Ummm.... Yes, but it cuts both ways. For example, if person A in a couple likes something that person B doesn't, wouldn't it be a show of love for person B to give to A what A likes without expectation of reciprocation?

The problem with the above scenario is that (unless it matches up with some or all of the norms of Valentine's Day), there will likely be tension. Tension because it is a nonstandard thing to do - and the expectation of the standard is likely there (this is the tricky thing about surprise parties and the like). Tension, too, because the recipient may well feel like there is an expectation for reciprocation.

Maybe I'm thinking too much into it, but sometimes it is easiest to just go with the flow of expected norms, otherwise you risk disappointment, unexpected senses of reciprocation, or something similarly awkward. Of course, one could plan what will happen well in advance, either by discussing how "this year let's do something different" or providing a oh-so-unromantic schedule of events.

I have long held the belief that Valentine's Day is a dangerous day, since it plays with the fundamental feelings of love, need, and acceptance. Knowing how one is accepted and loved is easier to do in a well-defined ritual set up by sometimes-annoying cultural norms.

What I find interesting is that these things are associated with femininity. For example, chocolate is gendered? Why? Thank you, marketing departments across the US. In a perfect world, men would be allowed to express their enjoyment of all these things just as much as women can.

this just reminded me of a couple who were having lots of minor fights anyway and then the guy thought hed do something a little different for valentines day - he bought his girlfriend a cream coloured rose instead of a red one. it was meant to be more special, because everyone buys red roses for their beloved. BIG mistake (well, considering her reaction and the outcome of that small incident hes probably much better off now).
she crushed the rose, went icy and created such a ruckus that in the end they were separating for good, just like that. because she was of the opinion that he couldnt love her if he didnt get her a red rose (only red roses signify love, obviously).

this is just crazy and i at first didnt want to believe it (my boyfriend doesnt even bother with getting me something for my birthday, much less so on valentines day. but nor do i, and the love is visible to us still.), but it really seems to be the way it works for some people.

as for this cutting both ways - certainly. this woman took to absolute domination. he was really trying to make up for it afterwards but then luckily could only bend so far and the thing broke off.
seems to me love is not about this kind of thing.

I agree with The Nerd - why are these things necessarily feminine? Walking on the beach? Having dinner?
My partner would enjoy me bringing him flowers as much as I would enjoy him to do it for me. Are flowers feminine because they're a frivolous present that doesn't do or mean anything other than "I was thinking of you" and therefore were traditionally brought to women by men as a gesture of love (men being traditionally the ones with the money and ability to buy gifts)? If so, they're less about femininity than they are just about romance.

i love red roses..........
they r pretty...
& lovely

Well, one thing about flowers is that they were associated for a long time with vanity, a trait that was also typically assigned mostly to women. They were often shown as a reminder that beauty (and other "good" things) is fleeting. Research "memento mori" and you will probably find depictions of blooming flowers. Which seems like a back-handed compliment to me.

I wonder if similar things might be true of some of the other things that are associated with love.

l luv red roses

will like every thin on this particular content

I also agree with The Nerd and wonder if these things are considered feminine because they're about tenderness, softness, sensitivity, nurturing and feelings.

I have to say I don't really know what was meant by a "masculine" romance. Candles are only considered feminine because they're soft and gentle, and because men aren't "supposed" to be these things they're not "supposed" to appreciate these things either.

Traditionally in cultures across the world (including our own) roses and chocolate were actually considered masculine because they were sophisticated and if you could acquire them it showed you had wealth, money and therefore power. Roses and chocolate were also associated with sexuality and were therefore also considered masculine to the point where in some countries women were forbidden or discouraged from consuming chocolate.

Women whine and complain in relationships. They demand attention, presents and affection. Of course, this is a total bummer to men, who don't really see the point in any of those things. Valentine's Day is there so that they can grit their teeth together and give the woman all those things in an intensive 24-hour marathon session so that she'll calm down and shut up, and continue dispensing blowjobs and clean dishes for the other 364 days of the year.

(As a side note, I am being heavily sarcastic.)

I feel most loved by my partner when he thanks me for doing things I don't "have" to do (washing dishes, making meals, doing his laundry) instead of assuming those are things I should do as his partner.  I have long realized that my father doesn't say he loves us.  He paints the kitchens when he comes to visit, or fixes a broken door.

I'm getting my love a fancy Japanese knife.

"Sex" and "love" as you discuss them here are concepts outside good marriages, the stuff of people who are too young, too immature or too inexperienced in relationships to get beyond.

The real wonders in life happen after such experimental fires are retired and the real ones lighted.

Funny thing is I tend to view Valentines Day as a way for youth to take a break from the sex/love debacles they've gotten themselves tied up in and treat each other in a kindler, gentler way. Why would you want to ruin that for them?

You do know that "Steak and Blowjob Day" started as a comedy sketch done by Jimmy Kimmel back when he was on Comedy Central? You know this right?

Your primary evidence is a comedy sketch that took aim at ignorant stereotypes. I'd say the joke's on you.

On point. It is ridiculous how things that are supposed to be natural human behaviors are categorized into "for female" and "for male."

Do you have any research-based evidence that men are just pretending to be less excited than women about love and love-related things?

How do you decide which aspects of male psychology and behavior are simply the result of cultural pressure? Is the process by which you make these decisions at all analytical or intellectual? For example, you assert that men are merely pretending when they "act like they're not into love." And yet you suggest that men stay true to their inherent nature when they change the oil in the car or make sure the computer is updated with anti-virus software. Aren't there cultural pressures for men to be technically competent when it comes to knowing about cars and computers?