Alex A. writes:

I remember reading in your blog once or twice that women, in contrast to men, crave romance. I have some questions I’d like to ask about what women mean by “romance” because, like many other men, I just don’t get it.

Is it a different longing for a single woman when compared with a married woman? Is it romantic to get sincere compliments and endearments from the man she loves?  Is it the essence of romance for a woman to be the recipient of a knightly courtesy? What about the “romance” of dinners by candlelight; receiving gifts – especially jewelry, chocolates and flowers; or getting a Valentine card? I fear  that perhaps these notions are too banal even to laugh at.

If romance is a feeling of mystery and excitement associated with  love, can romantic love be expected to last a lifetime? In other words, is it compatible with marriage?  On the domestic scene a man’s emotional limitations are ruthlessly exposed, so should a wife still hope (probably in vain) for her husband to satisfy her romantic  yearnings?

In the tradition of courtly love, a noble married woman could play a  game of intrigue and artful flirting with her lover (not her husband) provided they both accepted the terms of chivalrous conduct. I might be wrong, but I can hardly believe this sort of thing resonates with modern women.

 Laura writes:

Jewelry, chocolates and flowers? Tender praise? Spontaneous kisses and small caresses? Love letters?

Modern women can’t stand that stuff. Married women hate it and whenever their husbands lavish them with little attentions, they turn and run.

The problem is the language of love is barely spoken anymore. Romantic love is not the transcendent, holistic experience it once was. Linda S. Lichter, in her book Simple Social Graces looks at Victorian culture in contrast to ours and finds the latter wanting. There’s no need to put the Victorians on a pedestal to recognize the truth in what she says.

She writes that “every woman knows the earth-moving power of subtle sensuality, even if she knows it only by its absence. Women crave the little things that mean a lot. They want love as a total experience of all the ways and reasons one is loved, like those in this breathtaking letter that still pulses with passion a century after it was written: “I kiss your cheeks, dead Little Girl, and that’s for friendship. I kiss your brow, sweet Lady Violet, and that’s for reverence…. And I stoop to cover the soft warm lips with a lover’s kisses – many and long – and lingering Lover’s kisses, dear… No one in the world — no one else, can kiss you as I do. My darling.” [emphasis mine]

Sounds damn good to me.

And the Victorian divorce rate was nothing compared to ours. So yes, I think this kind of thing works even after 20, 30, 40 years of marriage. The desire for romance is less strong but still present in the married woman. Look, if I was married to a man for 60 years and he said this sort of thing to me, I would not object. And I will say this. Not only is romantic love compatible with marriage, it is best achieved in marriage. Few things are more mysterious than sweet praise and little devotions from a person who has seen you at your worst. It is disarming. I know there are some women who are immune to these things and who would rather indulge their taste for romance in the sexual equivalent of Riot Punch instead of finding it in the vintage wine of their beloved. They are barbarians.

Lichter writes:

“Today’s language of love ruthlessly demeans the intimate experience the Victorians cherished… Like prayer, the Victorian language of love was exclusive to itself. By contrast, our present-day sexual vocabulary borrows from the lingo of animals, mechanics and sports.

“Victorian men relished the full menu of tender words and touches that really light a woman’s fire. ‘Days and weeks go by when it would be wine to see even the hem of your dress,’ one man wrote to his sweetheart in 1883. Women’s hands were considered intensely erotic in an age that did not measure arousal in the stretch of a string bikini. Smooth, shapely feminine hands were reproduced everywhere in the form of candy dishes, card holders, ring stands, even drapery tiebacks.

What woman would not readily agree to have her hands worshipped, even by her husband of many years?

                                                                — Comments —–

Alex A. writes:

You say romantic love is not only compatible with but best achieved in marriage. I’m surprised by this because while familiarity should never breed contempt in a loving heart, it seems almost impossible to maintain “mystery and excitement” in a relationship over many years. I suspect there are very few husbands who can astonish their wives with romantic words and deeds on a regular basis. However, I do understand how important it is for a woman to be told, especially by the man she married, that she is valued as a pearl beyond price.

When my wife complained that I was not “romantic”, I was tempted to borrow the following melancholy observation from Walter Savage Landor: “There is no name, with whatever emphasis of passionate love repeated, of which the echo is not faint at last.”

I’m glad I did not.

Laura writes:

Landor probably never tenderly spoke the name of a longtime spouse as she lay sick, or after a bitter fight, or in a moment of mutual tragedy or heartbreak. By comparison, the sweet nothings of youth seem flat and unfeeling. You may say these moments of endearment are technically not romantic because they lack mystery and excitement. True, but they are more than adequate compensations.  

Both men and women are susceptible to their own kinds of boredom in marriage. Boredom cannot necessarily be cured from without. A man may dream of younger and more beautiful women no matter how much his wife cares for her appearance. A rich imagination is the single greatest asset any human being can bring to marriage.  I might say, “Your imagination is not active enough” to a spouse who complained I was not romantic enough. 

Again in general, women tend to like moments of quiet conversation and little attentions. Okay, so these don’t fully revive the flames of ardor. The echo fades, but it doesn’t have to die. If all a couple does for fun together is sit in front of movies, a woman’s sexual drive is likely to noticeably diminish over time. Conversation and praise are the greatest aphrodisiacs for women.

Hannon writes:

My wife will enthusiastically request a romantic epistle for special occasions. She will also chastise me for not bringing flowers home often enough. The reminding is important since I choose (unconsciously of course)  to maintain a bulwark of distractions; it is not nagging.

I would be genuinely shocked if there are many women out there who could feign disinterest on being given these tender attentions. This can be tested in the platonic world also. Try giving a simple flower (not a bouquet) to a lady at work and experience her reaction. I believe it is the absence of such civilized and kindly gestures– from fear of harassment charges or simply the effects of post-modern autonomy– that is stripping life down to a level that is abnormally disconnected.

I do agree about hands. People speak of foot fetishes, which I don’t understand at all. But a woman’s hands seem to reveal something of the soul. When we speak of “touch” we refer to the hands, not the feet.

Lisa writes:

Laura wrote, “A man may dream of younger and more beautiful women no matter how much his wife cares for her appearance.” Ah, yes,… physically, most men age like fine wine or a good cheese. Most women, more like breadsticks or doughnuts. And as far as women being attracted to a younger man: in general, very far from it. I look at them and think, “What have you dared? What have you thought? What have you done, and where’s the grey to prove it?” There is romance in having dared, thought, and conquered, which requires age. 

Please follow and like us: