Romantic Women...?

WindSock

I have been known to make him a vegemite sangwich from time to time.

CathyMoran

I constantly send him romantic texts and mails and I cry when I hear a song that reminds me of him on the radio - I also tell him that I love him all the time.

Nightwish

Tell him everyday how much I love him, bring him out for meals, romantic nights in, weekends away, showering him with gifts and he knows I will basically do anything for him.

monkeyfudge

WindSock wrote: »

I have been known to make him a vegemite sangwich from time to time.

Do you sing that Men at Work song while you make the sandwich? That would be cool.

Piste

Turn up at his house naked.





With dinner.

watna

WindSock wrote: »

I have been known to make him a vegemite sangwich from time to time.

+1. Even though Vegemite makes me gag. Those kiwis, eh?

*Page*

Wake him in the morning with a cup of tea clean socks and jocks...
Come home to him make his dinner
get naughty
have dinner
tidy up make tea
get naughty
cuddle do washing
get naughty
make tea
go to bed
get naughty...



I do that but not in a slave way...

I surprise him to special meals, day's out or in...

buy him lovely things...

The best thing he said is i dont nag him to do stuff but let him do it in his own time...

Star Lord

Can we clone you please?

takola

tallaght01 wrote: »

Jaysus, there's a lot of this romanticks stuff goin on, isn't there??

I must have been dating total dragons all my life

Nope I think it's the women in here that are the exception!

I wouldn't class anything I do for him as romantic now to be honest, I don't think either of us have a romantic bone in our bodies!!

Although, I do most of what has been listed, But I just think these are the things you do in a relationship!

ditto what page said about the getting naughty part

I buy lingerie very so often at least once a month
I'll ask him every so often what he wants me to wear on a night out just so he can visualise removing it later
take turns getting the pizza in
I get him drunk

stratospheres

Pretty much the same stuff here!

lezizi

I'm not very romantic but I make him tea and have a joint rolled for him when he comes in from college, he really appreciates that.
I watch every soccor match thats on with him, we do fantasy football together so i have to watch to see how my team is doing.
Our nights out together involve playing poker with all his friends, oh and i like boxing so he gets to watch whatever boxing is on.
And i carried his baby for 9 months and gave birth to him, and look after him all day. Thats the most romantic thing i can do.

Piste

I show enough concern to make him feel loved but not so much that he feels stifled...though I'm not sure if that's really "romantic"...



I bought him christmas boxers, does that count?

Jesus Wept

Piste wrote: »

I show enough concern to make him feel loved but not so much that he feels stifled...though I'm not sure if that's really "romantic"...



I bought him christmas boxers, does that count?

Piste wrote: »

Turn up at his house naked.





With dinner.

^^^^^^

You already won here

*Page* wrote: »

Wake him in the morning with a cup of tea clean socks and jocks...
Come home to him make his dinner
get naughty
have dinner
tidy up make tea
get naughty
cuddle do washing
get naughty
make tea
go to bed
get naughty...



I do that but not in a slave way...

I surprise him to special meals, day's out or in...

buy him lovely things...

The best thing he said is i dont nag him to do stuff but let him do it in his own time...

Though Page sounds great too.

Jules

On the way home on fridays, or if im not in till late i go before work and make sure the following are there for him when he gets home...

Beer, Ciggies, Firebag, so he isn't cold. Jellies, cuz he loves them. Also will stop off at his favourite chinese place on the way home and pick up foods.

Also Bought him a PS3 for his birthday in august, but like 2 weeks after we were broken into and they stole the it. He rang me in work and was really pissed off but not mad like. So Arrived home 5 hours after he had rang me to tell me with another one.

mollybird

god well lets just start with we always tell them how we feel about them, we leave them little things they like, like their current fav chocolate bar on the locker, we put out their laundry to dry while they in work, we mind them when they sick, we do things that we know they would like and we always dress in outfits we know they love. i could go on for days girls....

tallaght01

Jules wrote: »

Beer, Ciggies, Firebag, so he isn't cold.

I've just noticed this....and....what the hell is a firebag??? :P
It sounds dangerous lol

Pyjamarama

Make him chicken soup and give him sympathy even when he's not really sick.
Buy him presents I know he'd like.
Give him a hug if he's down (I do this all the times anyway! i know how men LOVE to cuddle!)
Do the organisational paperwork stuff/housework he hates doing.
Make an effort in the bedroom

I duno, general normal stuff, nothing I've written seems romantic actually ... hmm

Pyjamarama

tallaght01 wrote: »

I've just noticed this....and....what the hell is a firebag??? :P
It sounds dangerous lol

Is it one of those firelog type things?!! They come in bags thus FIREBAG!! Sounds like a weapon or an interesting game along the lines of Fireball!

jellie

Do men want romance..? as someone said, dont they prefer the naughty stuff? isnt that the equivalence of romance for men? hehe

johnnyskeleton

Moonbaby wrote: »

We nurture men. We demonstrably care for them everyday.
In hundreds of little ways that they tend to neglect when they are just looking after themselves.

Like brushing invisible lint off our shoulders when we wear suits, telling us to eat breakfast when we're not hungry, cutting us off around 1.30am before we're pissed, buying clothes/aftershave/shoes that we just don't want, telling us not to go out in a teeshirt on a cold day and refusing to "demonstrably care" when we get sick etc etc?

That's not romantic, that's rubbish. And you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that women do that for men. They do that to men, for themselves.

Coolsmileygirl is the only true romantic here -

Deleted User wrote:

I get him drunk

Reku

sar84 wrote: »

Do men want romance..? as someone said, dont they prefer the naughty stuff? isnt that the equivalence of romance for men? hehe

True enough I remember hearing a discussion on this in a documentary; apparently men equate physical acceptance (spreading the legs) with love, whereas women equate emotional intimacy with it. Hence why men will get more upset over a partner fooling around with another guy than if she is far more open to another guy in terms of her feelings and what she will talk about.
It's a generalisation obviously and how true it might be I don't honestly know.


But as johnnyskeleton points out some women don't know the difference between showing you care and nagging, the first is nice and well appreciated, the second just irritating. Trying to change us into who you want us to be is also unwelcome, if we're not the right person for you just say so and let both parties move on.

I think the concept of romance is a rather intangible thing, you can't really pin down exactly what romance is as everyone will have a different idea on the subject. Men aren't really encouraged to explore the concept much until they start dating (and even then it's more so about learning what the ladies think is romantic) so it would be more difficult I'd imagine to find something to do for your male partner that he will think is romantic. I guess surprising him with you dressed in a way that you know he'll like and that is clearly for him alone would work, surprising him with whatever kink you know he has but have never/seldom done, gifts that show just how well you know him, etc....

,8,1

Do men want romance..? as someone said, dont they prefer the naughty stuff? isnt that the equivalence of romance for men? hehe ...

True enough I remember hearing a discussion on this in a documentary; apparently men equate physical acceptance (spreading the legs) with love, whereas women equate emotional intimacy with it. Hence why men will get more upset over a partner fooling around with another guy than if she is far more open to another guy in terms of her feelings and what she will talk about.
It's a generalisation obviously and how true it might be I don't honestly know.

Hmmm, yea... This doesn't seem to add up. As society has become more Matriarchal, romantic culture declines, simple-transaction sexual activity taking its place.

The idea that "men are not romantic" or that men "don't want romance" is absolutely ludicrous when you consider the history of romantic expression (gestures, songs, poems, etc.) and men's disproportionate responsibility for it.

The ever-evolving female romanticism as found on MTV etc., as well as real-life culture, appears to be quite unsubstantial in comparison.

Reku

,8,1 wrote: »

Hmmm, yea... This doesn't seem to add up. As society has become more Matriarchal, romantic culture declines, simple-transaction sexual activity taking its place.

The idea that "men are not romantic" or that men "don't want romance" is absolutely ludicrous when you consider the history of romantic expression (gestures, songs, poems, etc.) and men's disproportionate responsibility for it.

The ever-evolving female romanticism as found on MTV etc., as well as real-life culture, appears to be quite unsubstantial in comparison.

One could however argue that the increase in "simple-transaction sexual activity" is a unfortunate aspect of the rise of feminism (and the desire for women to be equal to males getting confused with a desire to actually be male) and as a result of this men feel less need for the grand romantic gestures so as to impress the lady and secure access for such activities. The whole any port in a storm view of the stereotypical male means that they need no grand gestures to convince them, whereas the stereotypical woman does need to be convinced that the investment the male has put in will ensure that he is uninclined to stray elsewhere for sex for fear of negating the investment while then also having to put in more investment for the next potential partner. As such women had little need to make romantic gestures, whereas men did.

,8,1

As such women had little need to make romantic gestures, whereas men did.

In other words, women are essentially unromantic? Willing to accept, possibly reciprocate, but not initiate any romantic gestures themselves?

Indeed, need is an important thing. Necessity is arguably the mother of everything. As you said, in the past, women had "little need to make romantic gestures" and this remains true today as well.

One could however argue that the increase in "simple-transaction sexual activity" is a unfortunate aspect of the rise of feminism

Unfortunate perhaps depending on your point of view, but an entirely predictable and intentional effect of modern feminism. I could go on to say that most Patriarchal societies put a big emphasis on monogamy and exclusive sexual partnership, so your statement that women are promiscuous out of a confused "desire to actually be male" does not make much sense. "To be male" is, in many societies, "to be monogamous". Among higher primates such as apes and (up until recently) humans, this is especially the case.

Rather, this "desire" you refer to which women have to be promiscuous comes from themselves and themselves alone. Even if they do, for whatever reason, project it onto "men" or "male society".

Promiscuous and non-gamous relationships, as I alluded to above, are typically features of Matriarchal socities; and they are relationship-types which women generally prefer if given the choice.

Reku

,8,1 wrote: »

In other words, women are essentially unromantic? Willing to accept, possibly reciprocate, but not initiate any romantic gestures themselves?

Indeed, need is an important thing. Necessity is arguably the mother of everything. As you said, in the past, women had "little need to make romantic gestures" and this remains true today as well.

Women thought about anddesired romance but felt no need to instigate it as being passive (seen and not heard) was what they were taught and as said already they felt no need to convince the males that sex with each other would be a good thing. It does not make them unromantic, merely not the creators of romantic events.

,8,1 wrote: »

Unfortunate perhaps depending on your point of view, but an entirely predictable and intentional effect of modern feminism. I could go on to say that most Patriarchal societies put a big emphasis on monogamy and exclusive sexual partnership, so your statement that women are promiscuous out of a confused "desire to actually be male" does not make much sense. "To be male" is, in many societies, "to be monogamous". Among higher primates such as apes and (up until recently) humans, this is especially the case.

All the religions I'm aware of where polygamy is accepted are patriarchal (true quite a few are patriarchal as they are male founded cults but that still doesn't negate the point), in fact mostly downright misogynistic.
All the animals I'm aware of where the male may have many partners are again patriarcal, where the alpha male is the group leader.

To be male in most instances tends to be to sleep arounds with many using the number of partners as a gauge of how manly you are, hence why males who sleep around = studs (a good thing) whereas females who do so = sluts (a bad thing).

,8,1 wrote: »

Promiscuous and non-gamous relationships, as I alluded to above, are typically features of Matriarchal socities; and they are relationship-types which women generally prefer if given the choice.

Again no, as we evolved this would be a female's worst scenario as it means that resources (food the male brought back from hunts) which could be exclusively for her and her offspring are now split between all the male's partners and offspring, reducing the survival chances of her own genes.

If such scenarios were to the female's benefit why then do at least some (don't know with the others) of the cultures where having a mistress is common place have it such that employers will facilitate this by garnering the man's wages direct to her so as to keep her existance hidden from the wife? If it were to the wife's benefit surely this would not be needed?

Then there's the fact that women can only produce offspring with one partner at a time whereas men can produce offspring with many women at a time (obviously not the same instant but the same gestation period).


Anyway, think we're going a bit OT here so best continue this either in a new thread or via PMs.