This year Valentine’s Day may turn out to be a bust. Despite its ancient roots, the holiday was long ago co-opted by commercial businesses to sell products. Yet it continued to thrive until recently, at least from a financial point of view. In 2020, the average American spent close to $200 on Valentine’s Day. That is unlikely to be the case this year, for two reasons: lack of funds and lack of partners.
First, the money. No one has any to spend this year. Due to a combination of inflation and shrinkflation, the cost of a restaurant meal has more than doubled since 2020. Flowers, chocolate, and clothing prices have increased by over 40%. On top of that, energy prices have risen into the stratosphere, while taxes at every level continue to multiply. The American middle class has nearly disappeared. Our nation is on the verge of becoming one of only rich and poor.
The one Valentine’s Day exception to the crushing cost of celebrating is the price of diamonds. That has fallen by 20% in the last year alone. Much of that is attributed to Generation Z’s lack of interest in diamonds—Gen Zers simply aren’t buying them. Another factor, though, is the explosion in sales of synthetic diamonds. Equivalent in chemical structure to mined diamonds, the cost to produce them has plummeted over the past 10 years. They now sell for far less than natural diamonds—over 80% less, carat per carat—yet are considered by international gem societies as equivalent to the old-fashioned gems. All that differentiates them from diamonds taken from the earth is their provenance.
The second reason Valentine’s Day has become a bust is the disappearance of committed relationships. I know this from my clinical practice: Nearly half my patients are alone. This mirrors the general population, where close to 40% of American women report being single. Worse, many have stopped looking for partners. Like a growing number of the unemployed, they have simply removed themselves from the dating market, choosing chronic singledom over dating and marriage.
Here are two recent article titles from Evie Magazine, the “Cosmo for the Gen Z Conservative Woman,” with a circulation of nearly two million:
Young Americans are so miserable dating they’re taking themselves off the market. Why?
The real reasons you can’t find a relationship and how to fix it.
That doesn’t sound good.
What these articles, and many others, focus on is the disappearance of traditional dating, with its structure, formality, rules, and expectations. Young people today have no guideposts, are left rudderless and utterly confused, and no longer want to participate in dating at all.
Relationships have been replaced with “situationships,” where two people find themselves coupled in nebulous ways that don’t lead to anything.
Like much of the rest of their lives, these individuals’ dating lives lack direction and purpose. Dating, therefore, is not an inspiring activity to pursue.
This collapse of traditional dating doesn’t only affect the young. I have heard from many women in the 40s, 50, and 60s who have recently been divorced or widowed that their new relationships are now short, unfulfilling, and disappointing. One recently told me the men she meets now treat relationships as “disposable” and quickly discarded when the slightest difficulty or discomfort arises. Worse than a lack of commitment, what these men show is a lack of desire for a relationship at all.
Women are equally to blame for this debacle of lost love. American women in particular now demand to be treated the same as men…except when they want to be treated as women. They make it impossible for a traditional man who values sex role differentiation to succeed in building a relationship with them. The contemporary woman of course remains identical to all women who came before her, biologically, with the same emotional and physical needs, despite the mental brainwash by the modern feminist movement.
As they continue to be victimized by the dilution of masculinity in the American male, women also victimize themselves by doing nothing to correct the problem.
It's a sad, awkward dance, really. Lonely hearts across America—male and female—without partners, suffering on Valentine’s Day. As Americans, we can certainly do without the marketing and commercialization. What we can’t do without, though, is healthy companionship.
You write, "As they continue to be victimized by the dilution of masculinity in the American male, women also victimize themselves by doing nothing to correct the problem." Do you have any suggestions for what women might do to "correct the problem?" With women learning to embrace traditional sex roles that are complementary to traditional men, should women therefore only talk to men who actually want a relationship/commitment and avoid partaking in situationships on the basis that they are, as you write, "nebulous," and not "leading to anything?" Considering this, I am wondering whether or not you believe relationships of any kind of romantic persuasion are meaningless in the absence of commitment/intention--that is, if only relationships with a clearly defined purpose and/or commitment are the only ones a woman should consider worthwhile altogether (or are there exceptions)?
As you point out, "The contemporary woman of course remains identical to all women who came before her, biologically, with the same emotional and physical needs." Based off your article, presumably one of those needs would (should?) include commitment and/or a clearly defined relationship "purpose" with a man. As I have heard you express elsewhere, men are biologically predisposed to want to be with multiple women, though they may not always act on this desire per se. You've also indicated it's often this very quality about men which often makes them more desirable to women. Similarly, if women embrace their femininity fully, this would include accepting, to a certain sense, objectification. Do you think there is any clash between women being understanding of these biological qualities about men and themselves, and also maintaining an expectation for committed relationships (again, I am assuming they should have this expectation based off of your article, but perhaps, in certain circumstances, this expectation is not always appropriate or reasonable for a woman to uphold)? However, I suppose this brings me back to my earlier question on whether or not you believe it is inherently problematic for a woman to be willing to participate in undefined relationships (situationships) if she doesn't receive commitment, or if it doesn't, as you put it, "lead to anything?"
As us younger people are often, as you note, "left rudderless and confused," when it comes to these and other subjects, I truly appreciate your instruction and clarity on such matters!