Theatre aisles lined with people. Rows of grocery store roses. Teddy bears.
Valentine’s Day — and all its commercial classics — are back in our collective consciousness once again.
Although the meaning behind the holiday has changed since its origins in the 19th century, the core concepts and associated traditions look relatively the same today. Yet, everyone celebrates and understands Valentine’s Day differently.
At Carleton, while some are hoping to make room for gratitude and celebrate quality time with loved ones, for others, love isn’t a one-size-fits-all.
History of Valentine’s Day
While historians have struggled to pinpoint the precise origin of Valentine’s Day, we know for certain its origins were not as romantic as we celebrate it today.
Although it was named after Saint Valentine, its beginnings can be traced back prior to his birth, potentially originating from the festival of Lupercalia, which predated Christianity.
The festival of Lupercalia was an ancient Roman pastoral festival held annually from Feb. 13 to 15 to promote health, fertility and purification. It was intended to cleanse the city and deter evil spirits through feasting and the pairing of young couples.
But it came with a gruesome twist. Oftentimes, the hide of a sacrificed goat would be cut into strips and dipped in blood. Priests would then go around slapping women with the strips in hopes of improved fertility for the coming year.
As Rome moved from Paganism to Christianity, this gradually — and mercifully — fell out of practice.
Society leaned towards Saint Valentine, whose identity is still historically muddled. However, he is most commonly understood as a priest who was arrested for defying Rome by continuing to wed lovers in secrecy.
He was one of two men by the name of Valentine to be executed on Feb. 14 within two years in the 16th century.
Finding love
Philippe Hoyeck, a philosophy professor at Carleton University, said desirable personality traits in a partner defy cultural and political boundaries.
“If you look cross-culturally, people value the same character traits: someone who is kind, patient, thoughtful,” Hoyeck said.
“Ultimately, if we cultivate these virtues, it should be easier to find love.”
But Hoyeck said the idea of marrying your best friend is a modern concept.
Up until the 18th century, marriages were rooted in pragmatics: Men needed children, and women couldn’t own property without men.
“You would be loved for how good a spouse you were,” he said.
Hoyeck said love and relationships were a lot simpler, and expectations were very clear.
“Now things have shifted, expectations are much more individualised. There is this new concept of compatibility.”
Hoyeck argues that looking for admirable virtues in a partner is one of the best ways to go about love. But it’s important to embody them first.
“We should ask ourselves what kind of person we want to be. What kind of virtues do we want to collect?”
Divorce: ‘Love is grand, but it’s a helluva risk’
Tough love is not always simple, according to Rebecca Bromwich, a divorce lawyer and law professor at Carleton.
Canada’s divorce rate hovers at about 5.6 divorces per 1,000 married couples, according to data taken from 2020. This means there were 42,933 divorces across the country that year, a 25 per cent decline since 2019.
Divorces spiked after the 1968 Divorce Act was enacted.
According to Bromwich, the act made filing and obtaining a divorce far more accessible.
Before the act, citizens pursuing a divorce would have to privately petition Parliament, alongside publishing their purpose for divorce in the Canada Gazette and two other Canadian newspapers, with no guarantee of approval.
The legislation governing divorces at the time, Acts of Divorce (1841-1968), would require newspaper petitions to contain details such as “the date and place of marriage (and) the events surrounding the demise of the marriage.”
If the petition was allowed, Parliament would then pass an Act of Divorce nullifying the marriage.
The increase in divorce rates can partly be attributed to more people engaging in common-law relationships, which are not represented in divorce statistics.
Bromwich said there are many ways in which divorce can be avoided: “Prenups and cohabitation agreements are the way to go,” Bromwich said.
“Having a legally binding document that demonstrates expectations is extremely beneficial,” she said, adding that it’s necessary to outline specific issues partners run into, such as arguments around housekeeping, cooking and child care.
Alongside minimising the possibility of divorce, Bromwich said breaks are cleaner for the benefit of both parties, especially when there are children involved.
Divorces aren’t inherently bad — it’s the conflict that causes stress, said Bromwich.
“(We should) prioritise the minimisation of the negative impacts that divorce might have on children, and both people,” she said, adding that both parties often struggle financially and emotionally post-divorce, including roughly 24 per cent of women and 16 per cent of men.
“Women are often poorer but happier after divorce, whereas men are often wealthier but more unhappy and more likely to have a rematch within five years,” Bromwich said.
Tying the knot might be a forever endeavour, but it might also go down in flames. Whether you decide to risk the gamble, Bromwich said, platonic relationships are crucial.
“Relationships other than romantic partnerships are much more important to our mental health than we think they are,” Bromwich said.
“Maybe what’s destructive is the mythology of forever after.”
Featured imagine from file by Christophe Young
This article, and all of the Charlatan’s work, is brought to you by an independent student newspaper dedicated to informing, uplifting and entertaining the Carleton University community. We are a levy-funded organization which plays a role in the broader, vibrant student culture on campus. By reading this article, you are supporting our efforts.
