While men’s expressions of romantic a(nti)pathy form a sporadic and often briefly represented motif, this is nonetheless a significant one, situated at the nexus of romance’s generic concerns with love, gender, and chivalric performance. Two of the romances discussed in this chapter reveal the queer potential of resistance to love, Guigemar resonating with modern understandings of asexuality and retaining elements of dissonance even in the normative ending and Malory’s Dynadan offering a more permanent queer alternative both masked and preserved by his camp performance. Both narratives to some extent circumscribe their depictions of queerness, though they do not do so completely. They therefore indicate romances’ investment in upholding sexual and gendered norms, but also their failure to maintain these norms entirely. Similarly, Amadas et Ydoine, Troilus and Criseyde, and Sir Degrevant both perpetuate and question gendered norms. They indicate that consent and coercion are gendered issues in romance, positioning women’s romantic a(nti)pathy as both more problematic and more vulnerable to forms of coercion than men’s resistance to love. But at times they also invite questions about why men’s and women’s romantic a(nti)pathy is treated and resolved so differently. Taken together, the five romances discussed in this chapter illustrate romance’s self-conscious negotiation of gender, sexuality, and generic expectations, suggesting the generative potential medieval writers found in romantic a(nti)pathy as a motif that encourages exploration of contemporary expectations. Do romances primarily focused upon women’s romantic a(nti)pathy, and particularly those portraying the figure of the proud lady in love, raise the same questions and uphold the same norms? Chapter 2 investigates the proud lady’s role in exploring, questioning, and upholding cultural ideas of love, marriage, and gendered behaviour.