|
Post by Kirke on Jun 18, 2006 9:56:07 GMT -5
Many, most...probably all people have some opinion or idea about romance.
It affects everybody. It's hard to exist without going back in the bloodline and finding that somebody, somewhere in your ancestry loved someone else romantically.
So what do you all think of romance? Is there a good age guideline? Should it be serious, intended to wind up as marriage? Is it ever right to do a halfsies sort of relationship where you are "just" boyfriend and girlfriend without a lifetime commitment?
What about courtship and dating?
What should a man be like to be an honorable mate? What should a woman be like to be an honorable mate?
What do YOU all think?
|
|
|
Post by heyyou on Jun 22, 2006 10:20:29 GMT -5
Be forewarned, this is a subject I can rant on for a very, very long time, my apologies to any and all who actually try to read this....and my apologies as it may not answer each previously stated question...
Romance, by society's definition, or time's?
Society is deteriorating rapidly, romance is a fling, is animalistic. Romance by time's defintion, truly is love, mutually shared by two persons, willing to give all they can for the other.
Love which is not mutual, is not real, which is all to often the case now, is an attempt by a being to fill the empty void which is his or her mind and heart. People crave warmth, crave shelter and another's selflessness. Everything is about oneself, in far too many persons' minds. Romance is thus, by society's defintion, two persons carrying out animalistic ritual to fill themselves with nothingness. (Please note, time's romance is still drifting about the world, it is simply all to rare.)
Love itself, is both a weapon and an art.One must always be careful to stay inside the lines, to not drip paint, to not over color so that all boundaries and lines are erased and the picture is no more. The art is detailed and complex, thus imperfect, impure. It is tinted by self, by instinct, by a growing sense among persons of society that they are, or should be, the very center at which everything revolves around. Love is not about getting, it's about giving. Each person must want to give the other anything, be willing to rationally sacrifice what they must for the other. Though sometimes ration is lost, it is easily and soon regained, assuming this really is love of which we speak.
Love is a weapon though. It is sharp and double-edged. The blade is deadly and the hilt alluring.It wields power and presence, and can be laid in the wrong hands. One who yields love as a sword must be careful not to misuse it, or else find themself at it's point, to be turned on, and shed blood that needn't be shed assuming the person is yet capable of proper use of such a horrific object. If object one can call such. Weaponry itself is an art. And art weaponry, if one is a part of the picture. Or watchs it with a certain attachment.
The ideal image of love is a cross, bloodstained, and yet pure. Because he is the ultimate, most absolute love. To have sacrificed his own flesh, to offer salvation to any that will not refuse him, when all are so undeserving. He is forgiveness, as is love. For it is out of love that one asks forgiveness, and out of love again, that it must be given. And all at once, he is love, because he created and then he let go of some power, some control, to let his children have free will. He must have known that they would turn away, that they would sin, but in his love, he gave that choice, and in his love, unwavering, his hand he extends to any who will take it.
Another point of love, no discrimination. Because love is forgiveness, though it may be faced wih subjects who all are wrong, and weak and sinners, it forgives any who ask that. Any who ask forgiveness. Else, what is love, but a sword that only defends particular subjects who ask such. And turns from others who ask. Where is there love in that? To turn honest men seeking salvation, away? Love is open hearted to any who ask. Or else it is not absolute, is not unconditional. Love is not selective, or she is wicked by choice. And is that what we turn to, seek, wickedness?
Love is mutual. Love is honest and hard and trying. Love is sacrifice and worth it. Worth all. Romance by truth, is Love. Else it is today's society's, and there we would all be doomed. Because it is then only a void. A void filled by air dyed colors pleasing to the eye, but having no substance. And we cannot base anything on air, but on faith, and solid trust. This is true romance, this is love. This is fulfillment. Cold, sharp, and worth it.
Sorry, if you read all that I admire you. And this is my opinion, nothing more, take it as you will.
|
|
|
Post by steel_lily on Jun 22, 2006 13:25:20 GMT -5
Here we go....rant-mode...good luck getting through this one...
Love was previously addressed, far beyond my poor power to add or detract. Thank you, you…<smiles> and by the way…GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
That said, the subject of Romance was skipped over rather deftly. Romance is an intricate balance. In the right place, where it should be, it is a fascinating side-effect of the “eros” form of love between two people. (Yes, there are different forms of love, I will rant on that later). But altogether too often, society asserts that romance constitutes love, or spurs it forward. Where really, romance should be nothing more than an effect of love’s capture.
Society defines romance for us in everything that we see. Well-versed in media or not, all of us have seen some form of romance on screen or in novels…we can’t escape it! Even in Disney movies meant for 3 and 4 year olds, there is always a romantic interest. I used to hate the ends of Disney movies because of the characters always kissing at the end. To be honest, I’m still not a fan. It seems to be programmed into the human mind and heart and body to enjoy romance. Affection. A touch, a glance, a smile. The instinct causes us to lean into it, regardless of direction or intent. It’s simply unavoidable…the human coding that causes us to be physical and mildly base beings. People even enjoy watching it. It brings back memories or wishes or some form of warmth that makes them smile fondly and contentedly voice a “hmmmm”.
I will forewarn you all: I am not a big fan of my humanity. Romance, the thought of it, repulses me. I’m jaded enough to know of what I speak, logically-oriented enough to be cold and clinical, and just drawn enough to this whole concept to be resentful of it. I have spent all of my life laughing at all the poor saps who got sucked into a romance, never pausing for a moment to consider the pleasantries of love. My love that I give to those around me is far cruder, far rougher, far more simplistic than any of the intricacies of romance. I simply am unendingly loyal, reach continually, and sacrifice whatever needs to be sacrificed in order to keep them safe. I do not claim to love exquisitely or as widely as I should, but I know something of it.
So the thought behind romance is that it is a strengthening of the connection between two people. To be connected physically is to reinforce the metal and emotional bond. Thus, the holding of hands, etc. To be honest, I can find no real thought behind romance. It is instinctual, animalistic. And yet intricate at the same time… There seems to be some pleasure in challenge, in the complex game of coming nearer and farther away…ugh…I despise this word…but it is for the sake of argument….”flirting”. This is the animalistic human game.
None of this holds a candle to the contentment of being held. To simply let oneself be enfolded in arms, to not have to be strong enough to hold oneself up, this is the cry of the heart. Every child crawls into the lap of someone who makes them feel safe, to just sit there and be held, be surrounded by loving arms. Children are safe there, they fall asleep when surrounded by such love…they find peace. Grown people are really no different than children. Being humans, we are all lost and small and cannot stand on our own. Typically, we tend to fall back to incorporeal arms, to Abba. Not society…society falls back to the arms of anything else. But people, when they know they have someone they can trust, fall back to the arms of someone a little more real, a little more tangible. Thus the quieter side of romance. This is the side I understand. It is the peace you see on the faces of two people content to simply sit and be there, with each other.
The practice of romance is a game, a hunt, more than anything else. It is the animalism of humanity that is somehow necessary. Yes, even I see the necessity of it all. I do not think that children such as ourselves should be engaging in such activities, but then who decides the line? For me, it is better to simply not engage in such silly things. To deny myself the animalism and get to the core, basic stuff of love. <shrugs> But that’s just me.
The ideal/honorable mate thing, I’ll go into later…this rant has been long enough.
|
|
|
Post by heyyou on Jun 22, 2006 15:31:11 GMT -5
Though I'll not go into another rant...(yet,) I am inclined to shout to the comrade above me: GET OUT OF MY HEAD! For it would seem that she is stating my opinions. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jun 22, 2006 17:02:09 GMT -5
Lily, I am probably picking on a very small point of your disseration...but on the Disney movies, I thought it was superb that the kiss came AFTER the doing was done. I.e., the warrior conquered, the beast loved, the prince smote the demon after many a trial...then and only then kissed he his lady and claimed her as his own.
"Another point of love, no discrimination. Because love is forgiveness, though it may be faced wih subjects who all are wrong, and weak and sinners, it forgives any who ask that. Any who ask forgiveness. Else, what is love, but a sword that only defends particular subjects who ask such. And turns from others who ask. Where is there love in that? To turn honest men seeking salvation, away? Love is open hearted to any who ask. Or else it is not absolute, is not unconditional. Love is not selective, or she is wicked by choice. And is that what we turn to, seek, wickedness?"
-chuckles- Is this an intentional dig at my doctrine or is it some other Reformed thorn in your side you pluck at, Heyyou?
Do you think your ideal of romance being "being held" is from only a female perspective? Or do you think that applies to men too?
|
|
|
Post by Alameth of the Iron Fist on Jun 22, 2006 18:07:17 GMT -5
Knowing you, Superman, and knowing my clone, I will risk answering for her and saying that it applies to all, both male and female. Possibly more to the latter than the former. It certainly applies to me. There are many times when that is my only wish. To be held, safe in the arms of one I love beyond all else, who loves me in the same way.
"Is this an intentional dig at my doctrine or is it some other Reformed thorn in your side you pluck at, Heyyou?" Does she even know your doctrine? ; ) But this is not the discussion at hand. (To those who have been involved in the discussion of doctrine: I will address it separately. I have found what answer I need.)
Anyway. Romance.
To know one is valued as more than a child, as more than a parent, as more than a blood-relation, co-worker, or friend, is the knowledge after which all seek. To be more than just another face in the crowd. To find a reason to leave everything else, even if it needn't be actually done. To find another to whom to give oneself, body and soul, knowing they do the same. This is the knowledge we reach for.
Where we find it differs. For the majority of society, it is found fleetingly in the shallow, the physical. That which does not last and does not truly provide that which we seek. For those who adhere to a higher code of honor, it is found in the action of true love.
I describe true love as an action for reasons not unknown to some. If ever one feels that what they have found is "true love," it will be put to many tests. Often, the feeling will leave. For everyone, at some point, the mere feeling leaves. (Yes, myself included.) But there are those who persist in the course that feeling set them on, despite its departure. Indeed, there are some who begin on such a course without the feelings. That is true love. Sincerus. Genuine. The love that will sacrifice self for the benefit of the other. The love that fears nothing. The love that does not lack the determination to adhere to its commitment every second of every day. The love that has no reason for doubt.
There cannot be true love without the commitment to see it through to the bitter end. Without such commitment, even what feels like true love is not sincerus. Not genuine. My charge to all you who have read this far: Do not settle for that which is not genuine. And when you do believe that you truly love, be careful. Analyze it thoroughly before acting on it. Ask yourself if you could do anything else and still be happy. If you decide you cannot, that you must pursue love with the one you have found, then be true. Wavering is permissable at the beginning, before your action. Not after.
I have ranted long enough. If you read all, I applaud you. Do what you like with what you've read. Respond to it; simply stay silent and absorb it; ignore it completely; rail against it. It matters not to me. I have said it; that is what matters. For once, I have managed to say what is in my heart.
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jun 23, 2006 6:23:18 GMT -5
-likes Alameth's statement best-
It is security. It is knowing...but for me, I think, it's the fellowship. It's listening to the ideas of somebody I trust while I hold them in my arms as well as holding them quietly. I'm a poor listener, but I can listen while holding Alameth.
And guess what? Listening to her is more fun than talking.
|
|
|
Post by Alameth of the Iron Fist on Jun 23, 2006 7:02:13 GMT -5
Biased.
Security...yes. It does apply to both, but to one more than the other. After all, it is generally the woman who seeks protection--safety--security--and the man who gives it.
Anyway. I shan't go into another rant. I haven't the time. And besides, it's not my turn again yet.
|
|
|
Post by heyyou on Jun 23, 2006 8:53:44 GMT -5
Of the last actual rant, point well made. Raw material in writing often comes out well.
And that is both a "thorn in my side" and a dig at your doctrine. : ) I like debating. But that's not for here. Most of it was a statement because it is a part of my denotation of love.
As for the topic of being held, I do not think it is at all limited to romance. It most definitely is a part of romance, but it falls under "love" just as well. Parents hold children, friends hold eachother, Abba holds any and all. Few relationships that aren't based around harming, avoiding, or hating one another are entirely solitary. People touch. Alot. It's instinct and it's right. And I agree, that little is as contentng as being enfolded in someones arms. Those arms being corporeal or not.
It would seem that romance is, yes, a game. With more rules than anyone person could memorize. Almost a highly complex version of "Chutes and Ladders." All sorts of ways to climb up, and just as many ways to fall back down. Except the ladders and slides are twisted, and deceptive, though some apparent and easy. And most of the time, being forewarned not to go a certain number of spaces does no good, a person must learn for themself.
Looking back to the original questions of this thread.....
Age guideline? I laugh. Of people common to society, age counts as stages, the little child, who is either all about cooties, or wants to chase the other gender around trying to kiss them, then the teen age, vulnerable, new and shaky, and easily absorbed. Yound adulthood, Lust. Though in many cases, far too many, this begins in teenhood. Thus, stages, eventually reaching reaching one where meaning comes into play and it is as much, or less, animalistic and instinctive as passionate and true. But of those irrelevant to age, those who do not follow the norm and statistics of this age, what does how long you've lived got to do with it? Experience and wisdom a 40 year old carries, can be held to just as well by a 16 year old. The difference being that few 16 year olds are going to think and seek to understand as an adult would. Though some do, and they tend to be the ones who are serious and mature, not fueled by hormones. That such teens still exist I am glad of. Someone has to give us a good name.
Time now restrains. Unfortunately for any who read here, I will rant again soon, I'm sure. But that will be all...for now.
|
|
|
Post by Alameth of the Iron Fist on Jun 23, 2006 20:53:54 GMT -5
Moving this...it belongs to the Corner of Serious.
|
|
|
Post by steel_lily on Jun 24, 2006 11:51:50 GMT -5
<nods> Thank you for making that point. I was cringing at the context of my discussion of being held, thinking that the wrong connotation might be put upon it. It is, however, the only positive point of romance that I can summon in my mind. Well, at least, those pertaining to me. Other seem to benifit from the other points. I am content to be solitary in this standpoint.
I'm going to keep ranting about being held because it keeps jumping to the forefront of my mind. (<mutters about feeding strays>) I think at the core of it all is the fact that no human being is entirely self-sufficient. Noone. I don't care who you are, how strong you are, how long you have walked alone in this world. It doesn't matter. Noone can stand on their own 100% of the time. And so, for loners like myself, the next option is to fall to Abba...father...holder, protector. Sometimes, and I am loath to say this because I fear that some of you will take this wrongly, even that doesn't work. I'll admit it. I am human. Sometimes the incorporeal, the amazingly huge and awesome, isn't enough. I am a small child and I will cry and complain and want more, want to be comforted in a way that is relevant to my actual being. As much as he tries to hold us, sometimes, we refuse to be held. <rolls eyes> Humans...
So it is that the next alternative, for the intelligent, is to fall to someone solid around you. But for those of you who take after me, the next option is to simply fall. To the floor/ground/void. This is not healthy, but is sometimes necessary. To fall alone os something no human should ever have to do, but we do so anyway. We can be so blind to those around us, so blind to him, so blind to the arms reaching...so we fall alone and pick ourselves back up. It is in the falling alone that we, naturally, most wish to be held. It is at those points where we are most alone and weakest that we want someone stronger to just come along and enfold us in their strength and simply wait there, do nothing more than be strong so that you can be weak. We want safety, someone we can trust enough that we can let go and trust them to not take advantage, someone strong enough that we can trust them to catch, someone intuitave enough that we can trust them to know when we have to fall even when we would not ask to be caught. For those of you who know him as he really is, this all brings about one word: Abba. Father. And yes, he is all these things...but not human. It is difficult to believe that he can relate to you in your weakness, is it not? And when you shake in fear and memory does it not feel as if, though his arms are wrapped around you, he cannot stop the shaking fast enough?
So yes. We need to be weak. We need someone around us strong enough to be weak to. I don't really care how old you are, for time is a standard that is completely irrelevant. We are children. The Bible itself says again and again that we are children, we are sheep, we are wandering, we are lost. He's right. We are.
Right..okay...enough about that...let's rant on Women!
I, as most of you have probably noticed, am female. Throughout my life, this mattered little to me, except as a wonderful challenge. It meant that I had to work twice as hard to prove that I was good at football, work three times as hard to prove that I was the best at math, and wage a constant battle against my mother and grandmother in order to behave the way I wished and dress comfortably. I was outspoken, as a child, about how I could be as good as if not better than any male of my species. At anything.
As I have matured, I notice distinct differences in temperament and strengths. Men are made to dominate, to father, to lead. Women, it would seem, are called to support and bring tolerance in. The de-masculinization of society is best illustrated in the church. You pick a denomination, they're all riddled with it, now. Women are becoming senior leaders in the church. I, for example, attend a Methodist church. (Note that I do not say I am a Methodist...that's a long story...) In my church, the Head Pastor is female, the District Leader is female....in fact, all of the leadership is completely dominated by females up even to the level of Bishop. If you will pardon me, I have difficulty saying our Bishop's name because it rubs something in me the very definite wrong way to hear a female name under such a title. In the Catholic church, a pastor (other terminology for the leadership slips my mind at the moment..Monsigneur...) is referred to as "Father". It is this that a church leader should be. A shepherd, a father. Instead of raising biological children, he is meant to hold and lead and raise a group of spiritual children. He. Man. Not women.
My church has become a teaparty. Go ahead, laugh. To be honest, I think we would be more productive if we started a bowling club. My father is leading a massive crusade to call the men in our church to manhood. For too long, they have stepped aside and let the women lead our church. What good has come of it? I'll be honest, some has. We are a very accepting and inviting church. The Sunday School program is very good. We have church dinners and potlachs frequently. We "fellowship" very nicely. (Fellowship is a Christianese term meaning "Talk and eat"). We have an outreach group that knits lap-warmers and such for people in need, and we take hot meals to people who would otherwise be eating chinese take-out and microwave dinners. Oh joy.
Our church lacks spine. We lack backbone...a certain tenacity in our faith that would get us a long way. People can remain, have remained, in the church all their lives without once being strongly convicted or challenged in their faith. They are loved...ish. I could not even call it love. Love would correct them, hold them accountable, set them on the right path. They are welcomed in and given a cookie and a teddy bear. (Literally...we have a Teddy Bear Ministry group...don't ask. Let's just say that we have stuffed animals in the pews.) This is the fault of an overdose of estrogen in the church bloodstream.
The role of a woman is not, in fact, to lead in a relationship. It is to submit, to follow, to support. Not in a chauvanistic sense, there are lines and the woman is allowed to be right. But it is like dancing; one leads and the other follows, though following doesn't even really feel like following. Without the follower, the dancing man would look rediculous and probably fall on his face. But should she try to lead, the woman could not do some of the interesting things that happen in dancing (i.e. lifts, dips, etc.).
This is by no means to set it up as "women are inferior and meant to be that way". No. But it seems that women are naturally formed to follow, to nurture (I despise that word), to support and form a balanced outlook on things. They have their strengths, as do men. Amusingly, they seem to typically form a perfect counterpoint. Where one is weak, the other is strong. And people say that there is no God.
Enough ranting...I have realized that I am speaking much and going veritably nowhere. That is never healthy.
|
|
|
Post by Alameth of the Iron Fist on Jun 24, 2006 15:37:40 GMT -5
My clone, much as you might not like it, you are a woman. And women need to talk. Don't worry about going nowhere with your words.
Your rant about women was decidedly accurate. The role you outline is correct. (I once took that role to an extreme, and am still suffering the consequences...but we needn't go into that.) Women are not meant to assume full leadership and/or responsiblity, though their role does require some types of leadership. We must have leadership enough to (when married) be the stewards of the homes our men govern. We must have strength enough to be a support, but weakness enough to give the men something to protect.
But that's already been ranted on, so I shan't continue.
I could, however, rant for a while on the last point brought up: That the genders complement each other. Men are strong but sometimes foolhardy; women have a sort of sixth-sense/intuition/sensibility to counteract the pig-headedness of men.
But again, I shan't rant. I can't think up enough words for one.
|
|
|
Post by heyyou on Jun 24, 2006 15:41:40 GMT -5
*rolls eyes in amusement* Fine! Speak my words then!
Oo! Even though it's not really on topic, can I please rant on my church too? I have gone to the same catholic church since I was born, nearly every sunday morning, I am there. My church has one (service?) besides mass. Religon class. For different levels from grades 1-12. That's it. The majority of people that attend mass on a mostly regular basis take next to nothing from it. It is pretty much something to say "You see? I am righteous. I am proper." It's as though that's all they must do to be good christians, is attend mass. I disagree. But, yeah...our church is run by women, or moreso, a woman. Priests are not stationary, our "preacherette" as she calls herself, is. She has a 12 minute homily every sunday, the priest, she allows, to have about 2 minutes before hers. Anything and everything is organized by her. And most of what she says and does seems plastic. Like a sort of mask. I don't like it at all.
Anyhow....back to the actual subject..
As for whether or not romance should be intended to wind up as marriage, and if halfsies are ok. I think that despite the real world today, romance should be intended to eventually wind up as marriage. I see no point otherwise, except of course, to fill any void of mind and heart for a short time. Which is weak and empty and untrue. All of which I despise. So yes, it should be intended as eventual marriage. Although, society today learns best and most effectively by making mistakes. Few take words of warning or wisdom well. They have to make mistakes for themselves. It's annoying, but true. So, halfsies and such are tolerated, as they are nescesary in this world.
Dating and courtship... Friends first. Know the person well, know them inside and out, and you'll find yourself falling for them soon enough, and if not, it's not meant to be. Don't play games with it. If the person knows you inside and out, and feels the same, then at some point you have to connect. Sending friends to ask a person out for you is ridiculus. If you can't talk to them to their face about dating or your thoughts and wishes, how is anything supposed to happen and grow? Be comfortable before you date them! If it doesn't work out in the end, be sure to look back at what you did. Figure out what is to be learned from the experience. And if it was meant to be, it'd still be, now wouldn't it? Granted, if the chance arises again, think carefully first. Try to make it work if you want, maybe it still is meant to be. Alright, enough for now. My apologies, this was not up to par for ranting.
|
|
|
Post by steel_lily on Jun 24, 2006 16:09:56 GMT -5
<grumbles> Can you not occupy your own head?
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jun 24, 2006 18:45:36 GMT -5
I thought and thought, and came up with a profound statement to respond to all of this:
I love Alameth.
|
|
|
Post by Alameth of the Iron Fist on Jun 25, 2006 15:47:04 GMT -5
<laughs> Profound indeed! I love you too, Superman.
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jun 25, 2006 17:56:52 GMT -5
-grins- I define romance as what I share with Alameth. I've never experienced anything else I'd call romance and I surely never wish to. Whatever I share with Alameth is my romance.
Was that romantic? Do you all think it's a good definition? Even more importantly, is it a Scripturally-agreeable definition?
|
|
|
Post by st1_Emrys on Jun 26, 2006 6:04:01 GMT -5
Actually you would have to state the type of romance... something none of you took the time to do. As most of my opinions have already been ranted I'll refrain. Yes, I'm back. But I need to go to bed.
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jun 27, 2006 16:51:16 GMT -5
Does anyone have anything less whiny to say?
-grins- Good to see you back, Emrys.
|
|
|
Post by steel_lily on Jul 9, 2006 12:21:50 GMT -5
yes. STOP STARTING DEBATE BOARDS AND FAILING TO PARTICIPATE!!
Was this meant as an advertisement for your love of Alameth, or as an actual discussion? If a discussion, wonderful! Let us continue and you go find some other random corner to make soft cooing noises and inane comments. If this be not a discussion, then I refrain from further comment or posting.
|
|
|
Post by st1_Emrys on Jul 9, 2006 12:55:31 GMT -5
There should be a "cooing board" that all cooing is removed to. I would laugh. (And you wouldn't be able to edit or post in the cooing board- just coo-ey post would be relocated there.
Anyhow. Romance.... Romance in the sense that it has been discussed I would define as... (usually although not always) playing with emotions. Not casting any blame, I'm just saying that nearly all instances that I've seen, people merely play with each others emotions because they think its fun, and have no intentions of furthering the relationship. Usually to me, to define such a guy/girl situation as romantic implies a lack of depth and intentionality- necessary components of marriage, the end goal of those relationships.
Just thought I'd get this thing going again- may as well escape the cooing as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jul 9, 2006 13:58:51 GMT -5
I asked opinions, people delivered opinions...and Sam, calm down and let it go.
|
|
|
Post by heyyou on Jul 9, 2006 18:20:31 GMT -5
My impatient opinion:
Does one define such a timeless, ancient yet modern word simply by current status and situation of oneself and another? What of the rest of the world? Shall they define themselves and such by yourself in relativity? I guess, to use fun words, does your relationship define romance, or does romance define your relationship?
Just a comment on the off topic. I suggest a more descriptive definition.
Anyhow, I agree with Emrys.
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jul 9, 2006 19:39:06 GMT -5
Romance: A fabulous relation or story of adventures and incidents, designed for the entertainment of readers; a tale of extraordinary adventures, ficticious and often extravagant, usually a tale of love or war, subjects interesting the sensibilities of the heart, or the passions of wonder and curiousity. Romance differs from the novel, as it treats of great actions and extraordinary adventures; that is, according to the Welsh signification, it vaults or soars beyond the limits of fact and real life, and often of probability.
That is what romance means.
You can scroll up and see for yourself if what Alameth and I share is closer to romance than the other opinions of what it means listed or not.
|
|
|
Post by st1_Emrys on Jul 10, 2006 9:33:13 GMT -5
Umm unless you think we're laughing, by that definition you do not share romance with Alameth). Write a love story about it and give it to seventh graders and that would qualify as well.
|
|
|
Post by Kirke on Jul 10, 2006 10:10:56 GMT -5
It would fit the definition.
The ocean is wet. So is a puddle.
|
|