We’r writing anno 2013, we’ve done philosophy for thousands of years, yet we revert back to silly selfexplanatory questions.
It would be good if we could just progress a tiny bit intellectually, instead of being FAR FAR inferior in our philosophy at such advance stage as we reside in, when people in ancient times could do far better philosophy.
Why ask questions that has already been answerd? That is illogical! It servers no purpose, it will only display a total lack of philosophical skills.
The fact that there is so many different interprettions of what romance is,and within a philosophycal frame of reference is not totally garbage. In fact it is very relevant and the sign of the times.
Two things, no three things are going on. Perspectivism and contextuality have outlined what the greatest minds of the 20 th century have been talking about for a while, that reductionism in the existential tradition via phenomenology failing, there remains the only other available option: to deconstruct meaning, so that both: our effected ways of behavior, and our rigid phenomenologically held beliefs, and affects, get invalidated, and excluded by what sartre called inauthentic postures and gestures.
Romance is no longer even an idea, it is haphazard attempt to connect the on again off again meeting of minds, enfeebled to the point of being unable to describe feelings corresponding to attempts to induce or provoke the other to belive what they may feel.
Romance is a guessing game combined with a self enhanced sales pitch to the other person. That person may buy it, but with cynicism to boot factored in, as when at the voting booth they realise that the majority of promises of politician are never going to be met anyway. Campaign promises are analogous personal ones, and the promised to person is thinking, "well I know he is full of shit, but that’s what they all say nowadays, anyhoo, and he is doing a great job at selling himself, gotta give him credit for that.
Obe, while i actually kinda agree with you, i must at the same time totally disagree.
It’s a hopeless question, a question with very floating premesises, and most aspects will never be uncoverd such as the negative sides, such as rape, molesting, etc.
Various countries will have a slightly different interpetation and each individual will have a more different interpetation again. It comes down to personal preferences, therefore the question posed is unnuanced, and should be more specific, categorizing romances into different diciplins.
Also look at romance in historical perspective, when it was invented, and some nations never really had such thing.
If OP was asked in a serious buisness, he would most likely get fired as the question is selfexplanatory, it’s well defined and the mental aptitude woudl be greatly questioned for not to speak of sanity.
Ok if that's the case, let's get down to the description and it's evolvement. Now it has to be accepted that the so called romantic period in history was a very real and attributable span of time, where certain ways of behaving, speaking and acting were synonymous with the period.
I can see no viable argument with the fact that this period consisted of ways of courting, which were qualitatively different from the way it is practiced today. Now there is no way to argue quality related behavior, except in ways formal recognition of these behaviors were understood to be prerequisite into various social functions related to the process of dating among marriageable young people.
With this view, it is equally absurd to argue that such formally prescribed behavior did not once exist,m nor that critiques of modern morality would look at such backward glance as not something that may be reapplied in the future. (At least certain features). Let's not forget the obvious fact that in certain parts of the world strict morality is still strenuously applied to, (and yes I am talking about the Muslim countries) . That the western world is so aghast at the backwardness of their moral standards relating romance, must be anathema to them.
Romance is still a meaningful, albeit unachiavable ideal for most, but not all.
Eeeehhh?
I like milk and cookies!
Just my nostalgic funny bone kicking in I guess? At least the ones rnding with they lived happily ever after.
I think that the perfect romance is the marriage between the chocolate, peanut butter and the bit of salt which goes into the Reese’s Peanut Butter cup.
As I’m eating it, the oxytocin in my brain takes over, takes affect and i soar like a dragon. If is as if I am flying in the midnight sky under the stars.I am there!! Look at my avatar, that is romance. 
I’d go for that definition, as my teen years are a good indicator of that 
Overly hyped nonsense of simple biological reactions and imperatives.
You really need to take a long walk to get those endorphins jumping.
Perhaps they are not so simple. I wonder how we would have fared as a species were it not for those romantic feelings - though I will grant you that there can be romance without “real” love.
Would the flowers grow except for the sun romancing them? 
Romance is bringing inspiration to the prospect and hope to the moment
It’s
leaving the schemes and entering the dreams
breaking the stance and embracing the dance
losing the “me” and sensing the “we”
leaving the land and sailing the Sea
It’s
ending the struggle and entering the cuddle
dropping all you hate and just holding your date
abandoning the Earth and cherishing the birth
rising above by inviting the love
It’s
seeking the bliss by the touch of a kiss
changing a tease into a means to please
foregoing the trials and just aiming for smiles
forgetting the time and just swaying with rhyme
And
although chemicals play a role, its made of the soul
and a guided tour via finessing the lure
Human sexual relationships is all about competition and resources.
She doesn’t love you for who you are as a person. She only loves what you have and bases her mating with you upon that only.
Likewise with men on women’s physical appearance.
And such is the new age Secular mechanized humanism world.
Such as it always has been. No woman wanted to be with the poor fisherman or farmer.
Men likewise didn’t want to be with the local toothless pig also known as the manure farmer’s daughter. The rest is history as they say.
So why has there always been so very many of them?
Seems mechanized humanist evolution would have weeded them out long ago.
Of course with their technology of the day, they can clean it all up and get rid of them now.
… blame it on poor genes.
I don’t understand your reply here.
What are you insinuating?
That the only thing that has changed is the technology and the names to blame to protect the guilty.
Explain that further. That is quite a vague statement.
Tyrannus,
Not all human sexual relationships are about competition and resources.
That’s kind of jaded of you, isn’t it? 
I will grant you though that Insofar as the competition goes, of course, there may be some underlying not so conscious (perhaps) competitive incentive, but not in the greedy overpowering sense - but it can be a bit fun and add sparkle to a relationship.
Why do so many people feel this way? Yes it’s true in many cases - depending on the calibre of the person - from the male side and the female side both - but we also have to look to the INDIVIDUALS. Not all individuals choose their mates or people to fall in love with (if that IS even a choice - and i daresay that it is) based on competition and resources.
But I’m not sure what you mean by resources - finances? Or are you speaking about things about a person’s essence that you see ~~ that being with them would enhance and nurture your life and being? Nothing wrong about that.
Is it possible that you made the statement: Human sexual relationships is all about competition and resources because on some level perhaps this is what it is about for you?
And even were that the case, we do have the freedom to go in search of someone else, don’t we? We have the right, in the smorgasbord of life, to pick and choose according to our own taste. If we cannot do that, who is to blame?
Things are not simply all white or all black.
Relationships revolve around money, power, influence, and physical appearances. Anything else is masquerading bullshit.
All of romance is nothing more than fiction to distract us from our narcissistic and selfish impulses.
Nobody gets together because of somebody’s charming personality.
In this world you are your job and position in life where women particularly make inequal judgements on that alone in their mating choices because women thrive in environments of social inequality amongst men.