Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In theory it sounds wonderful but I suspect I would get bored of it pretty quickly. I believe in a relationship of equals and I think a "Sir Galahad" is never going to be that. I never like to put people on pedestals, I find "heroes" are far too brittle and human to ever deserve that title. And I like it just fine that way.
A Knight in shining armour is a nice concept , there is certainly a certain romantic aspect to it which can be appealing but nobody, no matter how wonderful can ever live up to that hype thus disappointment will always rear its ugly head.
I prefer to have a relationship with a man made of flesh and blood , warts and all. I think one can have a good man in one's life without having to resort to the great Medieval fables. And fables they were.
The world "Galahad" was born out of was a world of unspeakable violence, war , famine and poverty and chivalry was a concept meant for courtly activities, an outward show of good behaviour when reality was nothing of the sort.
I like my Husband to have faults, they might drive me up the wall but they also make him greatly human and accessible as an individual. He is no remote idol of imagined purity and perfection but someone I can love because his virtues greatly outnumber his "vices" .... I have plenty of faults, it seems a lot more balanced that he should have them too... Who wants to live with Mr Perfect ? Mr Pretty darn great suits me fine.
I never really wanted to be rescued, have never been a Damsel in Distress and I fear it is a little naive to want or expect any human being to attain such high levels of perfection as Sir Galahad. He is not real , never was and never will be.
It makes a good story but I don't want it to be my story.
Nobody is pure of heart. Goodness is not perfection because perfection does not exist. Perfection would become pretty annoying and tedious very quickly I suspect. If nothing else it would highlight your own imperfections. You would be greatly diminished by his lack of flaws and would find yourself pondering your own inadequacy.
A true relationship is about mutual love, respect and loyalty and being comfortable enough to disagree with someone and fight them once in a while.... Galahad is a mirage, something we dreamt up because reality was so darn scary and bloody.
Real men can be loyal, tender, strong, loyal, brave and all those requisites of romantic novels without having to be put on a pedestal and worshipped. Lancelot his father was always a lot more flawed and yet somehow a lot more interesting too. There is more complexity of character in someone who is deeply human.
I love the imagery of "La Morte D'Arthur" and am a big fan of Medieval literature and Pre-Raphaelite art but I don't want it in my daily life. I have no aspirations to be an Elaine or a Guinevere.
Those ideals were allegories and many were politcally motivated in their writing.
Last edited by Mooseketeer; 01-04-2011 at 07:25 AM..
In theory it sounds wonderful but I suspect I would get bored of it pretty quickly. I believe in a relationship of equals and I think a "Sir Galahad" is never going to be that. I never like to put people on pedestals, I find "heroes" are far too brittle and human to ever deserve that title. And I like it just fine that way.
A Knight in shining armour is a nice concept , there is certainly a certain romantic aspect to it which can be appealing but nobody, no matter how wonderful can ever live up to that hype thus disappointment will always rear its ugly head.
I prefer to have a relationship with a man made of flesh and blood , warts and all. I think one can have a good man in one's life without having to resort to the great Medieval fables. And fables they were.
The world "Galahad" was born out of was a world of unspeakable violence, war , famine and poverty and chivalry was a concept meant for courtly activities, an outward show of good behaviour when reality was nothing of the sort.
I like my Husband to have faults, they might drive me up the wall but they also make him greatly human and accessible as an individual. He is no remote idol of imagined purity and perfection but someone I can love because his virtues greatly outnumber his "vices" .... I have plenty of faults, it seems a lot more balanced that he should have them too... Who wants to live with Mr Perfect ? Mr Pretty darn great suits me fine.
I never really wanted to be rescued, have never been a Damsel in Distress and I fear it is a little naive to want or expect any human being to attain such high levels of perfection as Sir Galahad. He is not real , never was and never will be.
It makes a good story but I don't want it to be my story.
Nobody is pure of heart. Goodness is not perfection because perfection does not exist. Perfection would become pretty annoying and tedious very quickly I suspect. If nothing else it would highlight your own imperfections. You would be greatly diminished by his lack of flaws and would find yourself pondering your own inadequacy.
A true relationship is about mutual love, respect and loyalty and being comfortable enough to disagree with someone and fight them once in a while.... Galahad is a mirage, something we dreamt up because reality was so darn scary and bloody.
Real men can be loyal, tender, strong, loyal, brave and all those requisites of romantic novels without having to be put on a pedestal and worshipped. Lancelot his father was always a lot more flawed and yet somehow a lot more interesting too. There is more complexity of character in someone who is deeply human.
I love the imagery of "La Morte D'Arthur" and am a big fan of Medieval literature and Pre-Raphaelite art but I don't want it in my daily life. I have no aspirations to be an Elaine or a Guinevere.
Those ideals were allegories and many were politcally motivated in their writing.
Fascinating...many thanks for your comments and insightful thoughts Mooseketeer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseketeer
In theory it sounds wonderful but I suspect I would get bored of it pretty quickly. I believe in a relationship of equals and I think a "Sir Galahad" is never going to be that. I never like to put people on pedestals, I find "heroes" are far too brittle and human to ever deserve that title. And I like it just fine that way.
A Knight in shining armour is a nice concept , there is certainly a certain romantic aspect to it which can be appealing but nobody, no matter how wonderful can ever live up to that hype thus disappointment will always rear its ugly head.
I prefer to have a relationship with a man made of flesh and blood , warts and all. I think one can have a good man in one's life without having to resort to the great Medieval fables. And fables they were.
The world "Galahad" was born out of was a world of unspeakable violence, war , famine and poverty and chivalry was a concept meant for courtly activities, an outward show of good behaviour when reality was nothing of the sort.
I like my Husband to have faults, they might drive me up the wall but they also make him greatly human and accessible as an individual. He is no remote idol of imagined purity and perfection but someone I can love because his virtues greatly outnumber his "vices" .... I have plenty of faults, it seems a lot more balanced that he should have them too... Who wants to live with Mr Perfect ? Mr Pretty darn great suits me fine.
I never really wanted to be rescued, have never been a Damsel in Distress and I fear it is a little naive to want or expect any human being to attain such high levels of perfection as Sir Galahad. He is not real , never was and never will be.
It makes a good story but I don't want it to be my story.
Nobody is pure of heart. Goodness is not perfection because perfection does not exist. Perfection would become pretty annoying and tedious very quickly I suspect. If nothing else it would highlight your own imperfections. You would be greatly diminished by his lack of flaws and would find yourself pondering your own inadequacy.
A true relationship is about mutual love, respect and loyalty and being comfortable enough to disagree with someone and fight them once in a while.... Galahad is a mirage, something we dreamt up because reality was so darn scary and bloody.
Real men can be loyal, tender, strong, loyal, brave and all those requisites of romantic novels without having to be put on a pedestal and worshipped. Lancelot his father was always a lot more flawed and yet somehow a lot more interesting too. There is more complexity of character in someone who is deeply human.
I love the imagery of "La Morte D'Arthur" and am a big fan of Medieval literature and Pre-Raphaelite art but I don't want it in my daily life. I have no aspirations to be an Elaine or a Guinevere.
Those ideals were allegories and many were politcally motivated in their writing.
To me, a woman marrying a Sir Galahad is admitting a weakness and any man attracted to that type of woman would want to exploit it. It wouldn't be a marriage of equals, it would be a weak, clinging woman wanting her asexual Knight to swoop down whenever the bogeyman comes knocking.
I don't need saving and don't want saving, unless I'm in the Atlantic ocean after the Titanic sinks (Jack was sweet saving Rose). A marriage should be between equals, not the man being the 'strong one,' and the lady being 'the weak one.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A marriage should be between equals, not the man being the 'strong one,' and the lady being 'the weak one.'
