Deconstructing Romance

Adri,

One area I’ve had to prioritize in my relationship with my wife is developing a deeper understanding of romance and being intentional about creating spontaneous moments for it to be expressed. My observations, while limited and subjective, have revealed that women tend to have a different experience with romance than men when they’re growing up.

So my questions are: how do you believe society has shaped women’s expectation of and for romance within a relationship?

Second, how do you believe men can better equip themselves and/or facilitate romance within a relationship?

These question are from a heterosexual perspective based on my sexual orientation and personal experience. However, I’m fully open to having any of my assumptions or assertions challenged.

Thanks!

Deconstructing Romance

---

Dear Deconstructing Romance,

What is romance? What is love? What is anything? A construct? Sure. One we embue with meaning, with definition, with shape and form and color. Before I attempt to answer you, I wanted to challenge this assertion of yours:

Sure. Maybe. (the only reasonable responses to such a generalization.) I would push back and ask you to reflect on the following:

Is it a different experience or different socialization/stakes? What I mean is, everyone is inundated with “romance”, but women are socialized to view these examples as a sort of standard for the treatment we should expect as an exchange for the unequal labor we will (absolutely/statistically) give to our romantic partnerships. Does romance seem more important, more material in the context of that exchange?

Additionally, are men socialized to foster romance in their relationships—or only in their romantic pursuits. If only for the latter, what are the ethical and relational implications of this?

Now, to actually answer your first question, “how do you believe society has shaped women’s expectation of and for romance within a relationship?” I would say in the same way it has shaped men’s and everyone’s. Romance is relational—it takes (at least) two. Romantic partnership (like many other institutions) has evolved. Some might say it is less transactional (most folks aren’t paying dowries or securing political alliances via marriage), other’s might assert the currency of the transaction has simply changed. Romance (think wedding rituals, sappy social media posts, 200 dollar dates, a note left on the kitchen counter, the greatest gift Mary Oliver speaks of—the urge to share her poem with someone—all of it and more are all coins in the modern romance economy. There are gendered expectations, but it is a singular, dynamic economy.

Of course there are people who reflect and reject this. But, like so much, it is the awareness and informed ability to choose that makes one free, not the particulars of the choice itself. As myself and George Costanza continue to yell into the void, WE ARE LIVING IN A SOCIETY. Constructs abound.

If that feels confusing, I would bring an example from the dreaded annals of online feminist discourse. Some feminists™ believe that the only way to escape the construct of patriarchy is to live your life in opposition to all that defines it. Don’t shave, don’t marry, etc. More reasonable feminists who have been in contact with grass have pushed back and said that awareness of a construct is important—let that awareness inform your decisions, not rule them. I like shaving my legs. I like a more fluid and expansive definition of gender. I like flowers, etc. It is not about performing gender in the right way, or being romantic in the right way, but defining those things on your own terms and breathing life into them in ways that feel aligned and genuine to you (and your partner).

Your second question: “How do you believe men can better equip themselves and/or facilitate romance within a relationship?”

First and foremost—shared definitions are the basis of happy relationships. Don’t assume—discuss. Define romance in your relationship—what it means to each partner. Maybe it’s flowers. Maybe it’s making coffee every morning. I don’t want to dive into the love languages lingo, but you get my point—romance doesn’t have just one shape, despite the flowery propaganda of Hollywood and the curated circus of social media. It is likely quieter, smaller, more daily than you can imagine. It is, like love and hope—a practice, an art, and a discipline.

Long story short—you have to actually talk to your partner, pay attention, remember, and then put in consistent effort to put that information into practice. Because at its heart, romance is a show of love. And I can still think of no better approximation for love than consideration. Keep asking yourself “what does my partner like, how might this make them feel?”

Finally, second to consideration in my list of things core to love (and romance) is reciprocity—I like to think of romance not as a transaction but as a sort of call and response. I would challenge men to stop viewing romance as something they do for their partner, and instead reflect on what makes them feel loved, seen, considered as well. The back and forth makes it playful, reciprocal, and more sustainable.

In hopeful romantic solidarity,

Adri

Photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash