<serious>
I read the article too, and I have no idea what the author was trying to say. This is what I got: First, he equates chemistry/romance (which are automatically linked?) with physical attraction, which isn’t important according to a bunch of sources, but still is important when we call it “attraction,” not “romance,” then ends off with some vague, unrelated platitudes about “ahava” (love? romance? CHAS V’SHALOM) being generated by giving. Because that is EMES [insert arbitrary ma’amarim about emes]. And romance = Hollywood because the word comes from the ROMANS.
To me this sounds like someone got so caught up in decrying a particular terminology that they ended up losing any point they were trying to make along the way. Something that it seems a lot of people have a problem with when the words “love” and “romance” are put on the table (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/whats-the-torah-way-for-finding-a-spouse).
</serious>