Romance

Romance is about strong emotional feelings involved with love, particularly at the beginning of a relationship.  During this time we become crazy, actually insane.  Our emotions become unhinged from reality, before you met the object of your infatuation you might have been fine, but now not having them would make life a horrific nightmare.  Our judgment becomes irrational, we are willing to cast aside sensible decisions about our finances, or future, even friends in favor of this sudden emotional storm.  For this post the most important thing about romance is the intense feelings of euphoria brought about not through the systems of lust (testosterone) or companionship (vasopressin and oxytocin) but through the same system that works in drug addiction (dopamine).

So romance has many of the same qualities as an addictive drug.  As with all addictive drugs people in large numbers seek out ways to "get their fix."  Vast amounts of media, perhaps the majority of media, are then organized around the drug of romance.  Read a book, and if there isn't the start of a relationship in their somewhere I will be surprised.  Watch a film, and likewise.  We have a cultural addiction to romance, but like most addicts we don't tell ourselves the truth about our addiction.

We have a pretty good idea of what people think romance is about.  Young people see each other and it is meant to be.  He's funny and charming, she's demure and kind.  There's a lot of hand-holding, beach walking, eating dinners in dark restaurants, etc..  It's all rather naive and cute, lots of opportunity to go, "ahhhh" and feel warm and cuddly for the couple.  However, I think actual romance is significantly different from this version.

There is a seemingly very weird dichotomy between the sexes with regard to romance.  Contrary to stereotype men are more romantic than women.  They have a greater belief that love should be passionate, say they are in love earlier than women, are more devastated by break-ups, talk about their relationships in romantic ways.  On the other hand women look and purchase media representations of romance at a far higher level than men.  Basically, men spend more time being romantic in thought and action while women spend more time getting their romance fix from "artificial sources."  It's a bit like the weirdness in sex, in which women have a substantially higher physiological response to sex, but men spend more of their time being interested in it, or have a greater sex drive.  Men have a greater physical response to romance, but women seek it out more.  Perhaps it is as simple as men want to be romantic towards women, and women want to be romanced.

I think the way to actually find out about what people really think about romance is to see what they purchase to get that romance fix.  For men this is difficult, men tend to go with lust (pornography) in their media.  The Madonna/Whore complex for women is well understood, after all it makes complete sense that the two, somewhat contradictory, drives of men (spreading the seed around and raising their offspring) makes it highly difficult for women to be both things at once.  What men look for in their romance is a nice, compassionate girl who will raise fine children, and do all those vile things in bed that men want, with enthusiasm.  There's a reason men go for pornography while still being more romantic, half of what they look for in romance is around everywhere (a nice girl)  while the other half is in much shorter supply. 

Women are seemingly simpler to understand, after all there is a vast industry of romance novels (the best selling books) and romantic films (Sandra Bullock has a career).  The weird thing is that what people think of romance bears only a superficial relationship to the driving force in these books and films.  I'm going to base my description on romance novels, because these are written for women (how many men read romance novels?) and romantic comedies are written for women but for men to be able to sit through.  If Cariaga's definition of literature, "What defines a work as literature is its examination of the universal human condition" is correct then romance novels consistently examine the universal human condition of romance from a female perspective.  How many men have searched for the truth of what women think of romance, never fully understanding it?

Romance novels are genre fiction to a level beyond even those of mysteries, fantasy, and science fiction.  Fantasy comes closest as it is almost always wish fulfillment for younger men and boys (the very ordinary boy becomes special and powerful because of their hidden depths).  Romance is such genre fiction that you can pretty much sketch out the story to the level of where the incidents happen.

A romance novel - ordinary girl and extraordinary man, usually a womanizer, who can't possibly get together (demure woman and hardened bandit, poor women and aristocrat) are pushed together by circumstances.  The man will be big, handsome, powerful, self-assured, and with a mean streak somewhere.  There is outward dislike and disagreement but the man somehow can't keep away from her, there is "something about her."  The man pursues, but not obviously in a romantic way, the women will be confused about his motives. at some moment the man will demonstrate that he is capable of extreme violence.  About a third of the way through the book they will have some sexual happening (a kiss through kinky sex depending on the risque level of the book) in which he "takes her" overcoming a sort of aked resistance. The romance is blooming but then something drives them apart.  Both parties are in torment but think there is something wrong with the possible relationship, often based on a misunderstanding.  Then the woman will get into serious trouble and the man will rescue her at great physical risk and they will realize that they both love each other and it ends with the beginning of a perfect relationship.

If you look at the qualities of the man in this plot he is physically very attractive, morally suspect, and capable of violence.  He is a jerk, and chicks really do dig jerks. Over the course of the book his morals are tested repeatedly (he is rejected but cannot keep away, even without guarantees he saves her, he nurtures her and keeps her safe) but, against his apparent jerky nature, he passes the tests.  This is not the same as a nice man with a sense of humor who brings flowers, this is a powerful, dangerous man tamed by the hidden wonderfulness of an ordinary women to become a nurturing protector.  Men might well have a Madonna/Whore complex, but women have a Psychopath/Nurturer complex.

Why is this so?  As usual with examinations of people I go straight to evolution.  Evolution is about passing down your genes, and for that to happen in the most successful manner for a woman the genetic make-up of the father of her children should have the ability to use both strategies for producing offspring (sleeping around a lot and raising their own babies).  However, the man must also be excellent at protecting and nurturing her children.  The maximal amount of sleeping around includes the ability to rape women, but raping her is far from optimal nurturing.  This explains the ubiquitous scene of the frustrated man on the verge of "taking her" but with a great act of will does not.  There are reports that one in three women has a rape fantasy on a regular basis.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WOMEN ACTUALLY WANT TO BE RAPED, IT'S A FANTASY.

The ideal women is a demure women (who won't sleep around) who is crazy for sex (only with him.)  The ideal man is a borderline psychopath who controls that part of himself for her.  The idea of romance is a pretty sheen over some rather sordid truths about humans.  The pretty sheen over sordid truths are the reason why women spend so much of their time waiting for romance and getting something less interesting but "nicer' and men spend so much of their time waiting for great sex without going and getting it (at the right time, in the right way, through the power of telepathy.).