ThinkBlog

philosophy :: psychology :: theology :: technology

18 November 2005

Does Romance Mean Perfect Teeth, Hair, and Emotional Balance?

05:17:11 :: [psychology, literature] :: 1002 words

That’s a long query of a title directed at the heart of a fallacy any well-read person is exposed to over and over in fiction (or, for that matter, on-screen).

Whereas* in the popular media we are taught that the man must be dapper and witty, subtle yet charming—and that women must be seductive but innocent, beautiful and passionate; and whereas both partners are supposed to have neatly-packaged pellets of emotional distress, easily resolvable between the penultimate commercial break and the end credits: I submit to you that real people run deep, have concerns and fears, sometimes smell less than petunia-esque, get indigestion, and are wont to commit multitudinous faux pas.

I submit to you that sharing fears and doubts, along with laughter and fun, is more romantic than anything you read in the books—at least the ones that are meant to be romantic. Being caught up in feelings of romance—and they are feelings, mind you, much less to do with rational choice than with baser magnetism—is like watching a fireworks display that you’re both setting off together.

Maybe you giggle with nervous attention as he lights an M-80 and holds it in his hand till the last second before throwing it just above your heads; maybe you dazzle as she lights a dozen bottle rockets all in a row. You banter with scripted wit, you kiss and imagine it means more than it ever can, you do whatever it is you do to make those fireworks keep going. Meanwhile, all your emotional tender is going up in smoke. “Let not the sparks die out! We shall have more!” And you spend some bit of your heart you don’t have to give on more and more fireworks for this one moment—be it hours, days, weeks, months, however long you can both keep up without destroying one another—for this one night full of aluminum-powder flashes and gunpowder-reports.

You know what happens with that kind of romance? The next morning, you both wake up and realize that you’ve burned yourselves and each other; your clothes are pocked with ash-holes, and you both reek something awful of sulphur. You can’t find enough ice for all the little burns, your clothes are going to have to be thrown out, and you get this sickening, sinking feeling of remembering that you just blew all the money you had the night—the moment—before. Bacchanalian passion, warm and shadowy in the pale moonlight, gives way to a hunger and regret in the morning sun. You go outside and all the flashes of the night before lie in spent hulls around your feet, and you feel strangely like a spent hull yourself. Confused that what you thought was love that would sustain, never to want again, turned to ash on your clothes, in your mouths, in your hearts—you eventually turn one from another, disillusioned and just one notch more jaded. The kind of jaded that “can only be cast out by much prayer and fasting,” if I may be so bold.**

No, real romance, gentle reader, is in the patient, hard times that you both share. It’s in the daily living. It’s in the details. It’s the way you don’t have to keep up appearances. It’s the way you forgive him for being short with you when you’ve had just as hard a day as he has. It’s the way you show up at his place in pajama pants and no makeup and he’s so glad to see you he just melts into your arms. It’s the way he does chores you know he hates to give you tacitly something deeper than Sinatra could ever sing. It’s the way you both admit you’re scared or worried or apprehensive or have doubts about anything and everything and neither thinks any less of the other—because that’s life. It’s the way you take your 27 cards and he takes his, and you both leave the jokers in the deck just to spice it up a bit, and then you shuffle them and suddenly your deck is fuller together than any Hoyle ever pressed.

When you’re not wearing a scarlet silk tie and shiny black loafers to match your fedora; when she’s not wearing diamonds or eyeshadow or the high heels. When there’s nothing left in the martini glass but a lipstick stain and a toothpick bereft of its olives; when the lights go up and the band packs out. When you both take off the rose-colored glasses and your hair is tousled and you have broccoli in your teeth and sunlight burns off the “magic.” When you’re just one person sitting across from another person, each with your own burdens and joys but sharing them with one another—doing life. Together. That’s romance. The unshakable foundation of a solid friendship, secure brother/sisterhood in Christ—here’s the secret—makes for a pool of such emotional tender that you can put on your own fireworks displays, but without the desperation to do it all before the metaphorical morning burns the beauty away.

(More on this later.)

Notes

*(Reading Washington’s address makes me realize that not nearly enough sentences these days start with “whereas,” involve a colon, and are Faulknerian (Kantian?) in length while still retaining syntactical integrity.)

** It’s important to realize that I’m not talking about sex or even necessarily anything all that physical; but the building of castles in the sky, the chasing of a feeling for that feeling’s sake (thereby making a drug of the other person), the storing up of grain for oneself, as it were, when one’s soul will be demanded of him or her that night.

Shout out to my friend JR, who nailed it with her poem, “Wife for a Weekend.

3 Responses to “Does Romance Mean Perfect Teeth, Hair, and Emotional Balance?”

  1.  WallyJ like a vertabrae Says:

    “…makes me realize that not nearly enough sentences these days start with “whereas,” involve a colon, and are Faulknerian in length while still retaining syntactical integrity…”

    Gah that’s great :) Must agree with you there. Add “whilest” “wherefore” and “lest” to words that need to be used more. OH and “moxie” but that doesn’t have forging-a-country charm.

    And you referenced Hoyle…I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do that, let alone do it well.

    And I always giggle when lighting an M-80…no matter the context

  2.  dessi Says:

    More? You could possibly have more???

  3.  ThinkBlog » Blog Archive » Love’s Grammatical Qualifiers Says:

    […] Thus, while “Affirmative insofar as I knew what love was” is perhaps the most correct answer to us when we ask if a lover Loved us, it doesn’t make sense to split hairs and I think it might cheapen it. Married, we’ll look back on this and laugh, if we’re not drinking so deeply of our lovers not to look back on it at all. Just like, when we get to heaven, we’ll look back on even our fondest, dearest, most self-sacrificial moments in holy matrimony, when the Spirit was singing most clearly through our hearts to the weary ears of our dear spouses—and almost scoff to think that we actually believed that was what Love in all or even most of its fullness looked like. I have for the above explanation been accused of “believing in love.” Admittedly, I rankle at the idea, not of love, but “believing” in it—I get visions of Anne of Green Gables along with every dead-wrong Romantic poem and saccharine excuses for having sex (”I know it’s wrong, but we just love each other so much, it just feels right!”) dancing in my head. But I suppose that I do believe in love, in the sense that I believe Christ died on a cross for the sins of those who loved and would love Him “because He first loved us;” and, to put it more concretely, in the daily love of two imperfect people doing the best they can to submit to Christ and love each other, bad breath and all.  ::  [Permalink] [Printer-friendly] […]

Leave a Reply

Does Romance Mean Perfect Teeth, Hair, and Emotional Balance?

05:17:11 :: [psychology, literature] :: 1002 words

That’s a long query of a title directed at the heart of a fallacy any well-read person is exposed to over and over in fiction (or, for that matter, on-screen).

Whereas* in the popular media we are taught that the man must be dapper and witty, subtle yet charming—and that women must be seductive but innocent, beautiful and passionate; and whereas both partners are supposed to have neatly-packaged pellets of emotional distress, easily resolvable between the penultimate commercial break and the end credits: I submit to you that real people run deep, have concerns and fears, sometimes smell less than petunia-esque, get indigestion, and are wont to commit multitudinous faux pas.

I submit to you that sharing fears and doubts, along with laughter and fun, is more romantic than anything you read in the books—at least the ones that are meant to be romantic. Being caught up in feelings of romance—and they are feelings, mind you, much less to do with rational choice than with baser magnetism—is like watching a fireworks display that you’re both setting off together.

Maybe you giggle with nervous attention as he lights an M-80 and holds it in his hand till the last second before throwing it just above your heads; maybe you dazzle as she lights a dozen bottle rockets all in a row. You banter with scripted wit, you kiss and imagine it means more than it ever can, you do whatever it is you do to make those fireworks keep going. Meanwhile, all your emotional tender is going up in smoke. “Let not the sparks die out! We shall have more!” And you spend some bit of your heart you don’t have to give on more and more fireworks for this one moment—be it hours, days, weeks, months, however long you can both keep up without destroying one another—for this one night full of aluminum-powder flashes and gunpowder-reports.

You know what happens with that kind of romance? The next morning, you both wake up and realize that you’ve burned yourselves and each other; your clothes are pocked with ash-holes, and you both reek something awful of sulphur. You can’t find enough ice for all the little burns, your clothes are going to have to be thrown out, and you get this sickening, sinking feeling of remembering that you just blew all the money you had the night—the moment—before. Bacchanalian passion, warm and shadowy in the pale moonlight, gives way to a hunger and regret in the morning sun. You go outside and all the flashes of the night before lie in spent hulls around your feet, and you feel strangely like a spent hull yourself. Confused that what you thought was love that would sustain, never to want again, turned to ash on your clothes, in your mouths, in your hearts—you eventually turn one from another, disillusioned and just one notch more jaded. The kind of jaded that “can only be cast out by much prayer and fasting,” if I may be so bold.**

No, real romance, gentle reader, is in the patient, hard times that you both share. It’s in the daily living. It’s in the details. It’s the way you don’t have to keep up appearances. It’s the way you forgive him for being short with you when you’ve had just as hard a day as he has. It’s the way you show up at his place in pajama pants and no makeup and he’s so glad to see you he just melts into your arms. It’s the way he does chores you know he hates to give you tacitly something deeper than Sinatra could ever sing. It’s the way you both admit you’re scared or worried or apprehensive or have doubts about anything and everything and neither thinks any less of the other—because that’s life. It’s the way you take your 27 cards and he takes his, and you both leave the jokers in the deck just to spice it up a bit, and then you shuffle them and suddenly your deck is fuller together than any Hoyle ever pressed.

When you’re not wearing a scarlet silk tie and shiny black loafers to match your fedora; when she’s not wearing diamonds or eyeshadow or the high heels. When there’s nothing left in the martini glass but a lipstick stain and a toothpick bereft of its olives; when the lights go up and the band packs out. When you both take off the rose-colored glasses and your hair is tousled and you have broccoli in your teeth and sunlight burns off the “magic.” When you’re just one person sitting across from another person, each with your own burdens and joys but sharing them with one another—doing life. Together. That’s romance. The unshakable foundation of a solid friendship, secure brother/sisterhood in Christ—here’s the secret—makes for a pool of such emotional tender that you can put on your own fireworks displays, but without the desperation to do it all before the metaphorical morning burns the beauty away.

(More on this later.)

Notes

*(Reading Washington’s address makes me realize that not nearly enough sentences these days start with “whereas,” involve a colon, and are Faulknerian (Kantian?) in length while still retaining syntactical integrity.)

** It’s important to realize that I’m not talking about sex or even necessarily anything all that physical; but the building of castles in the sky, the chasing of a feeling for that feeling’s sake (thereby making a drug of the other person), the storing up of grain for oneself, as it were, when one’s soul will be demanded of him or her that night.

Shout out to my friend JR, who nailed it with her poem, “Wife for a Weekend.

3 Responses to “Does Romance Mean Perfect Teeth, Hair, and Emotional Balance?”

  1.  WallyJ like a vertabrae Says:

    “…makes me realize that not nearly enough sentences these days start with “whereas,” involve a colon, and are Faulknerian in length while still retaining syntactical integrity…”

    Gah that’s great :) Must agree with you there. Add “whilest” “wherefore” and “lest” to words that need to be used more. OH and “moxie” but that doesn’t have forging-a-country charm.

    And you referenced Hoyle…I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do that, let alone do it well.

    And I always giggle when lighting an M-80…no matter the context

  2.  dessi Says:

    More? You could possibly have more???

  3.  ThinkBlog » Blog Archive » Love’s Grammatical Qualifiers Says:

    […] Thus, while “Affirmative insofar as I knew what love was” is perhaps the most correct answer to us when we ask if a lover Loved us, it doesn’t make sense to split hairs and I think it might cheapen it. Married, we’ll look back on this and laugh, if we’re not drinking so deeply of our lovers not to look back on it at all. Just like, when we get to heaven, we’ll look back on even our fondest, dearest, most self-sacrificial moments in holy matrimony, when the Spirit was singing most clearly through our hearts to the weary ears of our dear spouses—and almost scoff to think that we actually believed that was what Love in all or even most of its fullness looked like. I have for the above explanation been accused of “believing in love.” Admittedly, I rankle at the idea, not of love, but “believing” in it—I get visions of Anne of Green Gables along with every dead-wrong Romantic poem and saccharine excuses for having sex (”I know it’s wrong, but we just love each other so much, it just feels right!”) dancing in my head. But I suppose that I do believe in love, in the sense that I believe Christ died on a cross for the sins of those who loved and would love Him “because He first loved us;” and, to put it more concretely, in the daily love of two imperfect people doing the best they can to submit to Christ and love each other, bad breath and all.  ::  [Permalink] [Printer-friendly] […]

Leave a Reply


[powered by WordPress.]

For the discussion of current and historical trends in the liberal arts, information technology, and religious thought. "Of all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is the more perfect, the more sublime, the more useful, and the more agreeable."

Think.

navigation

categories

search

archives

November 2005
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

meta

ThinkBlog.org has been on the web since August 2003, with 292,449 words in 846 posts.

It is presently 15:26:09 on 25 Jul 2008, server side. All content except where otherwise noted Copyright © 2000-2006 Michael Phillips.

detail of Plato and Aristotle from 'The School at Athens' by Raphael

affiliations

Get Firefox! News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.



Blogarama - The Blog Directory
Listed on Blogwise Listed on BlogShares

Blog Home

Login

39 queries. 3.480 seconds