The Paradox of 'Romantic Love'

There is a deep-seated irony, in our culture's concept of 'Romantic-Love'.

The irony is that, by-and-large, those who are enthralled with, 'Romantic-Love', are only enthralled with the Romantic-Love between exceptional individuals: None of these Romance connoisseurs gives a damn about love between "Ugly" people. In fact, 'Romantic-Love'---between ugly people---is so degraded, that mocking it is just about as popular as is worshipping "Worthwhile" people; E.G. "Celebrities".
Everybody's someone else's ******.

Children are raised with many deplorable false-idols, when it comes to the concept of "Love". One that is recognizable-enough may be, "Beauty and the Beast", the Disney version. It's only one example, but the perversion therein applies to all-but-all other Romantic-Love mediums: "Ideally, a woman should be absolutely worthless - completely without any functional qualities. And, even though she is worthless, he will still need her...because she is, intrinsically, morally-superior to him; and, no matter her lack of value, he'll always have a need for her, if only because he is so intrinsically inadequate as a person." No mention, of course, of the social-constraints set in place to keep men not simply pussy-deprived, but pussy-worshipping.
The paradox of 'Romantic-Love' is well-presented in Disney's version of, "Beauty and the Beast"

A beautiful girl (because, if she were ugly, we wouldn't give a ****) is absolutely disgusted with the idea of living out her life as the rest of the 'lowly villagers' do.

"Little town It's a quiet village Every day Like the one before Little town Full of little people...."

"Little people", eh? What an arrogant cunt!

"Oh, isn't this amazing? It's my favorite part because you'll see Here's where she meets Prince Charming But she won't discover that it's him 'til chapter three..."

So it's "Prince Charming" that she's after, is it? Someone to provide her with an escape from all the "Little people"? This ***** sits around all day, reading girl-porn about having some "Prince Charming" (objectification of a male-provider) come and 'rescue' her from the people who she is better than? What a piece of ****, she is! Well, at least now you know where many American girls might have learned that EXACT mentality!
Prince Charming? Provider? Well, here he is: Gaston - the strongest; the most handsome... Only one problem: He knows it.

You see, our culture instills in its women a fragile, childish ego; and that ego needs to believe that it is the end-all. And a groveling, pussy-worshipping shell-of-a-man fits our women's need for emotional dominance far-better than does a 'conceited' (self-assured) man. So when he says, "Right from the moment when I met her, saw her, I said she's gorgeous and I fell; here in town there's only she who is beautiful as me so I'm making plans to woo and marry Belle...", it's no good. Sure - he's worshipping her; but he also worships himself. No good. Only worship pussy, Gaston. As we know, a man should never speak well of himself - he should just skate around disdaining "Little people" and reading books about being rescued from his life. And, all the while, the townspeople will rave, "It's no wonder his name means beauty". Would we then respect him? And, so, it's much better when those townspeople worship only Belle:"Now it's no wonder that her name means 'beauty' Her looks have got no parallel..."; because, unlike a culture where men are self-assured, a culture of pussy-worship keeps women expecting, and men earning (AKA: Pussy-worship is "Good for the Economy").
So why does any person's heart go out to the hopes of Belle - a pretentious, self-centered, elitist?

Well, because the reader/viewer, too, is a (would-be) elitist piece of ****. They, too, disdain the little people; and want to be rescued; *and just might know that they already have someone willing to rescue them. But he's not enough - he's a 'Worthless Lover'.
A popular staple in most Romantic-Love dynamics is the 'Worthless Lover' -

the wishful, ultimately dumped would-be lover who gives credibility to the 'Heroin'. The Worthless Lover is a necessary dynamic, or else the Heroin seems less like a Heroin, and more like a "Talent-less, Skill-less, helpless whore, who must settle for whatever financial/social security-blanket she is offered". And we can't sell that! She must be 'Longed-For'. So the 'Worthless Lover' tries to earn her heart pussy, but he is, ultimately, inadequate. Then Prince Charming rides up on his 'White Stallion' (AKA his expensive car), pretends to need her as more than a three-holed social-ornament...and buys her pussy, by promising her that she'll never need to be anything more than the frivolous, self-concerned piece of **** that she was raised to be.
And they live, happily, ever-after...

because, apparently, chronic physical-injuries (which men suffer far-more than do women) don't exist; and neither do debilitating emotional-disorders (which women "Develop" far-more than do men).

* Nope - no 50-plus percent divorce-rates.
* No false accusations of abuse.
* No real abuse. Certainly not.

No - his complete lack of self-respect never comes back to ruin either of them. And No - her complete lack of social-skills, over-ruled by her socially administered, insatiable drive for self-satisfaction never really comes into play...they just, "Live Happily Ever After".

 

Army needs to preface every one of his posts with the statement "I hate humans".

In a few twisted ways, I would have to agree that the notion of romantic love is overrated.

Far and away the most important factor in ANY relationship is committment. There will be times in every marriage (or other pop culture relationship) that neither partner feels love for the other. That does not automatically mean the relationship is over. It just means at the moment the feeling of love isn't there.

Feelings are hormones or enzymes or electrical signals to the brain. A feeling represents some chemical or electrical reaction in the body and does not necessarily reflect reality. Feelings can change, rapidly, at any time. The circumstances of your life rarely change as quickly or as often as feelings.
Feelings are transient. Circumstances are real. Your brain can figure out the difference if you let it.

I don't pay much attention to feelings anymore. One morning I wake up and want to off myself and the next morning I think I can do anything. The circumstances of my life haven't changed a whit. Only the feelings change.

When your feelings are unpleasant, ask yourself
1. Do these feelings come and go?
2. Is there is any real reason in my life for the feeling?

If the answer to 1.) is yes and 2.) is no then screw the feeling. Think your way through the situation and pay no attention to the feeling.

If you want to stay in a relationship for a long time (maybe life) pay less attentions to transient feelings (such as romantic love) and pay more attention to your thoughts. Commit yourselves to each other (for better or worse) and the committment will take you through all sorts of crappy feelings.

And don't let Army's post make you too depressed. I think maybe a little more fiber in his diet would straighten him out.

 

I like romantic love. Who gives a fig about good looks and all that paraphinalia and baggage? Look into the soul.


Best movie ever - Princess Bride

 

I would have thought Shrek would support your case better. Maybe it's been too long since I've seen Princess Bride.

 

Consider Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
She fell in love with none of the seven. Instantly "fell in love" with prince who had social position, money, good looks.
"Love" is a temporary hormonal condition by which nature assures continuation of the species. After the temporary hormonal condition wears off, men would rather spend most of their time with other men, returning only for sex. This of course, drives women crazy...inasmuch as it challenges their security and the woman's concept of what "love" is.
This is an opinion based on years of observation of the human condition.

 

oooh - yes, Shrek is good too

 

Maybe you're confusing love and lust?

 

Let me chime in for a moment with my 2 cents;

Love is a greatly debated subject, what is it, why is it, is it real. But truth is people fail to realize that "Love" is a lump generalization of a HORDE of multiple unamed (in english anyhow) emotions and feelings. Other languages, Greek for example, maintain multiple words that describe various aspects of what we refer to as "love" ((Greek words for love.)) The problem with the English "Romantic Love" is that our concept of Love itself is very subjective and without concise definition, and thus while the there is an attempt to define Romantic Love it fails to do so adequately due to the very nature of the word cognition to concept on the subjective plate of the mind. It's not a matter of whether or not Romantic Love is paradoxical in nature, but whether your perception of Romantic Love is in conflict with the perceived nature of human bonding.

We as humans ((in sciences eyes, before I spark some religious flak cannons in my direction; please keep this wash out of this thread in response to my post, as it is not wanted nor welcomed and will not be responded to by me)) are electro-chemical in nature as per our emotional feelings towards others, hormones and our genetic predisposition as well as environmental shapings during childhood all play a part in this I'm sure. Overcoming attractants and dissuasion due to physical appearance is a difficult task and one I don't see a purpose in since this is an attempt to go against our personal wants and feelings, however just because of this does not make the resultant "love" any less "romantic" or deeper so, less "love" itself if a shallow person falls in love with somone they are attracted to. Love itself is bred from a combination of physical attraction and emotional attraction, neither of which can stand alone and be "romantic love." I'm sure will attempt to argue this, however let me intercept this with a short anecdotal story of my own.

An ex of mine, when I first met her, wasn't really that physically attractive to me. She just was rather plain in my eyes. However after hanging out with her for a few months in a strictly platonic sense, I came to really like the person she was. While this may seem that all it is requiring for this budding love of mine for her was the emotional aspect, this is where it comes proof that they're inseparable. When I'd see her I'd not see the plain face I saw months before, I'd see someone who struck a chord in me, someone who was attractive, arousing, and I'd even say beautiful. Was it that she was actually more physically attractive? No....she looked the same, I have pictures of the day I first met her, and she looked as good then as she did at this point. This made me think long and hard about what physical attraction really was, I realized at that point that it is by NO means a purely "physical" thing as the name suggests, but it does still require a physical aspect and cannot be as it would appear by this, purely emotional either. Had she been not simply "not attractive" to me but rather ugly, unattractive, or whatever you'd call it, no amount of emotion could really push me any closer to wanting her. There's certain bits in stone in our minds I'm sure that delegate what we can find attractive and what emotional attraction may effect on our perceived physical attraction to the said person. So basically they're one in the same and inseperable. The inverse is true also, A physically attractive person who you just met turns out to be a total *****, and it'd easily come to bear that you would have no physical attraction to them and even looking at them, find them far from beautiful, I've experienced this. Another example of the linkage is someone who is immensely physically attractive skewing the emotional perception of the person, emotional beauty if you will, such as the cases where the girl is beautiful but a total jack ass, and yet the guy would say when asked, that she's a wonderful girl; all while she treats him shabbily. Love is much to complex to try and define with even just a handful of designations, adjectives, or even other words, it's a concept that novels have been written about, each author without err, tends to describe slightly different than the last.

To me, I define love succinctly and without veering from my definition. If I love someone or something, it simply states that I want for them to be happy. Romance or otherwise may come into play but I consider this completely separate from "love" itself as many people are romantically involved with another, even exhibiting most the traits typically attributed to "romantic" love, while failing to consider the definition I use myself. The emotional and physical attraction is completely separate from love in my opinion, it isn't a necessity for love itself, it is simply one ingredient that can help spark romance. If both people loved each other (wanted nothing less than the happiness of the other, and willing to do what it takes to make it so (which does not exclude not being with the person if they're not happy)) and were both physically and emotionally attracted to each other, there is no reason it couldn't work out as an endgame "romantic love" the problem is, people often assume this exists where it doesn't, usually at the fault of the person who is confusing love with want which in turn is selfish in exhibition and doesn't usually account for the other's happiness / needs / wants. That's a recipe for eventual failure.

it's late and I need coffee, hope this makes sense and isn't too much of a 0430 post to be understandable..


rf

 

no confusion.

Read my post carefully. True romantic love is a myth. Consider the divorce rate(now 50%) and the number of couples you know that truly are happily married.
What I will concede however, is that romantic love is as real as God, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny.

 

Armchair, have you ever read Bret Easton Ellis' The Rules of Attraction? If not, go pick up a copy.