isn't rational, past a "survival of the species" sort of thing. This is NOT a bad thing; all playing is irrational & pleasurable, & sheer non-goal-oriented "frivolity" is healthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_(activity)
Because it is play, too much effort to "understand love" will pretty much kill anything like love. However, there are plenty of life situations where going into "play mode" is clearly dangerous -- like, take a "bumper cars at the County Fair" mindset & activate it while driving the freeway in rush-hour traffic.

IME/IMO, the root problem with love, particularly High Romance, is when it's used to REPLACE rationality, something that is self-servingly enshrined in the canons of High Romantic thinking:

• singer Selena Quintanilla-Perez was murdered by the president of her fan club
• John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan out of love for Jodie Foster
• in general, stalking is sexy

(Sort of "the police are here, so that proves we're right!!" thinking.)

As nice & even necessary as it is, Romantic thinking is not a reasonable substitute for sanity or rationality. Clinging grimly to a not-healthy status quo in hopes of the Happily Ever After THE END part is NOT "brave" or "heroic."
________________

One trope I've often heard from hardcore monogamous types is that loving more than one person dilutes the experience on both ends. By this, they alway mean bugaboo eros, because (magic!!) both philia & agape are somehow limitless.

IME, all that gets "diluted" is available time. But even in strict monogamy, it's impossible to remain "in scene" 24/7 -- ever try to be vampy when you've got a bad cold? The only option I've ever found is to raise the quality of the times spent together. One factor might be remaining in some form of "love" as much as possible, even if there's something in the situation that makes expression of Romatic/erotic love problematic.

 

[Threefwb]

Love of the romantic, not friends with benifits type is ridiculously rare irrational

In our experience, Love of the romantic, not friends with benifits type is ridiculously rare and completely, irrational, crazy, and not a choice.

Before we met C we were happy swingers who had 100's of "lovers" who were sex partners and some became very close friends over about 25 years.

And I assume many of you would describe this as polyamory.....But we feel, I feel towards C the similar way as I feel towards my wife, whom I fell in love with at first site and got engaged 5 days later and married a few months after that. I would feel that way if it was never returned to both. But it is, the chances of that we all feel towards each other all at once is too rare to be measured and much lower than winning the lottery.

But that does not mean we devalue or disrespect how we feel and felt towards our other previous close friends with benefits. It just was not romantic love. Although others might call it that who have never felt this way, (which might be everyone else on the planet, as we've never met anybody even remotely like us, but it's sooooo good we hope it's not so rare)

 

[River]

In all its forms, "love" isn't rational, past a "survival of the species" sort of thing. This is NOT a bad thing; all playing is irrational & pleasurable, & sheer non-goal-oriented "frivolity" is healthy.

Leaving aside all other topics in this post for now, I'd like to suggest that it is probable that the word you mean to use here (highlighed, underlined above) is not irrational but arational.

irrational

adjective
1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical:
irrational arguments.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational?s=t

arational
adj.
"not purporting to be governed by laws of reason,"....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arational


I mention this distinction because the word "irrational" is generally used to indicate a contradiction of good, sound reason. E.g., it is irrational to expect apple trees to produce lemons or to expect dogs to meow.

Interestingly enough, many people use the word "irrational" in an irrational way, not knowing that in fact they mean to use the word "arational". But, sadly, very few people know of the word "arational" (most of whom are philosophers or students of philosophy).

Play, in the general sense, is not in the least irrational. But much play is in fact arational. Same goes with love, romantic or otherwise. There are certainly irrational actions or activities performed by those who call such actions and activities "love," but that hardly means that all love is irrational.

Neither is all love arational. Distinctions of this sort are important mostly when the terms are misapplied. Otherwise, we can all go on happily loving one another as we wish.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Have I mentioned that I'm a little obsessive-compulsive?

While I get the feeling that 99%+ of the people reading this will know exactly what I meant, you are of course correct.

...though you might want to correct all usages of "bisexual" on this site, too, so that nobody gets confused.

 

[River]

While I get the feeling that 99%+ of the people reading this will know exactly what I meant, you are of course correct.

Why would they? Why would the overwhelming majority of those reading here not think you meant irrational by "irrational"? Irrational means something very dramatically different from arational, after all. So if you meant "arational" but said "irrational," why would you presume yourself to be fully understood?

"...though you might want to correct all usages of "bisexual" on this site, too, so that nobody gets confused."

Huh? What? Are people here misusing the word "bisexual" to mean "those who like to have sex with bison?"

I may be a lexophile, but that does't necessarily mean I'm a nit picker. Yes, no and maybe mean very different things, and we need each and every one of these words to be understood. "Maybe" is NOT just as good as any of the others in any given situation. So, no. I disagree.

 

[Threefwb]

Ok stand corrected

Ok we are bisexualy, irrationally arational and as maxwell smart would say, and loving it

 

[Spork]

I don't know...I often contemplate the various things I love about my various loves. Excellent sex is nice, but it really, for me, is no match for intellectual stimulation, a feeling of safety, comfort and emotional support, desire to share fun times and experiences with others, and a host of other not-necessarily-sex-related bits that make up my relationships, and that is what defines the concept of "romance" to me.

So when I hear people question the point of romance...

It reminds me of those who say that there is no point to creative endeavors of humanity, such as art and music. You don't need art or music to survive. It doesn't help you be fed, sheltered, or clothed, you cannot eat, drink or breathe it, so it is extraneous and a waste of time. Let us take it out of schools, if we are going to take romance out of intimate relationships. Why bother with any of it, if it isn't rationally required?

For that matter, why not just have arranged marriages or government run breeding programs? Why have sex at all, we can stimulate ourselves to relieve those needs? Why put up with the messy and irrational business of mucking about with other people?

Because life feels dim and unenjoyable without those irrational things.

In my thinking, the height of romance is not stalking or killing someone at all. It is in knowing someone particularly well, and doing specifically appropriate things to demonstrate your knowledge of them and your affection for them, with their full consent. As with everything, consent makes the difference between wanted romance and unwanted stalking. So, you and another have consented to this...my two sensualists, Fire and Hefe, might give me a massage to demonstrate their romantic love of me. I choose particularly appropriate gifts, such as my TARDIS painting for the Analyst, or the tea set I gave Fire for Christmas. That goes to the whole "love languages" thing...but the point is, we are sending signals back and forth, sending and receiving affirmations and validations that we continue to be appreciated and wanted. To me, that is the very definition of romance.

Romeo and Juliet was not a romantic tragedy. It was Shakespeare telling a story of how dumb and melodramatic people (especially teenagers) are. Just my opinion, given how many of his works were pretty much aimed at saying, "People are comically stupid."

 

[Norwegianpoly]

Romantic love is somewhat similar to familiar and frienship love, but there is a certain intensity that is not present in other kinds of love. Also, since I and both my partners are sexual, to us romance is also very sexual in a profund sense.

 

[drinnt]

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.

I was initially going to write something supporting "love based on the happiness of another..." because I have friends that I love and for one reason or another life has taken us in different directions and now that love is painful as I see them live through a tough transition into a way of life that they are choosing because it's "what you do next, man." Having lived through the choices they are making I have to sit by and watch them go down that road while they are complaining about how much it sucks yet passionately committed to it at the same time.

But...then I read what you wrote next and hit the part where you said falling in love before a pre-set time frame indicates you are crazy. LMAO. I am so this archetype. For me to enjoy sex I need to feel like I "COULD FALL FOR THE PERSON"...there is a tickle in the gut on a special level that connects me to them. A deep, deep underlying resonance that empowers a force of it's own creation. If I feel that, I can move forward with confidence. In my swinging days I learned how to create healthy emotional boundaries to enjoy the pull of that feeling without allowing it to develop down a road that would not be realistically sustainable. BUT I always needed to feel that instinctual emotional tickle whether I voiced it or not.

Looking back over my life I realize that I have always felt that way and my failed first marriage up the relationship escalator was completely a result of attributing that feeling to the Disney Dream. "Oh I feel it this must be THE ONE!" Well, she was the one for A TIME. But for me there is no "ONE TRUE LOVE". There are partners who are irreplaceable and touch my lives in ways that others never will and I don't want to lose them, ever...but one true love and only one? No. There is just this capacity to connect on a base instinctual level with a deeply driven emotional potential that gets me firing on all cylinders and my desire to explore that fully, wherever it goes, with my partners. At the same time enjoying all the wonderful directions different relationships can take without making them wrong for looking the way they do.

That's "romantic love" for me. A very strong and compelling emotional connection that drives me to explore the depths of my relationships, remain connected and become a positive force in one another's lives while living toward whatever direction the relationship shall naturally take.

 

[IndieSolo]

I see the term "romantic love" as an oxymoron, of sorts. To me, romance and love are two totally different things, and I've written about that here before. The fact is that one can have love without romance and romance without love.

Loving someone, to me, is a feeling of closeness at a deep level and it is completely unconditional. I love that person simply because they exist, just like gravity pulls two planets toward each other. The expectations and meanings we ascribe to love relationships -- expectations like "commitment," building lives together for the future, and how we see ourselves based on whether we feel loved or not -- is an entirely separate issue.

Usually intimacy is a part of love, and by intimacy I mean letting oneself be vulnerable enough to share deeper parts of yourself with someone (and for them to share their deeper selves with you). The exchange involves familiarity, a deep rapport, and some risk-taking when you let someone see who you are (or parts of who we are that perhaps others don't see or are not allowed to see). Where there is love, I think there is a dynamic between people in which they both let themselves be seen and be vulnerable with each other.

Romance, on the other hand, is the outward expression of love and/or affection. It is a demonstration of feelings, and also of meeting certain expectations we place on having affectionate or loving feelings expressed to us. It can involve a lot of "smoke and mirrors" to set a mood or atmosphere and is often about proving one's loving or affectionate feelings. We often ask people here, "does your partner still romance you?" which generally means the dinners out, flowers, buying presents, doing chores for them, etc.

Romantic gestures seem to signal that a relationship is at a certain level of love. People generally feel that, without romance they aren't sure about the deeper feelings they might share with someone. "He isn't romantic with me anymore, so I think he has fallen out of love with me." Romantic entanglement involves a lot of fulfilling of fantasies, or encouraging those fantasies, such as professing that you will stay together forever -- but it's a totally different thing from intimacy or love. There are people who are masterful at making all the romantic gestures, yet cowardly when it comes to actually letting love in.

For me, personally, I can enjoy some romance, but it's not the #1 thing I want in my relationships. I want intimacy, affection, and love in my relationships, and I'd eschew romance (expression or outward demonstration of feeling) altogether in favor of simply feeling and knowing love.

 

[PhoenixStGeorge]

Lots of thoughts but typing with thumbs and not wishing to be redundant on a number of agreements (esp on the need to define words thoroughly)-- In response to the original questions, and in the context of the rest of this thread, I propose/wonder....

Isn't romantic love the difference between swinging and polyamory?

And if so, wouldn't you expect nearly everyone here (at least the polyamorists) to vote it's a good thing?

xo

 

[Spork]

Have we talked about "love languages" here yet?

I can't help thinking of my ex.

We both loved one another, insofar as our understanding of love goes. We both romanced one another insofar as our understanding of romance goes. Yet neither of us felt loved, and neither of us felt romanced, and neither of us were truly happy with the relationship.

He felt that desiring me sexually, and being protective of me, and being possessive of me, was love. And expressing those things: "I want you, I need you, I need and want no one BUT you, now and forever" is what communicates and defines romance and romantic love. His need, is what he brought to the table. He felt unloved because I did not NEED him, and I did not pursue him sexually, and I did not feel possessive or protective of him.

I felt that doing deliberate gestures such as buying and preparing food that he likes, scratching his back every night, buying him thoughtful and appropriate gifts for special occasions, being supportive to him and trying to make his life smoother and easier, having his back and taking care of him...to me, that is love. That's how you express it. That's what it looks like. That is romance. He did none of those things, and I felt unloved. I did those things for him, they meant nothing.

I felt like he didn't even know me as a person. Dehumanized, just a sex object. So my sexuality shut down. If my sex interferes with being seen as a human being and respected, then I won't be a sexual person anymore at all. If it makes my husband behave in violent ways to other men in the world who might want me, I will make myself less wantable. I abandoned all expression of feminine sexuality, and gravitated to nerdy things, combat boots, oversized baggy clothes, no makeup. I am a cool person, I am not a girl. Talk to me. Don't look at me. Don't touch me. His manner of love actually ended up costing him what he wanted most by shaping me into someone who was almost asexual.

I on the other hand, by taking such care of him yet not "wanting/needing" him, encouraged codependency, him not developing adult life skills but rather just taking for granted that I would always manage everything for him, eventually chipping away at his self esteem and self image, severe depression and serious misogyny. And since he felt rejected and abandoned emotionally, now he feels as though he can never trust a woman again.

And yet. Both of us loved one another. And in our own ways...both of us tried to show it with the romantic gestures we knew how to express. But we were speaking completely different languages, and the meaning was lost.

 

[Magdlyn]

Love may not be rational, but it is biological (hormonal) and a very useful way to keep humans pair bonded, to keep children alive, to keep societies functioning. It can have rational aspects, in that you have preferences for the kinds of people you will love. They must have certain qualities that you find you need to feel safe, sane and healthy.

For me, I won't be attracted to someone who doesn't have these qualities: physically attractive (this is purely subjective and not based on what movie stars or models look like), intelligent, funny, respectful, non-Christian (unless gnostic), appreciative of the arts (fine art, music, architecture, literature, film), progressive politically, and reasonably self aware. I like a person who is "mature" but with a playful side, a sense of fun.

Somewhere in there I am sure there is a subliminal preference for a certain sort of pheromone-fragrance. And I want a lover with a strong sensual sexual aspect too.

I don't think it's irrational or arational to feel unattracted to people without these qualities.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I see the term "romantic love" as an oxymoron, of sorts. To me, romance and love are two totally different things

Yes!! Well, okay, or perhaps a redundancy. Now that I consider, this thread seems to be a recurring collision between the Redundants & the Oxymorons.

When I criticise the strong potential (as I see it) for Romantic thinking to lead to a sort of self-hypnotised stupidity, I'm soon accused of decrying Love... a tactic that indicates someone in a Romantic daze, unable to consider it in a rational manner.

IMO, Romantic love is what leads you to lock your kids in the house with two grocery bags of food so that you can run off for a weekend with your new BF.

 

[Ravenscroft]

FWIW, setting aside current common use, "bisexual" clearly means "possessing two sexes," or androgyny.

In this sense, someone can't be bisexual unless they have male AND female body parts, or somehow present in both gender roles -- which has always struck me as "gay or straight, nothing between" thinking that's NOT consonant with anything like modern notions of bisexuality.

(I'd further contend that "bisexual" doesn't even refer to gonads, which are more a matter of gender than of sex, but that's fine hair-splitting.)

It can also be used in the sense of a grouping or gathering attended by both males & females, as opposed to something homosexual like most sports teams.

Meanwhile, ambisexual is much more correct a term, certainly indicating "between" besides "both." (For instance, we use "ambivalent" NOT to mean "holding both opinions" but "caught between two choices.")

Anyway, thanks for playing, back to the scheduled program.

 

[River]

FWIW, setting aside current common use, "bisexual" clearly means "possessing two sexes," or androgyny.

In this sense, someone can't be bisexual unless they have male AND female body parts, or somehow present in both gender roles -- which has always struck me as "gay or straight, nothing between" thinking that's NOT consonant with anything like modern notions of bisexuality.

(I'd further contend that "bisexual" doesn't even refer to gonads, which are more a matter of gender than of sex, but that's fine hair-splitting.)

It can also be used in the sense of a grouping or gathering attended by both males & females, as opposed to something homosexual like most sports teams.

Meanwhile, ambisexual is much more correct a term, certainly indicating "between" besides "both." (For instance, we use "ambivalent" NOT to mean "holding both opinions" but "caught between two choices.")

Anyway, thanks for playing, back to the scheduled program.

I can't help wondering if this entire post doesn't harken back to my post in which I suggested that "irrational" was a concept remarkably (or, at least, importantly) different from "arational," and thus worthy of reconsideration as a term. But, hey, My gonads are perhaps a little confused. So, whatever. Let the words fly as they will.

Post text:

bi means "two" more or less, no?

bi sex, then, means something like "of two sexes"? Or "relating to two sexes"? or what the f**k else? Having the nature of two of two sexes? Something (never mind)?!!

I thought "bisexual" simply meant "able and willing to respond sexually to persons of either sex". I guess that makes me simple minded or some damn thing?

 

[River]

PS -

If we're going to be picking nits, let's then say that "homophobia" is a completely useless and thus irrelevant and meaningless neologism. After all, "homo" means same. And phobia means fear. So homophobia literally means "fear of the same," and you can ask any midwesterner or Southerner dude living in a trailer park if he is afraid of his next door neighbor, Bubba. And if they say they ain't, well, we know for sure that they ain't homophobic, right?

 

[Sentinel]

What is love? (baby don't hurt me)

Seriously, I have an unnatural love for that song. You'll thank me later, when it's stuck in your head.