Is romance in society today dead? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is romance in society today dead?

LadyW

12-26-2007, 07:51 PM

chasestalling

12-27-2007, 07:46 AM

not if i can help it; but i shan't champion its cause as it's not in my vested interest to do so.

but then it's for losers like me art is created in the first place, i.e. to experience vicariously that which is denied me by fate and or luck.

SleepyWitch

12-27-2007, 07:55 AM

chasestalling

12-27-2007, 08:04 AM

sleepywitch, in case u were wondering my ideal love story is eloise & abelard

LadyW

12-27-2007, 08:18 AM

I think lots of people today only have a bf/gf because that's the way it's done.. peer pressure etc comes to mind.. little kids seem to believe that if you don't have a bf/gf by the age of 12 it means you're gay....

I totally agree... When I was in Primary School it was essential to grab a boyfriend if you wanted to be within the in crowd. I never bothered myself of course. Honestly... how can anyone between the ages of 9-12 have a serious relationship? Pfft..

EAP

12-27-2007, 09:01 AM

how can anyone between the ages of 9-12 have a serious relationship? Pfft..

It doesn't matter if it's a 'serious' relationship as long as the people involved enjoy their time together.

But do you think that the world has a more cynical view on love today? Is it boring due to predictable romance stories? Or is it tainted by obvious intentions of either sex today?

The world view is impossible to gauge.

Your Romeo, Juliet, Darcy, Katherine, Beren and Luthien aren't yer everyday Jane and Joe. Trying to emulate and apply their larger-than-life, fictional, personna to real life is a recipe for disaster.

The hostility towards a 'rational' or 'utilitarian' approach to life is amusing. How dare people look after their own interests!

LadyW

12-27-2007, 09:06 AM

It doesn't matter if it's a 'serious' relationship as long as the people involved enjoy their time together.
Here you have misunderstood me...
Of course I don't believe every relationship must be a serious one heading somewhere. Especially at a young age, it should be more about friendship and fun. Although at the age of 9-12, many begin a relationship with another for the sake of doing so, because its the "in thing". So it's not something to take too seriously in all honesty.
Whilst in primary schools, the "couples" claimed to be dating and yet aside from school they never spoke to eachother or met up to hang out.

SleepyWitch

12-27-2007, 09:21 AM

The hostility towards a 'rational' or 'utilitarian' approach to life is amusing. How dare people look after their own interests!

that's not what I meant EAP. what I meant is that some people will dump their gf/ bf for silly reasons, e.g. if they decide they don't have time for a relationship anymore or the person isn't cool enough or they can't be bothered or whatever. or some people start a relationship out of extremely selfish motives like they want to show off to their friends etc.
What I meant by 'rational' is the way some people count all the pros and cons before they get together with someone (like "Mr X is rich, but Mr Y looks a little better, but then Mr X has a bigger car"...), that includes dear Lizzy and Mr Darcy, not only people today. Or look at the way some people FIRST decide they need a bf/gf for whatever reason (because they are bored, for example, and think it's the bf's/gf's job to make their life more interesting) and THEN go and grab a bf/ gf instead of FIRST falling in love with a specific person and THEN getting involved with them.

EAP

12-27-2007, 06:32 PM

LadyW, SleepyWitch,

Cheers.

Fair enough. I appologize for misunderstanding your intent.

Koa

12-27-2007, 08:00 PM

hm... I think lots of people approach 'love' or 'romance' in a somewhat 'rational' and utilitarian way. E.g. I know this guy who thought about what would happen if his girl friend dumped him right after they got together. To him it was totally clear that they'd break up one day, even though he really liked her and wasn't planning on a hit-and-run thingy ... talk about cynicism.

But that has nothing to do with romanticism - or maybe it IS romantism?romanticism?romance? in its pure form, as in "the Romantic movement" and not what romance is today... Everything must end, and maybe it was insecurity on his part and later on he stopped thinking about it, but one of the countless reasons why I seriously doubt I would be able to handle a relationship is precisely the same... I don't think that's utilitarian at all, that's realistic. Maybe too rational yes, but being surprised about the way things end is almost unacceptable to me. I find it more likely that this guy you mention was badly hurt before and couldn't start a relationship without thinking it might end any second and be prepared for it.

I think lots of people today only have a bf/gf because that's the way it's done.. peer pressure etc comes to mind.. little kids seem to believe that if you don't have a bf/gf by the age of 12 it means you're gay....

That's similar to what I was thinking when I first read this thread yesterday. I don't think our society has no romance, just the opposite, "romance" is overemphasised and stereotyped... if you don't have a partner, don't buy her a diamond/him a playstation, act like a damn Julia Roberts movie, you're not a functional member of society.
I don't think there's enough cynicism (sorry can't spell, it's 1am and I can't spell after midnight, it's a well-known phenomenon :D) for one. Maybe thinking like the abovementioned guy about the end would ruin a lot of things, but being more aware of what a cynical thing life is wouldn't hurt, instead of perpetuating the Hollywood image and try to reproduce it in our miserable lives... (sorry I like dramatic endings to sentences :lol: I agree that the 'miserable' can be redundant in this context :D)

Nightshade

12-28-2007, 04:02 AM

that's not what I meant EAP. what I meant is that some people will dump their gf/ bf for silly reasons, e.g. if they decide they don't have time for a relationship anymore or the person isn't cool enough or they can't be bothered or whatever. or some people start a relationship out of extremely selfish motives like they want to show off to their friends etc.
Umm sleepy thats always happened, you married up, never down realtionships have for centuries at least been a status thing, IMO.

What I meant by 'rational' is the way some people count all the pros and cons before they get together with someone (like "Mr X is rich, but Mr Y looks a little better, but then Mr X has a bigger car"...), that includes dear Lizzy and Mr Darcy, not only people today. Or look at the way some people FIRST decide they need a bf/gf for whatever reason (because they are bored, for example, and think it's the bf's/gf's job to make their life more interesting) and THEN go and grab a bf/ gf instead of FIRST falling in love with a specific person and THEN getting involved with them.
Actually I see youve got it and said it here yourslef.

But that has nothing to do with romanticism - or maybe it IS romantism?romanticism?romance? in its pure form, as in "the Romantic movement" and not what romance is today
But you know what I maintatin that we are in an newromantics era, look or the ear marks of it in literture, popular culture heck even on the forum

[quote]That's similar to what I was thinking when I first read this thread yesterday. I don't think our society has no romance, just the opposite, "romance" is overemphasised and stereotyped... if you don't have a partner, don't buy her a diamond/him a playstation, act like a damn Julia Roberts movie, you're not a functional member of society.
Did I ever tell you about the telemarketer who told me there was something wrong with me because I was 18 didnt have a b/f/g/f and didnt want one?

I totally agree... When I was in Primary School it was essential to grab a boyfriend if you wanted to be within the in crowd. I never bothered myself of course. Honestly... how can anyone between the ages of 9-12 have a serious relationship? Pfft..

I havent time to look up the quote this mornibng ( the joys of work) But I can say that just post the amerivcan civil wr LM ALcott wrote about 8 year olds playing at love and hvaing 'beaus' and how ridiculous it was. :p

SleepyWitch

12-28-2007, 04:08 AM

But that has nothing to do with romanticism - or maybe it IS romantism?romanticism?romance? in its pure form, as in "the Romantic movement" and not what romance is today... Everything must end, and maybe it was insecurity on his part and later on he stopped thinking about it, but one of the countless reasons why I seriously doubt I would be able to handle a relationship is precisely the same... I don't think that's utilitarian at all, that's realistic. Maybe too rational yes, but being surprised about the way things end is almost unacceptable to me. I find it more likely that this guy you mention was badly hurt before and couldn't start a relationship without thinking it might end any second and be prepared for it.

ok, I can see your point. but this problem can be solved by a) getting to know someone well enough before you actually get together, so you know whether you can trust them or not. b) if you enter a relationship with a 'realistic' view like that, aren't you more likely to give in easily and not work on your relationship hard enough? why should people bother to fight for their relationship (or on a less dramatic scale, just learn to handle the usual squabbles couples are liable to have) if they believe it's not meant to last anyway?
plus, yes... this view is 'realistic' in that it acknowledges that, statistically, these things (break-up etc) happen to a lot of people. BUT we are individuals and we can always try to make sure we're not one of those it happens to :D ;) [/LECTURE]

Koa

12-28-2007, 02:36 PM

ok, I can see your point. but this problem can be solved by a) getting to know someone well enough before you actually get together, so you know whether you can trust them or not.

And how many people do so? Apparently I'm not normal for not doing so, as in I can't really bother to try out people I don't know at all, so when I complain about my tragicomic love life and mention that, people imply it's my fault for not struggling enough.

b) if you enter a relationship with a 'realistic' view like that, aren't you more likely to give in easily and not work on your relationship hard enough? why should people bother to fight for their relationship (or on a less dramatic scale, just learn to handle the usual squabbles couples are liable to have) if they believe it's not meant to last anyway?

I guess it will depend on the people... if you care a lot about someone, you would try hard before you let them go. But sometimes the sheep can't be saved, and I prefer people who are 'realistic' in that way to those who go into depression because they broke up.

amanda_isabel

12-29-2007, 07:35 AM

i don;t think romance here is dead. just the old serenading on the balcony thing, yeah sure, but romance? hardly. i just think that today, romance is overshadowed by sex.

Lote-Tree

12-29-2007, 07:49 AM

We've all read and seen heartwrenching novels/films of love, seduction and romance that make your heart boom out of your chest.
The forbidden and deadly love between Romeo and Juliet, the "I hate you but secretly fancy the pants of you" love between Lizzy and Mr. Darcy and then theres the most sacred of loves... between Richard and Judy hahaha....ahh... I promise I won't make a joke again.
But do you think that the world has a more cynical view on love today? Is it boring due to predictable romance stories? Or is it tainted by obvious intentions of either sex today?
Give me your thoughts people.

Is Romance Dead? Yes. Just like it died in the Pygmallion Era. But it will survive, it always survives because we can always see Sex for what it is - which is a need of the body and love...love is the need of the spirit...Sex may have become a recreational sport...but love will always remain love..

Sweets America

12-29-2007, 07:57 AM

Is Romance Dead? Yes. Just like it died in the Pygmallion Era. But it will survive, it always survives because we can always see Sex for what it is - which is a need of the body and love...love is the need of the spirit...Sex may have become a recreational sport...but love will always remain love..

Romance can never die as long as a few people will go on believing in it. Romance is not dead.

LadyW

12-29-2007, 07:57 AM

But it will survive, it always survives because we can always see Sex for what it is - which is a need of the body and love...love is the need of the spirit...Sex may have become a recreational sport...but love will always remain love..
Bravo Lote-Tree :D Couldn't have said it better myself.
Finally, something we both agree on eh?

Lote-Tree

12-29-2007, 08:04 AM

Finally, something we both agree on eh?

What do you mean finally? :D

I think we agree on a lot of things because you have stopped whacking me with your book :D

LadyW

12-29-2007, 08:12 AM

What do you mean finally? :D
I think we agree on a lot of things because you have stopped whacking me with your book :D
Then think of this as a [B]temporary[B] cease of the whacking ;) the book can come back out just as easily as it went away.
Of course we agree on many things Lote (great minds..:P) however in some areas we disagree and discuss - something which I enjoy a great deal.

Lote-Tree

12-29-2007, 08:48 AM

Of course we agree on many things Lote (great minds..:P)

Stick with me and you can be great too :D

however in some areas we disagree and discuss - something which I enjoy a great deal.

As do I ;-)

LadyW

12-29-2007, 08:53 AM

Stick with me and you can be great too :D
And what, may I ask, does "sticking with you" involve? :)
Because if it involves me listening intently to your teachings like an obedient school child then I'd rather not. I already achieved greatness the day I came onto the Earth. :D

Lote-Tree

12-29-2007, 08:59 AM

And what, may I ask, does "sticking with you" involve? :)

Erm...Wearing a Lote-Tree T-Shirt?

Because if it involves me listening intently to your teachings like an obedient school child then I'd rather not.

Obedient? No way! Those are very boring to teach! I want you to be disobedient as possible and still wear a Lote-Tree T-Shirt :D

I already achieved greatness the day I came onto the Earth. :D

That was because I was here already :D

LadyW I have to go now...

Later :D

LadyW

12-29-2007, 09:04 AM

Obedient? No way! Those are very boring to teach! I want you to be disobedient as possible and still wear a Lote-Tree T-Shirt :D
Well it is a good job I have a rebellious streak too then. I shall wear the shirt if you provide one. :D

LadyW I have to go now...
Later :D
I shall anticipate your return :)
See you later.
Go and have a wash... (:lol:) I jest.