NationStates Jolt Archive

I came across an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2177111/?gt1=10636) on MSN today.

If you read it, you'll notice that the lady who wrote in asking for advice was looking for a more "fairy tale" kind of relationship with her husband.

The lady giving the advice basically informed her that she should be happy with having such a great husband and that such great expectations are more then likely the problem.

So for the ladies, do you look for a fairy tale kind of romance to some degree? Why?

For the guys, do you think this is a common expectation? And would you be willing to meet that expectation?

Personally, I'm the kind of guy that tends to be on the more romantic side anyway, so it's not a big deal to meet that expectation. But I could see it being very hard for someone who isn't used to operating that way, and understandably so.

The trick, my grandmother said to me (who celebrated her 65th wedding anniversary with her one and only husband before she died), is that the man needs to bring his wife some flowers a little bit more than he thinks he should need to, and the only way that this will be enough for his lady is if she decides that she can live with just a little bit less than she would like.

Typical, I'm sure, but there is some truth in that advice.

The trick, my grandmother said to me (who celebrated her 65th wedding anniversary with her one and only husband before she died), is that the man needs to bring his wife some flowers a little bit more than he thinks he should need to, and the only way that this will be enough for his lady is if she decides that she can live with just a little bit less than she would like.

Typical, I'm sure, but there is some truth in that advice.

Your grandmother sounds like a very wise woman.

Gah. I'm just bitter right now anyway. I want a romance -- it doesn't have to be fairy-tale -- but I want to be cared about.
Right now I'm not getting it in my relationship. Grr.
Shutting up now.

...hardly worked in Literature.

I came across an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2177111/?gt1=10636) on MSN today.

If you read it, you'll notice that the lady who wrote in asking for advice was looking for a more "fairy tale" kind of relationship with her husband.

The lady giving the advice basically informed her that she should be happy with having such a great husband and that such great expectations are more then likely the problem.

So for the ladies, do you look for a fairy tale kind of romance to some degree? Why?

For the guys, do you think this is a common expectation? And would you be willing to meet that expectation?

Personally, I'm the kind of guy that tends to be on the more romantic side anyway, so it's not a big deal to meet that expectation. But I could see it being very hard for someone who isn't used to operating that way, and understandably so.

I thought Romanticism was a school of thought...

Gah. I'm just bitter right now anyway. I want a romance -- it doesn't have to be fairy-tale -- but I want to be cared about.
Right now I'm not getting it in my relationship. Grr.
Shutting up now.

Feel free to share about why you would want a more fairy tale relationship, but only if you are comfortable doing so.

I know that sometimes it's best for me to work my relationship issues out for myself before talking to others about it.

I thought Romanticism was a school of thought...

I'm using the term colloquially, if that's alright.

I have an English degree, so I'm painfully aware of what Romanticism was. I'd love to forget, some days.

I go through this issue - not the lack of talking - the lack of 'needing'.

More often than not I find it's a lack of consideration on my part, sometimes it's been over-needing on a girlfriend's part.

There's a balance somewhere and I guess it's different for every relationship - I'm not really the romantic type, though I can be, but I find really it's down to simply understanding that you're in a relationship, and someone else's opinion counts in terms of the decisions you make in life - from deciding to meet a friend for drinks to making a career move.

I remember a divorce between close friends of my parents where I pointed out that they never seemed to argue, my mother countered that this was true but then they never seemed to talk at all either.

Consideration, that's the key - it's no use just telling your partner you love them, or buying them gifts, you need to show in your decisions that you're taking your partner into account.

Great. So she's found a sexy stoic hubby, and now she wants him to stop being the strong, silent type and start being the empathic liberal arts type.

... Sounds like a couple of girls I've dated. Also, I suspect people's impossible expectations wouldn't be quite as impossible if we weren't all spoon fed gender role and relationship bollox all our lives.

She's whiny. I agree she needs some counseling. Anyone that needy needs some serious introspection before she runs dear hubby off.

Romance is what you make of it. Figure out what the bare minimum of attention you can get by with is, be happy for anything over that. Anything under and you need to talk to your partner. Figure out what their bare minimum is, do triple that, hope it's enough.

Myself, I'd be satisfied with Palestrina through Mozart. No need to get all Chopin on our posteriors.

The woman in the article should be more sympathetic to her husband, I mean obviously when you grow up with two parents always fighting, and never actually seeing what two loving couples are like and how they should act, then yea, you're not going to act like this great, wonderful, romantic, Prince Charming. If she wants to bring all of that out of him, then she needs to take the first step and show him what a loving and caring relationship is like. Sometimes it's up to the women to step up to the plate.

I go through this issue - not the lack of talking - the lack of 'needing'.

More often than not I find it's a lack of consideration on my part, sometimes it's been over-needing on a girlfriend's part.

There's a balance somewhere and I guess it's different for every relationship - I'm not really the romantic type, though I can be, but I find really it's down to simply understanding that you're in a relationship, and someone else's opinion counts in terms of the decisions you make in life - from deciding to meet a friend for drinks to making a career move.

I remember a divorce between close friends of my parents where I pointed out that they never seemed to argue, my mother countered that this was true but then they never seemed to talk at all either.

Consideration, that's the key - it's no use just telling your partner you love them, or buying them gifts, you need to show in your decisions that you're taking your partner into account.

I think that's a good way of looking at it. If either partner starts making major decisions solely by themselves, that's a recipe for major problems.

Great. So she's found a sexy stoic hubby, and now she wants him to stop being the strong, silent type and start being the empathic liberal arts type.

... Sounds like a couple of girls I've dated. Also, I suspect people's impossible expectations wouldn't be quite as impossible if we weren't all spoon fed gender role and relationship bollox all our lives.

Sadly, I actually dated a woman who wasn't satisfied with either my strong and stoic nature or my sensitive liberal arts qualities, despite the fact that she likes guys with both of those.

Romance is a funny thing, ain't it?

And I suspect you're right about social myths about relationships causing a lot of problems.

In any long term relationship (Marriage or not) there should be SOME sort of romance, but anyone who believes that their realtionship will involve perpetual long stem roses and chocolate covered strawberries is fooling themsleves.

I think the problem is that a lot of people really do fool themselves into believing that without really considering what they are actually asking for.

She's whiny. I agree she needs some counseling. Anyone that needy needs some serious introspection before she runs dear hubby off.

Romance is what you make of it. Figure out what the bare minimum of attention you can get by with is, be happy for anything over that. Anything under and you need to talk to your partner. Figure out what their bare minimum is, do triple that, hope it's enough.

Triple? Yeesh. :eek:

The woman in the article should be more sympathetic to her husband, I mean obviously when you grow up with two parents always fighting, and never actually seeing what two loving couples are like and how they should act, then yea, you're not going to act like this great, wonderful, romantic, Prince Charming. If she wants to bring all of that out of him, then she needs to take the first step and show him what a loving and caring relationship is like. Sometimes it's up to the women to step up to the plate.

I think that's what many people's relationship issues are rooted in. They simply don't know what a genuinely loving and caring relationship is like. They might have no idea what it's like, or might have a few pieces of what it's like but not the whole picture, but ultimately they just aren't there yet.

In any long term relationship (Marriage or not) there should be SOME sort of romance, but anyone who believes that their realtionship will involve perpetual long stem roses and chocolate covered strawberries is fooling themsleves.

I think the problem is that a lot of people really do fool themselves into believing that without really considering what they are actually asking for.

Do you think they're asking for something too superficial to be of any real value?

To me, her problem has nothing to do with him being romantic or not. Her problem is her definition of romance -- wanting “to be needed….so badly.” Romance doesn’t equate to someone requiring someone else to make them complete, or valid, or valued, or whathaveyou. Romance (at least imho) is being wanted and desired, not being a required component of someone else’s identity. If you can’t be a whole person in and of yourself, someone else isn’t going to fill that identity gap for you. Romance isn’t ½+1/2 = 1, to me, it’s 1+1 = 1000. And in the absence of that, it's being okay jsut being 1. Give me “I chose to bring you into my life because I desire you” over “You complete me” anyday.

Let's face it people. We just need to bring back Chivalry. (raises hand to signify that he does believe in the old school of thought)

Let's face it people. We just need to bring back Chivalry. (raises hand to signify that he does believe in the old school of thought)

I respectfully disagree with you.

*slaps Thrashia with glove*

Pistols at dawn.

I think that's what many people's relationship issues are rooted in. They simply don't know what a genuinely loving and caring relationship is like. They might have no idea what it's like, or might have a few pieces of what it's like but not the whole picture, but ultimately they just aren't there yet.

Agreed, my girlfriend, bless her heart, never knew a marriage that lasted more than two years. Every marriage on her side of the family always ends either at two years or before. So for her to see my parents who have been married for at least 30 years (I don't know exactly, shut up) it's foreign to her, so right now I am trying to show her that we're not going to break up over every stupid little thing, or every time we have an argument. So far we only had one argument. I'm trying to show her what a stable, loving, caring relationship is like and it's going to take awhile before she get used to it, but I'm willing to wait as long as it take and I'll keep plugging away.

To me, her problem has nothing to do with him being romantic or not. Her problem is her definition of romance -- wanting “to be needed….so badly.” Romance doesn’t equate to someone requiring someone else to make them complete, or valid, or valued, or whathaveyou. Romance (at least imho) is being wanted and desired, not being a required component of someone else’s identity. If you can’t be a whole person in and of yourself, someone else isn’t going to fill that identity gap for you. Romance isn’t ½+1/2 = 1, to me, it’s 1+1 = 1000. And in the absence of that, it's being okay jsut being 1. Give me “I chose to bring you into my life because I desire you” over “You complete me” anyday.

Yeah, that lady is sick... I feel sorry for that guy. Poor dude.:(

Let's face it people. We just need to bring back Chivalry. (raises hand to signify that he does believe in the old school of thought)

When I was dating I use to do the Chivalry routine. What I learned is some women actually don't like that. After trying to figure out what some wanted I realized that there was many different ways to approach women. Some like the nice guy that opens doors for them and brings them flowers. Others on the other hand wanted someone that seemed like they really didn't give a shit. I learned the different ways and just played into whatever they wanted.

As far as romance there are so many expectations that western culture puts in the heads of women now it is difficult sometimes for a regular guy just to keep things happy. There are a ton of high maintenance women out there that have their expectations so high it is difficult for them to stay in a relationship.

To bad they all can't see it like Smunkee! The world would be a happier place all around. ;)

Yeah, that lady is sick... I feel sorry for that guy. Poor dude.:(

I don't know that I'd say she's sick. I think, as others have said, that she probably has a notion of romance that was based out of some socially conditioned fantasy of what romance is.

Presumably, he knew what she was like before getting married. Ideals like this don't just fall out of the sky one day. It sounds (because, of course, getting one perspective makes it all patently clear! ;) ) like he's probably getting what he wants out of the relationship.

I came across an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2177111/?gt1=10636) on MSN today.

If you read it, you'll notice that the lady who wrote in asking for advice was looking for a more "fairy tale" kind of relationship with her husband.

The lady giving the advice basically informed her that she should be happy with having such a great husband and that such great expectations are more then likely the problem.

So for the ladies, do you look for a fairy tale kind of romance to some degree? Why?

For the guys, do you think this is a common expectation? And would you be willing to meet that expectation?

Personally, I'm the kind of guy that tends to be on the more romantic side anyway, so it's not a big deal to meet that expectation. But I could see it being very hard for someone who isn't used to operating that way, and understandably so.


Funny. As I was reading the Fairy Princess wannabe I was thinking "she should have written this letter to Savage Love. He'd put her in her place." Then I read the response and saw "woah! Pruddy can lay the smack down." I've long been of the opinion that Dear Prudence's best contribution to media was lending her name to a Siouxsie and the Banshees song, but I have to admit, she was exactly right here.

Great. So she's found a sexy stoic hubby, and now she wants him to stop being the strong, silent type and start being the empathic liberal arts type.

... Sounds like a couple of girls I've dated. Also, I suspect people's impossible expectations wouldn't be quite as impossible if we weren't all spoon fed gender role and relationship bollox all our lives.

I loved her complaint that she wasn't "sure if he would fight" for her.

Few things annoy me more than people judging others on hypothetical responses to hypothetical situations based on nothing more than their own vague hunches.

She probably thinks Clinton would have responded to 9/11 by getting a blowjob.

I don't know that I'd say she's sick. I think, as others have said, that she probably has a notion of romance that was based out of some socially conditioned fantasy of what romance is.

Well usually mental illness means that irrational beliefs prevent normal functioning and cause suffering to the afflicted.

This woman is unable to maintain a relationship because she has a silly idea of what one is supposed to be like and no idea of how to make it like one.

Someone doesn't have to fill you with revulsion to qualify as sick.

Few things annoy me more than people judging others on hypothetical responses to hypothetical situations based on nothing more than their own vague hunches.

This woman is unable to maintain a relationship because she has a silly idea of what one is supposed to be like and no idea of how to make it like one.

Slap yourself one why don't you?

One could make the similar hypotheses that given the man's awful childhood, he's wary of forming relationships, getting too close to someone because that road has only led to hurt in his childhood.

So we could make the equal assumption that her feeling that he doesn't 'need' her, that he's learned to rely on himself alone, is a genuine problem.

People can be chameleons, saying one thing out of duty, knowing it lends the illusion of love without actually seeing her as a symbiotic part of his life, and more a comfort without getting too close.

She probably thinks Clinton would have responded to 9/11 by getting a blowjob.

Well...
Wouldn't he? ;)

Well...
Wouldn't he? ;)

We are talking about Slick Willy are we not?

Few things annoy me more than people judging others on hypothetical responses to hypothetical situations based on nothing more than their own vague hunches.



I had a girlfriend once that did that one to many times. That had to be the most annoying thing.

The one thing that annoys me about relationships more than stupidly high expectations are the outright lies people put forth in an attempt to misdirect their true intent.


"No, it's not you, it's me." "Oh, I'd love to go to the movies with you, but I need to wash my hair." "We can still be friends."


The very thought makes my blood boil...

For the guys, do you think this is a common expectation? And would you be willing to meet that expectation?
Fairly common, I'd say; though far from universal, it - to some degree - seems to be the norm. And no, unlike a disturbingly large amount of people, I have a reasonably healthy sense of self-respect, and would never sink so low as to willingly pander to the whims and vanity of narcissists. Not that all romantic relationships go to such extremes, and not all who engage in them let their position be lowered to that of money-making tools who give their blind worship - most people have their limits, though I'd say the cultural expectation for men is to set them way too low.

Not that I really care much about relationships at all. It'd have to be a very special one for me to consider it; to me, my interests are the most important part of life, and I'm not prepared to make any significant sacrifices for something of lesser importance.

In any case, I'm not going to let myself be suckered by someone who would do little but leech my time and resources in return for some dubious notion of "romance". (translation: someone enjoying a massive ego-trip at your expense and calling it "love")

When I was dating I use to do the Chivalry routine. What I learned is some women actually don't like that. After trying to figure out what some wanted I realized that there was many different ways to approach women. Some like the nice guy that opens doors for them and brings them flowers. Others on the other hand wanted someone that seemed like they really didn't give a shit. I learned the different ways and just played into whatever they wanted.

As far as romance there are so many expectations that western culture puts in the heads of women now it is difficult sometimes for a regular guy just to keep things happy. There are a ton of high maintenance women out there that have their expectations so high it is difficult for them to stay in a relationship.

To bad they all can't see it like Smunkee! The world would be a happier place all around. ;)

I have to agree with you. While I do tend to be "old fashioned" I incorporate different approaches into how I deal with women. Usually though, if they only date assholes, then I just don't even try: you can't fix what doesn't want to be fixed. :rolleyes:

Do you think they're asking for something too superficial to be of any real value?
Even worse, they are asking for something that should have some value be given to the point where it loses its value. My wife would be the first to tell you that I am not a romantic (Actually her exact words were that I am about as romantic as Groucho Marx. I take it as a compliment. ;) ), but if, for example, I decided to buy roses for her every single day, how long before a gesture that now has some real meaning behind it becomes stale and worthless?

I'd say it's like asking for everyday to be your birthday or Christmas. You need SOME sort of special occations of course, but asking for it all year long starts to cheapen something that should be precious.

I voted "Maybe So", but actually my position is closer to "Neither."

I believe in romance, but not in a traditional notion of "romance" riddled with sexism, gender roles, and heteronormativity.

HotRodia has misrepresented her to be honest - she's not asking for a fairy-tale relationship, she's wondering if, in feeling her husband doesn't need her in the same way she feels she needs him, that she's over-expecting from her husband.

She knows he tells her 'he loves her' all the time, she simply has a nagging feeling that he could be as happy without her, whereas she knows she would be unhappy without him.

He tells me he loves me all the time and that I'm beautiful, but I truly feel that if I left tomorrow, he wouldn't think twice about it. I'm not sure he would fight for me if it came down to it. This hurts me deeply because I love him so much and would do anything for him. He travels often for business and it doesn't seem to bother him being away from me.

There's a difference and though it does sound as though she's needy, she's not really asking for a prince but to be reassured that it would make a difference to him if she wasn't there because it makes a difference to her.

Romantic love is a crock. I want respect and friendship, with a little sex thrown in.

Look. It's very simple. She may be weary and them young girls do get weary, wearing that same old shaggy dress. But when they get weary, you gotta try a little tenderness.

/agree with Barringtonia. She said "I truly feel that if I left tomorrow, he wouldn't think twice about it." - she doesn't know that she matters to him. In my experience, actions and words don't necessarily match, and I'd always trust the actions more than the words. She mentioned that she has a child, so she may be at home all day being mother and wife which can seem boring or meaningless whilst her husband has a career that takes him off to (seemingly) exciting people and places. In other words, he is probably a bigger part of her life, which is focussed around their home, than she is of his, which is focussed around his job. Whether he needs to make more fuss of her, or she needs to get used to it is down to the individuals involved. Probably a bit of both is required :)

As regards romance in a long term relationship... I am not a romantic person and don't look for romance in a partner. My bf and I do lots of little things for each other, but I would call that consideration, and care for the others wellbeing and happiness, rather than romance. I don't think fairytale romance has much longevity in a relationship.

Let's face it people. We just need to bring back Chivalry. (raises hand to signify that he does believe in the old school of thought)


1. Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt obey her commandments.
2. Thou shalt defend the Church.
3. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
4. Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
5. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
6. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
7. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they not be contrary to the laws of God.
8. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
9. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
10. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of Right and the Good against injustice and Evil.

I have never seen what this has to do with dating. Maybe not lying...

... or not recoiling if your date is a horrendous fire-breathing bitch;).

Let's face it people. We just need to bring back Chivalry. (raises hand to signify that he does believe in the old school of thought)

To me, her problem has nothing to do with him being romantic or not. Her problem is her definition of romance -- wanting “to be needed….so badly.” Romance doesn’t equate to someone requiring someone else to make them complete, or valid, or valued, or whathaveyou. Romance (at least imho) is being wanted and desired, not being a required component of someone else’s identity. If you can’t be a whole person in and of yourself, someone else isn’t going to fill that identity gap for you. Romance isn’t ½+1/2 = 1, to me, it’s 1+1 = 1000. And in the absence of that, it's being okay jsut being 1. Give me “I chose to bring you into my life because I desire you” over “You complete me” anyday.

I actually rather like your view.

She's whiny. I agree she needs some counseling. Anyone that needy needs some serious introspection before she runs dear hubby off.

Romance is what you make of it. Figure out what the bare minimum of attention you can get by with is, be happy for anything over that. Anything under and you need to talk to your partner. Figure out what their bare minimum is, do triple that, hope it's enough.

I'd be careful with that... I know if someone gave me triple of my minimum, it would drive me up the wall.
I think a relationship is a lot about space, really. You need to find the balance between how much time each of you want to be close, and how much time apart you need. Constant attention is just as bad as no attention at all, maybe even worse.
Being romantic is only romantic when it's now and then, it quickly becomes stiffling and stressful for both when it's constans.

I voted "Maybe So", but actually my position is closer to "Neither."

I believe in romance, but not in a traditional notion of "romance" riddled with sexism, gender roles, and heteronormativity.

Do you think there is anything of positive value that developed out of the misogynistic and heteronormative tradition of romance? Or things that are of neutral value that may have been used poorly by that cultural tradition?

HotRodia has misrepresented her to be honest - she's not asking for a fairy-tale relationship, she's wondering if, in feeling her husband doesn't need her in the same way she feels she needs him, that she's over-expecting from her husband.

She knows he tells her 'he loves her' all the time, she simply has a nagging feeling that he could be as happy without her, whereas she knows she would be unhappy without him.

There's a difference and though it does sound as though she's needy, she's not really asking for a prince but to be reassured that it would make a difference to him if she wasn't there because it makes a difference to her.

To be fair, I tried to simplify and generalize a bit in an effort to make the discussion go in a direction that wouldn't end up just being an argument over what the article actually said. Those arguments are terribly boring to me.

I came across an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2177111/?gt1=10636) on MSN today.

If you read it, you'll notice that the lady who wrote in asking for advice was looking for a more "fairy tale" kind of relationship with her husband.

The lady giving the advice basically informed her that she should be happy with having such a great husband and that such great expectations are more then likely the problem.

So for the ladies, do you look for a fairy tale kind of romance to some degree? Why?

For the guys, do you think this is a common expectation? And would you be willing to meet that expectation?

Personally, I'm the kind of guy that tends to be on the more romantic side anyway, so it's not a big deal to meet that expectation. But I could see it being very hard for someone who isn't used to operating that way, and understandably so.

I read that article the other day, and for a minute, I thought my wife was writing Prudence. Until the bit about how the guy travels a lot on business, I thought she was describing me (I skipped the part where she said she had a child from a previous marriage...the wife and I are childless.)

She complains that I'm not romantic, not spontaneous, not affectionate, and that I wouldn't be hurt if the marriage dissolved. However, she nearly had a panic attack over a dream she had where I was cheating on her (neither of us has cheated, to my knowledge, and I had never been with anyone else before her.)

The fact is, after some time, life just gets in the way of romance. People have to work, pay the bills, and take care of the house, the finances, whatever children they have, etc. It wears on you, and romance is something you have to force a lot of the time.

You can try, sure, but if it doesn't happen for some time, don't panic. Just try to change things up a bit. If the other person is flat-out not interested and doesn't want anything to do with romance, there may be a problem. Other than that, chill out about it.

German Expressionism is so much more fun.

Even if we don't say so, when we're in a marriage, we still need to feel wanted, even if we're loved by the man or woman we married. Sometimes that means getting a phone call when the person is on a business trip. It doesn't have to be long, just long enough to let the other know they are with their loved one in spirit. Even if one is loved, we still have a need to feel like our partner wants us.

Do you think there is anything of positive value that developed out of the misogynistic and heteronormative tradition of romance? Or things that are of neutral value that may have been used poorly by that cultural tradition?

To be fair, I tried to simplify and generalize a bit in an effort to make the discussion go in a direction that wouldn't end up just being an argument over what the article actually said. Those arguments are terribly boring to me.

Well, to the first paragraph - not really, nothing constraining the natural course of two people's lives, through pre-ordained expectations of what one's role is, that wouldn't haven risen naturally from two people interacting anyway, is any good at all. Those neutral values have not arisen from 'misogynistic or heteronormative' traditions, they've arisen because they're neutrally good - I'd have to ask for an example here to be honest.

To the second, it's your OP but I personally feel that the interesting debate point is whether two people can care for each other equally, and, if not, whether one person will always have the upper hand in a relationship because they're willing to raise the stakes further - because, when it comes down to it, they're more open to ending the relationship if it doesn't meet their needs, which can simply be selfish comfort over genuine caring for the other, or whatever reason it may be.

Well, to the first paragraph - not really, nothing constraining the natural course of two people's lives, through pre-ordained expectations of what one's role is, that wouldn't haven risen naturally from two people interacting anyway, is any good at all. Those neutral values have not arisen from 'misogynistic or heteronormative' traditions, they've arisen because they're neutrally good - I'd have to ask for an example here to be honest.

How about giving flowers? In many cases, it's used to reinforce the gender roles of men as the givers and women as the receivers, in addition to sometimes reinforcing the idea that women are superficial and will forgive their man for mistakes if he just gives them something pretty. It's also heteronormative in that men giving other men flowers is not a part of the picture, and tends to get actively discouraged.

But giving flowers by itself is a positive or neutral action. It tends to be a problem because of the way it's used, not because of its nature.

To the second, it's your OP but I personally feel that the interesting debate point is whether two people can care for each other equally, and, if not, whether one person will always have the upper hand in a relationship because they're willing to raise the stakes further - because, when it comes down to it, they're more open to ending the relationship if it doesn't meet their needs, which can simply be selfish comfort over genuine caring for the other, or whatever reason it may be.

That's a point I find personally interesting, because it's relevant to my experience. It's just not where I was looking to go with this thread. *shrug*

Compliments.

"Women need food, water and compliments... and the occasional new pair of shoes." -Chris Rock.

:)

I came across an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2177111/?gt1=10636) on MSN today.

If you read it, you'll notice that the lady who wrote in asking for advice was looking for a more "fairy tale" kind of relationship with her husband.

The lady giving the advice basically informed her that she should be happy with having such a great husband and that such great expectations are more then likely the problem.

So for the ladies, do you look for a fairy tale kind of romance to some degree? Why?

For the guys, do you think this is a common expectation? And would you be willing to meet that expectation?

Personally, I'm the kind of guy that tends to be on the more romantic side anyway, so it's not a big deal to meet that expectation. But I could see it being very hard for someone who isn't used to operating that way, and understandably so.

"I love him. He's so great. He tells me that he loves me, all the time, and treats my boy like his own...but it would be REALLY awesome if he was like this, this or this..."

¬_¬

I love you, you're perfect...now change...

Ugh...

Lady, you had time to decide whether or not this guy was "perfect" BEFORE you married him. To me, this dude sounds like a really stand-up guy. But NO ONE, man or woman, can expect 24/7 attention from their spouse.

And as for his stoic nature...did you ever consider this is just how he expresses himself? If he's gonna open up, he will, and if he loves you as much as you say he does, he'll open up to you first.

But for Christ's sake don't pressure the guy!

The buck can't always fall on us, you know.

*sigh*

And to answer your question HotRodia...I don't know if "fairy tale romance" is a common expectation of women, but let me put it this way: I would not consider dating let alone marrying anyone who didn't accept me the way I am: video game nerddom, anime geekdom and all. She doesn't need to neccessarily LIKE those things (if anything, having SOME differences is likely advantageous), but she should accept it.

And I would do the same for her. It wouldn't matter if she liked to sing in the morning for little or no reason, or thought that EVA was "really deep" (it's not); if I loved her, I would accept it.

...Now if she started singing in the morning while I was still ASLEEP...that's a different story! :P

How about giving flowers? In many cases, it's used to reinforce the gender roles of men as the givers and women as the receivers, in addition to sometimes reinforcing the idea that women are superficial and will forgive their man for mistakes if he just gives them something pretty. It's also heteronormative in that men giving other men flowers is not a part of the picture, and tends to get actively discouraged.

But giving flowers by itself is a positive or neutral action. It tends to be a problem because of the way it's used, not because of its nature.

Yet that's an example of a perfectly fine action ruined by misogynistic/heteronormative society no?

Gift-giving is natural, flowers or no - I can take flowers to my brother's house but not necessarily to a male friend without it being questioned - where's the real difference aside from miso/hetero society?

So still, not really, nothing good that wasn't intrinsically good anyway has come from (really tired of typing these words :) ) mis/het society.

EDIT: This is in answer to this by the way...

Originally Posted by HotRodia
Do you think there is anything of positive value that developed out of the misogynistic and heteronormative tradition of romance?

No. Fairy-tale romance is just that: a fairy-tale. It's unrealistic, and unrealistic expectations kill marriages and ruin relationships.

Do you think there is anything of positive value that developed out of the misogynistic and heteronormative tradition of romance?

I think love is of value. I think expressions of love are also valuable... generally speaking people, perhaps men especially, do not express their romantic and platonic affection for others as much as they should. (And if they did, perhaps those others would rely less on more or less superficial indicators of affection.)

I don't necessarily object to the present culture's "symbols" of love per se, though I'll admit I tend to find them boring. My objection is simply to their application--the sexist and heteronormative implications that go along with them.

But giving flowers by itself is a positive or neutral action. It tends to be a problem because of the way it's used, not because of its nature.

Right. So if giving flowers has meaning for a couple, if it expresses their love in a way they find satisfying and effective, that's great, and is much better than nothing... it's just that I think both partners should give each other flowers, or, at least, there should be no cultural norm designating one gender as "giver" and the other as "receiver." (And none that presupposes opposite-sex relationships.)

I don't necessarily object to the present culture's "symbols" of love per se, though I'll admit I tend to find them boring. My objection is simply to their application--the sexist and heteronormative implications that go along with them.

Right. So if giving flowers has meaning for a couple, if it expresses their love in a way they find satisfying and effective, that's great, and is much better than nothing... it's just that I think both partners should give each other flowers, or, at least, there should be no cultural norm designating one gender as "giver" and the other as "receiver." (And none that presupposes opposite-sex relationships.)

*Nod*

That's a good way of thinking. As much as I love giving others gifts (that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you see a friend or loved one smile)...well...I'm not going to lie to you, it feels good to recieve gifts too, if for no other reason it shows you that your friend or loved one cares.

*Nod*

That's a good way of thinking. As much as I love giving others gifts (that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you see a friend or loved one smile)...well...I'm not going to lie to you, it feels good to recieve gifts too, if for no other reason it shows you that your friend or loved one cares.

Exactly. Most of us want to both give and receive, to protect and to be protected, to dominate and to submit--not to adhere to narrow prescribed roles on one side of the aisle or the other.

(Not that there aren't some people who fit at one extreme or the other, and there's nothing wrong with that either. But they certainly do not encompass all people, nor does their preference necessarily correlate with their gender role... and even if it does, that's no reason to have social compulsion.)

Gah. I'm just bitter right now anyway. I want a romance -- it doesn't have to be fairy-tale -- but I want to be cared about.
Right now I'm not getting it in my relationship. Grr.
Shutting up now.

I know. That's what I want in a relationship. Someone who can take me as I am.

I'd be careful with that... I know if someone gave me triple of my minimum, it would drive me up the wall.
I think a relationship is a lot about space, really. You need to find the balance between how much time each of you want to be close, and how much time apart you need. Constant attention is just as bad as no attention at all, maybe even worse.
Being romantic is only romantic when it's now and then, it quickly becomes stiffling and stressful for both when it's constans.

triple from the bare minimum is hardly smothering someone.

I think love is of value. I think expressions of love are also valuable... generally speaking people, perhaps men especially, do not express their romantic and platonic affection for others as much as they should. (And if they did, perhaps those others would rely less on more or less superficial indicators of affection.)

Oh I quite agree. I tend to hug my male friends more than most guys, because frankly I think it's silly for me to hug all my female friends and then not do the same for the guys.

And if there were to be more men who did that, there wouldn't be this nonsensical "Is he gay?" reaction when a guy was affectionate to another guy. Two birds with one stone, as it were.

I don't necessarily object to the present culture's "symbols" of love per se, though I'll admit I tend to find them boring. My objection is simply to their application--the sexist and heteronormative implications that go along with them.

Understandably so.

Right. So if giving flowers has meaning for a couple, if it expresses their love in a way they find satisfying and effective, that's great, and is much better than nothing... it's just that I think both partners should give each other flowers, or, at least, there should be no cultural norm designating one gender as "giver" and the other as "receiver." (And none that presupposes opposite-sex relationships.)

Right. At least get rid of the disparate norms where they're unnecessary.

Yet that's an example of a perfectly fine action ruined by misogynistic/heteronormative society no?

That was part of the point, yes.

Gift-giving is natural, flowers or no - I can take flowers to my brother's house but not necessarily to a male friend without it being questioned - where's the real difference aside from miso/hetero society?

So still, not really, nothing good that wasn't intrinsically good anyway has come from (really tired of typing these words :) ) mis/het society.

EDIT: This is in answer to this by the way...

Fair enough.

Oh I quite agree. I tend to hug my male friends more than most guys, because frankly I think it's silly for me to hug all my female friends and then not do the same for the guys.

My best friend and I only hug on occasion, but we tell each other we love each other enough to violate the typical norms of platonic male friendships.

My other friends... still working on that. The notion of me being in the slightest bit affectionate violates so many people's preconceptions that it needs a good bit of work.

And if there were to be more men who did that, there wouldn't be this nonsensical "Is he gay?" reaction when a guy was affectionate to another guy. Two birds with one stone, as it were.

And maybe, if male-male affection becomes more open, when it actually is because they're gay (or bisexual), less people will care (except in the "friendly interest about other people's lives" sense.)

triple from the bare minimum is hardly smothering someone.

It would be for me. And it would be for my BF. He's getting about double the minimum, and sometimes that's a bit much already.
You can't make blanket assumptions like this about anybody. Some people need more, others are happier with less.

When I was dating I use to do the Chivalry routine. What I learned is some women actually don't like that. After trying to figure out what some wanted I realized that there was many different ways to approach women. Some like the nice guy that opens doors for them and brings them flowers. Others on the other hand wanted someone that seemed like they really didn't give a shit. I learned the different ways and just played into whatever they wanted.

Imagine that...women are individuals!

Seriously though, this is an important lesson that many people never learn. When you're dating somebody, date that individual. Don't assume that you know what they want based on their gender. If you want to show her you care, the first step is actually giving a shit enough to find out about HER as an individual.

She mentioned that she has a child, so she may be at home all day being mother and wife which can seem boring or meaningless whilst her husband has a career that takes him off to (seemingly) exciting people and places. In other words, he is probably a bigger part of her life, which is focussed around their home, than she is of his, which is focussed around his job.
This is one of the things that annoys me most about "traditional" relationship structure. Most of the traditionalism is centered around making sure that the woman has absolutely nothing in her life beyond her man (and possibly his children), but then women are mocked or insulted for being "clingy" or overly concerned about romance. Um, DUH. You make it so that the only thing they have is their relationship, and then act like it's so weird and feminine for them to be obsessed with romantic stuff? What the hell else were they supposed to do? Of COURSE she's clingy and twitchy as hell about love...you've made sure that she has nothing else in her life!

This even happens to a smaller extent in more modern relationships, because girls/women are told that they can be anything they want...as long as they still get married and make babies. Because a woman who doesn't get married and make babies will be unhappy for sure, no matter how awesome the rest of her life is. And then people turn around and laugh at how silly women are for being obsessed with marriage and babies.

Let's face it people. We just need to bring back Chivalry. (raises hand to signify that he does believe in the old school of thought)
Chivalry was a system that outlined a very narrow subset of humanity and stated that only that small group deserved to be treated with respect. It basically was a permission slip to treat most people like shit, as long as you were polite to the privileged few.

If you really think the girls will cream themselves over such behavior, then I strongly suggest you put your theory into practice. I know many of us could use a good laugh.

Imagine that...women are individuals!

Seriously though, this is an important lesson that many people never learn. When you're dating somebody, date that individual. Don't assume that you know what they want based on their gender. If you want to show her you care, the first step is actually giving a shit enough to find out about HER as an individual.

the other important thing to learn is that the person you date has to like YOU not just the person you are pretending to be. if you dont like chivalry, dont pretend to because you think that she wants you to do that. if she drops you because of it, no big loss. you werent going to be a successful couple anyway.

Chivalry was a system that outlined a very narrow subset of humanity and stated that only that small group deserved to be treated with respect. It basically was a permission slip to treat most people like shit, as long as you were polite to the privileged few.

If you really think the girls will cream themselves over such behavior, then I strongly suggest you put your theory into practice. I know many of us could use a good laugh.

it seems like men who worry about chivalry are actually pissed that they dont get points with the hot babe that they held the door open for. they arent holding the door for the middle aged married woman, the mother with a stroller, the homeless hag, just the hot babes who are never going to be impressed with such behavior.

it seems like men who worry about chivalry are actually pissed that they dont get points with the hot babe that they held the door open for. they arent holding the door for the middle aged married woman, the mother with a stroller, the homeless hag, just the hot babes who are never going to be impressed with such behavior.
Exactly.

Sorry, lads, but you don't get Pussy Points for holding a door open. I hold the door for anybody who happens to be going through the door at the same time as me, and I'm a delicate little feminine flower. If you're going to bitch and moan about holding the door for hot babes, as if it were some kind of serious strain on your manly arms to hold a freaking door, then there's no way you'll be able to handle a single date with me. :D

the other important thing to learn is that the person you date has to like YOU not just the person you are pretending to be. if you dont like chivalry, dont pretend to because you think that she wants you to do that. if she drops you because of it, no big loss. you werent going to be a successful couple anyway.
Yeah, it always annoys me when a guy sits around bitching about how the girl he's trying to nail is so superficial and wants such stupid things. Um, if she's so lame, why are you trying to fuck her? Oh, that's right, because she's hawt. Well, guess what? If you pick your partners for superficial reasons, odds are you're going to end up with some superficial relationships. Stop actively seeking out relationships with dipshits.

I'm using the term colloquially, if that's alright.

I have an English degree, so I'm painfully aware of what Romanticism was. I'd love to forget, some days.

I have a test on it on Thursday, so I'm painfully aware what you're talking about.

and I'm a delicate little feminine flower.

Bottle, the delicate little feminine flower. *giggle*



Anyway, on acting romantic... shouldn't people just act like themselves, and hope your potential partner like you, and like your partner for acting like who they are? Anything that you do that is against your nature for the only purpose of pleasing your partner seems counterintuitive if you want a long, stable relationship. Deception never seems like a good thing to base a relationship on...

Anyway, on acting romantic... shouldn't people just act like themselves, and hope your potential partner like you, and like your partner for acting like who they are? Anything that you do that is against your nature for the only purpose of pleasing your partner seems counterintuitive if you want a long, stable relationship. Deception never seems like a good thing to base a relationship on...
This is why I strongly encourage "chivalrous" male types to make their beliefs known loudly and openly. I don't want them to quietly down-play their contempt for women, nor do I want them to make any effort to hide their dull, narrow, sexist beliefs. I want them to shout those beliefs from the rooftops, because then I won't accidentally end up wasting a perfectly good dinner date on them.