You should try love songs from around 1600, where you get lashings of screwed-up-ness, who-cares-who-the-object-is-this-is-all-about-my-suffering, and kinky Christ imagery. But beautiful music.
The romantic stereotype is a mess. There's a controversial Almodovar film, Talk to Her, which explores just how close the ideal of romantic closeness is to extremely dangerous obsession. On a lighter note, there's also an excellent Sara Maitland short story called "An Un-Romance" (read it next time you're visiting, or get the collection called Angel Maker) dealing with the subject of unrequited love, and how, if the frustrated lover is appealing, s/he almost always gets all the sympathy.
I'm not sure "I won't always hold you close" was a good choice for their second-last point in that article. Holding someone close =/= vampiric obsession. "I'll never let you go" would have been more accurate (no idea if that's the title or refrain of a song, but it must have been at some point). There's a degree of closeness in relationships which is healthy and which is one of the parts which needs to continue. If the two members of a couple aren't close, the relationship is probably dead. Whether it will last forever is unknown, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship such as marriage or civil partnership, you should be intending to hang onto the essential elements of that relationship, at least for as long as the relationship lasts. Unless the article was sneakily trying to say that marriage is wrong? I suspect it was more likely poor phrasing.
no subject
The romantic stereotype is a mess. There's a controversial Almodovar film, Talk to Her, which explores just how close the ideal of romantic closeness is to extremely dangerous obsession. On a lighter note, there's also an excellent Sara Maitland short story called "An Un-Romance" (read it next time you're visiting, or get the collection called Angel Maker) dealing with the subject of unrequited love, and how, if the frustrated lover is appealing, s/he almost always gets all the sympathy.
I'm not sure "I won't always hold you close" was a good choice for their second-last point in that article. Holding someone close =/= vampiric obsession. "I'll never let you go" would have been more accurate (no idea if that's the title or refrain of a song, but it must have been at some point). There's a degree of closeness in relationships which is healthy and which is one of the parts which needs to continue. If the two members of a couple aren't close, the relationship is probably dead. Whether it will last forever is unknown, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship such as marriage or civil partnership, you should be intending to hang onto the essential elements of that relationship, at least for as long as the relationship lasts. Unless the article was sneakily trying to say that marriage is wrong? I suspect it was more likely poor phrasing.
How's the peacock-sitting going?