SoulSurvivor

True Romance

I was reading someone else's blog on this topic, and realized that I not only wanted to respond to her, but to everyone who responded to her blog entry.

Romance is a funny thing.

romance - 2 : something (as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
3 : an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity

What compelled me to write on this subject were how the responses varied. Some women love romance; some could take it or leave it. I would like to challenge this theory; I think all women love, and can appreciate romance. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but hear me out before jumping up to defend your unromantic virtue.

Webster had quite a few definitions for the word romance. I chose the two that were most appropriate to what most people view romance as. Number 2 has a negative connotation; Number 1 a positive one.

Every woman can appreciate romance; this is why the majority of us can watch a romantic comedy, or a romantic movie, or even romantic ventures of other people. For example, even if you supposedly don't care for romance, if someone you know tells you a romantic story, you can't help but to appreciate it. But some women see this as a fantasy - it couldn't possibly be a reality for them. Deep down, they feel like they are not worthy of romance. They think of definition #2 - that this notion is exaggerated and not based on fact.

Now another kind of woman knows that she too is worthy of movie-like, fantastical romance. She is secure enough in herself to feel capable of "an emotional attraction" that belongs to a special activity. Not only can you experience it, but girls, you deserve it! It's not like it's hard work. Hell, it's not even expensive. A few words here, a note there, a few flowers, a great and phenomenal night every once in a while...

Why is it that every woman involved in a long-term relationship is mourning the death of Romance? Why is it that women who have conquered one of the ultimate obstacles in life (finding a man that is willing to stick around and be loyal) have to do so with the notion that romance is now uneccessary, or even worse, an exaggerated form of expression?

The two definitions I found for romance are almost completely opposite! Does this mean that they cancel each other out? Is there no middle ground, no gray area, no in-the-middle of unrealistic extravagance and activity involving emotional attraction and adventure?

You're damn right there ain't no middle ground. Relationships cannot survive on middle ground; marriage cannot survive in a gray area. If he stops trying to romance (the latter definition) you, then he will stop trying in other areas as well. And if he does give you romance, appreciate it and allow yourself to give in emotionally. Don't think of it as an exaggeration of his love; it's real, and you deserve at least that much, if he loves you. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can take it or leave it, because you'll be leaving it for the rest of your life.

And that's the truth; no romance (the former definition).

posted by DramaQueen @ 1:43 PM