Romance
ro·mance (r-mns, rmns) n.
a. A love affair.
b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something: a childhood romance with the sea.
It has been my lifelong understanding that romance is more often than not defined by a and c. As for b, the definition alone begins with the word “ardent”, meaning “burning, fiery”. Can there ever be an emotional attachment or involvement between two people that burns with fire for 35 years?
I’m struggling to understand why romance has to fade significantly (I won’t say die) after you’ve known a person for, say, more than a couple of years. It seems to be a natural and inevitable process, even though human beings (and maybe more so the women) crave for romance. So if we crave for romance, yet it’s not happening, who’s fault is it?
I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that women have been trying to teach men the concept of everlasting romance for at least the past century, but only to fall on deaf ears? (I have to admit that sounds a tad pathetic on the male part.) As much as you try to tell them, it never seems to register. They seem to get the idea after arguments, but it only lasts for a couple of days. It almost seems that the only time you can get some romance back for more than a couple of days is when the male species is substantially threatened – by a breakup/divorce/affair with another man. So is romance then really just a word to describe the emotions that a couple feels when the man “chases after” the woman?
ro·mance (r-mns, rmns) n.
a. A love affair.
b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something: a childhood romance with the sea.
It has been my lifelong understanding that romance is more often than not defined by a and c. As for b, the definition alone begins with the word “ardent”, meaning “burning, fiery”. Can there ever be an emotional attachment or involvement between two people that burns with fire for 35 years?
I’m struggling to understand why romance has to fade significantly (I won’t say die) after you’ve known a person for, say, more than a couple of years. It seems to be a natural and inevitable process, even though human beings (and maybe more so the women) crave for romance. So if we crave for romance, yet it’s not happening, who’s fault is it?
I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that women have been trying to teach men the concept of everlasting romance for at least the past century, but only to fall on deaf ears? (I have to admit that sounds a tad pathetic on the male part.) As much as you try to tell them, it never seems to register. They seem to get the idea after arguments, but it only lasts for a couple of days. It almost seems that the only time you can get some romance back for more than a couple of days is when the male species is substantially threatened – by a breakup/divorce/affair with another man. So is romance then really just a word to describe the emotions that a couple feels when the man “chases after” the woman?
