Romanticism: An Obituary

Romanticism is an article of faith.

We know what it's stuffed with: love at first sight, the carriage of frolicking courtships, prancing couples, dialogue consisting of fanstastical banquets, violins and flutes, of ballroom weddings, chandeliers, strangled poetry that converts her every part into some bizzarre infinitude, and of happy homes flowing with enchanting music with 2.3 kids, 2.6 cars, 1.1 garage, and 1.4 dogs.

All in all, the fountain that bubbles this vaperous romanticism is the phrase: star-crossed. Romanticism is not something considered to be 'controlled'. Rather, it seen as something to submit to. This 'star-crossed' love is elevated to the esteemed level known as destiny!

And so this faith makes the man stuffed. These stuffed men float airily through the world. Some pop to fall in the abyss... (and they wonder why suicide is at its highest rate for young men!). Others just stuff themselves more and more so that no matter what is said to them, they are so stuffed that even the sharpest most blatant facts bounce against their rubbery infatuated shells. Some realized that they were stuffed and turned themselves inside out. These unfortunate few shrivel with bitterness and seek revenge with getting laid everywhere and anywhere. But the rest spew out this poison and recover into the Men they were.

Oh forgive me, Hallmark! If I am to doubt Romanticism, I may incur the wrath of all women. But make no mistake: I war with Cupid. The way to victory is not to stab the infected with the truth... they pop and fall or increase their fantasy shell even more! Therefore, let us hold up a mirror to the infected so they see all their maladies and so will cleanse themselves of this rot.

The Virus

This hyped up romanticism can be traced to Rousseau. Disgusted with bourgeois love (he saw it as an empty emotional center of restrained, law-bound societies), he wanted to replace it with something more passionate. Before (especially in aristocracy), the passion of people was set for truth, honor, and power.

"This is dangerous," said the Rousseau. "It must be replaced with something else. Something that is just as absorbing." Therefore: "Love will now be the soul-saving experience!

How did Rousseau get to this? His childhood as he describes: "To fall on my knees before a masterful mistress, to obey her commands, to have to beg for her forgiveness, have been to me the most delicate of pleasures." Thus, in love he is entirely passive; woman must make the first move. Paglia says, "Rousseau ends the sexual scheme of the great chain of being, where male was sovereign over female... Rousseau feminizes the European male persona" and "gives the ideal man a womanlike sensitivity."

Ever since Rousseau, the culture has become increasingly romanticized. Music revolves around 'love'. The highest grossing movies are romantic 'epics' like Gone with the Wind and Titanic (where the ship sinking provides merely a backdrop for the 'priority' of the movie: the romance). Hyped-Romanticism has ravaged religions; priests becoming 'servants of love' rather than pursuers and warriors of 'wisdom and truth' (and then they wonder why the pews are filled with women!). Politicians speak of how much 'love' they have and strive to make themselves 'lovable'. Romanticism has gone beserk!

The Infection

Many women march on through their life, stuffed with dreams of hyped-up romanticism. They are filled to the brim with excessive expectations. The high rate of divorce is not due to some moral collapse. It is due to this bizzare and absurd religion of romance. In many ways, romance is the FEMALE RELIGION. 'Anniversary' dates are their religious festivals. The bed becomes their alter, and sex becomes the holy sacrament.

For fun, I told the women, "Romance... True love... None of it exists." And the women, nonsurprisingly, protested bitterly. But one thing that puzzled me was this one woman who told the Pook: "I'm never going to get married. Seems so boring." I thought she would agree with this idea of romance not existing (which I do think DOES exist, but is misapplied to the point of absurdity). Yet, she was one of the biggest protesters of it.

I figured almost all young women wanted to get married (at least SOMETIME). This one didn't yet was the BIGGEST believer in romance. A contradiction? Perhaps. In any age past, her life would be scorned at. It is this hyper-romanticism at work. Without this 'romance', there would be no license for her life-long 'romance' outside of marriage. It is well known that if you get the women to think that 'you love them', she is well more likely to sleep with you. All the gifts and 'dates' the AFC gives to get his sex are not some form of Neo-Prostitution; it is merely the exercise of this hyped up romanticism. This explains why women, who have no desire for marriage, will be the BIGGEST believers in romance. Their religion of Romance grants license and prettifies their sometimes dangerous and reckless behavior.

The Inflammation

Love! Love! Love! It is Nature's drug, a high, that so many become addicted to and must always be feeling 'love' at some part of their lives.

A Nice Guy appears to protest this post.

Ignore him, gentlemen. Women following this romanticized path means that the CHASE becomes the focus rather than the COMPANY of the lover. No wonder challenge works so well! No wonder once a woman gets what she wants, she goes looking for something else!

The more a man is a challenge, the more a woman becomes 'romanticized'. This is especially true for beautiful women. The curse of beauty (and even that of Don Juans) is that you fear that you are settling when you could have gotten better. When a guy is a challenge to the beautiful woman (and let's face it, these beautiful women have flocks of guys trying to be 'romantic' towards them in the AFC sense), it sparks the woman's romanticism. She must have her challenge and eat it too.

The Nice Guy yells out, "Pook, there is a matter we must discuss!"

Go to your platonic girlfriends to talk about your 'love', Nice Guy! Now where were we?

We know of the romanticism that Nice Guys embrace (for the definition of an AFC is a man who loves like a woman). But Don Juans suffer from the romanticism as well. "This website has made me soooo picky!"

The problem is not pickiness but idealism. Just like beautiful women, Don Juans feel that they are 'settling' if they get a chick. Remember your Nice Guy days when you only wanted a good decent woman to love you? Now you want a Helen of Troy! How far we've come!

The Nice Guy hops up on the Arcadian stage. "No more, Monsieur Pook! We must talk!"

Very well, Mr. Nice Guy! What is this business that you must interrupt my post for?

"I think you know it, Pook. You insulted my girl in the park last night!"

You are mistaken, sir. I made love to your girl in the park last night. She asked me to meet her there. I have her note somewhere. But if someone is saying something to the contrary, by God, it is a slander!

"You damned Pook! You would drag down a woman's reputation to hide your cowardice! But I am calling you out!"

You're calling me out? Then take lessons from your girl, as she too called me out.

"You libertine!" The Nice Guy takes out a white glove and slaps Pook. "I DEMAND SATISFACTION.

You demand satisfaction but your girl also demanded satisfaction. I cannot spend my time satisfying the demands of your circle.

"You blackguard!"

I assure you, Mr. Nice Guy, that your girl is the epitome of her sex. In fact, her chief renown is for a readiness that keeps her in a state of tropical humidity as would grow orchids in her drawers in January. Your assault against me is not for my faults but for your own.

"You have no morals!"

That is not true! You are the immoral one, thinking yourself a sexual Pharisee! We are called to be Human not statues.

The Cancer

And so floats the Nice Guy with his hot air romanticism. When he sees the women going for the guys of testosterone (jerks) and running to the hills to avoid his nonsense, he pops.

But what of the Don Juans racing to obtain their 'ideal' woman? After a decade or two, this is the result (http://www.sosuave.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12411&highlight=mature). Noticing their lost youth, what are these guys to do?

And what about the guys who DO get their idealism? Many of these guys marry absolutely gorgeous women. But gorgeous women are a standard lay. The idealism doesn't last and the divorce follows.

With love being defined as the PURSIT of the the lover (rather than the COMPANY of the lover), no wonder divorces are widespread! Rousseau is best known for his civilization of 'consent'. Thus, marriage to people now is not some sacred bond but a legal article of consent, something to be torn asunder whenever wished.

And anyone who are aware of marriages that last know that 'romanticism' has nothing to do with it. Marriage requires work. Go to an older married couple and spew out your 'romanticism' and 'the one' love to them and watch them laugh.

Romeo and Juliet

Women flock to Romeo and Juliet to watch the 'star-crossed' lovers defy society. Yet, romanticism is exactly what the play condemns!

Romeo was in love with Rosalind. But when Juliet appears, any thoughts of Rosalind are long gone. Romeo is Don Juanish at first. He kinos her. He kisses her. And he leaves her. So where is the tragedy?

"Because their love was denied!" chant the women.

I am sorry ladies. The truth is that Romeo is a whiny boy. Romeo and Juliet would have turned into a sweet Much Ado About Nothing if Romeo had the spine of Claudio. It is Romeo's lack of being a man that causes the tragedy in the play.

"Pook! You exaggerate Shakespeare to fit your meaning."

But look at what Shakespeare says:

"Alas poor Romeo! he is already dead; stabbed with a
white wench's black eye; shot through the ear with a
love-song; the very pin of his heart cleft with the
blind bow-boy's butt-shaft: and is he a man to
encounter Tybalt"

Already dead! And they question whether he can approach his enemy Tybalt. Even the Nurse condemns Romeo:

"Blubbering and weeping, weeping and blubbering.
Stand up, stand up; stand, and you be a man:
For Juliet's sake, for her sake, rise and stand;"

Romeo is so distraught that he wants to kill himself. Witness the friar's reaction to his attempt at suicide:

"Hold thy desperate hand:
Art thou a man? thy form cries out thou art:
Thy tears are womanish; thy wild acts denote
The unreasonable fury of a beast:
Unseemly woman in a seeming man!"

The tragedy in Romeo and Juliet is not love denied. It is Romeo refusing to be a Man. He kills himself at his first chance and so kills Juliet.

The Cure

Have you ever seen a very traditional Jewish wedding? The man and woman have never talked to each other. They do not even know if they like each other. Yet, they marry and stay married for life.

"Pook, that is because they can't divorce."

True, but by conventional romanticism, shouldn't the marriage eventually blow up? Yet, they are happy!

The point is that romanticism has no value in creating a lasting marriage. George Bernard Shaw says that marriage is like tying to people in a ship together. It doesn't matter who you are tied up to, you will make the person a lifelong partner. Comradeship makes marriages last, not romanticism.

War veterans despise the war they are stuck in. But if asked to leave the battlefield, they will not because of their comrades. The hellish environment created bonds between these men that last throughout their lifetime. Lasting marriages also contains this comradeship. The couple goes through this hurricane of life and by overcoming the difficulties thrown at them, it makes their bond cemented even more.

So love is not weddings and flowers. Real love is deep financial problems or a sick child.

But don't take my word for it:

Brookner: "The essence of romantic love is that wonderful beginning, after which sadness and impossibility may become the rule."

Crowley: "Love stories are only fit for the solace of people in the insanity of puberty. No healthy adult human being can really care whether so-and-so does or does not succeed in satisfying his physiological uneasiness by the aid of some particular person or not."

Jones: "Romance, like the rabbit at the dog track, is the elusive, fake, and never attained reward which, for the benefit and amusement of our masters, keeps us running and thinking in safe circles."

Romanticism, farewell! And 'The One'ism, adieu! Give me the love songs of ages past! Give me Don Juan! Give me Madame Venus! Give me elopement by ladder and rope on a moonlight night! Let the neighbors stare and adore, for their lives are measured by propriety and yardsticks. Let the rabbit run its course for we have stopped running in circles, chasing the rabbit 'Romance' on and on.

And by doing so, the circle breaks. We're finally free.

Brilliant post man...

This is a MEN's approach to love, to romance, something that I was wondering myself but couldn't put it into the right words...

And I really agree that when two people look for a relationship, they forget that the most important thing is COMPANY, the bonds that are built with the person, instead of the mundane hollywoodian "romantic" things.

Awesome post !!

Ah, yes, the presence of the "star-cross'd lovers" achetype in our daily lives. Being a standard archetype, this ideal of star-crossed lovers is continually restated and reinforced in books, magazines, movies, and the such in our daily lives. It's pretty disturbing, if you ask me

As usual, a good post. Freakin' classy language always throws me for a loop, though.

And I'm pretty pumped right now that I got second reply. Damn straight.

Keep the good stuff coming, Pook.

Wow my man. How did you become so enlightened? It is a shame that your writings will dissappear from the face of the planet with this website if it ever goes down.

You MUST write a book dude! That second post in particular was absolutely amazing.

You have reinterpreted the main issue of Shakespeare's most famous story and backed it up with solid proof.

Your opinions are so unprecedented, yet so right!

Keep it up

Brilliant post as usual, Mr. Pook. As I mentioned in another thread, I recently went off on a rant against rampant, misguided romanticism with my lady friend awhile back. (She agreed with me, by the way.)

I was particularly struck by your obervation that our archaic romantic ideals do nothing to serve the higher and nobler ideals of truth, wisdom and justice.

Alas, this can be all too true when it comes to the justice part. The following is a disturbing editorial from CBSNEWS.com by one of their legal analysts, attorney Andrew Cohen.

Love is blind? Sometimes it blinds entire juries.

Cohen's editorial follows:

Sudden Passion, My Foot!

Feb. 14, 2003

Andrew Cohen (CBS)

Clara Harris cried Friday after a Houston jury sentenced her to 20 years in prison for killing her husband, David, by repeatedly running him over with her car last summer. They certainly didn't look like tears of joy but they should have been. A 20-year prison term for a first-degree murder conviction in Texas is a pie-in-the-sky legal result if I have ever seen one. Don't believe me? Ask the fellow who was sentenced to death in Texas even after his lawyer slept through portions of his trial.

If Harris were a man, we would have seen a life sentence in this case. If Harris were a minority defendant, we would have seen a life sentence in this case (given the state of prosecutorial discretion these days, we might even have seen a capital case). If David Harris hadn't been an adulterer, we would have seen a life sentence in this case.

But Clara Harris is a weepy, white, professional woman, someone whose marital troubles generated a lot of sympathy in and out of court. And so she will walk out of prison in about 10 years or so (with time off for good behavior and parole).

With a compromise verdict that sent them home in time for Valentine's Day dinner, Harris' jurors found that she, had, indeed, been under a spell of "sudden passion" when she repeatedly speed-bumped her husband last July. And then, having signaled that they understood her pain, they gave her the maximum sentence available for a "sudden passion" case. Although I don't know for sure, I suspect some jurors wanted to give her more, some wanted to give her less, and this is where they ended up after a long and emotional trial.

Good news for Harris. Bad news for tough justice, a Texas trademark. And I just don't get it. To me, "sudden passion" isn't searching in vain to see if your husband is cheating (again), confronting him and his mistress (and ripping off the mistress' blouse), and then tracking him down and gunning the engine while his daughter pleads with you from the front seat to stop. And yet that's precisely what this result suggests. Since when did Harris County, Texas -- also known as the "capitol" of capital punishment in America -- suddenly turn so touchy-feely?

What's remarkable about this result is not how effectively Harris' attorneys were able to turn a rage-filled, vengeful killer into someone jurors could empathize with. After all, that's what lawyers are paid to do and it isn't that difficult for people to put themselves in the shoes of someone whose spouse isn't faithful.

What's remarkable is how easily this case turned on the head of the recent trend in murder trials to de-humanize the defendant and to beatify the victim. By verdict day, Clara Harris was practically a saint and David Harris was practically a thug, all thanks to a curious confluence of law and fact.

Clara Harris, you see, wasn't a ruthless thug who stalked her husband for hours, ran him over again and again, and then rushed up to him as he lay dying so she could utter a few cruel words that would be the last he would hear. She was a humiliated wife whose husband had actually had the temerity to tell her why he felt he had to get and stay involved with another woman. Clara Harris wasn't someone who killed the father of the young lady who happened to be in that car with her -- the young woman who was screaming at her the whole time to stop. She was someone whose prison sentence should have been shortened because of the kids she would have left behind.

And there's David Harris. He wasn't a good father who was killed right in front of his daughter's eyes. He was a cad, a fellow who refused to promptly and completely return to his spouse when she asked him to. He wasn't someone who had a full, rich, rest of his life to live, someone who had not broken the law, someone with three children. He was someone who, even in the prosecution's version of things, deserved to lose his house, his money, and his respect because of his affair. The only thing the prosecution and the defense disagreed about at trial is that prosecutors said that Clara Harris wasn't allowed to kill David while the defense said that, in the circumstances, she was.

Every trial I have ever followed or covered has left me with a lesson. But I don't yet know what lesson the Harris case has taught me. As I wrote earlier this week, how does Texas now look Andrea Yates in the face? She killed when she was severely mentally ill, but apparently in Texas it's more forgivable to kill in the heat of passion than it is to kill when clinically and certifiably sick. And what about those victims' rights groups?

Should their mantra now be: victims have rights and must be avenged unless society doesn't approve of their legal behavior while they were living? Or perhaps it should be: victims have rights and must be avenged when they are women or children but not when they are cheating, lying husbands?

Maybe so. I don't know. Texas surprised me last year by showing no mercy to Andrea Yates. It has surprised me again by showing an awful lot of mercy to Clara Harris, despite her tears.


By Andrew Cohen
© MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

A glimmer of hope:

Looks like at least some women are starting to get it when it comes to the realities and unrealities of romance:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/873366.asp?0cv=CB20

I don't get this post. What are you trying to say, Pook? Whats the tips here? Try to find opportunity to go through sh*t with chicks and they will love you forever. Am I interpreting right? Yes, i know, i am an idiot.

I recently served on a jury at a criminal trial and the judge made it quite clear that our decision should be devoid of any sympathy and emotion - only based on the solid evidence.

People that are swayed by the horsesh1t that lawyers spew forth are morons.

hey!

Man I watched a romantic movie about a day ago, and I was going to make a post about "love."

But since Pook has already done so, I will just add my comments here.

I personally DO believe that the crazy romantic love exists. BUT something I take into account that a love-sick AFC doesnt, is that something so speacial and dear, is also VERY VERY RARE!

They think that that strong feeling of true love, they can feel towards any girl they meet, and she will feel it for them. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

In most Romantic movies, the two lovers meet, and they fall in love almost instantly. The AFC however also doesnt seem to notice that the 2 lovers just saved each other from being killed by the terminator, getting stolen my a crazy insect from another planet. STRESSES ADD TO FEELING ATTACHMENT FOR PEOPLE.

It's okay to believe that yes such a thing as incredible true love exists, but they key is to remember the odds that the girl you just met is your start-crossed lover is about 1 in 6 billion.

Then finally, when you talked about the 'love' in religions and all, I think I have to disagree with what you said.

Religious love (the love of God) is very different from Romantic love. The reason that women are in the pews, is becuase they don't see much of a difference between the two.

The reason there aren't many men there, is because of the streotypes on "love" and how only gay men love each other. Straight men dont "love" other men.

LOVE over all, is way too confused with ROMANTIC love.

"Love your neighbor" doesnt mean that you should go crazy and butterflies in stomach, and float around on an infatuation buble everytime you see your neighbor. That isnt even Romantic Love, that is self diluted infatuation.

So far, the most powerful fore of love I've felt, was an "unconditional love" of the spiritual type. I doubt that I will feel such a love for a person, becuase it is impossible.

There are different forms of "love" just as there are different forms of happyness, and pain, and other emotions.

YOU however did an EXCELLENT job of showing that romantic love is very different from the typically accepted sterotypes.

A truly enlightening post as always...though I'm afraid it has me at a loss.

You say that romance exists, and then debase it as it is commonly assumed to be. So what type of romance does exist?

You say that romance is not only unecessary to a long happy relationship, but it is indeed anti-thetical. I understand your point about comradeship making long lasting ties, and couldn't agree more. But what purpose does romance serve in our lives?...In our relationships?

Once upon a time I wrote that, " Romance as the word is used most often today, means love-dovey. Conversing with you was romantic in the classical sense. Not flowers and candy, but surreal and spiritual. Not Venus and cupid, but Coleridge and Byron. Not champagne and diamond rings meant to augment the fleeting moment, but Gods and man and beast in Nature which endure within the fabric of life. These are the very spirits themselves which reside in the present and make it the past while silently weaving tomorrow from the dreams of poets and lovers and the smallest of children. "

I wrote that to a female friend and enclosed it on either side with the usual painfully-AFC fawnings and ramblings. I enclosed it as something to augment the letter, and explain the nature of our romance. Yet when I read your post and I reread my letter, it now comes to me as somewhat of a revelation...

Could it be that the knowledge was there all along, but we are too drunk with the elixir of infatuation to notice and understand it? Or is romance the nectar of life, not the sticky sap of love? Damn you Pook for provoking such thought for I am sure my mind shall not wander from this tangent for at least a day. Here's wishing you all the best of luck in life and love, and more happiness than any one rational man should be able to stand...

-CyranoDeBergerac

fine, nobody answer me

Im in the middle of some kind of a paradim shift or something here, Im not sure what to make of it, in the past when ive meet a women who was 'everything' It usually meant they were gorgeous sexy and knew it, and so did all the other guys and somehow all that competition, makeup sex and uncertainty created some kind of a buzz in side of me that to be honest was more of a high than love, I guess infatuation is the word.
Now ive met a women who meets a lot of my desires, and is not seriously flawed, but shes also steady and not playing games, and in one way its good and in another its a bit flat. When the games are on and I feel that kind of a high, im inspired and pumped, a regular in the gym going at things full throtle, but i kinda know its got no legs in the long run. Compare that to the safe bet and I recently put on 10 pounds without realising it, cause she was feeding me all the time and because i knew she wasnt going anywhere I didnt feel inspired to do any thing about it, since she left for college ive trimmed down again and got my hair cut etc...so im 40 and on the one hand its great to be out screwing young chicks on the other how long do you do it for? One thing some one said is as a DJ you can set yourself up with a life that creates a nagging maybe I could have done better/grass is greener feeling going on and that can be a pain in the ass, and searching for that euphoric high of infatuation seems like a dumb ass reason to give up on a good thing, especially now ive seen the romantic giddy thing for what it is (infatuation and not love) maybe i need to go to infatuated anonymous or something ;-] any older dj,s got any thoughts on this one?

Pook, WOW!

True Love, and Reality

This is a great thread. I am looking for the replacement to my idealistic romanticism. I have had 'love' twice: the kind the most tortured and over the top love songs and poetry are about. The first of these two I lived with for six months. As much as she loved me, as great as the sex was, the home cooked meals were, the conversation and times out with friends, she had some flaws I couldn't live with (and that didn't want my daughter from a previous marriage to live with), so I ended it. Forward two year and a few casual relationships, just recently, I had an even more intense experience of love. It drove me almost out of my mind with it's intensity and beauty when it was on, literally taking my breath away once, just looking at her looking back at me with adoration and love so deep shining from her beautiful face. And when she ended it after a year, and took as a lover one of my coworkers within two weeks of ending it, I experienced grief like I never knew I could.

These experiences suggest that LOVE is just an emotion. It should not be the yardstick for measuring whether a woman is the right one to have in your life. It's really great to experience, but with the wrong woman, it is an invitation to personal disaster and ruin. Perhaps it is an invitation to personal disaster and ruin, no matter the woman. Romantic love can escalate to such intensity that you feel that WITHOUT THIS WOMAN I'd die. I'd give up anything for her...and you do. (I did.)

Alas poor Romeo! he is already dead; stabbed with a
white wench's black eye; shot through the ear with a
love-song; the very pin of his heart cleft with the
blind bow-boy's butt-shaft: and is he a man to
encounter Tybalt"

.....

"Blubbering and weeping, weeping and blubbering.
Stand up, stand up; stand, and you be a man:
For Juliet's sake, for her sake, rise and stand;"

....

"Hold thy desperate hand:
Art thou a man? thy form cries out thou art:
Thy tears are womanish; thy wild acts denote
The unreasonable fury of a beast:
Unseemly woman in a seeming man!"

So, here we are at sosuave.com, reading another Pook post, an Obituary for Romantic Love.

It does seem incontestable that the idea of Romantic Love ruins more people than just about any other poison. People divorce because it's disappeared, and want to feel that drug coursing again through their veins (or perhaps, feel they have experienced it for the first time with an affair lover). People marry when they feel it, and then come to discover who they are married to after the madness of love infatuation wears off.

What a crazy place to invest one's energy!!! Romantic Love puts charge for your happiness into someone else's control, and at the same time, blinds you to their real character. It is another word for desperation ("I love you" = "You must never leave me!"), loss of self, and madness. I hear that asphyxiation produces ecstatic feeling too...more so as one comes closer to the moment of death. Romantic Love's seems to me now just that dangerous...it is the beginning of the death of an independent man.

True Love, and Reality

This is a great thread. I am looking for the replacement to my idealistic romanticism. I have had 'love' twice: the kind the most tortured and over the top love songs and poetry are about. The first of these two I lived with for six months. As much as she loved me, as great as the sex was, the home cooked meals were, the conversation and times out with friends, she had some flaws I couldn't live with (and that didn't want my daughter from a previous marriage to live with), so I ended it. Forward two year and a few casual relationships, just recently, I had an even more intense experience of love. It drove me almost out of my mind with it's intensity and beauty when it was on, literally taking my breath away once, just looking at her looking back at me with adoration and love so deep shining from her beautiful face. And when she ended it after a year, and took as a lover one of my coworkers within two weeks of ending it, I experienced grief like I never knew I could.

These experiences suggest that LOVE is just an emotion. It should not be the yardstick for measuring whether a woman is the right one to have in your life. It's really great to experience, but with the wrong woman, it is an invitation to personal disaster and ruin. Perhaps it is an invitation to personal disaster and ruin, no matter the woman. Romantic love can escalate to such intensity that you feel that WITHOUT THIS WOMAN I'd die. I'd give up anything for her...and you do. (I did.)

Alas poor Romeo! he is already dead; stabbed with a
white wench's black eye; shot through the ear with a
love-song; the very pin of his heart cleft with the
blind bow-boy's butt-shaft: and is he a man to
encounter Tybalt"

.....

"Blubbering and weeping, weeping and blubbering.
Stand up, stand up; stand, and you be a man:
For Juliet's sake, for her sake, rise and stand;"

....

"Hold thy desperate hand:
Art thou a man? thy form cries out thou art:
Thy tears are womanish; thy wild acts denote
The unreasonable fury of a beast:
Unseemly woman in a seeming man!"

So, here we are at sosuave.com, reading another Pook post, an Obituary for Romantic Love.

It does seem incontestable that the idea of Romantic Love ruins more people than just about any other poison. People divorce because it's disappeared, and want to feel that drug coursing again through their veins (or perhaps, feel they have experienced it for the first time with an affair lover). People marry when they feel it, and then come to discover who they are married to after the madness of love infatuation wears off.

What a crazy place to invest one's energy!!! Romantic Love puts charge for your happiness into someone else's control, and at the same time, blinds you to their real character. It is another word for desperation ("I love you" = "You must never leave me!"), loss of self, and madness. I hear that asphyxiation produces ecstatic feeling too...more so as one comes closer to the moment of death. Romantic Love seems to me now just that dangerous...it is the beginning of the death of an independent man.

Originally posted by englishman
One thing some one said is as a DJ you can set yourself up with a life that creates a nagging maybe I could have done better/grass is greener feeling going on and that can be a pain in the ass, and searching for that euphoric high of infatuation seems like a dumb ass reason to give up on a good thing, especially now ive seen the romantic giddy thing for what it is (infatuation and not love) maybe i need to go to infatuated anonymous or something ;-] any older dj,s got any thoughts on this one?

Click to expand...

I'm in the older, getting-better-at-being-a-DJ-everyday category, and I've been dealing with this issue, too.

Basically, I've adopted the attitude of having a fairly clear idea of what my "game over, pull away from the table and cash in your chips" woman is like; this is the woman whom I would marry.

I'm looking for her all the time. But I'm not going to beat myself up and live like a hermit while I'm at it. In the meantime, I'm dating a lot while I test, practice and fine tune the DJ philosophies, strategies and tactics that work best for me.

I'm making a point to have fun with it.

What I'm preparing myself for in the long run is to be in a great state of mind when The One does appear on the scene. When she does, I'll be in a romantic state that works on my terms.

In other words, as soon as I meet her, I'll "have game" -- I'll be able to instantly and unconsciously apply everything I've learned, DJ-wise.

I'm not not going to stress myself out worrying too much about the "grass is greener" thing. I'm enjoying the company of the ladies I'm with today, while keeping my eye out for The One, wherever and wherever she may appear.

To me, anything else is a waste of life.

Re: True Love, and Reality

Originally posted by GQ

What a crazy place to invest one's energy!!! Romantic Love puts charge for your happiness into someone else's control, and at the same time, blinds you to their real character.

Click to expand...

Well, you are always "in control" of everything that you do. On the lowest levels, YOU are still mostly in control. It is YOUR nervous system that is releasing chemicals in your body, it is YOUR senses that recieve the information, it is YOU who chooses how to react.

The only thing that the other person is doing is just sitting there.. YOU are who interprets their looks as seductive and passionate, YOU are who gets excited about that.

Isnt that one of the biggest Dj rules... "keep it about YOU."

Even when it seems like they have all of the control, in the end, it was YOU who gave it to them. We are responsible for our own fates, blaming "love" as a reason to give up our control isnt correct.

I think what Pook is seeing is a very valid cultural trend. We have been in the "romantic" era of culture for about 200 years... yeah, I know, supposedly that era ended around 1850, but its ideaologies still dominate our society.

The great thing is that most cultural periods only last between 100 and 200 years (ie the Classics, Renaissance, and NeoClassical periods all fit this mold very well) and our society has begun to seriously look down upon the "sappy" romantics.

I do not think it will be long before we see a genuine male revolution. This site, and others like it, are one such expression of the anger men feel at how our society has lost its sense of the noble male. We're tired of being blamed and hunted, demeaned, and criticized. This is a good sign.

What generally happens is society overcompensates for its previous era, so in rejecting transcendental, emotional romanticism, we will embrace scientific rationalism. This is far better for men.

Yes, romanticism does exist, I agree that tactful romance (which is really just a tactful way of showing a girl you care... not always a bad thing, if done CORECTLY and not like an AFC) does exist. But soon, "because this is how I feel" will no longer be a legitamite argument.

KEEP HOPE... since the last 200 years have been dominated by ideaologies expressed most consistently in left-wing parties, we should see a resurgence of right-wing philosophies. O, and look, Republicans control the US congress and presidency... italy / germany have had record number of conservative voters turn out... Now, I'm not saying I agree with all those parties say, but this is a sign...

Also, look at the computer. It is the most singularly rational object we've created. Yes, it seems to act stupid at times, but thats the fault of the human programmer, not the computer. As these pervade society they will likely create an impatience for irrational systems and beings. PRAISE GOD. I'm so sick of what romanticism has become (moral reletavism, post modernism, feminism, AFC-romanticism) that I can't wait. We're going to live through the height of this new era, and it'll be great.

All that to say, the signs are good, listen to Pook.
Also, he has the right opinion of Romeo and Juliet. The Renaissance would have veiwed "love" as foolish, opposed to reason (which at the time meant it was bad) and essentially committing suicide (Shakespeare is personifying that idiom).

Excellent post, thouroughly enjoyed it

-LG