Romance vs. Raunch

[bashfull]

Still short, fat, ugly and horny...sigh. So whatcha been up to?

 

[cati]

I think I just might go out and buy a "walker" just in case...winkin'

 

[bashfull]

I think I just might go out and buy a "walker" just in case...winkin'

**putting back in false teeth*** Hehe..darlin'.

 

[bashfull]

Yanno, I think I am going to give up on the whole romance vs. raunch thing. Too often, and lately, I feel that the "romantic gentleman" merely begets friends...not lovers. The "it's not you...let's be friends". So Fuck IT. Frankly, I'm tired of being the nice guy.

 

[cati]

Romance and raunch both have their place.

 

[bashfull]

Romance and raunch both have their place.

Welcome, darlin'. Good to see you here.

 

[cati]

I merely followed your manly scent and found myself here, but I don't expect to hang around for very long...hit and run if you will.

 

[cati]

We all know what it means to be romantic, but what does it mean to be raunchy in your neck of the woods? If you mean it to be "nasty" in a sexual way, then yes by all means bring it on. Personally, for me they are both elements of a man's character and a woman's too if you let her *winkin'. Again the situation and mood that you find yourself in would dictate which of the two sides of your character you would express "naturally". Expecting your girl to be ladylike in public but "your" slut in the bedroom is a perfect example of what I mean. Throw in a couple of roses and voila!

 

[pink]

You truly have to have both in every relationship, IMO. The most loving relationship needs raunch to keep it spicey and the rauchiest of relationships can be taken that extra step further when love is involved and trust is there. The effort to pleasure your partner is of the utmost importance, even above your own. The dirtiest of pleasure are tried, things you wouldn't even speak of, you both push each other to the limit and further yet. You won't find that in a fuck buddy.

 

[gypziedoll]

You truly have to have both in every relationship, IMO. The most loving relationship needs raunch to keep it spicey and the rauchiest of relationships can be taken that extra step further when love is involved and trust is there. The effort to pleasure your partner is of the utmost importance, even above your own. The dirtiest of pleasure are tried, things you wouldn't even speak of, you both push each other to the limit and further yet. You won't find that in a fuck buddy.

I completely agree with you Pink, 1000%.....

 

[saw_man1]

It can be said that romance is public and raunch is its private reward.

 

[bashfull]

We all know what it means to be romantic, but what does it mean to be raunchy in your neck of the woods? If you mean it to be "nasty" in a sexual way, then yes by all means bring it on. Personally, for me they are both elements of a man's character and a woman's too if you let her *winkin'. Again the situation and mood that you find yourself in would dictate which of the two sides of your character you would express "naturally". Expecting your girl to be ladylike in public but "your" slut in the bedroom is a perfect example of what I mean. Throw in a couple of roses and voila!

Howdy, darlin'. You are so correct. Quoting a post from early in this thread: "Example: Attend a black tie affair. I am the guest speaker and wearing a tuxedo. My lady is gorgeous in a black gown that that leaves the imagination naked but the skin clothed. There is a long slit running up her lucious leg. Just a few minutes before I must stand and speak, she leans over and whispers "I am not wearing underwear". She then continues her conversation with the other guests. Granted, this is more of an example of the "a lady in public and a whore in the bedroom" scenario, but is what I long for in life."

Pink~ I agree with you, hon. Not that there is anything with a pure, raw lust at times.

Saw~Very eloquently put. Thank you.

 

[bashfull]

Just to reopen the reason for the thread...

...a posting from the beginning discussions here...


I would argue that men can be romantic, but women have killed romance. And what actions are considered romantic? I believe in treating all ladies as ladies. Is that romantic? Or is that manners? For a rare few, I have progressed beyond the mere flirting and became truly interested and sought more than flirting. Is that romance or bonding? Is incorporating sex into the conversations romance or merely libido?

I like to stand at the top of a mountain and watch a sunset with my arms wrapped around a woman and a slight breeze dancing in our hair. Is that romance or weakness?

I like to place the person I am romantic with upon a pedastal so that she may know she is special. Is that romance or insincerity?

The point is that romance is often treated by women as being insincere. Or it is seen as a weakness to be exploited. If what we believe to be romance is not so, then educate us as to what is.

 

[cyikac1986]

...a posting from the beginning discussions here...


I would argue that men can be romantic, but women have killed romance. And what actions are considered romantic? I believe in treating all ladies as ladies. Is that romantic? Or is that manners? For a rare few, I have progressed beyond the mere flirting and became truly interested and sought more than flirting. Is that romance or bonding? Is incorporating sex into the conversations romance or merely libido?

I like to stand at the top of a mountain and watch a sunset with my arms wrapped around a woman and a slight breeze dancing in our hair. Is that romance or weakness?

I like to place the person I am romantic with upon a pedastal so that she may know she is special. Is that romance or insincerity?

The point is that romance is often treated by women as being insincere. Or it is seen as a weakness to be exploited. If what we believe to be romance is not so, then educate us as to what is.

I don't think we can blame either sex for the death of romance. Men have been taught that romantic gestures are silly and not manly while women are taught to stand up for yourself, that you need no man to be complete. We often question a man who may try to show a romantic gesture...because there are some who will use the guise of romance for more nefarious reasons. It is the insecurites that we each carry that makes us fear romance.

I think you are on the right track as to what romance is...the gestures, the glances, the touches...they are all a part of romance, but not a complete list. Romance cannot be one sided...both parties must give a little of themselves and take a little of their partner. It's the ability to allow someone to take a small part of you that is the true romantic gesture...to make yourself vulnerable to that person...to leave open your soul. It is the building of a trust that allows a true romantic to be accepted for what he or she is or has to offer.

I am a case in point...I have said to a few people that I need no man to validate me. I said this because I chose not to live my life worrying about whether a member of the opposite sex, no matter how attracted I was to him, could make me feel worth. It is a protection mechanism developed over the years. Does this mean I would turn down a man who would offer me romance. No, but I would have to be doubly sure of his intentions. I would need to know the man first, not the surface man that is reserved for the public, but the inner man that is reserved for himself. I would need to understand that man before I could accept his romantic gestures for what they are.

Yes, there are women out there who would exploit a man, who would seemingly be receptive to their romantic gestures, only to leave their empty shells and move on to the next one. And while no woman should judge a man based on her experiences with other men, no man should do the same with a woman. Yet, we do.

 

[cati]

I would argue that men can be romantic, but women have killed romance. And what actions are considered romantic? I believe in treating all ladies as ladies. Is that romantic? Or is that manners? For a rare few, I have progressed beyond the mere flirting and became truly interested and sought more than flirting. Is that romance or bonding? Is incorporating sex into the conversations romance or merely libido?

Ok here goes... First of all I don't believe for one minute that "women" have killed romance. Personally I feel that most women appreciate a man's romantic gestures and what I've concluded from your posts Bash is that in the past one or two women (maybe more) have not appreciated your romantic overtures and needless to say you have become disgruntled about the whole thing. If being romantic is who you are then why on earth would you want to change this part of yourself?
My advice to you is be a little more choosy about which women you date "deserve" to be romanced. Treating ladies (women in general) as ladies is just plain good manners. Whether the woman in question wants to behave like a lady is her choice. As to your second question about "romance or bonding" I would say that a natural progression beyond mere flirting is bonding, hopefully for both parties.
As to your third question "talking sex" during conversation, I wouldn't classify that as romantic...not in any way shape or form...not for me anyway. I would think the guy "obviously" wants to get into my pants. Shoot think about it (fucking her)...maybe even plan on it, but don't talk about it...sex I mean...chuckles unless you're both drunk...in that case I for one would be the one groping for what lies behind zipper number one!
Romance is yes holding hands, a quick kiss when appropriate, watching the sunset, walking in the rain with or without umbrellas, holding a newspaper over your date's head to keep her hair dry...umm tieing me...oops her naked to a tree and flogging me...err her. A card for no reason except to let her know you are thinking of her, special occasion cards, a bunch of market style flowers (not roses) when you go to her place for dinner, a bunch of wildflowers you've picked when out walking.
The romantic gesture doesn't have to be "big", just something you know she would like, showing that you have taken note of her interests, likes and dislikes... and that you remember the little things above all.
Seriously, there is nothing worse than over-kill and nothing makes a woman feel more claustrophobic than dating a man who gives too much too soon, and that of course works both ways. Then again some people just have generous hearts...sigh. Being romantic is showing the other person that it's not all about you...but the other person as well. It's about being warm and tender.
Bash, you are to me an enigma.... I am curious about who you really are and what you are really like behind this facade you have created for yourself in Lit.
Too dramatic for ya?....ah well...like you, I can be very straightforward...well in a nice way of course *smiles

 

[bashfull]

I don't think we can blame either sex for the death of romance. Men have been taught that romantic gestures are silly and not manly while women are taught to stand up for yourself, that you need no man to be complete. We often question a man who may try to show a romantic gesture...because there are some who will use the guise of romance for more nefarious reasons. It is the insecurites that we each carry that makes us fear romance.

I think you are on the right track as to what romance is...the gestures, the glances, the touches...they are all a part of romance, but not a complete list. Romance cannot be one sided...both parties must give a little of themselves and take a little of their partner. It's the ability to allow someone to take a small part of you that is the true romantic gesture...to make yourself vulnerable to that person...to leave open your soul. It is the building of a trust that allows a true romantic to be accepted for what he or she is or has to offer.

I am a case in point...I have said to a few people that I need no man to validate me. I said this because I chose not to live my life worrying about whether a member of the opposite sex, no matter how attracted I was to him, could make me feel worth. It is a protection mechanism developed over the years. Does this mean I would turn down a man who would offer me romance. No, but I would have to be doubly sure of his intentions. I would need to know the man first, not the surface man that is reserved for the public, but the inner man that is reserved for himself. I would need to understand that man before I could accept his romantic gestures for what they are.

Yes, there are women out there who would exploit a man, who would seemingly be receptive to their romantic gestures, only to leave their empty shells and move on to the next one. And while no woman should judge a man based on her experiences with other men, no man should do the same with a woman. Yet, we do.

whether exploit, or simply enjoyment of the moment, what is wrong with enjoying the moment and the person you are with, hon? How many men have ever placedd you on the pedastal and made you feel like the only woman in the world?

 

[bashfull]

I would argue that men can be romantic, but women have killed romance. And what actions are considered romantic? I believe in treating all ladies as ladies. Is that romantic? Or is that manners? For a rare few, I have progressed beyond the mere flirting and became truly interested and sought more than flirting. Is that romance or bonding? Is incorporating sex into the conversations romance or merely libido?

Ok here goes... First of all I don't believe for one minute that "women" have killed romance. Personally I feel that most women appreciate a man's romantic gestures and what I've concluded from your posts Bash is that in the past one or two women (maybe more) have not appreciated your romantic overtures and needless to say you have become disgruntled about the whole thing. If being romantic is who you are then why on earth would you want to change this part of yourself?
My advice to you is be a little more choosy about which women you date "deserve" to be romanced. Treating ladies (women in general) as ladies is just plain good manners. Whether the woman in question wants to behave like a lady is her choice. As to your second question about "romance or bonding" I would say that a natural progression beyond mere flirting is bonding, hopefully for both parties.
As to your third question "talking sex" during conversation, I wouldn't classify that as romantic...not in any way shape or form...not for me anyway. I would think the guy "obviously" wants to get into my pants. Shoot think about it (fucking her)...maybe even plan on it, but don't talk about it...sex I mean...chuckles unless you're both drunk...in that case I for one would be the one groping for what lies behind zipper number one!
Romance is yes holding hands, a quick kiss when appropriate, watching the sunset, walking in the rain with or without umbrellas, holding a newspaper over your date's head to keep her hair dry...umm tieing me...oops her naked to a tree and flogging me...err her. A card for no reason except to let her know you are thinking of her, special occasion cards, a bunch of market style flowers (not roses) when you go to her place for dinner, a bunch of wildflowers you've picked when out walking.
The romantic gesture doesn't have to be "big", just something you know she would like, showing that you have taken note of her interests, likes and dislikes... and that you remember the little things above all.
Seriously, there is nothing worse than over-kill and nothing makes a woman feel more claustrophobic than dating a man who gives too much too soon, and that of course works both ways. Then again some people just have generous hearts...sigh. Being romantic is showing the other person that it's not all about you...but the other person as well. It's about being warm and tender.
Bash, you are to me an enigma.... I am curious about who you really are and what you are really like behind this facade you have created for yourself in Lit.
Too dramatic for ya?....ah well...like you, I can be very straightforward...well in a nice way of course *smiles

Nope...Women have killed romance and chivalry, darlin'. You know how many times men have heard "you're a nice guy"?

And what facade have I created, hon? I am who I am...tho I may be complicated. I think I'm a simple person...mind and body.

 

[cyikac1986]

whether exploit, or simply enjoyment of the moment, what is wrong with enjoying the moment and the person you are with, hon? How many men have ever placedd you on the pedastal and made you feel like the only woman in the world?

Admittingly, very few as I would not allow them too. Does that mean I have killed romance and chilvary as you implied women have done..no it means i do not bare my soul to just anyone. And what is wrong with being a nice guy...maybe it's the nice guys who are going after the wrong women....if you chose someone based on looks only then you deserve the shallow, vapid woman you get. But if you chose a woman based on her zest for life, her compassion for others, her ability to make you feel you are the only man in the world...then you have found the woman who will love you no matter what.

As to enjoying the moment and the person, I have done that...but don't consider it romance, no matter if the gestures from the other person might be interpreted as being romantic...because I don't have that piece of him that tells me who he is. If he can open up to me, noe that is a truly romantic gesture.

Something tells me you have the heart of a romantic but you have the head of a cynic...someone who has been burned repeatedly and doesn't want to be again and yet cannot help but be drawn to the flame like a moth.

 

[cati]

And what facade have I created, hon? I am who I am...tho I may be complicated. I think I'm a simple person...mind and body.

Granted I really don't know you at all, except through the few posts that I have read thus far. I used the word "facade" rather loosely, perhaps that was the wrong term to use and so I will apologize.
At any rate I stand by what I have said in my previous post....that women have not killed romance. You claim otherwise...so be it. I will let the matter rest.

You know how many times men have heard "you're a nice guy"?

Not sure what that has to do with romance or chivalry. All it says is that "they" are not interested in having a more serious relationship. A lame excuse for sure, but men don't hold the monopoly on having it said to them.....sheesh!

.........now where's that damned pedestal?...

 

[pleasing2you]

Well said

I have been told that I am a very romantic man, in and out of the bedroom. However, there is a time for very sexy play. When you are with a woman, you know when the time is right to go for it. Most women I think like romance, but, at the same time gives the signals when to get down and dirty.

 

[bashfull]

Admittingly, very few as I would not allow them too. Does that mean I have killed romance and chilvary as you implied women have done..no it means i do not bare my soul to just anyone. And what is wrong with being a nice guy...maybe it's the nice guys who are going after the wrong women....if you chose someone based on looks only then you deserve the shallow, vapid woman you get. But if you chose a woman based on her zest for life, her compassion for others, her ability to make you feel you are the only man in the world...then you have found the woman who will love you no matter what.

As to enjoying the moment and the person, I have done that...but don't consider it romance, no matter if the gestures from the other person might be interpreted as being romantic...because I don't have that piece of him that tells me who he is. If he can open up to me, noe that is a truly romantic gesture.

Something tells me you have the heart of a romantic but you have the head of a cynic...someone who has been burned repeatedly and doesn't want to be again and yet cannot help but be drawn to the flame like a moth.

Hmmm...allowing yourself to be adored and romanced doesn't mean you have to "open up" to the giver, darlin'. I have seen too many times, however, where the gestures are spurned.

As for your last paragraph...I plead the fifth!

 

[bashfull]

And what facade have I created, hon? I am who I am...tho I may be complicated. I think I'm a simple person...mind and body.

Granted I really don't know you at all, except through the few posts that I have read thus far. I used the word "facade" rather loosely, perhaps that was the wrong term to use and so I will apologize.
At any rate I stand by what I have said in my previous post....that women have not killed romance. You claim otherwise...so be it. I will let the matter rest.

You know how many times men have heard "you're a nice guy"?

Not sure what that has to do with romance or chivalry. All it says is that "they" are not interested in having a more serious relationship. A lame excuse for sure, but men don't hold the monopoly on having it said to them.....sheesh!

.........now where's that damned pedestal?...

**grabbing pedestal** You are correct, hon, in that men do not have the monopoly on the "nice guy". Perhaps women haven't killed romance...and I do believe there are those out there who seek it and cherish it. However, I also think that perhaps passion can burn too bright? The flame that one is drawn to, but will be burned?

 

[cyikac1986]

Hmmm...allowing yourself to be adored and romanced doesn't mean you have to "open up" to the giver, darlin'. I have seen too many times, however, where the gestures are spurned.

As for your last paragraph...I plead the fifth!

Never said I didn't allow myself to be adored or romanced..it's just that I have learned to be a bit cautious. There are a very select few out there that I would even allow such gestures because I know them to be good men- I judge by character not by outward appearances, which is an unfortunate common occurence in our society. How many really take the time to learn the true person instead of accepting the pretty package.
And I think being cautious is not the same as spurning a romantic gesture.

As to you pleading the fifth, that is your perogagtive......

 

[bashfull]

Never said I didn't allow myself to be adored or romanced..it's just that I have learned to be a bit cautious. There are a very select few out there that I would even allow such gestures because I know them to be good men- I judge by character not by outward appearances, which is an unfortunate common occurence in our society. How many really take the time to learn the true person instead of accepting the pretty package.
And I think being cautious is not the same as spurning a romantic gesture.

As to you pleading the fifth, that is your perogagtive......

**beating fists on chest!!**** Me invincible!

 

[cyikac1986]

The life of man is the true romance, which when it is valiantly conduced, will yield the imagination a higher joy than any fiction.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)




So if a man says that romance is dead...it is because he has allowed to let it die. True romance is within the soul and not a tangible object that someone else can take from you, only share.

Of course if lust is the true objective......