I am surprised to see Valentine's day come up here. Apparently it is February 14th. Not that this means anything, but I don't know anyone who has taken any notice of it. I thought it was an old Victorian tradition that mainstream Americans (mainly) seemed to go in for. We've just had Valentine's day and at my work (around 40 staff) the subject never came up and I would think most people would consider it a cheesy mainstream pseudo-event used to sell stuff (presumably trinkets, flowers and dinners?) like the inconsequential Mother's and Fathers Day.

Heh -- I realize the sentimentality of the notion. Hence, Lounge -- philosophical-ish, but not quite up to par.

There are other holidays I'd speak in favor of, though mostly as advice: the specifics aren't as relevant as the mentions. Even a phone call is good enough for love of the asexual sort.

And, in retrospect at least, while I can acknowledge the pull of sexual desire, I think that asexual desire lasts longer -- though I'm uncertain why. And, anyways, I'm guessing that Valentine's Day is basically sexual in nature in terms of celebrations, though maybe I'm wrong there, and want to highlight this other side of love -- love has always been an important theme in my mind at least.

what is Valentine’s Day? I’ve never had to engage with it. My memory from movies is that you send anonymous cards to people you have a crush on. And I imagine some young couples might go out to dinner and buy presents for each other. Is that it?

Oh sure. Basically. But I've always liked it as a celebration of love, in a general sense. I have fond memories of friends making Valentine's Day together in the asexual sense, and then I was thinking about how asexual love isn't often a focus for the day. When else to bring it up?

Which is, I think, a more general justification for holidays: there are important things we care about but when do you celebrate them? It's easy to get lost in the day-to-day, so having an annual day makes sense to celebrate the things we care about.

Sounds good to me. What part of the world are you from?

United States.

what is Valentine’s Day? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately it is nothing more than a money grabbing event that people are dumb enough to follow the crowd and throw their cash away on things that last a few days at most, flowers and candy for the most part.

I don't think love and friendship need a special day, they are things that should be celebrated daily. And their should be no need to make people feel bad if they are not showing you with gifts in the name of love.

I don't think that there is a Valentine's day is the problem. It's that like other cultural days it's commercialized close to the point of meaninglessness. The message is not "On Valentine's day celebrate your bond with your lover", or take notice of it, or do something meaningful that reflects it, it's "buy some trash that pretends to do something meaningful so you don't have to."

The question of 'asexual love, involves the question of what is sexuality and how does it come into play in human relationships. What is the difference between friendship and romance? How much comes down to the nature of human needs, connections and the role of the erotic as an aspect of sexuality?

So you mean Platonic love?
Valentine's day is specifically about couples. Some countries however have friends' day.

In any case, lots of cynicism in this thread. Why not just thrash Christmas and Easter as well? Thrash birthdays too. We need holidays and special occasions, the choice to make it about consumerism is yours.

Valentines Day ought be about more kinds of love. — Moliere

Sounds good. What do we do now to reconstruct the public's ideas around Valentine's day. If you use Valentine's day as an excuse to tell your friend how much you love them, you might get some awkward looks/confusion. Then you'll just have to explain to them: that "Valentines day ought to be about more kinds of love." I'm sure it is for some folks, who are not so culturally repressed.

Cultural construction is a tall order.

That's true. And in general that's how I feel about holidays, I suppose -- it's not there celebration as much as the commercial aspect that usually bugs me or makes me feel cynical. But there are other ways to acknowledge things, too.

So you mean Platonic love? — Lionino

A bit yes. Though this gets me thinking: not in the universal sense. Agape doesn't seem to fit in with the familiar and the particularity of love.

I suppose I'd say that it's still "fits" within the notion of the holiday because you're still celebrating a particular bond that is based in love for one another, but it's not romantic. The love of friendship is what I'm thinking of -- though granted these aren't opposed (wouldn't you want to be friends with your lover?), I only think they're distinct given how not all friendships are erotic, but can be just as intensely full of love.

Oh we'd just get together and have a meal, when those friends were around, though of course we all physicall move on as life progresses. It was kind of a way to invert the holiday to be less about "find a partner!" and more about "friends are awesome".

The question of 'asexual love, involves the question of what is sexuality and how does it come into play in human relationships. What is the difference between friendship and romance? How much comes down to the nature of human needs, connections and the role of the erotic as an aspect of sexuality? — Jack Cummins

There's a sense in which even the romantic isn't quite the erotic, I think: sexual desire is a cross-species phenomena, whereas romance is more of a social relationship that we establish with another on the basis of mutual desire.

Perhaps we'd say all romances are friendships, but not all friendships are romances -- but that's not entirely true, either, since sometimes romances are a bit more about sex than friendship (those tend not to last as long in my experience, though)

Ultimately I'd say we all need to be loved by others, though, so human need is very much a part of friendship and romance.

I think the romantic is involved with exclusivity. That is starkly apparent in sexual relations but has other lives in friendships. The experience of jealousy, envy, and betrayal seems to operate in every landscape. So does the desire to see another be happy for the happiness that brings. Grudges, curses, and blessings seem to have no problem occupying the same space simultaneously. Flirtation has aspects that happen in many places beyond attempts to get laid. When we see that our friends are no longer charmed, a light goes out.

So, I think of the exclusivity of being only for another and vice-versa as a prototype of monogamy. I don't know of any marriages that survive on sex alone.

I think it's fairly common that parents buy their kids Valentine's Day's candy and cards and women might exchange gifts or go out to dinner with one another. I think they call it galentines. Kids buy their moms candy and gifts as well.

I don't think Valentine's Day is all that serious a holiday or that it gets celebrated in a specific way by everyone.

Oh, sure, I agree that it's not a serious holiday. I think that'd ruin it if it were serious.

And that's a good point -- I'm not considering all scenarios in my OP, and you're right to point out that Valentine's Day is also a fun holiday to buy kids things and have them write up valentines for one another.

But those are the sorts of love I mean to highlight, basically: Family and friendship.

Valentines Day ought be about more kinds of love. — Moliere

As already pointed out, Valentines Day is more about couples and children having friends. Especially for young girls Valentines Day is important. For boys, not so much.

A lot of love is asexual: people love their children and their parents and their grandparents. Some even their brothers and sisters and more distant family members. And that has nothing to with sex, only that sex created families in the first place. Yet that is hardly erotic, but simple natural biology. You really have to be a disgusting pervert or a pedophile for that relationship to be erotic.

It would be also whimsical if you would celebrate on Valentine's day your love to your country. Another literally asexual love by every way.

Except for some idiot perverts, that is:

For boys, not so much. — ssu

:razz:


Love is important.

I am a man and like the idea of a holiday celebrating love.

We ought not bring it to the level of the nonsensical politicians? They have other objectives than love.

It would be also whimsical if you would celebrate on Valentine's day your love for suspiciously young looking girls. Another questionable love by every way.

Except for some idiot perverts, that is:

I suppose what I like about Valentine's Day is how it's only slightly attached to the old traditions, while being "unserious" enough to be reinvented. I'd prefer another holiday for friends and family, since I think love is more central there, while a romantic holiday could be something else. Something like every Saturday.

I think the romantic is involved with exclusivity... — Paine

This is interesting, and it raises the question of whether the OP is speaking about non-romantic love or strictly non-sexual love.

Thinking now it seems a bit silly to exclude romantic love. My thought was more with respect to a broadening of the notion because of how wonderful my connections have been -- they are the people I love and they love in turn, and it's not romantic or sexual at all.

Lately I've been going through a tough patch and they've been very supportive, and so I was thinking about how this kind of love is valuable and wanted to pay my respects to it in a way.

- That's fair. I think it's an interesting topic, both culturally and philosophically. It is often noted that the Greeks had three or four words for love rather than just one, and it seems to me that differentiation would be helpful. I find it unfortunate that large parts of our cultural understanding of relationships have become sexualized. There was a generation or two that was exceptionally interested in sex-related matters and the fallout of that emphasis has been problematic. On my view friendship is of a higher value than sex, and it would be helpful if we valued friendship more than we do.

On my view friendship is of a higher value than sex, and it would be helpful if we valued friendship more than we do. — Leontiskos

Yup! I make friends for life -- some of them have even been lovers where we've parted ways because we weren't good lovers, but we continue to be good friends. It seems that the love of friendship and familial love has out-endured romantic love, and where romantic love flourishes friendship seems to be a strong part of it.

- Yes, exactly right!

Now... how to convince my younger me that this is so.... :D

It's pleasing to me to have some consonance between us.

Now... how to convince my younger me that this is so.... :D — Moliere

Ha!

It's pleasing to me to have some consonance between us. — Moliere

Well let me bring up religion to rectify this... ;)

On the Catholic view that which unifies a friendship defines its quality (and at least this much is largely drawn from Aristotle). So the friendship between two people who go out and commit murder together is of a low quality given that that which unites them (murder) is diminishing for themselves and for the community. Their relationship is bound up with that which diminishes both of them as persons, and their mutual effect on one another is negative. On the other end of the spectrum would be a friendship between two people who, say, go out and play high quality benefit concerts where all of the proceeds go to St. Jude's Children's Hospital. This is a friendship of high quality given that that which unites them is ennobling for themselves and for the community. Their consort is associated with beautiful and skillful music, joy for themselves and the community, and aid for struggling children. Their mutual effect on one another is positive and ennobling, as is the effect of their friendship on the community. Most friendships are more mundane, and consist in things like shooting pool, or going to the beach, or talking philosophy.

Of course an important part of a friendship is the mutual sharing of life (joys, sorrows, boredom, and all the rest). Aristotle says that we come to regard our close friend as a second self. So even if you only see someone on Tuesday night when you shoot pool, the friendship is much more than just pool, and the conversation, banter, and other interpersonal elements may be truly primary. Nevertheless, in the Catholic tradition the most important things for understanding the quality of a friendship are the activities and experiences that are shared, and these will also come to define the nature of the friendship over time. Conversation itself is a very versatile activity, such that there are some friends who like to gossip, others who like to talk philosophy, others who like to party, others who are liable to provide emotional support, etc. A particular friendship always has a kind of form which distinguishes it from other friendships.

Then—long story long—comes along the activity of sex, easily one of the most intense pleasures that humankind has ever known. Sex is more than capable of overpowering and dominating a friendship to the point that one or both of the friends begin to use the other for the sake of this end, and even when the embers cool there can be a sense of loss and nostalgia for the overwhelming power of that initial romance. Although any activity can invert a friendship such that the friend becomes a mere means to the end of the activity, this is more common with intense pleasures like sex or drugs.

The second danger in sexual relationships is a kind of self-sufficiency and immanentizing of the friendship, such that instead of playing benefit concerts for the community the couple becomes ensconced in their world of two, eventually falling into ennui. If Narcissus became lost in his own reflection, this sort of couple becomes lost in the immanent gaze of one another. In this case it becomes hard to say what exactly unifies the friendship apart from this self-love. There is no transcendent aspect which takes them out of themselves and allows them to be ennobled, moving deeper into life. Of course childlessness and birth control are for Catholics central to this predicament, for not so long ago children were the inevitable consequence of sex, and to have a child is to be drawn out of oneself into the care of an other and care for the community.

I don't mean to nag on sex. The friendship of marriage is surely a friendship with the highest potential given that it allows you to share such profound parts of your life with someone else. But as Aristotle says, "The corruption of the highest is the lowest." And as you say, in the end it is not the pleasures of sex that are most cherished by romantic couples. The best cases are proof that there are possibilities of friendship that transcend even the most intense bodily pleasures.

Too long - I agree. :grimace: