Submit an Article

Click Here to email us your article. Please note all articles are subject to editorial approval before being published.
Vitriol for Valentine’s PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
Written by Pietro Aretino   
Friday, 13 February 2009 10:58
And now for something, if not completely, then somewhat different, and somewhat topical.  

Valentine’s Day is Saturday.  Let us all rejoice for this celebration of love and romance and chocolate and cards and flowers.  For the purpose of stimulating the economy – as encouraged by all world leaders of any ideological straitjacket – I encourage anyone who possibly be conceived of as a lover to buy stuff.  The obvious stuff includes chocolate – which apparently women love so much that nothing else is needed.  Then there’s flowers, almost invariably red roses, both of which are tapping into some primal hunting instincts.  And cards, lots and lots of cards.

For those who are single there are anti-Valentine’s Day celebrations.  These could be assumed to celebrate a reasonable single life and a disinterest in significant relationships.  This naturally correlates with easy sex, liberal alcohol consumption and a little more easy sex.  In keeping with doing one’s bit for the world economy this keeps the sex industry up and running, the alcoholic beverage makers swimming in profit and the legal system – and now the genetic testers – in business for quite a while.

It certainly is a creative way in which to celebrate the feast of a possibly non-existent martyr who ended up dubiously linked to marriage and romance.  As it is now, it is one of the most artificial of anniversaries, and due to its insipidly inevitable sappiness, most mockable.  It is an excuse for all manner of inanity and debauchery, and deceit.  Valentine’s Day is not about sex or romance or touchy-feely sensitiveness.  It concerns love.  It concerns binding oneself absolutely to another.  It is not for nothing that the old myth has Valentine killed for performing secret marriages and sticking to his principles.  For this reason Valentine’s Day is absolutely terrifying and especially so for men.

Love is probably the scariest thing one can imagine.  Traditionally God was Love and To Be Feared (please note the capitals).  Love is not nice.  Love is not warm and fuzzy feelings or tinglings (or more) in one’s nether regions.

(To my fellows whose loves not just of the opposite kind: oremus.  It is hard to say that the natural avenue of love is denied to you, but your love is different and so requires different expression.  You are not exempt from the laws that govern the rest of humanity.)

Love is a decision, a binding oath, by which one makes an oath of an allegiance to another.  And the oath-maker has to be the man.  The man has to put his life on the line to protect his lady.  The man has to be willing to never see her again if needed.

The man has to forfeit all his hopes, dreams and desires, all that he may honour his lady.  He must be prepared to accept the consequences of all his actions – there is nothing more pathetic than a man fleeing his potential children, or disgusting than trying to convince his ‘love’ to mangle her mind and body for carnal delights.  Especially if a new life is meant to be mangled.

But. . . love gives meaning to life.  Love makes life worthwhile.

Amor vincit omnia, and to all a good night.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

-Pietro Aretino.
DV

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed
...
0
Interesting article 'Pietro A.' I find it curious though, that you claim that the man has to be the "oath-maker" in a relationship. Are you suggesting that the woman doesn't need to make an oath/promise of love? If so, I don't think that's right, or what real love requires. It's about both the man and the woman.
I don't agree with your statement that a man must forfeit all his "hopes, dreams and desires, all that he may honour his lady". Why should this be the case? No-one should have to give up their hopes and dreams just to be with someone. Surely the person they love would share their hopes and dreams for life, or at least respect them?
Jan , February 17, 2009
...
0
Jan

To begin with, I didn't think people actually read any of these ramblings and so was surprised to find any sort of comment.

You misunderstand the article. I suggest you read G.K. Chesterton or watch the BBC's production of 'The Taming of the Shrew' in the 'ShakespeaRe-Told' series.

Or wait for Part Two.

Arrivederci

DV
Pietro Aretino , February 18, 2009

Write comment

smaller | bigger

busy
Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 03:43
 
Sponsored By Campion College