Barb Caffrey's Blog

Writing the Elfyverse . . . and beyond

Valentine’s Day — for Love, not Conspicuous Consumption.

with 4 comments

I’m tired of these jewelry companies, et. al., framing the narrative of Valentine’s Day and turning it into a purely commercial event.

Every year around this time I grit my teeth and want to scream after seeing all the ads for jewelry, flowers, Vermont Teddy Bears, the Pajamagram, and anything else that can be sold as “a unique testament to your love” on what’s purported to be the most romantic day of the year: Valentine’s Day.

But Valentine’s Day should mean more than an evening out (lovely though that is); it should mean more than a bouquet of flowers, any piece of jewelry (no matter how lovely, or expensive, it may be); it should mean more than sending a Pajamagram or a Vermont Teddy Bear (cute as the latter is, and practical as the former can be).

No.  Valentine’s Day should be about your love for your partner.  Period.

I don’t know why this isn’t discussed more; I know I’m not the only person in the world to feel this way.  But when I see these commercials, I just get so disgusted, so irate, and so frustrated.  Many people believe exactly what these advertisers tell them to believe: that it’s important to spend money on Valentine’s Day, to have a “unique testament” to your love (in the form of the advertiser’s choice, of course), rather than to do what’s truly important — spending time with your loved one.

Take it from me: no one wonders at the end of his or her life if you should’ve given your lover (wife, husband, soulmate) another gift, or wonders if the gifts you’ve given of a monetary nature were big enough.

Instead, what people wonder about is this: “Did I spend enough time with my husband/wife/significant other?”  (Much less the ancillary questions of:  “Did I show how much I care enough?” and ” Did I love (him/her) enough?”)  Or, put another way, people wonder whether or not they fully expressed their love for their partner, and sometimes have regrets that they didn’t say or do enough emotionally.  But they certainly do not worry about whether or not they did enough financially, in the sense of gift-giving, years later!

So, please, for those of you who truly love another, do your best to concentrate on what you have that you can’t quantify with money because it’s priceless — each other.  Spend time with one another, and love each other, and have fun because you’re so jazzed to be in each other’s presence . . . and stop “counting coup,” financially.  Please!

Written by Barb Caffrey

February 14, 2011 at 9:16 pm

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I enjoyed your review of the book about Nixon and Anderson, but wanted to tell you Nixon was a senator, not a representative. I reserved the book at our local library and am looking forward to reading it.

    Thanks for the review.

    Mary Hannon

    February 14, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    • I’ll correct it, Mary — Nixon was elected to the House of Reps in 1946, and was elected to the US Senate in 1950, so it’s more a matter of _adding_ the latter thing (which I really did know, but was thinking more about Nixon’s dirty campaign tactics, which were evident from the start of his career). Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks much for reading my review. I hope you’ll enjoy POISONING THE PRESS. (I know I did; if I had a top ten books list, POISONING THE PRESS would’ve been #1 on my list in 2010.)

      Barb Caffrey

      February 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm

  2. […] in case you haven’t read my two previous blogs on the subject (which, for the record, are here and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: