And yet, you trivialized the issue, taking offense not at the predations of the industry but at me for bringing them up:
Your backpedaling has been acknowledged and credited.
However, you have justified your own consumption of flowers and jewelry by giving examples of how you don’t support the industries they represent, but I notice that you claim to be concerned with my implicit criticism of other people who `like giving and receiving flowers’, the great majority of whom do in fact support the industry that you yourself have now disavowed. Your noble intention to stick up for them is undermined by you covering your own ass.
Nobody’s asking anybody to refuse gifts, nor arguing that not buying them in the first place will make much of a difference. What I do claim, though, is that the giving of flowers does not deserve the kind of credit we as a society have been programmed to give it. It is not thoughtful, except in the shallowest way. The industry is badly behaved. The product itself is tainted with insecticides. The whole practice of giving flowers has been soured by overproduction and mass consumption, so that even what vestigal symbolic value flowers have left are banal fantasies that poorly withstand the slough of bitter reality.
What ignorant, utter nonsense. It is painfully (pitifully, really) apparent that you’re just bitter because you have nobody to give flowers TO. I do, and the happiness elicited when I give her flowers is worth it at ten times the price. Shallow? Speak for yourself. How sad for you.
I agree with Silverfire, spare me the flowers. On special occasions, my fiance gets me something he knows I love, and I can actually use. I think flowers are a huge waste of time and money. I’d probably be more upset with a dozen long-stemmed roses than happy.
If he wants to spend that kind of money, he can march himself down to the bookstore and get me King’s latest, or a leather-bound copy of a classic, or well, anything but flowers!
I have given good reasons for my position. I challenge you to respond in kind.
Perhaps when you have calmed down, you can explain why you felt the need to lash out with such a personal attack. You could try responding to me on point, but if you prefer to maintain the level of discourse you’ve used so far, you might instead want to accuse me of being gay, having a small penis, or being a pot-smoking crypto-communist tool.
In any case, I happen to be married. I won’t presume to tell you how happy you and your wife are, if you don’t presume to tell me how happy I and mine are.
Okay, sure. But, what about the points I have raised?
Then what else? Because if something is not shallow, then there will always be more to say about it than that makes people happy. Happiness is not a sufficient condition for depth. Neither do flowers add credence to the depth and sincerity of your affections – on the contrary, your affections validate and enrich the flowers. Or else do you believe your wife would be as happy with flowers from just any other man? If yes, then I apologize – flowers are love itself. Does she doubt that you love her when she is not receiving flowers? If so, I take it back – flowers are the coin of love. If your love were a million dollars to her, would some flowers fetch even a penny? If so, then call me a fool, but call yourself a miser. If the world ran dry of flowers, would she love you any less? If so, then consider me set straight – flowers are deep; what’s shallow is you.
Surely you mean the Turnip? Could Dennis Cooper have been that wrong?
P.S. If you can’t place this obscure movie reference, there will be a review after class.
Say, Johnny Angel, how about buying flowering plants from a nursery? The two of you could plant and nurture the plants together, and experience joy and love over the beauty of your achievement when the flowers bloom.
Or, you could start growing flowers now, and then present them to your wife when they bloom. How’s this sound for romantic?
I believe that the flowers ought to be coupled with a 2-hour scented oil massage, with candles and soft music. And lots of sugar.
I, personally, have no use for flowers. However, the wife loves to get flowers. Not at accepted times, though; she’d die if I gave her a dozen roses on Valentine’s Day. But she likes them, so occasionally, for no reason, I’ll buy some for her.
Frankly, I value her opinion of what is romantic and appropriate far more than Johnny Angel’s, so I’ll continue to do this.
And there’s the rub. Whatever the symbolism of flowers used to be, the symbolism now is that you care for somebody enough to spend hard-earned cash on something for them that has no meaning or use other than to be itself. Pardon me - but that actually does mean something.
I don’t like to always buy presents that can actually be used. Sometimes I want to “waste” a little money. That’s the beauty of it - flowers have no function other than to look pretty, and that only briefly. What a dull world it would be if eveything was bought just for its intrinsic mechanical usefulness.
Hey, it’s a trophy that multiple people can win. That potato thing just took the cake.
And if I get you right you’re protesting that flowers can equal exploited label of children and the helpless both domestic or abroad.
Well then, let’s explore that vein…
Do you then, drive? Think of the damage you’re making with that choice. Not only the consumption of petrochemicals but you’re contributing to the possibility of oil spills. And hey, that whole gulf war thing? It was about oil.
Do you live in a house? The wood that makes up your wall studs and floor joists probably wasn’t raised for that purpose. Some forest has a decent chance of being clear cut because you wanted shelter more than you valued stopping deforestation. Desertification and sprawl is clearly to be laid at your feet.
Do you listen to music on CD? Don’t you think that plastic (more petrochemicals!) and aluminum could have been used for a more serious purpose? What justification do you have for placing your desire for entertainment above the need for resources to encourage development in the third world?
Are you wearing clothing? If so there’s a decent chance at least some of it was manufactured under harsh conditions in southeast asia. If it was made in China there’s a chance that it was made by slave labor. Either that or by kids that Kathie Lee Gifford enjoys smacking around.
You’re on the Internet right now. How do you justify using electricity that could better go to increasing per capita energy consumption in the developing world. Maybe there’s a hospital in South America that needs your power right now. And if you’re power is generated by coal, how do you justify the pollution or the mining of that coal for your purposes? If it’s hydroelectric how do you justify the destruction of habitat through the construction of dams?
And on preview…
kabbes: how right you are. There are points for style.
JohnnyAngel, I hear you making two separate statements:
The flower industry is very damaging to disadvantaged people in other countries. The United States creates most of the demand that sustains this situation.
Flowers are stupid and shallow, so you shouldn’t want them anyway. Maybe if people thought about it a little, they’d actually buy something that makes sense, which flowers don’t.
The first statement is a political statement about a situation which most people are going to agree should be changed if possible. The second statement is an irritating personal attack on the choices people make in their relationships, and dismisses the desires that many people have. That these desires may have been deliberately injected into our culture for the purposes of profit makes them no less true in the hearts of individuals. You can use logic all you want, but some people feel that receiving flowers is a sweet, romantic gesture.
Because you’re mixing the two arguments, your tone changes from one of “hey, you guys may not have realized this, but the flower and diamond industries hurt people – maybe we should try to think of ways to change this”, to “you guys are all a bunch of idiots if you don’t abandon anything to do with these things”. You come across (to me) as very superior and condescending.
The question is, then, do you want to make a difference, or do you want to revel in how right you are? You’re currently doing only the latter. If you want to do the former, you need to talk to people as if their current beliefs were arrived at reasonably (usually true, especially on this message board.) You are just supplying them with additional information that may lead them to re-evaluate and modify those beliefs. Guide, rather than mock. Be respectful. It makes a world of difference.
No, Kabbes, the world is not a dull place because I perfer everything I spend money on to have some sort of use.
Mainly because I have no money. It’s extremely hard to be impressed over roses when mentally you are calculating the groceries you can’t afford now. It’s all about oppurtunity cost. Flowers have very little use. Books have more use. Food has even more use, all for the same price. And food can be just as romantic as flowers are supposed to be.
Sounds great. It’s not as though the flowers themselves are the issue. It’s that they are used as a substitute for just this sort of thing. The end product of your gardening is ephemeral, but so is a relationship. But with good soil and not a little bit of effort, it blooms again and again.
However, this is a hard sell as a romantic gesture, since romanticism is now so strongly tied into our instant gratification consumer culture. Having to work at it means that it’s not spontaneous, and people expect romantic gestures to be spontaneous. The idea wasn’t invented to sell products. It came to us most notably through the Romantic poets, who insisted that by being spleeny, they were more genuine than stable people. But it just so happens that people who have been influenced by this idea are readily persuaded to buy things like flowers.
kabbes wrote:
So your affection is quantifiable in terms of money? You’re not a romantic, you’re a cynic.
Jonathan Chance wrote:
I know, you just can’t seem to get over it. But let me see if I can help you. You see, the potato example is not meant to be taken literally, but as a whimsical example. If I’d meant for you to take it as actual advocacy, I would have used a less comical symbol, such as a turnip. To avoid confusing you further, I will now point out that the reference to the turnip in the previous sentence is not in fact supposed to be taken seriously.
No. I’m claiming that these issues diminish the romantic value of the buying and giving of flowers.
Giraffe wrote:
I have disparaged people’s opinions because I disagree with them. If to argue against beliefs into which people have emotional investments is a personal attack, then speak no more of religion or politics. All discourse is an insult to someone. Notice that I have not stated that any person is stupid, or shallow, or insincere for buying or desiring flowers. I have explained why I consider the ritual empty of the kind of meaning ascribed to it, and no one has countered this position except to say that the only significance they attach to it is that it makes others happy, and that this they consider sufficient. This I have not disagreed with, except to say that this still doesn’t make the gesture any less shallow, where `shallow’ doesn’t mean it’s bad, just not as good as it could be.
This is one of the smartest, wittiest, and down-right beautiful flames I’ve ever read. Bravo! Magnifico! Encore!
Personally, flowers are the safety net of a relationship. If you don’t have the time, money, or energy to come up with something really nice, you can always cop-out and get some posies. Frankly, I’m surprised so many women still fall for this one.
But that’s my point - for you flowers have very little use and you have a high opportunity cost from buying them. But you can’t extrapolate this to all people. For me flowers look pretty, brighten up a room, smell nice and are appreciated by my girlfriend (more on that later). What’s more, I don’t have the same opportunity cost from buying them since it comes out of my disposable income. Different people find themselves in different situations - I don’t agree with condemning those who like to buy flowers because they aren’t appropriate to your situation.
which to me is a flagrant misrepresentation of my post. Look - flowers in isolation may be an empty gesture. But in the context of a loving relationship full of little thoughts and deeds, stopping by the store to pick up any little gift is a Nice Thing to do. When I receive such a gift, it is the fact that I was thought of and not the gift itself that I appreciate most. (Unless the gift is really, really cool of course). The fact that flowers have no purpose other than to be themselves can be, on occasion, a rather nice extra touch. Rather like love itself, they are defined not in terms of need but in terms of want.
In summary - to be honest most things in my life have arguable functional value. The fancy CD rack could have been replaced by a £1.99 one. The antique bookshelf does the same job as some cheap pine shelving would have done. As Jonathan Chance said - there are points for style. If I see value in a “useless” present and my girlfriend similarly sees value in that “useless” present, then maybe that present has a use after all, hmn?
Now when we separate the argument as Giraffe did above, I’ll back you up on the evils of exploitation. But don’t try telling people that they are stupid because their sense of aesthetics don’t mesh with yours.
That’s a pretty broad brush you’re using there, plg. Doesn’t it get a little heavy, flailing it around like that so you can hit every male?
For you, flowers may be a “half-ass job” of being romantic. For my wife, flowers are a tremendously romantic thing, particularly when I give them to her for absolutely no reason.
Flowers don’t work for you. That’s fine. They do for other folks. Don’t assume that I’m a half-assed romantic because I purchase flowers. Romance involves getting to know a person’s likes and dislikes and focusing on the former while minimalizing the latter.
It’s called “perspective.” Check into it sometime. You might like it.
Bravo! I can never get good, honest advice like this just by asking. Thanks for saying this. Myself, I’m astonished by the amount of fine women who actually fall for the “half-assed dozen roses.”
I still like the symbolism behind growing flowers myself, and then giving them to my blessed sweetheart. Putting that much effort into a simple gift makes the present much more meaningful. IMHO.
Books as a gift: now there’s an idea. One of my favorite presents ever was a bookstore gift certificate. We made a special trip to the store, just so I could run hog wild. I’m glad she didn’t give me flowers.