4 ms·

Romance is not the basis of marriage or any relationship. Romance is affective. It can coax us into a relationship, but it isn’t the basis. That is a sign of im

Romance is not the basis of marriage or any relationship. Romance is affective. It can coax us into a relationship, but it isn’t the basis. That is a sign of immaturity. You also end up in the absurd situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love”.

MillenialMan 5y ago
I'm not talking about the thrill of a new relationship. I would define a feeling of old, secure warmth towards your partner of 50 years as romance, and your satisfaction in a 50-year-old relationship is primarily a function of whether you have that. That's the kind of thing that makes someone happy to take care of their wife for 5 or 10 years as she suffers through alzheimers. But in any case, romance is absolutely the basis of a relationship, otherwise you could marry your best friend. If you don't have it, you're likely to be dissatisfied. Of course it can wane - but that's also why you work to get it back, because if it goes away for good, your relationship is going to suck.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Many do marry their best friends, or consider their spouse their best friend.
  - MillenialMan 5y ago
    I knew someone would post this response. I mean if romance wasn't an issue, you could be a straight male and marry your male best friend.
d3nj4l 5y ago
the absurd situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love”. Why is it absurd?
- brigandish 5y ago
  Probably because what most people call "love" is really just the first stage of it, and if it has not been replaced by something deeper (i.e. respect) by the time the initial love fades, then it wasn't love but infatuation - or, more precisely passion was not nurtured carefully enough to become respect, and so it was just an infatuation. In short, it would be absurd to mix up infatuation with love.
  - d3nj4l 5y ago
    If it was - as you say - just infatuation, then wouldn't it be better to seek a divorce? Why does that become absurd?
    - brigandish 5y ago
      This: > [a] situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love” is not: [a] situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer infatuated One might well call the second situation absurd too, as, if you knew it was absurd then you shouldn't have wed, but it's still a different absurdity.
    - silisili 5y ago
      Sometimes. The entire problem is that the infatuation stage just doesn't last that long, which of course makes one ask...why did you get married too soon? The bigger problem as I've seen over the years with people is that they confuse the two with -other- people. A person married for 5 years becomes infatuated with someone else, which of course means they love them and not their spouse anymore. In their eyes, at least. And the problem with that thinking should be immediately apparent. It's a complicated subject and I'm not an expert by any means, just sharing my observations.
      - loopz 5y ago
        Was it really love, if you become willing to hurt your spouse. Is being ruled by desire big enough for you?
  - slothtrop 5y ago
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Because that's reacting in surprise to an expected inevitable thing (infatuation fading), and presumably afterwards trying again with a different partner with an unrealistic expectation that in those relationships they might permanently stay "in love" i.e. the infatuated feeling of falling in love, which is quite distinct from long term relationships that we call "love" but IMHO don't apply the label of "fallen in love" anymore. In this case, if reality doesn't meet expectations, then divorcing just to try the same thing again to get the same result is absurd insanity, instead the expectations should be adjusted.
a2tech 5y ago
I think if I’m interpreting your comment correctly you are correct. Physical attraction is what you mean instead of romance. Romance by itself is simply a series of steps you use to express your continuing interest in a partner or possible partner. Small gifts, kind words, charming activities. Those are romance, and I think are critical to Maintaining a solid relationship (all couples may find different things romantic—-some people may want sunset sails on the harbor, some people might want kebabs from round the corner).
- ratww 5y ago
  Yeah, I also think GP is right, but used the wrong word. He probably means: infatuation, limerence, obsession, thrill, animal magnetism, etc. Lots of people never who never really "knew" successful long-term relationships only associate love with those, and that's indeed somewhat immature.

MillenialMan 5y ago

I'm not talking about the thrill of a new relationship. I would define a feeling of old, secure warmth towards your partner of 50 years as romance, and your satisfaction in a 50-year-old relationship is primarily a function of whether you have that. That's the kind of thing that makes someone happy to take care of their wife for 5 or 10 years as she suffers through alzheimers. But in any case, romance is absolutely the basis of a relationship, otherwise you could marry your best friend. If you don't have it, you're likely to be dissatisfied. Of course it can wane - but that's also why you work to get it back, because if it goes away for good, your relationship is going to suck.

saagarjha 5y ago
Many do marry their best friends, or consider their spouse their best friend.
- MillenialMan 5y ago
  I knew someone would post this response. I mean if romance wasn't an issue, you could be a straight male and marry your male best friend.

d3nj4l 5y ago

the absurd situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love”. Why is it absurd?

brigandish 5y ago
Probably because what most people call "love" is really just the first stage of it, and if it has not been replaced by something deeper (i.e. respect) by the time the initial love fades, then it wasn't love but infatuation - or, more precisely passion was not nurtured carefully enough to become respect, and so it was just an infatuation. In short, it would be absurd to mix up infatuation with love.
- d3nj4l 5y ago
  If it was - as you say - just infatuation, then wouldn't it be better to seek a divorce? Why does that become absurd?
  - brigandish 5y ago
    This: > [a] situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love” is not: [a] situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer infatuated One might well call the second situation absurd too, as, if you knew it was absurd then you shouldn't have wed, but it's still a different absurdity.
  - silisili 5y ago
    Sometimes. The entire problem is that the infatuation stage just doesn't last that long, which of course makes one ask...why did you get married too soon? The bigger problem as I've seen over the years with people is that they confuse the two with -other- people. A person married for 5 years becomes infatuated with someone else, which of course means they love them and not their spouse anymore. In their eyes, at least. And the problem with that thinking should be immediately apparent. It's a complicated subject and I'm not an expert by any means, just sharing my observations.
    - loopz 5y ago
      Was it really love, if you become willing to hurt your spouse. Is being ruled by desire big enough for you?
- slothtrop 5y ago
PeterisP 5y ago
Because that's reacting in surprise to an expected inevitable thing (infatuation fading), and presumably afterwards trying again with a different partner with an unrealistic expectation that in those relationships they might permanently stay "in love" i.e. the infatuated feeling of falling in love, which is quite distinct from long term relationships that we call "love" but IMHO don't apply the label of "fallen in love" anymore. In this case, if reality doesn't meet expectations, then divorcing just to try the same thing again to get the same result is absurd insanity, instead the expectations should be adjusted.

a2tech 5y ago

I think if I’m interpreting your comment correctly you are correct. Physical attraction is what you mean instead of romance. Romance by itself is simply a series of steps you use to express your continuing interest in a partner or possible partner. Small gifts, kind words, charming activities. Those are romance, and I think are critical to Maintaining a solid relationship (all couples may find different things romantic—-some people may want sunset sails on the harbor, some people might want kebabs from round the corner).

ratww 5y ago
Yeah, I also think GP is right, but used the wrong word. He probably means: infatuation, limerence, obsession, thrill, animal magnetism, etc. Lots of people never who never really "knew" successful long-term relationships only associate love with those, and that's indeed somewhat immature.