Romantic drivel

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Real romance is that magical connection that occurs between two people. The one that makes the rest of the world sink into the background and let's you believe that everything will be good.

 

I'm talking about a mental and emotional connection.

 

As far as an emotional connection, sure, I kind of agree as shown in my postings - although I will admit that I would not say that the entire world "sink into the background."

 

...I would rather spend time with a good friend who shares some interests, and not a lover who might be completely incompatible.

 

...get involved with someone you had known for some time and that you would not mind spending the rest of your life with.

 

...my longest relationship was with with a very good friend who had many similar interests, she was the one who bought me my first copy of Bloodlines and saved my ass in Latin more then once, and even though we went our separate ways as far as the relationship we are still close friends.

 

I find those kind of relationships much more satisfying in than purely physical ones...

 

...even if nothing comes of it we're still having fun and enjoying eachother's company.

 

As for the "mental" one, well, let's just agree to disagree if you were talking about a physical link between two people. However, it is possible to get to know someone well enough that it seems your brains are linked.

[Walsingham]

I never said pi girl said anything about guys being shallow and oblivious to the emotional and psychological side of relationships, but the suggestion that romance hasn't been brought up in this thread and that she finds that hilarious, to me, is an implication that men know little about romance, since that hasn't been brought to the table.

 

Now, I'm not offended by that stance, just dumbfounded by it, to be honest. Society places pressure on men to be "masculine". A trait of masculinity is being stoic, not expressing thoughts and feelings as openly and freely as women do. However, there is a feminine side to most men, just that some hide it more than others or hide it better than others. Me thinks there is an underestimation from women of men's understandings of romance, that's all.

 

But I can't speak for us all.

 

 

I think you're onto something here. It's been my observation that men are far more likely to hare off in a random direction shouting romantic protestations than women are. But your point makes me wonder if it's just more notceable when they do. I do definitely know many women who operate using a surface layer of romantic flummery, but who are as hard-nosed as Swiss bankers by the fifth date.

 

being as I am, a freelance scientist

 

 

I don't believe in magic or any of that nonsense. I do believe that due to the labyrinthine and arcane science of attraction it can resemble magic. But the doolally mooning, and fierce courage that love inspires are mechanical processes, which exist in potential because we need as a species to get jiggy.

[qt3.14159]

When I said magic, I didn't mean hocus pocus, but rather the wonder and amazement that comes from a really good connection with another person. Yes, I believe it is primarily a function of biology, which is why I said in my first post that romance and romantic responses can be manufactured.

 

Archie, I'm sorry if I offended you, I just really was amused by everyone's responses to the initial question.

 

Anyhow, I do believe that people who very close often pick up on each other's brain waves, somehow. I've just had too many instances of dreaming of things I didn't know, feeling things that someone else was feeling with no explanation and even having odd urges at the same time as someone else. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

[Guest The Architect]

No need for an apology, pi girl, you didn't offend me, just drew me to the belief that women underestimate men's knowledge of romance, on a generally speaking basis. You can't be entirely responsible for other peoples reactions to your comments, either, so it's all good. And yeah, my mum has this kind of telepathic connection to us, us being her family and stuff. She'll be able to predict and sense things that turn out to be true 9 times out of 10.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Don't you people know that this love crap is all just a bunch of chemicals?

[qt3.14159]

Don't you people know that this love crap is all just a bunch of chemicals?

 

The entire human race is just a bunch of chemicals. That doesn't invalidate our experiences.

[Guest The Architect]

Yeah, and your point is?

 

Not directed at you, pi girl.

Edited August 19, 2008 by The Architect

[I want teh kotor 3]

Don't you people know that this love crap is all just a bunch of chemicals?

 

The entire human race is just a bunch of chemicals. That doesn't invalidate our experiences.

 

Never said it did. I'm just pointing out that its just chemicals, same as all emotions.

 

Yeah, and your point is?

 

Not directed at you, pi girl.

 

See above.

[Guest The Architect]

So I guess your point is, is that since love is "all just a bunch of chemicals", this concept of a "soul mate" is wrong and falling in love is easier than picking cherries from a cherry tree, just that when two people do they "commit" rather than have multiple lovers at the same time. Makes sense.

[Xard]

Don't you people know that this love crap is all just a bunch of chemicals?

 

The entire human race is just a bunch of chemicals. That doesn't invalidate our experiences.

 

Never said it did. I'm just pointing out that its just chemicals, same as all emotions.

 

 

Aahh, speaking like me when I was 15.

 

Chemical - or should I say biological considering the complexity of living systems - basis for love is very different thing from love itself. Just like consciousness isn't identical to brain nor is our experience or should I say qualia homogenous to chemical processes. Love - like whole existence - is a lot more than what materialism would tell. Love is also a lot more than "mere" feeling with chemical drivel propelling it (how deep one dwells on that qualia is another thing entirely. It shouldn't come as surprise how good we humans are at repressing our natural responses and thus changing nature of whole phenomenon) higher. I recommend Sartre's writing on love and it's "doing" or "deed" nature contrasted with sheer infatuation or other such emotional response.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

so, uhh, that was highly theoretical but felt like I had to write that.

 

As for the concrete deal, well, I leave the field for those who suck less at being happy and liking people.

 

 

OH, AND ONE MORE BOOK:

 

Scott Peck's Psychology of Love

 

That's recommendation for all of you btw

[I want teh kotor 3]

So I guess your point is, is that since love is "all just a bunch of chemicals", this concept of a "soul mate" is wrong and falling in love is easier than picking cherries from a cherry tree, just that when two people do they "commit" rather than have multiple lovers at the same time. Makes sense.

 

Basically.

 

Don't you people know that this love crap is all just a bunch of chemicals?

 

The entire human race is just a bunch of chemicals. That doesn't invalidate our experiences.

 

Never said it did. I'm just pointing out that its just chemicals, same as all emotions.

 

 

Aahh, speaking like me when I was 15.

 

Chemical - or should I say biological considering the complexity of living systems - basis for love is very different thing from love itself. Just like consciousness isn't identical to brain nor is our experience or should I say qualia homogenous to chemical processes. Love - like whole existence - is a lot more than what materialism would tell. Love is also a lot more than "mere" feeling with chemical drivel propelling it (how deep one dwells on that qualia is another thing entirely. It shouldn't come as surprise how good we humans are at repressing our natural responses and thus changing nature of whole phenomenon) higher. I recommend Sartre's writing on love and it's "doing" or "deed" nature contrasted with sheer infatuation or other such emotional response.

 

Who or what exactly is a Sartre?

[Xard]

Who or what exactly is a Sartre?

 

You're dead meat

 

 

Sartre

 

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (June 21, 1905 – April 15, 1980), normally known simply as Jean-Paul Sartre (pronounced [ʒɑ̃ pol saʁtʁə]), was a French existentialist philosopher and pioneer, dramatist, screenwriter, novelist and critic. He was the leading figure in 20th century French philosophy.

 

Sartre was father of modern existentialism, philosophy that has shaped the culture of post-WWII world more than any other "ideology"

Edited August 19, 2008 by Xard

[Daaave]

The longest I've managed to last in a relationship is five weeks. I get bored very easily =/

 

I'm sorry babe, I tried my best to entertain you. It was good while it lasted.

 

Awwww no babe you're different, the only one for me. Without you I am not complete. Don't leave me now, it can't end like this :'(

 

OMG I've been waiting to hear those words for a long time. Promise you'll never leave me again honey. Never. Again.

 

I promise baby. I promise. In it for the long run now

[I want teh kotor 3]

Who or what exactly is a Sartre?

 

You're dead meat

 

 

Sartre

 

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (June 21, 1905

[Walsingham]

Mostly to sound pretentious I'd like to add that Love is 'just chemicals' in the same way that the sun is 'just chemicals'. Accuracy without truth, I feel.

[Jaesun]

[qt3.14159]

Actually, watching Star Trek:TNG with my ex is one of my fondest memories of our relationship. Geek love is awesome.

[SirPetrakus]

If I ever have ANOTHER relationship like my previous one, I am shooting myself. Cute girls just aren't worth the hassle. Example, I was serving in the army and setting up a projector in the presentation hall for a presentation we had made for a Brigadier General. I got the Captain behind me to overlook my progress and SHE calls. I pick the phone up

 

 

*regrettably, rather too much graphic detail - Walsingham*

[qt3.14159]

SirPetrakus...

 

That conversation makes me ashamed of my gender. But we aren't all like that, really.

[SirPetrakus]

SirPetrakus...

 

That conversation makes me ashamed of my gender. But we aren't all like that, really.

Don't sweat it, I'm pretty sure it was just her.

[Dark_Raven]

Actually, watching Star Trek:TNG with my ex is one of my fondest memories of our relationship. Geek love is awesome.

You're going to turn Bok on.

[Bokishi]

Face it DR, you want into my little cozy office as well

[Hell Kitty]

Men are more romantic than women.

 

Oh, and damn you Walsingham, damn you to hell! I demand graphic detail!

[qt3.14159]

Men are more romantic than women.

 

Oh, and damn you Walsingham, damn you to hell! I demand graphic detail!

 

Having read most of that article, I agree with the main premise, that men are the "sherpas of romance" doing much of the hard work involved, but I competely disagree that it makes them more romantic than women. For most men romance is just a means to an end. They don't get it, they don't really care about it, if they did, they'd be just as upset if we didn't remember Valentines Day or anniversaries.

 

But guys don't really care. They complain about having to go see chick flicks in spite of it being one of the easiest ways to trigger that romantic response in their SO. When most women watch a cute romantic comedy, they very easily put themselves into the story. This makes it very easy to then look at the man beside you and remember all the wonderful things about him and how much you love him and how perfect you are together. (Whether any of that is actually true is another subject all together).

 

Guys, you do NOT want your women going to chick flicks without you. Even if you're falling asleep, you want to be there when those romantic responses are triggered. If it's not you, well... it won't be you...