Romantic Moment on the Brougham Bridge - William Rowan Hamilton

[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.