posted December 21, 2009 10:01 PM         

Soulfulness in my view comes from a place much deeper based on truthful expression and sincerity. There is a greater degree of emotional vulnerability in soulful passions because of a lack of pretense between the parties involved. In a nut-shell, I would say that romance can sustain us in our early sexual development. but as we mature, it will leave something to be desired and this is the where soulful depth is required.

Essentially, one needs to evolve beyond the attractions of Venus to the divine qualities of Psyche in order to remain fulfilled as we grow.

posted December 21, 2009 10:17 PM         

I once had someone I was dating start playing the guitar and singing to me and I wanted to vomit. I felt like it was a ploy, and even if it wasn't, it was so over the top "romantic." I bet it worked on all the other girls he used it on, because chicks usually dig that sort of thing. I just disappeared after that. I felt bad but we only went out on like, three dates, and I never even kissed him. We were never intimate at all.

That said, I am romantic in my own way, which is hard to explain. I think I just don't like the cliched romantic stuff.

I do like deeper gestures of affection, though. I am the type who doesn't want someone to say "I love you" all the time, but only occasionally when they meant it, and would rather they took some sort of action to prove their love, instead of words.

posted December 21, 2009 10:53 PM         

'I can be romantic ... ?'

what does that even mean ??? not sincere at all

like he's a robot with a switch

posted December 21, 2009 10:56 PM         

Well, I like some romance, but what's more important to me is "what's behind" (blame my 8th house stellium). So romance can either be a turn off or turn on for me, if I either sense superficiality (or the kind of "in love with love and not with the person" illusion) or sincere feelings of wanting to make each other happy (little gestures can often do much more than big romantic actions).

posted December 21, 2009 11:43 PM         

*This is where it must be difficult for a man, cause how is he supposed to know this stuff*

I don't like the fakey stuff. Pet names are fine if that is just your style of talking. Some people are like that.

But yeah, I've had those awkward guitar moments and terrible poetry and stuff, which made this Sag run for the hills!!

But being an 8th house person myself, you can romance me by discussing spiritual matters in depth with me. That doesn't mean call me your soul mate on the first date, another hill running episode there!

But, if you engage in discussing things that are unusual, and you are very engaging while doing this, it will definetly romance me. Then you can add the other stuff later.

posted December 22, 2009 05:46 AM         

• Venus / Mars is responsible for ego based (ROMANCE)

• Eros / Psyche is responsible for Soul based (LOVE)
  

posted December 22, 2009 11:49 AM         

The very confusing and ***hurtful*** thing is: When you fall in love with someone - and you do it SOULFULLY - and the other person falls in love with you as well - but more in a ROMANTIC way. It can be quite difficult to get closer and (emotionally) satisfied when the first crushing/rose coloured glasses phase is over ... The person with the SOULFUL approach might still feel flattered by the romantic's sweet nothings - but they'll start to sorely miss some "real connection" - it starts to feel as if the romantic person was in love for the sake of "being in love" - not really in love with you. And, on the other hand, I can imagine the more playful/ROMANTIC type, he/she can feel insecure and confronted with too much "heavyness" for their liking. I do believe, that romantics can and do love in a "sincere" way ... It's just that "sincerity" for them is more flashy. In a way, they never leave puberty, they stay a "teenager at heart" forever. Whereas the SOULFUL person is craving something else...

posted December 22, 2009 12:46 PM         

I agree with your astrological distinction, at least to a certain degree. Psyche DEFINITELY is very soulful and deep. Eros is her passionate counterpart, and definitely more spiritual / soulful than Mars.

But I owuldn`t stop there, I think there might be other connections that indicate soulfulness vs romance, too.

posted December 22, 2009 03:30 PM         

quote:

---

Alvarella777: The very confusing and ***hurtful*** thing is: When you fall in love with someone - and you do it SOULFULLY - and the other person falls in love with you as well - but more in a ROMANTIC way. It can be quite difficult to get closer and (emotionally) satisfied when the first crushing/rose coloured glasses phase is over ... The person with the SOULFUL approach might still feel flattered by the romantic's sweet nothings - but they'll start to sorely miss some "real connection" - it starts to feel as if the romantic person was in love for the sake of "being in love" - not really in love with you. And, on the other hand, I can imagine the more playful/ROMANTIC type, he/she can feel insecure and confronted with too much "heavyness" for their liking. I do believe, that romantics can and do love in a "sincere" way ... It's just that "sincerity" for them is more flashy. In a way, they never leave puberty, they stay a "teenager at heart" forever. Whereas the SOULFUL person is craving something else...

---

Wow, I never even considered that conflicting combination within a relationship dynamic itself; at least not to that extent. I think YOU have certainly nailed it here. I couldn't have said it any better myself! Ya know, reading your post makes me suddenly realize that the primary reason for relationship failure is likely due to the incompatibility between Romantic Love and Soulful Love. I am going to contemplate this further. I think we're onto something. Although, I do not think one is either a romantic or soulful, it seems to me that each one is experienced according to one's degree of psychological maturity. I have been one before, but now I am the other.

quote:

---

In a way, they never leave puberty, they stay a "teenager at heart" forever. Whereas the SOULFUL person is craving something else...

---

You can say that again, but you don't have to because I quoted you twice. I think this sums it up right here. Just like Psyche in the myth of "Eros & Psyche" you must face the challenges of life and Grow-Up before they can discover, understand, or even handle the depth of that kind of love. The kind of love that automatically includes God or a higher power. A love that isn't ego based and self-seeking. The kind of love that both reveals and frees the human potential. A love that makes us grow into the the best version of ourselves making us whole. It is the love that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13:

quote:

---

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

---

posted December 22, 2009 03:59 PM         

Romance is a phase of a relationship. The beginning, getting to know you phase. Those with experience know like all things this phase will end to make way for the next phase. The immature will view the end of this phase as an insult to the ego. Or dismiss it all together. Hey, forget infancy, let's get this baby walking & talking already.

If anything, I'd say romance is the phase or one of the phases preceeding "soulfulness" You won't/cant get a soulful relationship without first going through the romantic.

posted December 22, 2009 04:27 PM         

quote:

---

Nine I don't know what soulfulness is supposed to be, but it's not the opposite or in competition with romance.

---

If you don't know what Soulfulness is supposed to be, then how can you say whether it is the opposite or not?

quote:

---

Romance is a phase of a relationship. The beginning, getting to know you phase. Those with experience know like all things this phase will end to make way for the next phase. The immature will view the end of this phase as an insult to the ego. Or dismiss it all together. Hey, forget infancy, let's get this baby walking & talking already.

If anything, I'd say romance is the phase or one of the phases preceeding "soulfulness" You won't/cant get a soulful relationship without first going through the romantic.

---

There are two ways that a relationship can be formed, from the bottom up, or from the top down. Either working from the outside moving inward, or starting from the inside moving outward.

Traditionally, we are taught to build relationships in the way you have described. This is the principle that dating is based on were in the beginning people attempt to get to know one another, but by showing only their best face as they try and make a good impression, it actually works against them truly knowing one another. In truth, this only works to make them comfortable enough to become sexual, but they do not really know each other at all. This is the work of Venus / Mars energy and this is sexual attraction and romance.

The other way that a relationship is formed is a way that most never experience. It is when fate steps in and overrides the conscious choice and ego. Where by divine design two people become bonded spiritually without any decision on their own part. This is what produces synchronicity and telepathy that true soul mates and twin flames describe as getting their attention in the beginning. Because of this kind of connection between the two people, the deception and pretense, so common in romance, are not an option for soulful beginnings. There is an honesty and vulnerability that occurs which transforms them both. I believe this to be the work of Eros / Psyche conjunction energy.

I have created relationships both romantically and soulfully and in my view, the romance is just a dress rehearsal for the soulful experience that comes later in life as we mature.

quote:

---

If anything, I'd say romance is the phase or one of the phases preceeding "soulfulness" You won't/cant get a soulful relationship without first going through the romantic.

---

posted December 22, 2009 04:45 PM         

quote:

---

vapor-lash Romance could be an expression of soulfulness.. depending on your interpretation of "romance".

---

Anything "Could Be" if we leave it up to an uninformed interpretation. Believe me, I could not see what I am saying now until I had experienced it for myself. We only know what we experience directly, anything else is just hearsay. I understand why one would want to defend romance against what I suggest if romance is all they have experienced up to this point. Trust me, in time you will come to see things differently and what I say now will make more sense to you.

Romance is mostly about ways to make another person like you or be pleased with you. Sometimes one will even sacrifice who and what they truly are in order to achieve this.

posted December 22, 2009 05:04 PM         

quote:

---

Romance is mostly about ways to make another person like you or be pleased with you. Sometimes one will even sacrifice who and what they truly are in order to achieve this.

---

quote:

---

by showing only their best face as they try and make a good impression, it actually works against them truly knowing one another.

---

lol I don't think I ever do this. I'm a bit anti-social (aries! lol). I'm not as interested in making a good impression as I am in just being ME. I definitely don't sacrifice who I am. Far from it.

I do not associate this behavior with romance at ALL.. For me romance is making the person a shell necklace, just *BECAUSE* - not for their birthday or some occasion (and not to impress them), just to surprise them/make them feel good.. or .. lying down, star gazing and talking about the universe.

I just can't associate pretence with romance.. I'm very easily put off by pretence.

posted December 22, 2009 05:13 PM         

quote:

---

If you don't know what Soulfulness is supposed to be, then how can you say whether it is the opposite or not?

---

I say this because romance, like infancy or the opening scene of a movie, marks the first part of the story/union of two individuals. In that sense, there can only be one opening scene regardless of how you choose to tell the story.

Many people like to relive this phase for ego/sentimental reasons, but it should never be mistaken for the "meat & bones" of the relationship.

quote:

---

The other way that a relationship is formed is...[when]... by divine design two people become bonded spiritually without any decision on their own part.

---

All relationships are formed this way, from the ones that last to the ones that don't. Astrology bears this out. After all, what does astrology show but the spiritual connections between two people. We'd like to think we choose someone but without the corresponding connections, would that person respond.

quote:

---

Nine said:If anything, I'd say romance is the phase or one of the phases preceding "soulfulness" You won't/cant get a soulful relationship without first going through the romantic.

---

quote:

---

Polo CsaidNot true!

---

quote:

---

Polo CsaidI have created relationships both romantically and soulfully and in my view, the romance is just a dress rehearsal for the soulful experience that comes later in life as we mature.

---

It seems you've agreed with me, then disagreed with me at the same time.

But that is my point. In youth, romance is highly attractive. In maturity not so much. Romance follows a similar lifepath; in the youth of the relationship it hypnotizes, as the relationship matures its allure diminishes.

posted December 22, 2009 05:17 PM         

Nevertheless I think you may be talking about two different perception of the word "Romance".

Romance 1:
The initial state of a relationship, the fascination and attraction and well, romance-phase

posted December 22, 2009 05:23 PM         

Actually my use of the word is different to both Polo and Nice..

so

posted December 22, 2009 05:46 PM         

quote:

---

Nine,

Nevertheless I think you may be talking about two different perception of the word "Romance".

Romance 1:
The initial state of a relationship, the fascination and attraction and well, romance-phase

Romance 2:
A rather superficial connection, probably mostly based on appearances, maybe also sensual pleasure, without a real emotional connection underneath, even in the later stage of a relationship.

---

Thanks.

posted December 22, 2009 05:49 PM         

quote:

---

Nine Romance 1:
The initial state of a relationship, the fascination and attraction and well, romance-phase

---

Never-mind all of that. What does the Dictionary say. Let's have a look shall we?

• a feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love

• an exciting, enjoyable love affair, esp. one that is not serious or long-lasting

• a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life

• wild exaggeration; picturesque falsehood
  

We can make up our own interpretations if we want to in oder to justify our position, but if that's the case there is no need to discuss it. If we don't try and use objective truth in order to reach a conclusion then then all we do is state our opinions as if they carry the same weight as facts. to me that is pointless. Romance IS what I said it is, by definition. Let us use words in the way they were intended by their authors. It's the same with religion. the Bible itself says "Lean not to your own interpretation" yet, organized religion itself is based on subjective interpretation. Now look where it has gotten them.

quote:

---

NineIt seems you've agreed with me, then disagreed with me at the same time.

---

No, Nine, I don't agree with you. When I say romance 1st I am talking about over the course of a lifetime as one grows and mature through being involved in various relationships. You are suggesting that romance must come before soulfulness in the course of a single relationship and I don't agree with THAT. This is what I am saying is false. Only a fool would agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.

quote:

---

All relationships are formed this way, from the ones that last to the ones that don't. Astrology bears this out. After all, what does astrology show but the spiritual connections between two people. We'd like to think we choose someone but without the corresponding connections, would that person respond.

---

With this I could have been more clear. Astrology shows us the energetic connections between people, but how we consciously respond to this energy has much to do with our own level of awareness. This would be our degree of soulfulness.

Considering the 7 chakras, as one's awareness elevates up through the the levels certain expressions of astrological energies are either more or less appealing. The higher you go, the more soulful you become, and the less base, sensual pleasures appeal to you. This is what it means to conquer lust or the desires of the flesh. Man cannot live on bread alone.