The vitality of a romantic relationship lies in desirability. This desire, though, is not mere attraction or a simple notion of being pleased; neither enjoyment of company nor shared understanding. It is an affection that rises from the depths of the soul, and most truly from the depths of the belly, that leaves the desirer in a state of utter panic until it perceives the same belly shaking, heart-wrenching, skin-tingling panic in the desired for himself or herself. This is, I believe, the base element for romantic love. It has the ability to see past the most grotesque features, such as Beauty for the Beast (which I might digress upon, Disney’s depiction of ‘Beast’ is a rather handsome and most appealing, unfrightening, character. They would have been much better off casting LeFou in the role of ‘Beast’ than the actual Beast himself), the most detestable habits and so on. Romance is no more than this: to be wanted in kind. Until one has this desire reciprocated, the means employed to receive it often are quite eccentric. When one is in want of another, it is truly a panic. But what is peculiar about this panic is not even the presence of the desired soothes the uneasiness of the desirer. Not even conversation itself, nor physical contact, even intercourse cannot satisfy (hence why intercourse is not the pinnacle of marriage) and calm. It is until the very want that shakes in the desirer is received in kind from the desired that all sorts of panic will subside.
Something else quite interesting about romance is its degrees varies from pair to pair. If romance is to be wanted in kind, then we some new dynamic of it’s nature in certain peoples; of why two persons, who can be mutually attracted and have quite an appearance of love, but this want is not in the same manner and or degree, though each may be attracted to their fullest extent. I believe there are many who have quite great capacity for romantic affections and others who have nearly none at all. This is not a negative quality, but simply the way God has constructed them. But what this implies is that in order to have what is known as True Love, both persons must have similar equivalency of romantic capacity. If there is not such, turmoil will be far greater in that relationship and desire will be quite unsatisfying for both persons. Though these two persons are attracted to the lengths of their capacity for romance, they still are not equivalent and therefore tension will always reside in such a relationship. The desires are not of the same manner. It is, therefore, quite evident why there are couples who are savagely romantic for each other and others who are quite moderate about their romantic affections, but each couple is none-the-less quite content. The savagely romantic couple is no more happy and content than the moderate couple. Their want is reciprocated in kind and therefore satisfies their romantic affections quite suitably. But a note must be put here. It is not as if the moderate couple is unsavage about their romance, it is just the expression of it is quite different and suits each character accordingly. Though they may be “under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions” (G.B. Shaw) it may not express itself in the same kind as another pair. And this is why want must be “in kind”. In the same manner in which one loves, one must be loved, for it is their understanding of what love appears as that must be returned in kind. (granted some, if not many, have distorted understandings of love that must be repaired)