Question about romanticness and men.

Post Reply New Topic

This post,out of the "I cant bring myself to sleep with my boyfriend" thread, has made me think.

I would like to answer the question:

Would you? It sounds like a simple answer to this question, but what if the guy isnt inclined towards expressions of romanticness, ie buying presents, writing love letters, giving emotional support without being forced... for some guys it is easy to be romantic, but then there are some people who romantic sorts of things dont appeal at all, yet they want to be in a relationship.

Is a man obliged to do all these sorts of things?

Would be interested in answers from male or female.

i have a mixed view on romance. i have come to appreciate romance a little more as i've improved my own self-esteem (i tend to think i am worth it more).

but i appreciate when people do any sort of nice thing for me, and i like to do nice things for them too. but that can be either sweet courtesies or more romantic stuff. i guess it means something to me, to know that someone cares enough to show me they feel fondness for me.

i don't directly connect sex and romance. but when things are going better in my marriage generally, we tend to do more thoughtful and romantic things for each other... and we also have more sex. one doesn't depend on the other, but they are both indicators of when our relationship is healthiest.

if my husband or i completely stopped being thoughtful of each other, and stopped demonstrating love in some external way, there would be deep problems afoot.

I personally like the romantic stuff (I already posted elsewhere about how I asked one of my exes out with a poem that had her name hidden in it), but whether or not I'd enter into a relationship without any romantic stuff at all is... Well, a very interesting thought. I honestly have no idea. It'd depend on other things about the girl in question I guess, along with the reason she didn't like that stuff, because if, for example, it was because she was Aspie and thought it was illogical, I like to think I'd be understanding in that case.

Something I'm not sure I agree with, and I don't know if it was meant this way, but it sounds from the first post like only the guy should do romantic things. I think both sides should reciprocate if they're doing that stuff.

But yeah, back on topic, it'd depend on other factors basically.

I think it depends on the circumstances. As Hyperlexian says stopping being thoughtful of each other would be the biggest problem.

I think even those people who aren't used to romantic stuff still would like it and are knowledgable about what society tells them they should be recieving, what should happen in a relationship. Might not appreciate it as much but still expect Some of it, at least while courting. But isn't it more asperger to Do things and give things, help, etc. than express and stuff? Like when someone needs comfort it is usual for them to try to help out with something? Hard to know how much to do..

I probably have a biased view from my mother's influence. Her first husband was very romantic but he also cheated on her, took her money and was sometimes physically abusive.
My father on the other hand didn't have a romantic bone in his body but they had fun together sharing a common interest and she knew he was always there for her.

Well I am pertaining to the idea of men being obliging with chivalrous behaviours, though of course females can be romantic too. But traditionally romance often involves males with gifts or things (ie, some male spiders who approach the female with an insect "gift").

females can be romantic but that tradiotionally involves different things. but of course either gender could buy the other flowers, or cook them a meal.

yeah, I think that you are correct, it is more about the thought than anything else.

But, then there remains the idea: perhaps some people are more naturally thoughtful than others. What about a person who finds that being thoughtful doesnt come naturally. What can they do?

i suppose if a person does not act as thoughtful as i am comfortable with, then i would give them some ideas. or i'd eventually leave, because if they are not thoughtful in action (maybe that is somewhat distinct from romance?) then i would probably not be happy.

i don't know where this quote came from but ..
no, i wouldn't. and i would never give someone such a trite line.

if i lived with someone and most of the responsibility for doing mundane chores was left to me, yes, i would be annoyed beyond belief. but the hallmark card romance stuff is for another girl.



no. i would hate it.

i haven't read other replies so i don't know if you have this perspective yet.

people don't all want the same thing. some people like the gestures of appreciation, i don't. i would find it manipulative. maybe i'm strange (?) .. i just like to know where i stand with someone, and a truthful conversation about it every so often would be what i was after. the rest of the time i wouldn't want any mushyness. if a guy just by nature liked to do those sorts of things maybe i could learn to tolerate it, but i think it would make me uncomfortable.

i do think someone in a relationship is obliged to consider the other person's emotional needs, to what degree depending on the seriousness of things. so if all this stuff is really important to someone, then it should be factored in. my point just that it isn't universal.

Most of the men I've known as friends have actually been very big on romance with their girlfriends.

Anyway relationships shouldn't be hostile. You and your partner should not have to constantly be at odds or question what is right and what isn't, what is fair and what isn't...

If you do that all the time you should probably not be in the relationship. People who are compatible with each other generally have similar ideologies and views and are receptive to one another.

i agree with this. i would like to say people should seek out those they are really compatible with, but i understand a lot of people posting here have much difficulty finding partners at all and i don't want to imply that their options are more limited than they already might think.

to some extent maybe people can alter their habits abit to accommodate the other. maybe, maybe not.

but as you say, hostility = bad news. or even if not hostile, bending in all directions to accommodate the other, bad news.

I suspect I might be romantically ret*d... I don't know how to express romantic feelings, and I am not sure if I would be able to recognize the signs if someone was to express romantic feelings towards me.

Which kind of makes me think I am going to be alone forever. Unless someone can over look this minor problem I have.

I think the biggest gift is time together and love.

For me, gifts are a good idea if your busy with work, or you have neglected the other.

Because I dont work much, I usually have long phone conversations, regular walks/hikes, meandering around markets and fairs, sitting in cafes. I like cooking for my girlfriend.

I think if I were to purchase trinkets as well, it might be overkill.

My first long term girlfriend and I spent 24/7 together for 2 years as we travelled around Oz in a VW Kombi with a dog. Waking up on the beach, waves crashing, nights with all the stars, now thats romantic

O yes romantic stuff is fun. Didn't recognise "giving emotional support without being forced" as romantic behaviour (although I couldn't imagine myself ever not wanting to do that), same for "helping about the house" (situations vacant: Cleaner required for romantic duties - good rates ) so I thought I'd best go look for a definition. Looks like the jury's still out....."love emphasizing emotion over libido" seems to be about as good as it gets, but I don't really see the two (emotion and libido) as being all that clearly distinct. Maybe my feelings about love are more female than is normal, but when I feel one, I usually feel the other.

I don't know - am I just noticing an overlap between co-operative behaviour and romantic behaviour? I would have thought, before reading this thread, that romance for men was just the usual obligatory social gestures - cards, flowers, chocs, other girlie presents, saying "you look great" every time you see her in a new dress, giving her your raincoat when it unexpectedly rains, throwing money away on her.......basically just being nice, except that it's soon going to look like a sexual advance of some kind because the gestures are so much a part of the mating game.

Even though I can't define romance, it seems to be in my genes. Not so long ago there was a lady who I felt attracted to, but a relationship with her would have been practically impossible for all sorts of reasons. I wanted to share my feelings with her, but I felt I couldn't, mainly because I felt it could make it more likely that we'd start a relationship. But at the time there hardly seemed to be any male interest in her at all, apart from me, and I didn't want her to feel lonely, so I thought of sending her an anonymous Valentine card just so she'd know that she was doing OK. Another time I was caught up in a social obligation to go out with her, and I was convinced at the time that she'd have lots of friends around her and that I'd be ignored and have a rotten night (I'm hopeless at making new friends in such a situation). Every self-preserving instinct inside me told me not to go, but I kept thinking how awful it would be for her if I were the only one who turned up. And that's why I went........amazingly I was indeed the only one to bother, and so I had her all to myself, and I must have made a big difference to her enjoyment of the night.

I mention these things not to brag about my deeds - looking at my whole life, they're pretty rare. But they sure make me feel better about myself. Like I say, the definitions are really confusing me, and I don't even know if there's any difference between romance and gallantry.

romantic stuff was fun with my ex gf. but she almost never showed me any of that side....and you know what? I LOVED IT. dont know why, it brought us closer as people i guess.