What romantic things are women known for?

[Finished]

That being said though, I agree that mainstream media doesn't put that much of a focus on the girl romancing the guy. I vaguely remember one romcom I watched where the woman was romancing the man but can't recall the name.

You probably got your wires crossed. It was a fantasy Island episode: Ha! ha!

 

[ewomack]

To further clarify once again, I was talking about actual romance, not that modern Hollywood crap, in which good looking guy meets good looking girl, her eyes go part crossed, it's love at first sight, then *** happens.. cuz that's not romance, it's ********, and doomed to fail a good percentage of the time when the people are forced to actually talk, or spend time together in a place in which *** isn't possible.

Then why not use those examples here, rather than following up with *** based nonsense, after I'd already expressed my distaste for it?

Sigh - What does "actual romance" mean? It means something to you, obviously, but it won't necessarily mean the same thing to other people. You don't set definitions for every human being in every situation. You're also assuming again and I don't think that you're reading clearly or thinking very clearly, honestly. You have a point somewhere, but I have no idea what it is. At this point, I'm not sure that you do, either.

As for the examples, I didn't want to retype them, they were included above and you can find them easily enough. And what "*** based nonsense" are you referring to? A plushy in a shirt has nothing to do with ***. You don't even know if that girl and I even had *** after that incident. I didn't say anywhere that we did. As for anything else, I have the right to type whatever I want, regardless if you find it "distasteful," which I don't think any of it generally was (if you think that it was distasteful, then you haven't seen distasteful). Whether you like it or not, *** can be romantic for some people. It can also easily be non-romantic. Not having *** can also be romantic. It all depends on the people involved. You can disagree, but it doesn't mean that either of us are right or wrong. We're in the realm of opinion here. There is no right or wrong answer to "what is romantic?" There are only opinions.

 

[xephier102]

Replying to OP here.

I have been romanced by a woman before. She took me out on a date and even asked me if I would marry her.

She didn't say it was a date straight away of course, she was the shy type after all. She took me to fancy dessert place and would smile a look away whenever I looked at her.

That being said though, I agree that mainstream media doesn't put that much of a focus on the girl romancing the guy. I vaguely remember one romcom I watched where the woman was romancing the man but can't recall the name.

Are you what the mainstream refers to as good looking?

Well, if we're going by the media... everyone is beautiful and promiscuous, or slightly unattractive with a quality that makes up for it (intelligence/humor). They have unlimited amount of money, clothing, and live in amazingly decorated homes.
But don't worry if you don't, because buying something from the commercials will probably help.

media is designed to make you feel less than, to sell ****. not to represent reality.

The financial situations don't represent(most people's) reality, but the social situations often do. As there is no standardized schooling for learning how to socialize, so the only things to learn from are other people, or the mainstream media, and if you choose to learn from other people, where did they learn from?

I'd say that some use their good/common sense and just do the things that are good, and sensible, and virtuous, but sadly the number of people that do that are a minority, and I'd even go so far as to say a niche..

Most people follow crowd mentality, hence why there's so many lists on what's trending, popular, or in the top 10.

 

[xephier102]

What does "actual romance" mean? It means something to you, obviously, but it won't necessarily mean the same thing to other people.

Well, if we want to be stupid about it and make the meaning that fluid, then some guy raping a girl could be seen as 'romantic'. But I prefer to stick to the logical definitions that make the most sense. Love is love, *** is ***, you don't need love to **** someone. Two (or more) good looking people can **** and feel like they're 'in love' even if they hardly know one another. That's all thanks to the mainstream media fukin with people's definition of love. But if you can't have a romantic situation in which *** isn't involved, then there was probably no love there to begin with.

Another thing, opinion is derived from available facts. The only facts you presented (in this thread, I'm not combing through your other threads for this) are that you had a girl that was your ex, she stuffed your plushie into her **** and apparently stuff happened. It was suggestive of *** if nothing else.

So she was your ex, meaning obviously there was a separation at some point, likely due to a lack of intellectual chemistry. Then 'stuff' happened, and boom, romance!

Yea... forgive me if that thought promotes more of a /barf reaction than ' aww..'.

 

[Sunless Sky]

Are you what the mainstream refers to as good looking?

I posted a pic of me on the "let's see the faces" thread, why don't you go there and judge for yourself?

 

[CenotaphGirl]

Oooh hope its okay for me to add to this, I will say.. honestly as a woman I've always been so stumped on what to do to be romantic!!! I always argued (in my mind) that it is because there is no real premise. So with that, I'd have to say I agree. However, I will say, the only thing I have ever thought as a romantic gesture to do for a man was cook him his favourite meal. Is that romantic?

 

[Finished]

^ I would take that as romance that would lead to ***.

 

[xephier102]

I posted a pic of me on the "let's see the faces" thread, why don't you go there and judge for yourself?

Iirc that thread is like, 50 pages long or somethin.. I actually considered it before you suggested, but I don't really want to spend hours digging through a single thread. It's bad enough when I get lost down pinterest rabit holes..

Oooh hope its okay for me to add to this, I will say.. honestly as a woman I've always been so stumped on what to do to be romantic!!! I always argued (in my mind) that it is because there is no real premise. So with that, I'd have to say I agree. However, I will say, the only thing I have ever thought as a romantic gesture to do for a man was cook him his favourite meal. Is that romantic?

Tbh, that's the only mainstream thing I could think of. So yea, it counts, but it's still a single suggestion vs the dozens that could be come up with in the other direction.

But yea.. the mainstream gender norms do make things much more difficult for both sides.. for one, toxic masculinity would hardly be a thing when men/boys aren't forced/pressured into being masculine to begin with.

^ I would take that as romance that would lead to ***.

Now I know you're just trolling. I'll let it pass though. Not like there's anything better to do since covid is never going to **** OFF...

 

[kaetic]

Oooh hope its okay for me to add to this, I will say.. honestly as a woman I've always been so stumped on what to do to be romantic!!! I always argued (in my mind) that it is because there is no real premise. So with that, I'd have to say I agree. However, I will say, the only thing I have ever thought as a romantic gesture to do for a man was cook him his favourite meal. Is that romantic?

I would find it romantic if a guy did that for me... so I would think it would go the other way easy enough. It's personal, takes effort, shows you care and that you know the person enough to know what they would like.

Now I know you're just trolling. I'll let it pass though. Not like there's anything better to do since covid is never going to **** OFF...

I don't think Finished was trolling. But I agree with him on the gesture being romantic. Perhaps you don't?
As another poster said, not everyone is going to find the same things romantic. I think it's more to personal taste than general standards of romance. After all not every woman wants a man to bring her flowers or open doors for her.

If it's the "leads to ***" part of what he said... isn't that the end game of romance? Pretty much any action that expresses your affection to the other person would be considered romantic, and it doesn't HAVE to lead to ***, but there's nothing wrong with it if it does. I said before that I don't believe romance is really selfless in nature. (altruism doesn't really exist) But there's nothing wrong with wanting to connect with your partner on an emotional or physical level as long as they feel the same way.

 

[CenotaphGirl]

Tbh, that's the only mainstream thing I could think of. So yea, it counts, but it's still a single suggestion vs the dozens that could be come up with in the other direction.

But yea.. the mainstream gender norms do make things much more difficult for both sides.. for one, toxic masculinity would hardly be a thing when men/boys aren't forced/pressured into being masculine to begin with.

Now I know you're just trolling. I'll let it pass though. Not like there's anything better to do since covid is never going to **** OFF...

I think if there was a stereotype of what men like, like flowers for women and chocolates, and teddies lol then it would be easier. I have seen a trend of buying the man the latest gaming consoles but... thats still going to be relatively new. I loveee love, like romance, I always heard the "the way to a mans heart is through his stomach line" so I guess there are various ways that include cooking.

To be fair personally, I randomly bought my ex something small from the store, and make him guess what it is, it would be something he likes like candy or doughnuts lol He always liked that.

^ I would take that as romance that would lead to ***.

Cook, clean, and ***!?! What am I a robot???... lol God knows, what it would lead to, I expect a man to fall asleep after one of my big meals lmao.

 

[kaetic]

The financial situations don't represent(most people's) reality, but the social situations often do. As there is no standardized schooling for learning how to socialize, so the only things to learn from are other people, or the mainstream media, and if you choose to learn from other people, where did they learn from?

I'd say that some use their good/common sense and just do the things that are good, and sensible, and virtuous, but sadly the number of people that do that are a minority, and I'd even go so far as to say a niche..

Most people follow crowd mentality, hence why there's so many lists on what's trending, popular, or in the top 10.

I don't disagree with the social situations being realistic-ish in at least the media with decent writers... that was not exactly my point. Also, while I agree that people learn socializing by actually doing it (from other people) through trial and error... I don't believe that I can make the leap of media being the source of social knowledge for everyone. Culture/history, parents, religion/spirituality/or lack there of, political beliefs, etc all play a part in who we are and how we interact. Not just the mainstream media... though I get the feeling sometimes that way too many people take it as gospel.

My point (and forgive me if I don't make a lot of sense, it's like 4am here) was mostly about the unrealistic beauty standards and how they basically make it seem like everyone only ever wants to get laid. That is unrealistic. Also, I don't know about the other women here, but I've never had anyone (male or female) try to catch me when I was falling. Women don't go around fainting out of surprise, and not every "bad guy" looks like one. And it's not just beautiful people that are dateable, no matter what Seinfeld says.

Now if you want to pick a part of the media that influences people... I would probably lean towards children's shows, especially disney movies. I can't think of many that don't involve a "prince saving a princess" dynamic. Or any that don't suggest you live happily ever after after you get married. A lot of really unhealthy messages in some of those movies.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Romance is defined as "a feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love."

Literally ANYTHING can be "romance," for different people. You just have to find it exciting. Just because YOU don't find something exciting or mysterious doesn't mean no one else does.

 

[Finished]

Cook, clean, and ***!?! What am I a robot???... lol God knows, what it would lead to, I expect a man to fall asleep after one of my big meals lmao.

You had me at robot.

Big Meals? Hold on. You make big meals? Okay, now I know I'm in love. You sound perfect! Ha! ha!

 

[CenotaphGirl]

You had me at robot.

Big Meals? Hold on. You make big meals? Okay, now I know I'm in love. You sound perfect! Ha! ha!

Lol stick to the topic Romeo, how else can women romance you dudes?
What do you want from us?

 

[xephier102]

isn't that the end game of romance?

Yea, if you're a pervert.. I'm no prude, and I'm not against ***, but if *** is your primary goal in an initial interaction with someone, then you should really just stop. I mean, seriously.. Don't reproduce, we don't need any more people like that on this planet.. You can **** like rabbits 24/7, but it doesn't mean you're in love.. If you're the type that does this, then stop the *** and see how far the relationship goes. If your relationship can't survive in a healthy and productive manner after a month or more without ***, then you really should find other people, cuz *** will only get ya so far.

Like seriously, when was the last time you heard "aww, he's eating her out, how ROMANTIC!!!".. Seriously.. How is this even still a part of the discussion. I mean, if ya wanna throw jokes around, that's one thing, but at least let it be known that it's a joke, rather than trying to act like it's something serious..

I don't disagree with the social situations being realistic-ish in at least the media with decent writers.

The bulk of the mainstream media, and the most watched media (IE: the stuff that doesn't get canceled), actually has terrible writers.. Take Supernatural for instance; the show has been going for what, 20++ seasons now.. And every damned episode is the exact same formula..

And so much of the most popular/trending shows involve women in skimpy bikinis making out with good looking men; or 'reality' shows.. I can't believe so many people watch that rubbish, it's brain rot waiting to happen..

I don't believe that I can make the leap of media being the source of social knowledge for everyone.

I never said 'everyone'. If I did, I'd have to include myself in that.

Culture/history, parents, religion/spirituality/or lack there of, political beliefs, etc all play a part in who we are and how we interact.

Well, religion is just mainstream media before mainstream media existed. How else would millions of people believe that there's a giant magical spirit in the sky watching our every move, like a mystical Santa Clause..? Cuz mainstream media wasn't around and people were bored AF.. Church was a theater for the poor. Now we've got Imax, lol..

Culture and religion could actually be blended into one, since much of one's culture revolves around religion, or rather, in the things that they follow, so politics could be tossed in there as well. Same with history (unless you mean personal history, such as the person being a product of their environment).

So anyways, I digress. Yes, these things can play a part in the way a person acts/reacts in social situations, but religion is showing it's age, and beginning to fade now that we have the internet, and it's easy to see how silly it is (for anyone that looks things up objectively, rather than forming an unbreakable belief based on what their told by members of a singular religious group).

Politics has sway, but it dabbles quite sparsely in the social aspects of society (these days). At least in terms of Canada/America, I think it may have more influence in places like India. Obviously one needs to know how to socialize in order to be a politician, but the government has already proven just how little they care if we actually get along (so long as the votes keep rolling in).

Of course parents have a large amount of sway. Probably no other people in your life could teach you more about socialization than your parents. But since the invention of smartphones, more and more parents are doing their jobs on autopilot (Not all parents, I'm not talkin bout you Callie).. I mean, it's easier to just hand your kid a smartphone and let em play candy crush for hours, than to do actual parenting.. And I imagine most kids would throw a fit these days if they don't own a smart phone by the age of 14.. And social/mainstream media pretty much takes over their social education at that point..

Although, even in my day's as a kid, there was still television, and video games (for the kids/parents that could afford them). So, between Netflix, video games, smart phones, and social media, good luck even getting your kid's attention long enough to teach em anything, unless you've got the grit to take those things away.. But there's a lot of parents that're more scared of their kids, then their kids are of them.

Again, If I was wrong, there wouldn't be so many lists for popular, trending, top 10 .etc. Or millions of people rushing to buy the newest Iphone, even though it's exactly the same as last year's Iphone, but this one can take slightly better pictures.. Or millions of people doing the exact same thing with Call of Duty games.. Or people killing themselves because they got negative commentary on Facebook.. People are stupidly concerned about what other people think of them, and because of that, they (mostly) do their best to copy everyone else.

So when you've got this many people idolizing, and emulating the social aspects from the mainstream media, then that mentality will perpetuate itself exponentially throughout society. Again, obviously thx to free will, not everyone is like this, but I can safely say that it's a majority of people that at least take on aspects of the social behaviors portrayed by the mainstream media.

I've never had anyone (male or female) try to catch me when I was falling.

How many times have you fallen/fainted around other people? I mean, it's generally a pretty quick action.. But if someone saw you falling and didn't attempt to catch you (despite being in arm's length), that'd be a bit of a **** move on their part..

was mostly about the unrealistic beauty standards and how they basically make it seem like everyone only ever wants to get laid.

Two of the most popular/well known 'dating' apps available, literally involve swiping left or right based on a person's profile picture, in order to find people to 'get laid'(Tinder/Grindr).. Not sure what bubble you're living in, but these concepts are pretty far from 'unrealistic'..

not every "bad guy" looks like one.

I have theorized that part of the reason that good looking people tend to get better treatment (generally speaking), than ugly people, is because many of us were brought up (through cartoons and the like) on the concept that ugly = bad. I mean, even in non-sexual scenarios, such as middle-school.

While reality may differ from what we watch on TV; that doesn't prevent our perception of reality from being altered on a subliminal level by what we spend much of our time watching.

Now if you want to pick a part of the media that influences people... I would probably lean towards children's shows, especially disney movies. I can't think of many that don't involve a "prince saving a princess" dynamic. Or any that don't suggest you live happily ever after after you get married. A lot of really unhealthy messages in some of those movies.

That I can agree on, but see, even in those movies; it's not just the concept of a prince saving a princess, but a 'handsome' prince, saving a 'beautiful' princess. Unless you're watching Shrek, but that was more of a parody.. Most of the movies in which one of the two (usually male) is ugly; the frog/beast or w.e, turns into a handsome prince after being loved/kissed. So they still perpetuate the idea that love revolves around looks.

Lol stick to the topic Romeo, how else can women romance you dudes?
What do you want from us?

For me.. Eh.. A girl that notices me. One that looks past my not so attractive exterior to see what's on the inside. One that looks beyond my fumbles and follys to see the potential that I have buried deep within me beyond all the self loathing and regrets.. One that sees me, reaches out to me on the regular and makes me feel seen.. I would do anything for that person, but I doubt life would ever be so kind..

 

[CenotaphGirl]

For me.. Eh.. A girl that notices me. One that looks past my not so attractive exterior to see what's on the inside. One that looks beyond my fumbles and follys to see the potential that I have buried deep within me beyond all the self loathing and regrets.. One that sees me, reaches out to me on the regular and makes me feel seen.. I would do anything for that person, but I doubt life would ever be so kind..

You guys are wayyyy too smart for me lol Like I get if we break it down a lot of what mainstream media depicts as "romantic" for women.. it isn't exactly what most women want... Even buying flowers, it came back that the action of a man buying his wife flowers raises more suspicion than happiness unless its a commercial holiday. Regardless, there is a pushed agenda that women should be romanced and men should be tolerated. I don't think either sides are doing a lot of romance in 2022 to be fair, it's kinda dead in the water, unless it's the big engagement day or something.

You want a girl who finds you unattractive but looks past it? I mean, I always felt it was unfair to steal the guy from a chance to find someone that appreciates all of him, looks included, you know? Like looks are so subjective although people always wanna pretend there is this one set standard. Where I was born... no one took me to the dance lol after I moved I was... officially "that girl" just using school days for an example because its easier. Harder to know how attractive I am outside of that environment. As for everything else, you deserve that and more, in fact if someone doesn't make you feel seen and well... ultimately heard, are they even worth it?

 

[ewomack]

Well, if we want to be stupid about it and make the meaning that fluid, then some guy raping a girl could be seen as 'romantic'. But I prefer to stick to the logical definitions that make the most sense. Love is love, *** is ***, you don't need love to **** someone. Two (or more) good looking people can **** and feel like they're 'in love' even if they hardly know one another. That's all thanks to the mainstream media fukin with people's definition of love. But if you can't have a romantic situation in which *** isn't involved, then there was probably no love there to begin with.

Another thing, opinion is derived from available facts. The only facts you presented (in this thread, I'm not combing through your other threads for this) are that you had a girl that was your ex, she stuffed your plushie into her **** and apparently stuff happened. It was suggestive of *** if nothing else.

So she was your ex, meaning obviously there was a separation at some point, likely due to a lack of intellectual chemistry. Then 'stuff' happened, and boom, romance!

Yea... forgive me if that thought promotes more of a /barf reaction than ' aww..'.

Your responses have become increasingly stupider and shallower. This one makes the least sense of all. I can only conclude that your arguments and responses here are some kind of a joke that are meant simply to continue the conversation without any point whatsoever. At least, I hope that they're not serious and just some sort of flame bait because this one was a doozy and not even worth responding to. How can anyone take you seriously after that, really? I am done responding to this thread because there is no point left at all.

 

[kaetic]

Yea, if you're a pervert.. I'm no prude, and I'm not against ***, but if *** is your primary goal in an initial interaction with someone, then you should really just stop.

ROFL, wow... ok so I'm probably reading into this a bit... much like you did with my post (except for the parts that you apparently edited entire statements out of in order to what... argue?) But this basically sounds like romance is just a tool used at the beginning of a relationship. Apparently couples that have been together for 30+ years have no use of it?

"and it doesn't HAVE to lead to ***, but there's nothing wrong with it if it does."

Did you miss this part?

Let's get real though. When you consider a romantic relationship, are you thinking of a platonic/celibate relationship or are you thinking that at some point... even if it's way down the line... the two of you might have a physical relationship as well? This does not make some one a pervert. And while romantic gestures generally lead to *** in the same way... possibly way down the line. They are still done with the idea in mind of building/growing/tending a relationship. So sorry if it bugs you. But I'm right. (going all out childish mode, why not?)

5 pages in and you have people saying the same things over and over and over. If you don't get it by now and are arguing with people that actually DO get it. Criticizing the things they find romantic. Calling people perverts. Then all I can say is you're probably never going to understand it.

Like seriously, when was the last time you heard "aww, he's eating her out, how ROMANTIC!!!".. Seriously.. How is this even still a part of the discussion. I mean, if ya wanna throw jokes around, that's one thing, but at least let it be known that it's a joke, rather than trying to act like it's something serious..

What the hell even made you think that this was what I was saying? I'm cursing to emphasize my confusion at your thought process, not out of anger or a desire to insult you. Though you do seem to have a desire to insult others...

The bulk of the mainstream media, and the most watched media (IE: the stuff that doesn't get canceled), actually has terrible writers.. Take Supernatural for instance; the show has been going for what, 20++ seasons now.. And every damned episode is the exact same formula..

... yeah, that was kind of my point.

I never said 'everyone'. If I did, I'd have to include myself in that.

The financial situations don't represent(most people's) reality, but the social situations often do. As there is no standardized schooling for learning how to socialize, so the only things to learn from are other people, or the mainstream media, and if you choose to learn from other people, where did they learn from?

Does this not suggest "everyone learns from the media?" Even if you learn indirectly...?

Well, religion is just mainstream media before mainstream media existed. How else would millions of people believe that there's a giant magical spirit in the sky watching our every move, like a mystical Santa Clause..? Cuz mainstream media wasn't around and people were bored AF.. Church was a theater for the poor. Now we've got Imax, lol..

Culture and religion could actually be blended into one, since much of one's culture revolves around religion, or rather, in the things that they follow, so politics could be tossed in there as well. Same with history (unless you mean personal history, such as the person being a product of their environment).

So... now the argument is EVERYTHING is Media???

And I disagree... Culture, Religion, History, and politics do not just get thrown in the same damn category because there are parts that overlap. And I was generalizing history, take it however you want.

So anyways, I digress. Yes, these things can play a part in the way a person acts/reacts in social situations, but religion is showing it's age, and beginning to fade now that we have the internet, and it's easy to see how silly it is (for anyone that looks things up objectively, rather than forming an unbreakable belief based on what their told by members of a singular religious group).

Politics has sway, but it dabbles quite sparsely in the social aspects of society (these days). At least in terms of Canada/America, I think it may have more influence in places like India. Obviously one needs to know how to socialize in order to be a politician, but the government has already proven just how little they care if we actually get along (so long as the votes keep rolling in).

Perhaps you have no experience with this... but it's a lot harder to let go of the beliefs you learn as a child than you might think. Even if you "objectively" know that you don't believe in them anymore there's still an underlying feeling that is hard to shake. I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness. The last time I was in a Kingdom Hall was probably when I was about 14. It took me until my mid thirties before I was even able to celebrate my birthday comfortably. It's hard to shake the things that get dumped on you as a kid.
Beyond that, how many people really let go of their beliefs as they get older? Even if you do, it doesn't change what some one else believes and therefore the interactions you have with that person are still influenced even in just the smallest way by their beliefs.

Now when I say politics... I can understand why you would go to politicians. But I really wasn't referring to that. I was referring more towards values. What things do you find important? They are often adopted and manipulated by political parties in order to influence voters. Or do you really think that anyone in Washington cares if some girl in Nebraska has an abortion, or gets a conceal and carry permit? But the individual people in the US have been told "these are the issues" So sometimes people care about them and it can influence whether or not they interact well or not. If their "values" line up with yours or don't. Also political parties... I mean... look at any comment thread on the internet. Some one always makes it about politics. Perhaps these are not "objective" thinkers... I agree with that assumption, but it still influences the interactions they have with others.

How many times have you fallen/fainted around other people? I mean, it's generally a pretty quick action.. But if someone saw you falling and didn't attempt to catch you (despite being in arm's length), that'd be a bit of a **** move on their part..

Honestly, only one time that I can remember. And there was no stopping me. I was a kid ice skating, I got dizzy (found out much later it was from a migraine) and slammed into the ice rink barrier. Probably really funny to see actually...

But, again not exactly what I meant... have you heard of "tropes"? You should look it up if you haven't... I was basically making fun of the idea of these "tropes" being realistic. So quick action or not, arguing that it's hard to catch some one when they're falling when literally every female lead in any romance falls in some way and gets caught... just proves how unrealistic it is.

Two of the most popular/well known 'dating' apps available, literally involve swiping left or right based on a person's profile picture, in order to find people to 'get laid'(Tinder/Grindr).. Not sure what bubble you're living in, but these concepts are pretty far from 'unrealistic'..

I believe I said they make it look like "EVERYONE ONLY EVER wants to get laid"... I didn't say no one does. Also, I don't believe Tinder counts as "EVERYONE".

People are stupidly concerned about what other people think of them, and because of that, they (mostly) do their best to copy everyone else.
--
While reality may differ from what we watch on TV; that doesn't prevent our perception of reality from being altered on a subliminal level by what we spend much of our time watching.

ok, I agree with that... to a point. I like to think that most people can tell the difference between reality and fantasy... but that's not an argument, more like optimistic thinking.

---

The parental point... I don't disagree with what you said, however I believe children learn more from watching their parents than anything their parents might say to them. Sort of a subconscious actions over words sort of thing.

 

[kaetic]

That I can agree on, but see, even in those movies; it's not just the concept of a prince saving a princess, but a 'handsome' prince, saving a 'beautiful' princess. Unless you're watching Shrek, but that was more of a parody.. Most of the movies in which one of the two (usually male) is ugly; the frog/beast or w.e, turns into a handsome prince after being loved/kissed. So they still perpetuate the idea that love revolves around looks.

Guess I missed one...

I agree they perpetuate the notion that love revolves around looks... however, that doesn't make it reality. I won't say that superficial people don't exist, because that's ********. But to claim that only pretty people get in relationships... doesn't explain ANY of the couples I've ever seen. I think at least where I live it's much more rare to find a pretty couple than it is to find average or unattractive people getting together. Just because some one on TV says something doesn't make it the truth. I know my anecdotal evidence really ranks high with everyone, but it's not like we have some sort of statistic that rates married couples on attractiveness. Even if we did... who is the judge of it? Yes there are certain features that are "universally" acknowledged as attractive, but again personal taste has a big part to play in what each individual person finds attractive.

 

[ardour]

Well, if we want to be stupid about it and make the meaning that fluid, then some guy raping a girl could be seen as 'romantic'. But I prefer to stick to the logical definitions that make the most sense. Love is love, *** is ***, you don't need love to **** someone. Two (or more) good looking people can **** and feel like they're 'in love' even if they hardly know one another. That's all thanks to the mainstream media fukin with people's definition of love. But if you can't have a romantic situation in which *** isn't involved, then there was probably no love there to begin with.

Another thing, opinion is derived from available facts. The only facts you presented (in this thread, I'm not combing through your other threads for this) are that you had a girl that was your ex, she stuffed your plushie into her **** and apparently stuff happened. It was suggestive of *** if nothing else.

So she was your ex, meaning obviously there was a separation at some point, likely due to a lack of intellectual chemistry. Then 'stuff' happened, and boom, romance!

Yea... forgive me if that thought promotes more of a /barf reaction than ' aww..'.

Maybe it's because you identify as unattractive that you hold this opinion, but could you, as a straight male, be intimate with another guy? Or a 70 year old? Then looks and sexual attraction have something to do with it. Men's and women's brains aren't hardwired that differently after all. Point being we don't ignore biology completely when looking for a partner. If there's such a thing as non-sexual romantic love it's something that develops after years.