It seems that Valentine’s Day is on the fast track to reducing perfectly good human beings into miserable failures. If you’re single… “What’s wrong with you, why don’t you have a partner who will lavish gifts on you today?” If you’re in a relationship… “Fannie May box-o-candy?! You obviously don’t love me or you wouldn’t be trying to kill me with all of this lecithin that is potentially derived from eggs and soy, ahem- allergic! By the way, there’d better be an engagement ring embedded in one of those cheap chocolates.” When did a day that is supposed to be filled with love turn into a day of disappointment and empty wallets?
St. Valentine’s Day, named after one or all of three Christian martyrs, wasn’t associated with romance until the 14th century when Chaucer’s “Parliament of Fowls” set the stage. Next came the romantic, hand-written valentine, only to give way in the 19th century to mass-produced greeting cards being mailed to the valentines of the world. The 20th century brought the practice of exchanging chocolate and flowers, as well as cards. And then in the 1980s the diamond industry decided to get in on the action and began promoting Valentine’s Day as an occasion for giving jewelry, lots and lots of expensive jewelry, in fact, the more expensive, the more love that is involved, right?
And so it goes, along with the commercialization of Valentine’s Day came expectation. Or was it, along with 
expectations came the commercialization of Valentine’s Day? This year Americans shelled out approximately $17.6 billion for Valentine’s Day stuff. Good for the economy? Sure, but it’s based on outdated, traditional ideas about love, i.e. heteronormativity. Heteronormativity = the structures and norms that privilege heterosexual monogamy, while simultaneously stigmatizing behavior that deviates from this model. Boo for heteronormativity! Singletons not only contribute more to the local economy than couples (according to a sociologist I heard on NPR the other day), but can also help make for a healthier society and healthier relationships.
Our society touts being part of a couple as the be all, end all, i.e. if you’re not part of a couple then you need to turn that unfortunate situation around, pronto. You see, people are so bombarded by society telling them that they need to be married by the time they’re 28.5 years old and have 2.3 kids by the time they’re 34 years old that they don’t have time or space to think about what relationship means to them, how or if they want to approach one, or relationships that end are not failed relationships if you approach them as learning opportunities. Perhaps if being single is seen as a choice and that not everybody desires marriage then there would be less blind dates, and that’s a good thing in my book.
I know a couple who decided that the most important thing in each of their lives is their spiritual paths and if their paths ever became clouded by their relationship then they would do what it took to bring their spiritual paths to the fore, including end the relationship. Every day, in fact, every moment was a conscious choice by both of them when it came to their relationship. After 11 years of deep love, working through difficult issues, a lot of learning and living outside of the box, they broke up. He started losing himself and was no longer able to acknowledge his spiritual self within the relationship. It’s very sad because they were the healthiest couple I’ve known and I learned so much from their chosen situation. It’s also enlightening to see how much there is to be learned within the mirror of your partner, that we are individual human beings who interact with each other in order to realize self, other, truth, god, being one.
What is the cost of love? That’s up to you.
