Romantic Moment on the Brougham Bridge - William Rowan Hamilton

[Jason]

Chère Evo,

"Yet, I know nothing but the "enigma wrapped in an "enigma," about which and about whom I have unwrapped, untethered, untied, and undressed, letting drop the linens, longings, and linings upon and around which Mademoiselle would master a theory in guise. And for all the parsing and pursuing of leanings and meanings, of rhythm and rhyme, one found but the allure of an enigma, imbued and erotic, as she is a theory of songwriting, silent, sensual, yet strumming."

Jason

Like, Eliot's Pruffrock:! I read this every night. And as she comes and goes speaking of things and Michelangelo:" It is...sosoooosexy

 

[Moonbear]

Casual encounters are romantic - romantic in the way that a runner's high is romantic when you lose sight of everything except the perfection of each stride - knees high, elbows in. Focus without thought. It's Nirvana, and sex can be the same thing. It's even more romantic that it makes no difference whatsoever who it is with. Personal identity is not well-suited for true romance.

I have to go with Huck on this one. Nothing romantic about casual encounters, they are anti-romantic, just about satisfying selfish pleasures (not that there aren't times that's a good thing). To me, romance the connection you feel when you share something, both partners giving, not when you just take for yourself (even if the other person is doing the same).

 

[Astronuc]

I have to go with Huck on this one. Nothing romantic about casual encounters, they are anti-romantic, just about satisfying selfish pleasures (not that there aren't times that's a good thing). To me, romance the connection you feel when you share something, both partners giving, not when you just take for yourself (even if the other person is doing the same).

I would agree with that. I have never engaged in 'casual encounters'. I have always been interested in getting to know someone and developing long-term and meaningful relationships.

Evo,

Something tells me you shag like a minx...

I may be old fashioned, or perhaps, like Don Quixote, just of step in the modern world, but a comment like that really pisses me off. It is NOT romantic, but rather boorish, rude and vulgar, and otherwise disrespectful to Evo and all other women.

I would never say such words to a lady, and I would be very upset if any man such a thing in my presence.

I would prefer not see such garbage, here on PF or anywhere else.

Evo has demonstrated her remarkable good nature, and seems to take it in stride. Nevertheless, Jason, I think you should apologize to Evo and the ladies at PF.

 

[Jason]

Originally posted by Astronuc
Jason, I think you should apologize to Evo

Chère bein' sexy, bien sûr:

Evo, I have absolutely no desire to pick a fight or condescend to you. Your intelligence, sensitivity, and courage are striking. They are imbued with an erotic energy as well. I admire that and I encourage it.

I do not wish to offend you in any way, even though my rebuke was exceptionally sharp. Let me explain. I had to fight to get into Columbia University, as I matriculated as a much older student. The entrance qualifications are brutally high; the curriculum brutally demanding; the professoriate world-famous; the student body largely rich and arrogant; the cost immense. I worked three jobs at while attending, and I still managed to graduate with full honours, Magna Cum Laude.

There is a most personal significance that the academic experience has for me; I won't bore with the tedious details, but suffice it to say that the experience was a vindication and a redemption of a misspent youth as it were.

I admire your attempts to take on issues---and ideologies and figures, if but to speak truth to common myths or lies. And thus, I can be very, very bracing when it comes to the area of debate. I had to fight to gain access to a place that would give me the wherewithal to study, to understand, to address, to confront, and perhaps to atone and redeem.

Therefore, if I have offended in some way, I apologize. I thank you for your gracious post; I owe you the same.

I would hope that you would not mind my corresponding with you via the private mail; if you would prefer that I did not, please let me know. Your wish, as the saying goes, is my command. And if you would prefer that, in the event that you would continue the informal correspondence, that I amend my tone or manner in some way, please let me know. It is, of course, your right.

I would, in the event that we continue to correspond privately, that what I post to you via the personal mail remain private; therefore, should we have an area of disagreement, that it might not be one to include other members. Indeed, if I feel like posting some concept on the boards I do so. Private messages are, at least in my view, just that.

I hope that no feelings were unduly upset, and I extend my best regards, wishes, and apologies for any undue brusqueness, condescension, or untoward comments on my part.

I can be a real pain in the ass. Of course I responded thus, "Uh-huh, but I do have my bad points, too, you know..."

This message then, is certainly not as enigmatic or sexy as any of yours, but you may assume rightly that it is heartfelt. Tous mes sentiments les meilleurs.

Jason

 

[loseyourname]

I have to go with Huck on this one. Nothing romantic about casual encounters, they are anti-romantic, just about satisfying selfish pleasures (not that there aren't times that's a good thing). To me, romance the connection you feel when you share something, both partners giving, not when you just take for yourself (even if the other person is doing the same).

I guess you haven't had the same kind of 'casual encounters' that I have. All I mean by the term is a sexual experience with someone that I am not committed to beyond that one night. There is nothing in this conception that says one must take without giving or that one must be selfish. Ideal sex is selfless, not in the sense of giving at the expense of receiving, but in the sense of a complete breakdown of ego boundaries. Ideal sex involves both partners being true to the literary ethos and showing, not telling, exactly what it is that gets them off the most, and then collapsing into a formless mass of excited flesh, an organism not quite human that can only exist for a brief while, and that exists solely for the purpose of unadulterated pleasure in isolation from all of the remaining world and the cares that it brings. Sex can be transcendental in the way that a day hoeing beans was for Thoreau. I find it terribly romantic that an encounter like this can take place with a person whose name you are not even sure of; I find it doubly romantic that, in an encounter like this, you can forget your own name.

I also find it rather sad that no one ever seems to have these encounters unless they are in love. It is very difficult to be in love. It is not difficult at all to have great sex.

 

[loseyourname]

I think the most romantic thing a girl ever did for me was tattoo my initials on her back five days after meeting me. I bet everyone thinks that sounds like an idiotic thing to do, but it was nothing gratuitous. She was already getting an astrological design and she added a very discrete, barely noticeable set of letters embedded into the design. No one would even recognize it other than she and I. Chances are, I'll never see her again, but according to her, that was the best week of her life and she wanted something permanent by which to remember it long after she had gone home.

 

[Evo]

Your intelligence, sensitivity, and courage are striking.

You definitely have me confused with someone else.

 

[loseyourname]

You're like the Helen of Troy for physics geeks, Evo. What is that like?

 

[Evo]

You're like the Helen of Troy for physics geeks, Evo. What is that like?

Oh dear. Is that why I am all alone? I thought it was because I was incredibly boring, yet opinionated and intolerant.

I feel much better now.

 

[Danger]

Nope, zero.

Ok, I'm REALLY depressed now.

That does it! You definitely have to come over and check out my basement. Astronuc is welcome as a chaperone, as long as he promises to hold the camera steady.

no walks on moonlit beaches, just walks in circles around parking lots; no roses or chocolates, just aspirin

Moonbaby, I would gladly walk you around, through or over any hotel on the planet. I also have a formidable arsenal of medicine on my person at all times.

This is me as of this morning.

We could have such beautiful children together...

I'm 38 also

When the hell was your member photo taken? I thought you were about 20.

-John Lennon, "Norwegian Wood"

Isn't that supposed to be "Norweedish Wood"?

I hope you don't mind if I disagree.

Back at ya'. My most romantic times involved one-nighters. I'm not going to tell about the best one, because the circumstances are unique and would identify the people involved. Leave it suffice to be said that it involved the sisters of both the bride and the groom at a wedding that I was best man for.

 

[Moonbear]

I also find it rather sad that no one ever seems to have these encounters unless they are in love. It is very difficult to be in love. It is not difficult at all to have great sex.

Perhaps most other men are not like you. I've only had one "casual encounter" as you phrase it...not someone I had never known before, but who was just a casual acquaintance from parties and such...I'd never do that again. An emotional bond just heightens the experience to such a level that sex without that emotional component falls flat. This may be something that varies among individuals, but having had the experience of being deeply in love in a long-term relationship, nothing casual even comes close.

 

[Math Is Hard]

When the hell was your member photo taken? I thought you were about 20.

Gee, thanks. I think I was 36 in that photo. I posted it quite a while ago.

 

[franznietzsche]

That's why geeks are better to date. They put a lot more effort into being romantic.

Only the less jaded of us. I wouldn't waste my time anymore. Not worth it.

 

[Evo]

Only the less jaded of us. I wouldn't waste my time anymore. Not worth it.

Hey, the Child of Evo may be available soon. She's smart, funny and non-psycho. She was tops in forensic debate and can surely hold her own in a conversation.

Plus she surprised me today with my favorite extreme tots and cherry lime-aid and returned most of my cd's she had "borrowed".

 

[Math Is Hard]

Plus she surprised me today with my favorite extreme tots and cherry lime-aid and returned most of my cd's she had "borrowed".

LOL! At least she got you a gift she knew you'd like! Did she gift wrap the CDs?

 

[Danger]

having had the experience of being deeply in love in a long-term relationship, nothing casual even comes close.

That's great if you can get it. I really was in love with the ex-from-hell, but sex with her wasn't romantic. It was more like, 'Can you hurry it along? I have to get up early.' The one nighters were definitely better, maybe because we were trying to impress each other. I must admit, though, that the current crop of STD's puts a somewhat different spin on things.

Gee, thanks. I think I was 36 in that photo. I posted it quite a while ago.

And here I've been taking it easy on you all this time because I thought you were too young.
(Gale doesn't count as too young because she's really sick, in the good way.)

Hey, the Child of Evo may be available soon.

Do tell...

You know, if you keep playing hard-to-get, I just might have to drop a generation.

 

[loseyourname]

Only the less jaded of us. I wouldn't waste my time anymore. Not worth it.

Here is a classic piece of 'geek romance' from A Beautiful Mind:

"I find you very attractive. Your assertiveness tells me that you feel the same way about me. But ritual remains that we must do a series of platonic actions before we can have intercourse. But all I really want to do is have sex with you as soon as possible."

 

[Evo]

LOL! At least she got you a gift she knew you'd like! Did she gift wrap the CDs?

No wrapping. Just happy to have them back. (we like a lot of the same music)

Wow, my other daughter just showed up and gave me a ceramic Flamingo cookie jar. It's so great, I LOVE it! (if you haven't guessed by now, I don't go for traditional gifts)

 

[Evo]

Here is a classic piece of 'geek romance' from A Beautiful Mind:

"I find you very attractive. Your assertiveness tells me that you feel the same way about me. But ritual remains that we must do a series of platonic actions before we can have intercourse. But all I really want to do is have sex with you as soon as possible."

Yep, that's about as romantic as I've ever had anyone be.

 

[Huckleberry]

I guess you haven't had the same kind of 'casual encounters' that I have. All I mean by the term is a sexual experience with someone that I am not committed to beyond that one night. There is nothing in this conception that says one must take without giving or that one must be selfish. Ideal sex is selfless, not in the sense of giving at the expense of receiving, but in the sense of a complete breakdown of ego boundaries. Ideal sex involves both partners being true to the literary ethos and showing, not telling, exactly what it is that gets them off the most, and then collapsing into a formless mass of excited flesh, an organism not quite human that can only exist for a brief while, and that exists solely for the purpose of unadulterated pleasure in isolation from all of the remaining world and the cares that it brings. Sex can be transcendental in the way that a day hoeing beans was for Thoreau. I find it terribly romantic that an encounter like this can take place with a person whose name you are not even sure of; I find it doubly romantic that, in an encounter like this, you can forget your own name.

Back at ya'. My most romantic times involved one-nighters. I'm not going to tell about the best one, because the circumstances are unique and would identify the people involved. Leave it suffice to be said that it involved the sisters of both the bride and the groom at a wedding that I was best man for.

I can appreciate your point of view. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have had more sexual encounters that I could remember fondly. To me, this seems more like passion and not at all like romance. I agree with about half of loseyourname's definition. (I think I'm beginning to understand why you chose that name.) Romance is selfless and can be transcendental. It can also be very down to earth. (The ritual goodnight kiss, cooking the evening meal together, pulling weeds from the garden and sharing a smile.) I don't believe it is about pleasure seeking or is independant of commitment. It has nothing at all to do with sex. It is about humbling yourself completely before another person. It is about love and devotion. It's what keeps a relationship together.

I would also like to say that I do believe it is possible to have a casual encounter that is romantic. People have lives and expectations placed on them that they must fulfill. Sometimes two people can meet and feel romance, but their circumstances just don't allow them to remain together. Sometimes a romantic gesture can go unnoticed or unwanted. Its still romantic. And sometimes it just doesn't work out and something shrivels up inside. Something that was never yours to begin with, but is worth remembering all the same. accentuates the pain or the pleasure that one would normally feel.

When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.

The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain.

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah, I don't necessarily mean the kind of romance that has to occur between two people. When I use the term 'romantic,' I use it more in the traditional, modern (modern meaning 18th century) sense. Thoreau was probably the most prominent of American romantics, yet I'm pretty sure he died a virgin and likely never had a girlfriend. There are things in life other than women that can be appreciated romantically and that can even be loved quite deeply. Sex, and really any letting go of self-consciousness to enjoy each and every moment without regard to how they fit in a larger framework, is romantic to me. That is why it doesn't matter to me if I love the woman or intend to ever see her again. Romance to me isn't something that exists contingent upon future events. Romance is entirely in the present. It might die a sudden death or it might live a long and prosperous life, but it is at its most romantic when you will enjoy it equally either way.

 

[Soilwork]

I guess you haven't had the same kind of 'casual encounters' that I have. All I mean by the term is a sexual experience with someone that I am not committed to beyond that one night. There is nothing in this conception that says one must take without giving or that one must be selfish. Ideal sex is selfless, not in the sense of giving at the expense of receiving, but in the sense of a complete breakdown of ego boundaries. Ideal sex involves both partners being true to the literary ethos and showing, not telling, exactly what it is that gets them off the most, and then collapsing into a formless mass of excited flesh, an organism not quite human that can only exist for a brief while, and that exists solely for the purpose of unadulterated pleasure in isolation from all of the remaining world and the cares that it brings. Sex can be transcendental in the way that a day hoeing beans was for Thoreau. I find it terribly romantic that an encounter like this can take place with a person whose name you are not even sure of; I find it doubly romantic that, in an encounter like this, you can forget your own name.

I also find it rather sad that no one ever seems to have these encounters unless they are in love. It is very difficult to be in love. It is not difficult at all to have great sex.

I don't get how you find it sad??
Also I don't see how casual sex with someone practically unknown is romantic.
If that was the case then my 'friend' (I don't like him but he hangs around with us) would be considered the most romantic person in the world.
And trust me this guy is the most thoughtless and amoral person I know...so he's anything but romantic.
Don't mean to sound pathetic or anything, but I do think that you should only have sex with someone who you love because then it means something.
Anyway if it's only physical satisfaction you require out of life then I guess casual sex is for you.

 

[Danger]

Anyway if it's only physical satisfaction you require out of life then I guess casual sex is for you.

It's not instead of relationship sex; it's a adjunct to it. How could you expect people to be celibate just because they haven't found someone to love (and more importantly who loves them back).

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't get how you find it sad??
Also I don't see how casual sex with someone practically unknown is romantic.
If that was the case then my 'friend' (I don't like him but he hangs around with us) would be considered the most romantic person in the world.
And trust me this guy is the most thoughtless and amoral person I know...so he's anything but romantic.
Don't mean to sound pathetic or anything, but I do think that you should only have sex with someone who you love because then it means something.
Anyway if it's only physical satisfaction you require out of life then I guess casual sex is for you.

I don't think that is his point. I think he is talking more about acheiving a transcendental revelation where rational thought ceases to exist and something new is created and shared by two people. Shakespeare would call it 'The beast with two backs.' It's also similar to a runner running through the pain and into that endorphin high. Then he feels light as a feather and the arms and legs pump and the road seems to flow like a river behind him. He moves more by thought than by physical effort. This reminds me of my favorite story character ever, Phineus Harper who teaches his friend Gene the meaning behind this revelation. From the book 'A Separate Peace.'

I think where I disagree with loseyourname is mostly in the devotional aspect of romance. There is some chivalric responsibility to a person or a belief that is involved. I think we both agree it is a transcendental experience. (Now that I think about it, even down to Earth experiences can be pretty transcendental. Thanks for the Thoreau reference.) I'm sure loseyour name will explain exactly what he means again.

I've always found the work of Kalil Gibran to be enlightening. I enjoy many of his viewpoints on matters such as these.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't get how you find it sad??

Why don't you get it? I explained. I said that's it very hard to love somebody and so encounters with someone that you love are rare. Casual encounters are far easier to come across. If more people could experience them in a romantic manner, they would have more romantic experiences. I guess it isn't really 'sad' that they don't, but it's certainly unfortunate. I think most people lack romance in their lives and, for the most part, it's because they're waiting for someone else to be romantic rather than simply adopting the romantic attitude.

Also I don't see how casual sex with someone practically unknown is romantic. If that was the case then my 'friend' (I don't like him but he hangs around with us) would be considered the most romantic person in the world.
And trust me this guy is the most thoughtless and amoral person I know...so he's anything but romantic.

Man, I don't know why I even still bother posting. You guys don't read anything. I never said that all casual encounters were romantic.

Don't mean to sound pathetic or anything, but I do think that you should only have sex with someone who you love because then it means something. Anyway if it's only physical satisfaction you require out of life then I guess casual sex is for you.

That's a blatant false dichotomy. There is no reason why a person should fail to experience a certain kind of pleasure simply because they aren't in love. That hardly means that love would not be gratifying or worthwhile.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I define romance in much the same way as loseyourname. I don't think that it is neccisary to be in love to experience it. Let's see here...
1.
-A love affair.
-Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
-A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something.
2.
A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful.
There we are. That more or less sums it up for me. Though I still have respect for everyone elses views of romance as well. I have been in love and I still am. At the same time I can't forget some of the more short lived experiences I have had.
I once met a girl online and began talking to her regularly for about a month. Then we decided that we should get together because we couldn't stand the frustration of being so attracted to one another and yet never meeting. So I flew to Cincinatti and stayed with her for five days. We spent the majority of that time in bed together, not neccisarily having sex. I was in a city I had never been to before with a girl that I had never met before. She took me all over the place and introduced me to her friends. We went to the zoo for the winter lights festival. It was a wonderful five days. At that time I had experienced nothing so emotional as I did when I was in the airport kissing her for the last time. She started crying and I held her tightly to comfort her... and myself. I'll never forget that trip and I'll never forget her but I will likely never see her again either.

 

[Moonbear]

I define romance in much the same way as loseyourname. I don't think that it is neccisary to be in love to experience it. Let's see here...
1.
-A love affair.
-Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
-A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something.
2.
A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful.

I never knew there was that second part to the definition before, so I just never considered it that way. Well, there we have it. That makes more sense if we're using different definitions of romance.

So I flew to Cincinatti and stayed with her for five days. ...I'll never forget that trip and I'll never forget her but I will likely never see her again either.

And I'll never forgive you for that.
Just kidding! I had a guy drive out to meet me and something along those lines was the plan, but after spending the first day together, it was clearly not going well and he left early. Gee, can't imagine where he went wrong...could it have been the lie about his age? Or the lie about his education, or the lie that he owned his own home when he was still living with his mom? You'd think he might have thought to clear up some of those details before deciding to make a 600 mile trip to visit, but I guess lack of thought was his biggest problem.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And I'll never forgive you for that.
Just kidding! I had a guy drive out to meet me and something along those lines was the plan, but after spending the first day together, it was clearly not going well and he left early. Gee, can't imagine where he went wrong...could it have been the lie about his age? Or the lie about his education, or the lie that he owned his own home when he was still living with his mom? You'd think he might have thought to clear up some of those details before deciding to make a 600 mile trip to visit, but I guess lack of thought was his biggest problem.

That's terrible. I hope that it doesn't completely turn you off to meeting men over the net. I met my last girlfriend over the net technically though we didn't make a date until after we had met in person at a larger get together.
I have the fortune of belonging to an internet community that is rather small and somewhat exclusive (you actually have to apply rather than just setting up an account) so the people there are far nicer and tend to be more honest than elsewhere. Also due to it's small size it spreads pretty quickly when someone is found out to not be who or what they say they are.
-------edit-------
Ofcourse PF is a great community too. :-)

 

[Moonbear]

That's terrible. I hope that it doesn't completely turn you off to meeting men over the net. I met my last girlfriend over the net technically though we didn't make a date until after we had met in person at a larger get together.

Oh, I didn't even meet him over the net. I met him in person, but it was my last night in town, and we then continued to keep in touch via email and he decided to come out and visit eventually. Actually, he's one of the reasons I'm not afraid of meeting someone online. He just proved that you can meet jerks just as easily in person as online, even ones you think you can trust (he's a friend of my cousin's, so you'd think he'd know I'd find out if he was lying ).

 

[franznietzsche]

But you should not be looking, it will make you miserable. Just surround yourself with the people you like and you will have a rich live!

That would require me to like enough people to surround myself with. Not going to happen.