I think courting still exists, in odd ways.

I suppose it does, and I've certainly engaged in my fair share of e-mail and IM romance. Maybe what keeps it distinct from my vision of "courting" is the way we tend to downplay the whole process. It's the very rare modern man (outside of the movies) who's willing to say, with or without poetry, "We haven't known each other long, but you amaze me. Since we met, I've been unable to think of anything but you. You are beautiful and funny and inspire me to great heights. If I could see you every day, I would."

Instead we say "I had fun. Want to hang out again on Tuesday?" and pretend that we're casual about it, even when we're not. Because coming on too strong and having strong feelings without rational consideration is a crime in the Sex and the City generation, and any statement of such feelings may be construed as a sleazy seductive technique.

It's possible I'm wrong, and just don't know how to do it right.

I think it all comes down to whether the attention is desired. If I fancied someone I would love to hear their terrible poetry. There is a chance that an amazingly good poem might change my mind about someone I thought I wasn't attracted to. But the only way a poem could be bad enough to turn me off on someone would be if it revealed something about their character that I hadn't realized I'm opposed to.

Kristin- sending you no-more-blues ~ma.

Kitten love to brighten your day: [link]

The only person who's ever written me poetry was this ex-roommate who developed this weird love/hate thing for me and would write these godawful poems and long analyses of my character and slide them under my bedroom door. I'm not sure how I'd react to poetry coming from someone who didn't totally skeeve me, though.

one more boiled egg question- does it matter which end is up?

It's the very rare modern man (outside of the movies) who's willing to say, with or without poetry, "We haven't known each other long, but you amaze me. Since we met, I've been unable to think of anything but you. You are beautiful and funny and inspire me to great heights. If I could see you every day, I would."

Instead we say "I had fun. Want to hang out again on Tuesday?" and pretend that we're casual about it, even when we're not. Because coming on too strong and having strong feelings without rational consideration is a crime in the Sex and the City generation, and any statement of such feelings may be construed as a sleazy seductive technique.

It's possible I'm wrong, and just don't know how to do it right.

I agree with Laga -- if the woo-ee WANTS to hear it, then of course its wildly romantic movie love. But if the woo-ee doesn't want to hear it, or is unsure, or is just a turtle, then it comes off as creepy and overbearing.

Hugh Grant movies only show the scenario where the woo-ee wants to hear the love poems and grand declarations of adoration, so of course we start to think "Why isn't MY life like that???"

Or, as Sleepless in Seattle (loathe it though I do) put it: "You don't want to be in love; you want to be in love in the movies."

So basically, making the grand declaration of adoration is a matter of judging whether it would be well received. Again, that may not *sound* romantic, but frankly, a lot of things that are billed as "romantic" are contrived claptrap and foofurrah.

one more boiled egg question- does it matter which end is up?

In the pan? Nope -- they usually lie down and then sort of wobble around.

In an egg cup? I have no idea, since I scoop them into a bowl.

I decided to try to eat mine out of a shot glass, but every time I try to peel off a jagged piece of shell, it leaves another jagged piece of shell.

Nicely put, Tep. It's solid reasoning. Too bad it means that only those who are confident and capable enough to really read whether the woo-ee want to hear it will ever get to be the romantic male lead.

Though I did just watch Love, Actually, and it doesn't seem so bad to just be awkward Jack and Judy. Just less grand.