• Miel Biologique | Miel de la Garde
• Produits sauvages et cueillette en forêt - Gourmet Sauvage
• The best hot sauce in Quebec | Tabarnasco
• Accueil - Tribe Kombucha
• Érablière du Coeur Sucré
• ACCUEIL - Pascal Le Boulanger
• La Manufacture – Distillerie Artisanale du grain à la bouteille – Distillerie la manufacture
• Microbrasserie la Veillée – Microbrasserie La Veillée

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life.

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent — which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society — at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

“It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others...” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no”, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

Ingredients

• ¾ cup butter, softened
• ¾ cup white sugar
• ¾ cup packed brown sugar
• 2 large eggs
• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
• 1 ¼ cups all-purpose flour
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• ½ teaspoon ground cinnamon
• ½ teaspoon salt
• 3 cups rolled oats
• 1 ⅔ cups butterscotch chips

Instructions

1. Preheat the oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C).
2. Beat butter, white sugar, and brown sugar together in a large bowl with an electric mixer until light and fluffy.
3. Add eggs one at a time, beating well after each addition. Beat in vanilla.
4. Stir together flour, baking soda, cinnamon, and salt in a separate bowl. Gradually add flour mixture to butter mixture and mix until blended.
5. Mix in oats and butterscotch chips until combined.
6. Drop dough by teaspoonfuls onto an ungreased cookie sheet. Bake in the preheated oven until the edges begin to brown, 8 to 10 minutes.

Ingrédients

pour la garniture

• 1 Kg Fromage blanc à 40%
• 250 gr Crème fraîche épaisse 30%
• 500 gr Oignons
• 500 gr Lard fumé en tranches ou lardons
• 10 gr Sel
• 1 gr Poivre
• 0.1 gr Muscade

pour la pâte

• 1 Kg Farine de type 45
• 10 gr Levure de boulanger fraîche
• 50 cl Eau
• 50 gr Beurre extra-fin ou de Baratte
• 5 gr Sel

Instructions

1. Prélever 20 gr de l’eau (50 cl) et y mélanger la levure (10 gr) jusqu’à ce que celle-ci soit complètement dissoute.
2. A l’aide d’un robot-ménager équipé d’un crochet à pâte, ou à la main en veillant à bien soulever la pâte, mélanger la farine (1 kg), l’eau (50 cl), la levure dissoute de l’étape précédente, et le sel (5 gr) jusqu’à obtenir une boule de pâte grossière. Ajouter un peu d’eau si nécessaire afin de former la boule de pâte.
3. Ajouter le beurre ramolli (50 gr), mais non fondu, à la boule de pâte. Mélanger jusqu’à ce que le beurre soir complètement intégré. Battre le mélange jusqu’à obtenir une boule à la surface bien lisse.Couvrir d’un linge et laisser reposer 1 heure.
4. Couper les extrémités de chaque oignon et les éplucher. Couper chaque oignon en deux dans le sens de la longueur, enlever le germe, et l’émincer dans le sens de la longueur.
5. Dans une poêle, avec un peu d’huile ou de beurre, faire revenir les oignons à feu très doux jusqu’à ce qu’ils deviennent translucides. Remuer les oignons très souvent afin d’éviter de les faire brunir ou accrocher à la poêle. Réserver.
6. Détailler chaque tranche de lard fumé en lardons. Réserver.
7. Dans un récipient, mélanger le fromage blanc (1 kg), la crème (250 gr), le sel (10 gr), le poivre (1 gr) et la muscade (0,1 gr). Réserver
8. Prélever 3-4 bonnes cuillères à soupe de garniture (125 gr) et l’étaler sur le fond de tarte.
9. Répartir sur la garniture 30-40 gr d’oignons et 40-50 gr de lardons suivant votre goût. Faire cuire la tarte flambée 8-9 minutes dans un four à 250° mode gril air pulsé ou gril chaleur tournante. Bien entendu, si vous disposez d’un four à bois, c’est l’idéal.
10. Découper la tarte flambée en 4 portions égales. Chaque convive pourra alors la déguster comme en Alsace … avec les doigts !!! Bon appétit.

Situé aux sentiers nature de Chute-Saint-Philippe, au 78 chemin du Panorama, Le Keg est une nouvelle paroi d’escalade. D’une hauteur de 20 à 30 mètres, elle possède 32 voies aménagées. Pour accéder à cette paroi d’escalade, il suffit de marcher 20 minutes en empruntant d’abord le sentier E.

Selon l’ouvreur et équipeur du CMHL, Guillaume Therrien Gamache, on retrouve 3 falaises d’escalade dans les environs du Keg. Le Keg étant la plus imposante des parois, on retrouve aussi 2 plus petites parois, dont une grotte à explorer. Sur le site des sentiers nature, la première paroi d’escalade qui a été inaugurée il y a déjà quelques années est toujours accessible, en suivant la piste 1, en bordure du lac, en direction du relais du chevreuil. Il s’agit de la paroi des Lutins, qui est d’une hauteur de 15 mètres.

Sur toutes ses parois, il est possible de pratiquer trois types de grimpes. Le grimpeur peut utiliser le moulinet, en accrochant une corde au sommet de la paroi, ou encore y aller avec une approche plus sportive, en installant un encrage dans la roche à tous les 6 pieds. Le grimpeur peut aussi y aller avec le type d’escalade traditionnelle, soit avec des protections amovibles.

Choisir une paroi d’escalade

L’ouvreur et équipeur du CMHL endosse plusieurs rôles. « C’est moi qui défriche, nettoie les parois, installe les relais pour grimper », expliquait Guillaume Therrien Gamache, tout en ajoutant qu’il nettoie aussi les équipements d’escalade.

Ce dernier a notamment exploré quelques endroits de notre région à la recherche de bonnes parois d’escalade. Les sentiers nature de Chute-Saint-Philippe se sont avérés plus que prometteur. « Pour choisir une bonne paroi d’escalade, on regarde la hauteur, on regarde si la roche est friable. Nous avons besoin d’une roche solide et d’une bonne hauteur, quelque chose d’abrupt », soulignait M. Therrien Gamache.

Selon ce dernier, une paroi d’escalade doit représenter un défi à surmonter. « Pour du long terme, ça prend un défi. Il faut quelque chose pour qui incite les grimpeurs à y retourner pour réussir à grimper la paroi. Si c’est trop facile, tu ne reviendras pas après la première fois. C’est bon pour les écoles, mais moins populaire pour le sportif », partageait Guillaume Therrien Gamache.

Bientôt une autre paroi

Même si l’escalade reste timide dans les Hautes-Laurentides, elle tend à gagner en popularité. Avec le Keg, on retrouve trois sites d’escalade dans les Hautes-Laurentides, incluant la paroi des Lutins et la paroi d’escalade accessible en canot au parc du Poisson Blanc, à Notre-Dame-du-Laus.

Un quatrième site pourrait voir le jour au cours de l’été. Le CMHL, a un nouveau site dans le viseur, situé entre les municipalités de Notre-Dame-du-Laus et de Notre-Dame-de-Pontmain. Pour l’heure, le CMHL n’a pas fourni beaucoup d’information sur ce site potentiel. Le groupe attend une réponse du ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts, avant d’aller de l’avant.

Ingredients

• ½ yellow onion, finely chopped
• 50 g butter
• ½-1 dl wheat flour
• 500 g potatoes, boiled
• 500 g cod or haddock, boiled
• 4 dl milk and fish stock
• Salt
• Pepper (white or black)

Instructions

1. Prepare the Potatoes: Boil the potatoes with their skin on. Once boiled, cool them by draining the hot water and replacing it with cold water for a few minutes. Then, peel and cut them into bite-sized pieces.
2. Cook the Fish: In a deep pan, bring water to a boil. Add salt, followed by the fish. Cover the pan, turn off the heat, and let it sit for 8-9 minutes. Remove the fish, retaining the water (stock) for later use. Flake the fish using a fork.
3. Make the Stew: In the same pan, melt butter over medium heat. Add onions and sauté until translucent. Stir in the flour, then gradually add a mixture of stock and milk (⅓ stock, ⅔ milk). The consistency should resemble thick soup or gravy. Add the potatoes and flaked fish, stirring gently. Season with salt and pepper.
4. Serve: Enjoy your Plokkfiskur with traditional Icelandic rye bread, generously buttered.

Ingrédients

• 200g de sucre
• 250g d'amandes concassées
• 250g de fruits confits (cerise, orange, angélique)
• 1 cuillère à café de cannelle
• 1 cuillère à café de levure chimique
• 50g de beurre
• 50g de farine
• 6 œufs

Instructions

1. Travailler les jaunes d’œufs et le sucre jusqu'à doubler le volume.
2. Ajouter les amandes concassées cuillère par cuillère, la farine et la levure.
3. Ajouter les fruits confits, la cannelle, le beurre en crème et les blancs battus en neige ferme.
4. Beurrer et fariner un moule à manqué de 30 cm de diamètre.
5. Faire cuire au four préchauffé à 180°C pendant 20 minutes.
6. Baisser la température à 150°C et laisser 15 à 20 minutes.
7. Éteindre le four et laisser le gâteau reposer 10 minutes avant de le sortir.
8. Démouler à froid.

Note recette de gâteau de Noël portugais récupérée par ma maman dans les années 80

Ingredients

• 6 large egg yolks
• ½ cup granulated sugar
• 1 cup heavy whipping cream
• 2 cups milk
• ½ teaspoon ground nutmeg
• pinch of salt
• ¼ teaspoon vanilla extract
• ground cinnamon , for topping
• alcohol optional, see note

Instructions

1. Whisk the egg yolks and sugar together in a medium bowl until light and creamy.
2. In a saucepan over medium-high heat, combine the cream, milk, nutmeg and salt. Stir often until mixture reaches a bare simmer.
3. Add a big spoonful of the hot milk to the egg mixture, whisking vigorously. Repeat, adding a big spoonful at a time, to temper the eggs.
4. Once most of the hot milk has been added to the eggs, pour the mixture back into the saucepan on the stove.
5. Whisk constantly for just a few minutes, until the mixture is just slightly thickened (or until it reaches about 160 degrees F on a thermometer). It will thicken more as it cools.
6. Remove from heat and stir in the vanilla, and alcohol*, if using.
7. Pour the eggnog through a fine mesh strainer into a pitcher or other container and cover with plastic wrap.
8. Refrigerate until chilled. It will thicken as it cools. If you want a thinner, completely smooth consistency, you can add the entire mixture to a blender with 1 or 2 tablespoons of milk and blend until smooth.
9. Serve with a sprinkle of cinnamon or nutmeg, and fresh whipped cream, if desired.
10. Store homemade eggnog in the fridge for up to one week.

Ingredients

• 1 pound can fish or 2½ cups flaked, cooked fresh fish (I used a 14.75 ounce can of Salmon.)
• 3 eggs
• ½ cup soft bread crumbs (I tore 1 slice of bread into small pieces.)
• 1 tablespoon melted butter or shortening
• 1 teaspoon salt
• ⅛ teaspoon pepper
• 1 tablespoon chopped parsley

Instructions

1. Preheat oven to 350° F.
2. Separate the eggs.
3. Put the egg whites in a mixing bowl, and beat until stiff. Set aside.
4. Put the egg yolks in another mixing bowl; beat until smooth.
5. Flake the fish and add to the bowl with the beaten egg yolks.
6. Add bread crumbs, butter or shortening, salt, pepper, and parsley; stir to combine.
7. Fold in the beaten egg whites.
8. Put in a greased loaf pan, and place in oven and bake until firm (about 40 – 50 minutes).
9. Remove from oven and cut into slices. If desired, serve with peas, cream or white sauce, egg sauce, or tomato sauce.

Ingredients

Meatloaf

• ½ medium onion diced
• 1 teaspoon butter
• 2 eggs
• ¾ cup milk
• ¾ cup Italian breadcrumbs or seasoned breadcrumbs
• 2 pounds lean ground beef 80/20
• 1 tablespoon ketchup or chili sauce
• 1 teaspoon Italian seasoning
• 2 tablespoons fresh parsley chopped, or 2 teaspoons dried parsley
• 1 teaspoon Kosher salt & ½ teaspoon black pepper more to taste

Meatloaf Sauce

• ½ cup chili sauce *see note
• ½ cup ketchup
• 2 tablespoons brown sugar optional

Instructions

1. Preheat the oven to 350°F. Line a rimmed baking pan with aluminum foil and spray with cooking spray.
2. In a small pan, cook onions in butter over medium low heat until tender. Let them cool completely.
3. In a medium bowl, combine eggs, milk, and breadcrumbs. Let the mixture sit for 5-10 minutes.
4. Add the ground beef, cooked onions, ketchup or chili sauce, Italian seasoning, parsley, and salt & pepper to the bowl. Mix until just combined.
5. Form a 8"x4" loaf on the prepared baking pan and bake for 40 minutes.
6. While the meatloaf is cooking, combine the chili sauce and ketchup (and brown sugar if using). Spread mixture over the meatloaf and bake for an additional 10-15 minutes or until cooked through and the meatloaf reaches an internal temperature of 160°F. Broil for 1-2 minutes if desired.
7. Let the meatloaf rest for 10 minutes before slicing and serving.

• 15 MIN FULL BODY STRETCH - Improve Mobility and Flexibility - YouTube
• 9 Bad Training Habits That Damage Performance - YouTube
• A COMPLETE Guide to CLIMBING FOOTWORK TECHNIQUES - YouTube
• BEGINNER FLEXIBILITY ROUTINE (Stretches for the Inflexible) - YouTube
• How To Avoid The "Intermediate Climber" Plateau - YouTube
• Improve Your Crimps with Shauna Coxsey - YouTube
• Instantly improve your SLOPERS with these pro climbing techniques - YouTube

Ingredients

• ½ pound butter, softened (2 sticks)
• ¾ cup plus 1 tablespoon granulated sugar
• ¾ cup packed light brown sugar
• 2 large eggs
• 1¼ teaspoons vanilla extract
• ¼ teaspoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
• 2¼ cups flour
• ½ cup rolled oats
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• 1 teaspoon salt
• Pinch cinnamon
• 2⅔ cups Nestle Tollhouse semisweet chocolate chips
• 1¾ cups chopped walnuts

Instructions

1. Cream butter, sugar and brown sugar in the bowl of a stand mixer on medium speed for about two minutes.
2. Add eggs, vanilla, and lemon juice, blending with mixer on low speed for 30 seconds, then medium speed for about two minutes, or until light and fluffy, scraping down bowl.
3. With the mixer on low speed, add flour, oats, baking soda, salt, and cinnamon, blending for about 45 seconds.
4. Remove bowl from mixer and stir in chocolate chips and walnuts.
5. Preheat oven to 300°F.
6. Portion dough with a scoop (about 3 tablespoons) onto a baking sheet lined with parchment paper about 2 inches apart.
7. Bake for 20 to 23 minutes, or until edges are golden brown and center is still soft.
8. Remove from oven and cool on baking sheet for about 1 hour.

Ingredients

• 2 tbsp butter
• 2 tbsp mayo
• ½ tbsp Dijon mustard
• 3 cloves of garlic
• 1 tbsp parsley
• 1 tsp Italian herbs seasoning
• 1 tsp salt

C'est vraiment bon.

Je n'avais pas de persil ni de mélange d'herbes italiennes.
J'ai fait mon propre mélange d'herbes pour remplacer.
C'est testé et approuvé

Cette recette est parfaite pour 1 sandwich si on suit la vidéo ou 2 sandwich si on applique le mélange que sur sa face intérieure.

Ingredients for 10 yields

For the cake:

• 4 Eggs whites
• Pinch Salt
• ¼ cup + 2 Tbsp. (75g) Sugar
• 180-200g whole almonds or 140g ground almonds

For the cream:

• 4 Egg yolks
• ¼ cup + 2 Tbsp. (75g) Sugar
• 1 teaspoon Vanilla extract
• 100ml Heavy cream
• ½ cup + 1 Tbsp (130g) Butter, softened

For decoration:

• Sliced almonds

Instructions

1. Make the cake: preheat oven to 170°C (340°F). Grease two 8-inch (20cm) round cake pans with butter, line bottom with parchment paper. Grease the parchment as well, set aside.
2. In a food processor, process the almonds into fine crumbs. You also can use store bought ground almonds.
3. In a large clean bowl, place egg whites and pinch of salt. Beat the egg whites with a pinch of salt until foamy, then gradually add the sugar, beat until stiff peak form.
4. Gradually fold ground almonds into the meringue. Do not over fold. Divide the batter between prepared pans.
5. Bake for 20-25 minutes. Allow to cool.
6. Make the cream: in a bowl, whisk egg yolks with sugar and set aside.
7. In a small saucepan bring the cream to a gentle simmer. Gradually pour hot cream into the egg yolk mixture while constantly whisking. Transfer the mixture back into the saucepan and cook until thicken, stirring constantly. Remove from heat, add vanilla extract and stir, transfer the mixture into a bowl, cover and place in the fridge for 1 hour.
8. In a large bowl beat softened butter. Gradually add chilled cream and whisk until combined. Add 2-3 tablespoons at the time.
9. Place 1 cake layer on a place or a cake stand, the spread a layer of cream, then top with the second layer cake. Spread the cream on top and sides of the cake.
10. Decoration: toast almond flakes on a dry pan, allow them to cool. Then, decorate the side and top of the cake with toasted almond flakes.
11. Keep the cake in the fridge for at least 4 hours before serving.

I'm not talking about paperback romance novels or the YA equivalents, like Twilight, because that makes sense to me -- those are written only with women readers in mind. I'm talking about examples like the Jim and Pam storyline in The Office. Watching something like that unfold can be so exciting for me, and I doubt that it's the same for guys. But maybe it is. But if not, why not?

I'm asking this question just as much to see if guys actually do enjoy a well-written love story as to understand why they don't, if that's the case.

To generalize for the purpose of an easy answer, let's think in stereotypically gendered terms. When it comes to love, men have an active role while women have a passive one.

What are the implications of this? It means that what a woman feels as the ups and downs, the mystery, the unknown, the excitement, etc., all things that define "blossoming" love, are things that happen to her. She is passive, she is the recipient. Her agency is contained in her response to these things.

But for a man, anything that makes "love" progress (or regress) pretty much directly stems from one of his actions. He does something or initiates and a woman responds/reciprocates. Because he does not have the gendered luxury of taking a backseat or passive role and watching things happen (if he does, nothing will; the woman will lose interest), he begins, by necessity, to view love as the cause and effect relationship that it more accurately is in reality (he does something, woman responds).

Seeing something like this takes a ton of the "magic" out of it. Compare it to seeing the sun rise every day. It becomes a lot less mystical, exciting, and dramatic when you know exactly why it happens and can simply see it for the cause and effect relationship that it truly is... you may even begin to take it for granted.

This is why romance eventually becomes well... unromantic for men. Romance is not a phenomenon, but instead a verb; it's a series of actions carried out by a man to earn a woman's affections... it's labor.

So when women or their SO makes romantic gestures to men, do they like it? Do men that were heavily pursued by women feel this way? What would be some good romantic gestures for men they would appreciate?

I wonder if this is true in same sex male couples too. Does one do the work over the other? Do they view romance the same or different?

Your answer is fantastic but it raises so many other questions

So when women or their SO makes romantic gestures to men, do they like it?

You're a little bit off the mark—you're actually describing an inversion of the gendered roles here (i.e. the woman is an active contributor while the man is a passive recipient or responder). While a man will appreciate such a gesture, it's not quite what composes the male romantic fantasy (more on this later).

Do men that were heavily pursued by women feel this way?

Men who aren't used to being pursued are usually confused or thrown off by the reversal of gendered roles. The result is the prevailing idea that men do not respond well to being approached first by women or even the autobiographical accounts from men describing instances where they couldn't respond well even if they were attracted to the woman approaching them. This is the men being shocked out of the traditional "script" of romance.

Secondly, when you talk about women pursuing men, that usually happens in a markedly different fashion than the way in which men pursue women (hint: it's more passive). A woman "aggressively" pursuing a man looks more like said woman going to extensive lengths to make it clear that she is available for pursuit rather than actively pursuing; the man is still usually leading things forward in some manner by handling the logistics of this romance. This is where you get those autobiographical stories from men about missing signals; "aggressive" pursuit from women is (usually) a set of passive signals that are clear to men who are experienced, but unclear to men not used to being "pursued."

I wonder if this is true in same sex male couples too.

I do too. I talk with a homosexual friend about stuff like this a lot, maybe I'll bring it up next time I see him.

The Male Romantic Fantasy

I'd say that men usually feel most loved when this normal state of affairs is negated; when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner described in the parent post. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.

An interesting way to examine this is to look at what women often call romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.

All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.

When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved.