How to kick a guy out after a hookup?

Romance is not dead as a concept or experience.

I still have a carved wood attempt at putting a certain mountain as a backdrop for his thoughts about me, he being my first lover, now fifty years later. I still remember all the poetry and songs spoken or sung by my later husband, now ex, our years lasted quite a while, but we still talk. Not now a romance, but basic understanding.

On a2k, since it a world wide site directed, we have posters from places that are very regimented about who gets to marry whom...if marriage is a cultural aspect, and even from them there are "does she/he like me" cries. That may not be exactly defined as romance, but they are associative..

Of course romance isn't dead. It is a brand new idea invented by Americans and Western Europeans in the 20th century.

Our modern ideas of romance would be foreign and strange to anyone living a few centuries ago.

I will be so bold as to say that people through the ages may have been excited by each other from time to time, including liking who they are as personalities.

Or did we create personality too?

Sure Osso.

My point is that each culture has a different understanding of sex, gender, marriage and relationships. Rules about who can have sex with whom and under what circumstances vary greatly from culture to culture.

Humans have always had sexual attraction and desire (which have the obvious evolutionary benefit). And, humans have always formed social bonds and connections which evolved to help us form stable societies (since we are social animals). But the meaning of sexual relationships, and family bonds and gender and sex vary greatly from society to society. This is clear from laws, customs and literature.

We modern Americans ascribe certain meaning to sexual relationships that are unique to modern Western culture. Our ideas of "romance" encompass a set of ideals and behaviors that earlier cultures would have found odd and impossible to understand.

It is a mistake to think that modern American experience and understanding is the one true valid experience or understanding.

Imagine trying to apply, or even explain, Chai's idea of romance expressed in her earlier post to a Japanese feudal lady, or an Aztec craftsman, or a Germanic tribesman at the turn of the century.

These modern Western ideas only work in our society.

sounds like a lecture; I'm moderately aware of history.

Good. So you get my point.

The historical revisionism that comes with modern ideas on gender are a pet peeve of mine.

Do what Janeane Garofalo does:

ca. 7:03

Again, can you cite a particular time when this was true?

Not meaning this snidely Olivier, but I think you have a pretty bad case of "the good old days" A belief in a time when things were relatively hunky dory as far a relationships as compared to today, or any other particular time.

It is annoying how people, in this case you, can simply say what they wish would be, and state it as fact, and others accept it unexamined. Maybe partly for the same reason people are suprised by someone unexpected, it's just too much work to think about being aware of your surrounds or consider if what is being said can be supported.

The divorce rate in modern times is up not just because some people got married before they really understood what happens after "I do" It's also up because as we are living longer, we've realized the right person at one age is not the right one at another, and that each person is growing in a different way. Many other reasons of course, but another big reason divorce is up is because people just simply Can get divorced.

My opinion of what defines a happy marriage overall is not what appears to the two lead characters in a novel. It's generally more like 2 background characters we know have been together a long time, but that's all the info we've been given. There's no magic formula to it Olivier. It's 2 people that get along well enough, and if they are each individually happy, it's because of their life in general, and how well they function in the pleasures and challenges of it, if the person you're married to is congenial enough to be around.

What you speak of Olivier, is limerence, and that can't last forever. It can reflame occassional, or arise "out of nowhere" years after knowing someone, but it's not going to last forever anymore than a fireworks display can feed on itself. A "happy" marriage comes from a slow mild warmth that feeds yourself first, then the other. It ebbs and flows, and that's just how life in general is. Again, opinion.

My belief is people are happier when they have an adequate amount of control over their lives, regardless of what that looks like. Women, for instance, may have "looked" happier in old photos or other artistic renderings, or in the writings that were generally done by people other than women.

They are certainly smiling or looking pleasant while wearing corsets or with their feet bound. Maybe if they were allowed to write down how they really felt, for us to read today, we'd have a different perception of their live. In baby steps, women are still wearing 6 inch heels that in reality suck to wear, but we are at least able to say "these things are killing my feet, and making me overall bitchy"
I don't think that indicates a change in happiness, at the least it's giving the woman control to speak with her own voice. Unfortunately, some see that increasing unhappiness, because we just won't keep our mouth shut.

Procreation? I've never felt a nanosecond of the need for it personally, but I can understand the desire. Babies aren't a holy symbol of 2 peoples romance making with each other. They are the result of sexual intercourse.

Tenderness toward another is a private thing, regardless of whether it's shown in front of other people or not.

InfraBlue, I remember Dr. Katz!

Haven't thought of him in years.

Actually, many posts back I had thought of that same line "You don't have to go home but you can't stay here. Wrap it up, out ya go!"

I mean, I think that's actually much sexier than some clingly behavior and the associated necessary negotiations going on in the morning. Call me?

This is a perfect example of what I am saying. It is a modern American woman, judging the lives of women in other cultures using modern American standards... as if all women in all cultures throughout history were longing to be American women.

Of course we know this isn't true. People in other cultures, and women in other cultures, reject American cultural values.

Ask an typical Orthodox Jewish woman, or a traditional Chinese woman, or an Amish woman, or a Amazonian tribal woman if they want a modern American life, and many of them will say "No thanks". We know this because many of them do exactly that and reject modern Western ideas of gender for the ideas of their own cultures. Other cultures do just fine with their own ways of measuring and achieving happiness.

I suppose it is human nature to project our own cultural values onto our understanding of other cultures. But it isn't a way to reach a real understanding of cultures outside our own.

Of course you are right, by and large. The idea in fact dates back to the European romantic movement ie early/mid 19th century.

Mme Bovary, a book written at the end of the 19th century, already takes issue with the literary invention of romance. The book shows how a woman who believed a bit too much in the many books she read as a youth ends married to an average asshole, has a few sad affairs, and finally commits suicide.

More later. I would like to argue that it was a non-totally useless invention.

Sorry if i annoyed you. It wasn't my intention. I'm just a cheesy old french.

It's gona make a come back at some point, pendulum style.

Mme Bovary was in fact published in 1856 (and it's already a critique of western ideas about romance). Just to show the idea of romance predates the 20th century.

Change that to 19th century then.... and even then I am skeptical that the "romance" in 1856 that is critiqued by Mme Bovary's relates to modern ideas on romance.

I was just reading about foot binding, the practice that Chai used as an example.

There is literature where women with bound feet express being happiness in marriage. And, there is quite a bit of evidence that women valued the practice as part of their cultural identity as women. Chinese women promoted and participated in the practice themselves.

Of course, from a modern American perspective this is an example of oppression. But is a modern American perspective valid in pre-colonial China?

The interesting part of the story is how the practice footbinding was abolished. It wasn't Chinese women who rose up against the practice. It was White Christian missionaries who saw Chinese culture as inferior to their own Western European culture.

The practice of foot binding was ended as part of cultural imperialism, the supplanting of indigenous cultural values with those of a politically and economically dominant Western European culture.

Whether this was a good thing or not is a matter of interpretation.

It was mainly a critique of french romanticism. Granted that what passes foemr romance in todays' America might be different but it's strongly related.

Anyway, without exclusive romance, or "limerence" if that's the scientific term, why bother with monogamy? Better to facilitate occasional hook-ups and affairs mainly for sex, no?

I can't speak for other human beings, I am a serial monogamist.

I have never had more than one sexual partner at a time. I have never wanted more than one sexual partner at a time (I am talking about sexual relationships rather than single-night affairs). This isn't a matter of values, it is just a matter of my personal preference.

My impression is that in the US at least, monogamy is becoming less common. My twenty-something sons talk about a hook-up culture that is far more sexually open then I remember in the late 80's early 90's when I was that age.

Me too, on monogamy. But that's because i believe in romance. Without infatuation, it doesn't matter whose genitals you're playing up with.