to combine the two on Valentine’s Day and pretend it is romantic according to some strange definition of the word is a stretch, methinks.
Not so much of a stretch. Part of romance is often a sense of shared values and purpose. A Valentine’s day where you really acted out to help each other achieve those values could end up being very bonding and very romantic.
A shared commitment to live your values, particularly in the context of Valentine’s Day, also implies a shared commitment to live your values in terms of your love for one another.
In practice, it may or may not work. No doubt success would depend on a lot of things. The exchange of gift certificates is a bit too intellectually mediated for my tastes. Like giving them an orgasm pill instead of having sex—“Happy Valentine’s Day!”.
But I wouldn’t pooh pooh it out of hand—and I’m generally a cranky old pooh pooher.
Part of romance is often a sense of shared values and purpose.
So is a good business partnership.
The exchange of gift certificates is a bit too intellectually mediated for my tastes.
Agreed. It is, dare I say, unromantic according to some huge chuck of the population.
Thoughtful because it required some time and consideration? Sure. Creative in a shaking up the status quo sort of way? Yep. Rational in a utilitarian sense? Yes, sir.
Romantic? Only if you want to redefine traditional/classic romance to mean something else.
You could substitute any holiday and any relationship in Gleb’s article. It’s not like giving to charities on behalf of another in lieu of exchanging gifts is a novel idea (my family has been doing it for years). He just wrote it and pretended it was a good display of “romance” because Valentine’s Day is coming up.
But I wouldn’t pooh pooh it out of hand—and I’m generally a cranky old pooh pooher.
This wasn’t my intention. I actually think Gleb gets too much resistance on LW for his efforts. This just seemed off to me, and kept seeming off the more I thought about it. So I commented.
Not so much of a stretch. Part of romance is often a sense of shared values and purpose. A Valentine’s day where you really acted out to help each other achieve those values could end up being very bonding and very romantic.
A shared commitment to live your values, particularly in the context of Valentine’s Day, also implies a shared commitment to live your values in terms of your love for one another.
In practice, it may or may not work. No doubt success would depend on a lot of things. The exchange of gift certificates is a bit too intellectually mediated for my tastes. Like giving them an orgasm pill instead of having sex—“Happy Valentine’s Day!”.
But I wouldn’t pooh pooh it out of hand—and I’m generally a cranky old pooh pooher.
So is a good business partnership.
Agreed. It is, dare I say, unromantic according to some huge chuck of the population.
Thoughtful because it required some time and consideration? Sure. Creative in a shaking up the status quo sort of way? Yep. Rational in a utilitarian sense? Yes, sir.
Romantic? Only if you want to redefine traditional/classic romance to mean something else.
You could substitute any holiday and any relationship in Gleb’s article. It’s not like giving to charities on behalf of another in lieu of exchanging gifts is a novel idea (my family has been doing it for years). He just wrote it and pretended it was a good display of “romance” because Valentine’s Day is coming up.
This wasn’t my intention. I actually think Gleb gets too much resistance on LW for his efforts. This just seemed off to me, and kept seeming off the more I thought about it. So I commented.
I think “helping and encouraging each other to achieve their values” is especially apt for Valentine’s Day, and your partner.