Romance is not sex
Romance is delayed gratification. It is the dance, the courtship, the ritual that precedes consummation. The longer it takes, the better. It is enhanced by obstacles to be overcome, differences to be ironed out, not just buttons and zippers to be undone. It is appropriate and beautiful only within the context of a loving lifelong commitment to each other's wellbeing, which is what marriage should be.
One of the finest examples of this is An Affair To Remember, in which two people who are living immoral, self-centered lifestyles finally fall in love. The implication is that they plan to marry. They have already explored the life of casual relationships and found it empty. They want domesticity, but are they worthy? No, they do not know if they are capable of that kind of stability, which is why they test their relationship with a six month hiatus, and then tragedy interrupts. [Spoilers follow]
One of the reasons Terry McKay doesn't tell Nickie about her accident is that she is practicing a selfless kind of love, in that she would rather remain single than become a burden to him. What she doesn't know, is that he's been on his own character journey too, learning selfless love, so that when he finally realizes what has happened, he is ready to love her unconditionally. This is a romance that's not based merely on sexual desire, but on true love, which puts the welfare of the other first.
Nicely written, but five words too long.
You are so right. Would it be appropriate to edit the post post-posting?
Sure, folks do it all the time. And you could just post a "fixed" note to stumpy to make it clear to anybody else that happens along that the content was changed in response to his post.
Heh. "What? I don't get it. Stumpy thought it should have ended with 'which puts the.'?"
Cute.
Flirting with the female romantics again AJ? hee, hee!
How please. And thank you.
Just click on the "edit" button for this article and make your changes. Then click on "reply" beneath Stumpy's original post, and write something like, "good call, I removed that last sentence."
OK Stumpy. I have made it shorter, more succinct, and otherwise removed any unnecessary comments, etc, etc, like, edited it for conciseness. Thanks for the red pen action. I can't thank you enough for helping me. Appreciate it. Muchas gracias.
You never needed to correct anything. This was just a test to see if you could reach the standard irritation level at having your otherwise beautiful work critiqued. You passed. ~;^)
A beautifully written essay on your love for An Affair To Remember and this ilk. However, why do they have to be so blasted cheesy? Is there some point in romantic love that bricks of cheese start being hurled around? I realize this is hollywood, but what about the embarrassing you've got something in your teeth, honey moment?
Tallyho
:?)
Perhaps those are rhetorical questions, but let me reply anyway. It depends on how you define "cheese". I think what people today call cheese is merely a lack of "sophistication" that makes an old-fashioned romantic comedy unbelievable for its innocence, relative to today's jaded audience. Yes, I am blaming the movie's cheesiness on the oversexed post-modern audience. Cheesiness is in the eye of the beholder.
I understand the point you are making since several people have said this before. I get complaints about being a cynic and not understanding the enobling innocence of the 50's romance. And yes you are exactly right about oversexed post-modern audience (good quote). But c'mon, these movies are just plain silly and that's their selling point. They cook up impossibly fey plots that blow and bluster with an admittedly enjoyable overzelous intensity.
The only difference between these movies and modern romantic films is the lack of hyper-active editing.
To be honest I enjoy most of these films, I just sit back and let the lava-wave of chedder flow over me.
Tallyho
:?)
There's a certain element of fantasy that exists in all successful romantic comedies (i.e. Pretty Woman). The "true love" portrayed IS unrealistic. It glosses over the difficulties. Nevertheless, it is an idealized world that holds a lot of appeal, because in our hearts, it is how we wish it could be.
I totally agree with that post (except for Pretty Woman being succesful but that's more personal opinion that anything else) I'll take it under consideration.
Tallyho
:?)
Stooky, I admire your acumen.
Thanks Rosie. Touche my dear.
Tallyho
;?)
But sex is nice, can we all agree on that?
Not trying to be a pig, but, seriously, isn't it so widely spread because it's, you know, a pleasurable expression of love between a man and a woman?
I think sexuality takes a beating sometimes from people who love romanticism, but I think sex/sexuality can be VERY romantic, and a beautiful and pure expression of love.
Sex is lovely, but it should remain within the confines of marriage. Outside of marriage, it causes nothing but complications and damages the people involved.
Whoa, that's rather broad generalization, isn't it?
Sex is powerful. It is used with great effect to promote movies; to sell magazines, beauty products and health club memberships; and to influence the choices we make, from the kind of car we drive to the brand of toothpaste we use! Often the desire for sex is what drives us into relationships and then continues to be a significant trouble spot. Sex is supposed to be something sacred between man and woman, yet Hollywood has made it as casual as shaking hands…
I can buy into most of that as a completely separate observation, but not really as a supporting argument to your original claim, which I still find to be way too broad a generalization, but that's okay.
... but in support of your argument, I offer up The Onion's least erotic cinematic moments, all featuring unmarried characters. :-)
If not for where it might lead, a list like that might be a interesting addition to Listology Jim. Perhaps with self-control PG editing it could be done tastefully. I've got one, but with respect to Rosie, I won't mention anything more than the movie title, Monsters Ball.
Ah yes, definitely a good entry for the theoretical list. I actually kinda like the idea...
The research shows that cohabiting couples experience twice as much domestic violence, infidelity, depression, and alcohol abuse than married couples. Close to 45% of children of non-married parents are living in poverty.
I'll take your word for it that that research is correct, unambiguous, used good methodology, etc. Even conceding that, I *still* think the initial generalization is too broad. Too say ALL extra-martial sex is bad and/or harmful simply ignores those people that do it and get away with being healthy and happy at the same time. The research you cite may indicate the odds are against you, but it doesn't indicate you're inevitably doomed.
I think you're looking at the causation the wrong way. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that poverty-stricken people are simply more likely to have children out of wedlock? And on the same token, wouldn't poor people be more likely to be depressed or abuse alcohol?
That sounds like determinism to me. I do not believe that people are animals who are driven to misbehave by their environment. The environment doesn't cause problems. Immorality causes problems. People are capable of making moral choices regardless of environmental forces. We can rise above those things. My assertion was that sex outside of marriage is an immoral behavior which has pernicious and deleterious consequences.
Why is it that sex outside of marriage is immoral? Why is it that it's the act that is immoral when all that we've discussed is that people who happen to have sex outside of marriage also can do immoral things. I don't think that proves anything about sex.
Because God said so, in the Top Ten, "thou shalt not commit adultery", and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" (Exodus 20). That gives me an idea....
Hey, wait a minute, since when were we just talking about adultery? Sure, adultery is immoral. But you were talking about all unmarried sex (or you were being unclear).
No man (or woman) is an island, and though some people may have immorality in their genes, they are certainly affected by their outside environments as well. This isn't a belief, it's a fact, and though some people are more affected by their environments than others, there's no denying that our surroundings contribute to shaping who we are. People may be theoretically capable of making moral choices that contradict their environments, but their environments sure make things a hell of a lot harder.
From what you're saying, if you read a statistic that said that people in destitute environments were more likely to experience domestic violence, would you assume it was their inclination to domestic violence that made them poor? Or would you assume it was just a coincidence?
I also agree with AAA, what makes sex immoral if it's outside of marriage? Certainly, all the Hollywood stuff you talked about earlier where they use sex to make you buy products borders on immoral, but why do you say all sex outside of marriage is immoral?
Yeah, we just disagree on an the most fundamental levels.
[A] I don't believe consensual sex outside of marriage is immoral (unless you're currently married to somebody else, that is).
[B] I also don't believe it *necessarily* has pernicious or deleterious consequences (you seem to contend that bad consequences are universal and unavoidable).
I arrive at [A] because I don't think it's society or religions place to tell me what basic biological functions are good or bad. I arrive at [B] through personal experience - unless I ultimately find myself burning in hell, the supposed deleterious consequences (which never materialized) are all behind me. Living together prior to marriage worked out great for my wife and me (and by extension, our two kids).
Anyway, I do respect your position, and think it's an admirable stance to take with regard to your own lifestyle. But to then make the claim that your lifestyle is the one true lifestyle and that all others are immoral is a dicey proposition.
I respect you, too, Jim. You have a remarkable ability to remain cool-headed in the midst of the most heated online discussions (I've read some of your postings on other peoples' lists). I highly admire your rationality.
I believe the deleterious (more subtle and perhaps hidden) consequences of immorality are psychological and spiritual.
Regarding religion: It is irrational to believe something is true only for me, if I plan to stake my life on it. No, if I didn't believe my religion were absolutely true, then it would be nothing more than an elaborate self-delusion, and I would be a fool for believing it.
Cool. I'm happy to leave it in a state of respectful disagreement. :-) Thanks for the debate!
Rosie, you make very interesting arguments, and I respect your views on all of this. I have many friends who feel the same way. I'm just always up for a good debate.
I'll just sneak a comment in here.
Sex is great (boom-shika-boom-shika-boom). I think it depends on the people involved. Some people don't take it as seriously as others and variety, as they say, is the spice of life.
:?" <--ponderous stook
Tallyho
:?)
Right. There are tons of people who wouldn't be 'emotionally hurt' or whatever by having sex with 20 different people every month.
I highly suspect Rosie's argument about sex within marriage has little to do with the possible negative effects of marriage and everything to do with religion (see her ten commandments list). An official piece of paper won't change anything about the effects of sex on a relationship.
Further veritifed by her later statements about "because God said so," obviously - I'm just saying I think it was that from the beginning. Can the argument really be made that sex without a marriage certificate always has deleterious effects?
Yes, if one believes that God knows what's best for mankind, having created us, and given us his instructions for how to live the most satisfying life.
Now where specifically in the Bible does it say that sex before marriage leads to terrible consequences? I'm not trying to be contentious; I'd really like to know, and I figure you're more familiar with the Bible than I am. Is that actually stated outright in the Bible? Not about adultery, but actually about sex before marriage?
There are lots of incredibly vague statements about 'lusts of the flesh,' and such, but then there are also laws that 'force' polygamy on people (for example, if a woman's husband dies, his brother must marry her even if he's already married, or something). But I'm no Bible scholar. Rosie, do you know?
1 Corinthians 6:18 Says "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." The New International Version replaces the word "fornication" with the words "sexual immorality". Fornication is sex between unmarried people. The consequences for sexual immorality are the same as for all sins: some are natural and some are spiritual. Scientists, psychologists, and sociologists can tell you the natural consequences. The Bible states repeatedly that sexual immorality is condemned by God and those who practice it will be punished. God will judge them (Hebrews 13:4, Jude 1:7, 1 Corinthians 10:8, I Corinthians 6:9) and they will not inherit the kingdom of God. As for natural consequences in the Bible, those are illustrated by example. King David, King Solomon, the nation of Israel, and Sodom and Gomorrah all suffered the consequences of sexual immorality.
My understanding is that the Bible describes people doing things in Old Testament times because they were disobedient to God. Perhaps God allowed things like polygamy because of their primitive culture. I do not know. Requiring a man to marry his brother's widow is a kind and just thing to do, because it provides for her and protects her, in a time when there was no other kind of social security.
The Bible always holds up a standard of love and justice. Even if you were to make "love" your only law, would it be the most loving thing to use twenty women sexually? Don't you think it hurts your soul?
Thank you for your thorough post. I don't fully agree with you - I think a lot has changed since Biblical times, as you note about God allowing polygamy - but I appreciate you being specific about your reasoning. And I certainly respect your faith.
I appreciate you letting me share. I won't evade a direct question, but I tend to be shy about sharing my faith with others.
Regarding what has changed since biblical times: would you say people are kinder, more loving to each other, less violent, etc?
Well, I mainly meant that various standards have changed since Biblical times - what is considered okay, what is not considered okay, etc. You probably won't agree with this, but I think that society has natually evolved over time, and that's perfectly fine. In my own personal opinion, I don't think it's any more reasonable to recall a Biblical conception of sex than to, say, perform animal sacrifice, or to stone a man to death for disrespecting his parents. But that's just my take on things.
Regarding whether people are kinder to each other nowadays, I'd have to say, yeah, probably. Besides the Hebrews, I think most of the other races at that time were barbaric and savage, which is why this Judeo-Christian religion was so revolutionary for its time. Even the people in the Bible were not the most loving folks. Abraham slept with his slave to produce an heir and then sent them both away when Sarah conceived. Joseph's brothers were all major-league assholes. The Israelites created the golden calf when Moses was on Mount Sinai. Sure, we are all fallible, but I don't think God would drown all the humans in the world except for one family again (even if he hadn't already promised not to).