Indian men boycott Valentine's Day. Will American men join their ranks? Credit: Narinder Nanu, Getty Images

OK, men, let's hear it: Do you look forward to Valentine's Day? Or do you resent the holiday that seems to be designed to pressure you into buy lingerie and jewelry in a pathetic attempt to prove that you know how to be "romantic?"

If you fall into the latter category, you're not alone. For the fourth year in a row, author Marc Rudov is leading a boycott against what he calls the "most unromantic day of the year." According to Rudov, Valentine's Day is nothing but the burnt out wreckage of what was once a celebration of romance.

Now, contends Rudov, Valentine's Day is nothing but an opportunity for advertisers to shame men into buying overpriced gifts and meals at Italian restaurant chains in order to score with their own wives and girlfriends. Pretty romantic, eh? Will you be joining the ranks of this Anti-Valentine's Day revolution?

What's the male version of feminism? Masculism? Manism? Whatever the terminology, a cornerstone in Rudov's boycott is the fact that Valentine's Day preys on men and their insecurities, while asking little or nothing from women. But before you decide that this sounds like an cleverly crafted cop-out for men who don't want to go shopping, check out what Rudov has to say about why Valentine's Day is bad for romance:

Advertisers treat men like spineless eunuchs, exhorting them to buy women teddy bears, pajamas, flowers, and diamonds -- or sleep on the couch. Meanwhile, our hypocritical society doesn't pressure women to indulge men -- on February 14th or ever. Do men fight back? No. They drink beer, watch football, sulk, and live in fear of their wives and girlfriends. So, I urge all real men to reject this nonsense and, instead, join my boycott of Valentine's Day.

Whoa, that's powerful stuff, and there's even more on Rudov's website. Is Valentine's Day really just a holiday concocted to boost Jared the Galleria of Jewlers' bottom line? I don't know if I'd go that far, but I will admit this: As a man, you definitely feel pressure to live up to some expectation on Valentine's Day ... and the vast majority of this pressure doesn't come from the person you're supposed to be celebrating with.

Look, I hate to target a holiday for destruction (because who wants less holidays?), but I do think that Rudov is onto something here. Valentine's Day as we currently know it is in real trouble. Now that times are tight and fewer people will be making their annual trips to the Olive Garden and Victoria's Secret -- does that mean fewer men will get laid?

Should the government offer a Valentine's stimulus, just to make sure that "romance" doesn't die? Of course not, but that's kind of what jewelers, florists, and national restaurant chains would have us believe. Romance is both a phenomenon and an industry, maybe it's time to reevaluate which one we support.

 I polled some friends and associates, and asked if they agreed or disagreed with Rudov's take on Valentine's day. Here's what I heard:

Marie: I disagree. There's nothing wrong with saying "I love you," on that day or any day, and no one says you have to buy a teddy bear.

 Colin: What is this guy thinking? Sacrifice is a part of love. Suck it up and stimulate the economy -- and her libido. More importantly, I think our boycotting standards are too low nowadays.

Lauren: Valentine's day is marketing for sure, it is all completely arbitrary.

Hannah: Rudov's full of it. You show me 10 men who are great at romance all year round, and I'll tell you there's no need for Valentine's Day. Until then, it's in full effect.

Travis: I agree with this guy. It's a huge misconception that women have the market cornered on romance. What they have is a lot less pressure to perform and that sucks.

What do you think: Is Valentine's Day in desperate need of a complete redesign?