Julie Burchill: Forget about romance and you might just get yourself a decent marriage - Julie Burchill, Columnists - The Independent

Quote:

In the language of romance, flowers mean "I love you" and chocolates mean "I'm sorry", apparently.But in my book, flowers mean "You're stupid and I bet I can get round you really easily" and chocolates mean "Strap on a nosebag and stuff your face, fatso – why close the stable door after the horse has bolted?" At 51, three-times married, I have about as much interest in romance as I have in ironing antimacassars, dusting doilies or stuffing lavender sachets. And it isn't just the voice of experience talking. Since I was a teenager, when I first tied the knot, I can honestly say that I was more interested in learning the offside rule than I was in being romanced – and I hate football. Being romanced is like being seduced – it implies, no matter how many frills you put on it, that one of the people involved in an actual or potential sexual relationship is somehow reluctant and has to be "won over" to what is a pretty basic act by anyone's standards. It's like putting a crocheted crinoline lady on a toilet roll. And surely both sides should be equally keen, or it's actually quite insulting. And it doesn't stop with marriage. Once the sort of woman who expects romance out of a man has reeled him in and landed him, what do you bet she's the sort of broad who demands that recent yucky conjugal invention "Date Night", too? On hearing that President Obama and Michelle regularly indulge in Date Nights my first thought wasn't, "Ooo, lucky her!" It was, rather, "Poor sod – on top of everything else he has to do!" So there you are – if the Big O finally freaks out and drops the bomb on North Korea, we can probably presume that the First Lady gave him grief that morning about his choice of Date Night restaurant the evening before. What do you bet that a lot – not all – of the very same women who demand a weekly Date Night are the very same women who never have sex with their husbands because "it takes too long", "I don't have the time" and "I'm too tired"? Well, how come you're never too tired to get trashed on rosé wine with your mates on a Friday night, go to the garden centre bright and early on a Saturday morning, spend every weekday on Mumsnet and sit through ceaseless re-runs of Sex and the City until your eyes drop out? Maybe sex wouldn't take a long time if you didn't demand the Ring Cycle equivalent of romance first? Sex – if you're doing it right – only takes 10 minutes; Date Night takes a night! As I said in my book Not In My Name, "Women seem to believe that sex should be about sharing, talking, communication, lighting one hundred scented candles, taking an hour-long aromatherapy bath, being given a two-hour-long massage with oils that smell like someone sicked up a whole box of Milk Tray at once, kissing, cuddling, stroking... and that other thing, YOU KNOW, that's really rude and boring. And then more cuddling. Basically, a cross between an away-day to make-up shop Space NK and a playdate with Barbie. Men, the dirty swines, seem to believe that sex should be about SEX." Ha! I also wondered what excuse women gave not to have sex before "we've run out of scented candles" became available. For romance is surely the greatest capitalist cash-cow ever invented, the gift that truly does keep on giving... to the shareholders of the companies that make scented candles, boxes of chocolates and bouquets with a three-day life-span, that is. It's true that a bad marriage is worse than no marriage – I had two of them, eventually – but a decent marriage is far, far better than no marriage. And a lot of the reason is that you can stop acting as romantic cyphers and be yourself; people who like each other and support each other, a team. What could be more different than the romance-centric view of relationships in which it's all about being "swept away" and "the spark"? And what's more appealing? Because compared to such clear-eyed compatibility, romance just looks like a big fat fib – not for nothing was Saki's great short story "The Romancers" about two men sitting on a park bench lying to each other. Of course I wasn't a fly on the bedroom wall when John Terry, Mark Owen, Vernon Kay, Wayne Rooney and Uncle Tom Love-Rat and all went through the smooth moves that kept their wives with them, but I would bet that flowers, chocolates, country-house hotels and the whole corny, clichéd kit and caboodle of wretched romance was dug up and put through its dreary paces – until the next time.

She gets on my nerves quite a lot, even when I basically agree with her. Meh, if people enjoy romantic stuff and they can sufficiently addle someone else with the promise of sex that they'll provide it, everyone's a winner. (Except me, who has to listen to them calling each other Honeybun on the tube.) I think she's kind of turning into a caricature of herself.

There's a Parisian joke about the guys who go round trying to embarrass blokes in restaurants with their girlfriends into buying roses - "Non merci, je l'ai déjà niqué."*

*"No thanks, I've already fucked her."

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

"And surely both sides should be equally keen, or it's actually quite insulting" contradicts "What do you bet that a lot – not all – of the very same women who demand a weekly Date Night are the very same women who never have sex with their husbands because "it takes too long", "I don't have the time" and "I'm too tired"?

The second part of the article (which I actually do not recognise from experience. IME, women, once in a satisfactory relationship, are pretty keen on sex) negates the attempt at being offended by the idea that men want sex more than women.

Also "Sex – if you're doing it right – only takes 10 minutes"... Hmmm... Not much time for preliminaries or anything in there. She really can orgasm after a 5 mins thumping? Maybe I've just been unlucky (small samples and all that) but I don't think that's very common...

Quote:

Meh, if people enjoy romantic stuff and they can sufficiently addle someone else with the promise of sex that they'll provide it, everyone's a winner.

Except the men - who spend too much cash and don't get enough sex. And the women - who don't get the sex they'd like and always have to be paranoid about a man's real intentions "Is he offering me flowers coz he wants to show his love/affection or coz he just want to fuck me?"

Romance is bad for everyone.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Lol. I've been revising too long. I read that last paragraph and mentally noted in the margins "consumer surplus, adverse selection/moral hazard".

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Lol. I've been revising too long. I read that last paragraph and mentally noted in the margins "consumer surplus, adverse selection/moral hazard".

Maybe I am myself twisted but, anyhow, I tend to view nearly everything with economic tools/frameworks.

I was at some (female) friend's place this last w/e with her flatmate - also a woman there. We were trying to figure out if we should go see a movie. They were quite keen on "Eat, pray, love" despite the luckwarm reviews. The flatmate was saying that the book was really good. I wasn't really interested.

Then one of the woman commented that it was just a classic story of "searching for meaning" and I was like "hmmm..." and my friend noted that, indeed, I had never actually shown any inclination to soul-searching, self-discovery or pursuit of meaning. For me, these questions were answered two decades ago (I am a somewhat social animal, looking for sex, safety, fun and sex - with a bit of sex thrown in and with no talent for higher meanings and overly refined philosophical concerns) and I've never had reasons to re-appraise them.

All that to say that, despite my nitpicking, I do agree with the gist of the article. A good marriage has little to do with romance and women would save themselves a lot of grief if they just gave up on their illusions/delusions. Fixing dinner or hoovering is my way of saying "I love you" (Acceptable Return-on-Investment ratio). Fuck flowers and expensive perfumes (conspicuous consumption).

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Elizabeth Gilbert is such an amateur. I manage to combine narcissism strong enough to wilt house plants with my everyday life in Paris. And I didn't even need to go off to India to practice first.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Meh. Read this and wasn't impressed.

Sure, "romance" has been stylised and Hallmark-ised but underlying that is a real phenomenon. It's not just an expression of interest, whether once sided or not, it's also a demonstration of a willingness to invest effort in saying so. If you're really in love, or at least attracted, who doesn't want to demonstrate their sincerity? Thats the real point about things like marriage proposals made in public, and that sort of thing. And even if both parties are keen, that isn't always known, or believed.

The basic offer in romantic gestures is "I'm willing to make an effort to please you", which is pretty basic piece of communication and something that should exist if the attraction is genuine.

Well, like I say, if that's what you're into, go nuts. Consenting adults etc.

That's why Burchill gets on my nerves. She started off all iconoclastic and the rest of it and it's got to be such a habit that she can't express her dislike of anything without making it an ideological fight to the death.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by contracycle

The basic offer in romantic gestures is "I'm willing to make an effort to please you", which is pretty basic piece of communication and something that should exist if the attraction is genuine.

So how comes it is still an unreliable signal and that women have perverted it into a trade? (or, less combatively, "it got perverted into a trade").

The truth is "I am willing to make an effort" stuff (critical to any lasting relationship indeed) is best sensed through the mundane and unrelated-to-seduction acts (is s/he good to cats and stray dogs? Are his/her friends supportive/willing to close ranks under attacks? etc) than it is through seduction-specific moves.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Well, like I say, if that's what you're into, go nuts. Consenting adults etc.

I once gave a girl I loved a pair of earrings, and simply her smile and pleasure at receiving them gave me a raging (and quite inconvenient under the circumstances) erection.

Quote:

So how comes it is still an unreliable signal and that women have perverted it into a trade? (or, less combatively, "it got perverted into a trade").

Well I would say, in large part through marketing - from "the lady loves milktray" to the idea of the diamond engagement ring. And of course it's unreliable, as is everything we do, but this misses the point - as above, tha fact of people often wanting to do it is more significant than that sometimnes it might be expected. I essentially agree with the point that if someone is demanding this sort of thing, itr robs it of its genuinness and spontaneity and becomes empty and formulaic. It can also be faked. But what I'm suggesting is that when attraction is genuine its quite a natural thing, and not just a social convention or manipulation as Burchill suggests.

Quote:

The truth is "I am willing to make an effort" stuff (critical to any lasting relationship indeed) is best sensed through the mundane and unrelated-to-seduction acts (is s/he good to cats and stray dogs? Are his/her friends supportive/willing to close ranks under attacks? etc) than it is through seduction-specific moves.

Well yes inasmuch as its no good trying to buy your way out of being a boor who refuses to the dishes by buying some flowers. And I'm not talking about seduction as such, because seduction is about sex and romance is about love.

Oh, and one other point: the stylisation, and indeed ritualisation, serves another purpose. If I gave someone say, a fancy pen, that might be perceived as nice, but it doesn't mean anything beyond that. While the giving of flowers frex serves as a universally recognised symbol of romantic interest, and so there is little ambiguity involved. I mean, that's the whole point of flowers: they are a (commercially) valueless gift, a gift that is not valuable except as a gesture. In this case, the medium really is the message.