Taking up a controversial position against an entrenched custom, such as the romantic value of flowers, is fine. I disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. My problem with your arguments is that you’re wielding the additional political issue of exploitation in flower supply like a moral club.
you: “You know, I think giving flowers has become an empty commercial ritual, forced upon us like a Hallmark holiday. I think many people use it in place of true romantic gestures.”
someone: “In my personal experience, I’ve found giving flowers to be a genuine romantic gesture, one which is usually greatly appreciated by the recipient. I think flowers still symbolize effort and thoughtfulness on an individual level.”
you: “Plus, for every flower you buy, there’s likely a little boy somewhere dying of cancer from all the pesticides. But, I guess it’s worth it if it gets you laid.”
(This was obviously an exaggeration to make a point.)
If you feel the ritual is empty of meaning, then you should be able to argue that solely based on the ritual itself.
One more example: I start a thread saying that people buy new clothes too often. I myself wear one pair of blue jeans and a t-shirt every day for three years, until they completely wear out, at which point I buy another pair. People respond that they prefer more variety in their wardrobe, and they like wearing nice clothes. I respond that most American clothes are made in sweatshops, so by owning more than one outfit, you are sustaining the sweatshops and hurting people. I’m completely avoiding their arguments by throwing my moral superiority in their faces. I may as well have started a thread saying “sweatshops are all your fault”. It’s useless.
A. Because I happen to believe I am making a statement of fact.
B. Because what you’re saying is pretentious bullshit.
C. Because it’s the Pit. Take it to GD if you want a civil debate.
Okay, sure. But, what about the points I have raised?**
[/QUOTE]
Well, let us review the substantive points you have raised:
“Workers in third world flower farms are exposed to levels of pesticides that would never be allowed on food crops.”
This is a silly comment for two reasons:
A. It’s irrelevant to the issue of whether or not flowers are romantic. The romance lies between the giver and the receiver; whether or not YOU think they should spend their time worrying about “Third world flower farms” isn’t a relevant issue. It’s fine if you think they aren’t romantic - that was the first point of your OP, which I didn’t disagree with, since it was merely a subjective opinion call - but to go on and suggest, as you have, that somehow others are stupid for finding romance in simple things is pseudointellectual arrogance in its purest state. If you don’t like them, great. If you’re going to call other people salivating dogs for liking them, don’t be shocked if you get a few hearty "fuck you"s. I insulted you? Take the plank out of your own eye.
B. You seem to ignore the fact that unless you live in the Third World, it’s unlikely the flowers you gave your wife for her birthday came from a “Third World flower farm.” To check, I called a few flower shops (The Little Flower, in Kingston; McMahon’s House of Flowers, in Kingston; Belle Flowers, in Mississauga) I frequent and asked; ALL of their stock is locally supplied (I live in southern Ontario) and they expressed amazement I thought some of it might come from overseas. The shop I use the most gets every flower they sell from Ontario; the two others I spoke to would only go overseas for very rare items. I’ll grant that a few flowers - especially particularly unusual ones - might come from overseas, but in general the flowers you buy will be locally grown. (Third World farms DO, from my understanding, contribute much of their produce to the manufacturing of perfume.)
“All of this is to create an abundant supply of cheap flowers that we in America are willing to pay outrageous sums for because the industry has been programming us for years to invest deep emotional significance into it.”
Yes, the marketing of flowers is pretty heavy-duty. That said, flowers have been used as symbols of beauty and love for thousands of years. They have been synonymous with springtime, rebirth and new love at least since the Old Testament:
Lovers have been giving one another flowers since centuries before Hallmark and TV ads. Give us a little credit.
Perhaps you think potatoes are the height of vegetative beauty, but most people do seem to think flowers are beautiful and smell nice. I certainly do. Before men’s fashion was all oriented towards looking like either a cowboy or a tycoon, men and women alike wore flowers for their beauty. The voyageurs of old Canada - the toughest men in the world at the time - would wear clothing festooned in yellow and pink flower designs.
“That is the essential part of their symbolism. The flower represents the woman in the fullness of her youth and beauty, and it withers and dies to illustrate why it is she should fuck her suitor before she, too, starts withering.”
Sorry, but that’s just silly bullshit. If YOU choose to see rot and death in everything, be my guest; that obviously isn’t what most of us are conveying when we buy posies. The fact that the word “Deflower” means “to take one’s virginity” doesn’t mean that flowers mean to all what they seem to mean to you, any more than “Toronto Raptors” is synonymous with “Toronto Rapers” because they have the same root word (and believe or or not, people had that complaint when they named the team.) Do you really, honestly think that’s what I mean or what my wife takes it to mean when I give her flowers?
Perhaps you see every human action as lying somewhere on a “shallow vs. deep” one-dimensional scale. I do not. It must be fun around your house; what’s “Deep” enough for you to do? Not everything that meets your rigourous standards for “Depth” - not that you’ve bothered to define your terms, of course - is particularly meaningful to others, as evidenced by your potato suggestion.
To boot, what’s shallow about wanting to make someone happy? “Shallow” implies a lack of meaning or substance. There is great substance is giving of oneself to another. The act of giving small gifts isn’t the entirety of love, and nobody’s suggesting it is; it is, however, one of a thousand small but vitally important parts of love.
Giving my wife flowers doesn’t mean “I have given you flowers and so you must love me,” it means “I have given you flowers because I love you and this is one of the zillions of ways I show it.” My wife likes flowers. She likes arranging and displaying them. She is thrilled with joy when I give her flowers. And yet, she’s a brilliantly intelligent, literate and emotionally deep woman; she’s smart enough to know a bouquet is not the entirety of the relationship, which is why flowers wouldn’t work if someone else gave them to her. They do, however, seem to be a part of our relationship she values, and that alone is reason enough for me to give them to her; I would no more refuse to give her flowers because they don’t meet your personal “Depth” criteria any more than I’d avoid doing any one of the other billion “shallow” little things I do. What real difference does it make if I give her a kisson the cheek when I leave the house? Doesn’t mean much, does it? It’s just a peck; it’s kind of “shallow.” Matters to her, though.
If you can’t see a level of meaning when I give my wife flowers, that doesn’t mean isn’t that it lacks meaning. It’s that you either cannot see or cannot comprehend it. “Depth” and “love” lies in the eye of the beholder, and just because you don’t like soemthing does not mean these rest of us proles are Pavlovian experiments in a Madison Avenue lab.
Not presently. But if I stopped giving her flowers AND birthday gifts AND Christmas gifts AND those little pecks on the cheek AND putting up with her relatives on holidays AND putting the toilet seat down AND chewing with my mouth closed AND (insert another shallow little thing) she’d have reason to be pissed. Love is made of a thousand small efforts.
But really, you’ve just completely missed the boat. See, that isn’t the point. I am sure if I gave her no flowers for the next ten years she’s love me just as much. I don’t give her flowers to make her love me, you see - that’s where you seem to be sadly in error. I give her flowers because it makes her happy. And that makes ME happy. I don’t get more love for it - I get a little jolt of joy. You were half right, you see; it’s our love that grants meaning to the chopped-up plants. But so what? One feeds off the other; you can’t tell someone you love them and then expect them to be okay with that for forty years. Little things matter. That’s the stuff of life.
I’m sure it’s not what you meant, but it corresponds to what you actually wrote.
[qyote]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.
[/quote]
As I explained in my response to Giraffe, I have not actually called anyone stupid for giving and receiving flowers.
Giraffe wrote:
There’s nothing illegitimate about a two-pronged argument. I see what you’re getting at, that if you dodge the left hook, you get the right jab, but that’s not exactly playing dirty. The two points are coherent because as flowers no longer symbolize what they used to, and these uncomfortable facts happen to fit neatly into that void.
RickJay wrote:
You took a gamble that I was a bitter loner, and you blew that one. Even if I had been, it wouldn’t have bought you anything.
Where `pretentious’ means that you had to look up words.
In making a cheap stab at what you hoped were my vulnerabilities, you have exposed your own. But I will not go on to exploit them. But I will put it to you that you are no gentleman.
The fact is that if you are aware of these issues, and that it does not diminish the value of the flowers to you is perhaps a sane response to an evil world. Turning your nose up at flowers won’t help any. But still, the issue stands that much of the symbolism behind flowers is forgotten, and some of it inconceivable to our culture, and certain harsh realities that are directly, not metaphorically, linked to the production of flowers stand in the place of them. It’s not irrelevant merely because it’s irreguarded.
Suppose you had called in January?
For all I know, Canada may be a whole different situation, so we can take that for granted if you want. I also understand that it’s very different in Europe. If this criticism doesn’t apply in your region, then ignore it.
Given the fact that they are available year-round, the flower is losing force as a symbol of spring. When people give flowers, they are generally not thinking about the rebirth of the world. You’re right that this symbolism has been around for thousands of years, but this is consistent with my original point that the metaphorical meaning is lost. We can look it up to find out what it was, but it’s not something most people think or care about, and surely you too would give flowers for the very same reasons you listed before – that it makes your wife happy – whether or not it was mentioned in the bible.
Ah, you’re French Canadian. That explains a lot.
Calm down, I’m joshing you.
The best cowboy outfit I ever saw was the one Bruce Willis wore in Sunset, black with a huge embroidered rose on his shirt. Goddamn it, I wish I had an outfit like that.
But back to your point. Yes, the flower has been in use a long time. It is not a modern pre-occupation, nor have I claimed it to be. But I do claim that the character of our modern flower worship is particularly crass.
You mentioned that the flower is an ancient symbol. Death, virginity, pudenda, these are things that have been associated with flowers long before our time. Our modern world doesn’t like these metaphors so well, but they weren’t so repulsive within the very past that you yourself refer to.
No, in fact, this is what I assumed to begin with. The anticipated answer to four rhetorical questions is `no.’
Okay, Johnny Angel, time to pony up. Since flowers sold in the U.S. represent irreparable harm to people in third-world countries, just how many flowers (not bulbs or seeds, mind you – flowers) are imported by the U.S. each year? How many are from third-world countries?
I freely admit I don’t know the answer. But since this seems to be a central linchpin in your argument, I want to see some stats to back it up.
On your other points, you’re arguing from opinion. That’s fine. But the opinion of my wife matters more to me, and she likes getting flowers, so you’re trumped there.
And you don’t know where Canadians might get flowers in January? Does the concept of a “hothouse” not occur to you?
I know pretentious bullshit when I see it, and you’re spewing it like a sewer pipe. Your efforts to sound morally and intellectually superior to others aren’t working.
Here in Canada we have these amazing inventions called “greenhouses.” You see them everywhere. Growing flowers is a major industry here. It’s April now and I assure you we are not growing flowers outside. There aren’t even leaves on the trees yet, and any flower planted outside before late May is doomed to an untimely death by frostbite.
Perhaps you could post some objective evidence for all these Valentine’s Day roses being raised by exploited workers? It’s not the case here, but if it’s the case where you live I’d like to see a source. Fresh flowers strike me as being hideously expensive things to import, though in a place with less elbow room than Canada it might still be cheaper than growing them.
No, they’re thinking of making loved ones happy. Works for me. Perhaps you prefer to tell stories of death and exploitation and then give people potatoes (a symbol of Irish famine, btw) as a form of romance. Most do not, and they are neither shallow nor stupid for choosing to give their loved ones pretty gifts. My only point in raising the Bible was to point out that Hallmark and the gift industry did not invent the tradition of giving flowers.
The fact remains that your accusations of shallowness are baseless. The giving of flowers means a LOT to my wife, and anyone with half her intelligence and wisdom would be smarter than most. The people handing out flowers are not salivating dogs, as you have claimed. Or at least most of them aren’t.
I never thought of receiving flowers as a guy’s “half-assed attempt at romance”, but even if it was, that’s okay with me. Who the hell knows why guys give flowers or execute other “romantic” gestures, anyway? (It’s ultimately up to me in the end anyhow as to whether or not they get into my, er, bloomers; flowers and stuff are rarely a deciding factor.) The important thing is, I got flowers, they were pretty and smelled nice and brightened up the room for awhile, and I didn’t have to pay for them myself.
Sigh! If only flowers were routinely accompanied by a 7-inch platinum bangle bracelet with alternating bezel set diamonds and sapphires, or a gift certificate for a tummy tuck or liposuction session…!
If you think that’s the lynchpin of my argument, you still don’t get it. However, according to the Harper’s article mentioned before, “nearly half of the flowers sold in the U.S. come from the Bogata savanna” in Colombia. This doesn’t count the ones that come from Ecuador, which sold 300 million roses alone, not to mention other flowers, to the U.S. in 1999. It’s a pretty significant ratio, though I wonder what ratio you would consider too small to matter.
But as I said, that’s not germaine to my point.
Do you or do you not think that a) the ancient symbolism attached to flowers has lost its meaning in modernity, and b) the exploitation of the third world which does, in fact, occur in the floral trade is a relevant factor in determining the romantic value of flowers?
RickJay wrote:
I have made no claims to moral superiority.
Point taken. And according to your own investigations, there’s apparently not a lot of importing going on there. That strikes me as odd, but you’re in a better position to say, so I won’t argue.
According to the article that appeared in the February issue of Harper’s:
“Ecuadoran farms sold 300 million roses to U.S. importers in 1999 at an average price of 22 cents a stem; Colombian carnations fetched 11 cents; Costa Rican lilies, a dime. Competition among poor countries to sell flowers to rich ones has pushed supply up, prices down. Corporate producers with high volume and low labor costs, such as Dole, can still make millions on slim margins, but small flower farms are failing worldwide. For this bouquet, growers would get about $4, more than $3 of which would go to overhead – U.S.-made pesticides, Dutch seeds, Israeli greenhouses, Third World labor. After shipping fees (around 3 cents per stem by air, Bogota to Miami, depending on fuel prices) and the importer’s markup, a florist in the U.S. could buy these flowers wholesale for less than $10.”
It is, in fact, quite economical for us. Not only are U.S. distributors getting the flowers cheap, other U.S. businesses are getting a cut of what little these farms get paid.
I never claimed they did. What I do claim is that the industry (a relatively new agent in the history of flower giving) has been crass and exploitative.
That’s not worth arguing, because this is a minor point which is distracting you from addressing my real issue. So, I will withdraw the characterization.
However, I already know your answer to my main point, and that’s not going to change. Whatever meaning flowers had for some poets whose lives are dust and stories is irrelevant to you because it means a great deal to you and your wife, and no amount of worrying about the fate of the third world can diminish that. Isn’t that what you’re saying? Because suppose that you bought your wife a bouquet of flowers, and have fond memories of presenting them to her. If you found out now for a fact that this same bouquet was dewey with pesticides, picked by a Colombian worker who took ill from the poison and could no longer support his family, would you tear up your memories, and vow never to do it again? I just don’t think you would.
But I can send for the book Harper’s used as a source through interlibrary loan, and we could get to serious brass tacks. You obviously care enough that you bothered to call your florist, but I don’t think you’d give up flowers altogether in any case, and I’m not criticizing you for that. A bunch of data isn’t going to convince you, and you wouldn’t be doing yourself any favors if it did, so do we have anything to continue arguing about?
I have grave misgivings about the practice of giving flowers, and have given good reasons for them. Those reasons are not good enough for you to quit the practice, and that’s alright with me. But they are still good reasons. Yet, you probably still believe that someone has to be emotionally corrupt somehow not to blithely endorse the flower trade, and this simply is not the case.
For those of you who give flowers, and report that your wives/SO are thrilled about it, answer me this.
Are they thrilled for the flowers themselves, or are they thrilled because you thought to buy them?
And if you think it’s the because you thought to buy them, have you ever thought to buy anything else? Like, “Gee, flowers worked, I wonder if her favorite perfume would work?” Or something along those lines.
If you did think of that, how did she react? Was she just as thrilled with the new gift, or did she make it clear she perfered flowers?
Finally, if she was just as thrilled with the new gift, have you considered experimenting anymore? Women (most anyway) love romantic gestures, but when it’s the same one over and over and over, it tends to get boring and it’s less than thrilling.
It’s sometimes said on these boards that the debates are waged by just a few, but watched by silent thousands. I’m one of the (mostly) silent ones and I’d like to let Johnny Angel know, this thread has opened my eyes to the evils of the industry you point out. I’m not a heavy flower consumer, but I’ll sure think twice this Mother’s Day. I mean that seriously.
I hope that some of the people reading who have formerly got no further than “But flowers make me feel all special inside!” would at least start to consider whether their flowers are imported or not. There’s a very distressing tendency, esp. here in the USA, to put fingers in ears, singing “La, la, la, I’m a consumer and I want it, and nothing else matters.”
Unfortunately, as others on this thread have pointed out, this isn’t the only industry that has misbehaved this way. It’s just that the irony here is particularly bitter because we are deeply sentimental about flowers. But if you were to boycott every product made through the exploitation of the third world, you’d have a real rough time of it, and unless you were prepared to drop out of society altogether, you would ultimately fail. There’s no innocence to be had anywhere at any price, though the illusion of innocence can be picked up pretty cheap. It’s an evil world, and we are all complicit in it.
So, if we’re in for a dime, are we in for a dollar? Probably not. But I don’t want to kid myself any more than absolutely necessary. You fight some battles, and you sit out the rest. Oil companies, power companies, phone companies – all these own my ass. But Hallmark and FTD don’t.
pepperlandgirl - not that personal testamony makes much difference and not that I have to justify my actions to you one jot, but since you are interested: at the beginning of the relationship I swore shy of buying flowers, worried that it might seem like a shallow gesture. My girlfriend however made it abundantly clear that she likes to occasionally receive flowers. Just not at “flower” times (such as Valentines day). She’s an intelligent, independant, professional woman but she still likes flowers. As do I.
So you see, she does appreciate receiving flowers. And I buy them rarely enough that they are not tedious.
There. Are you satisfied now? Do I earn your approval? May I continue in my chosen romantic path? Or do I have to tell her that pepperlandgirl says that she isn’t allowed to enjoy getting them?
Around here in Monterey, we have a lot of flower farms, so the florists prefer to buy the flowers from those. Besides, i hear most of the exported flowers are roses. I guess some tropicals may be imported, but even those can be grown in greenhouses (cept things like king proteas i think). Point, i dont think you’d really find all that many grown in third world countries.
Something else: my girlfriend buys me flowers at least as much as I buy them for her. Personally, I’ve always enjoyed receiving them. And they sure as hell brighten up a bedroom.
Both. Obviously. She wouldn’t be nearly as happy if I brought her a potato. She likes it when I bring her those Arby’s potatoes with the cheese and the broccoli, but it’s not quite the thrill for her a spring bouquet is.
If it was just “happiness over the thrill of buying them,” then logically I should be able to buy her anything. “Here, honey! I bought you a bad of charcoal!” Curiously, this does not seem to bring the elation a beautiful bouquet of flowers does.
What the hell are you talking about?
[sarc]Gosh, NO! After all these years I have never once EVER bought her anything but flowers! When we go to dinner, I buy myself a steak but I buy her flowers! She has to eat them! On her birthday, I buy her nothing but flowers! On Christmas, it’s flowers under the tree! For Valentine’s, no chocolates, no jewelry - just flowers! When she asks me to grab some bread and milk at the store, I bring her flowers instead! When she was sick and needed cough medicine I brought her flowers! Why would you ever buy your wife anything except flowers? She can eat them, wear them, sleep on them, access the Internet with them! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha![/sarc]
Thanks for the incredibly original advice, but I think we all DID know it’s nice to buy more than one type of gift, except of course for lunkheads who never buy gifts at all.
Johnnyangel:
Actually, no, I don’t. As I said before, I’m fine with the subjective opinion that flowers eat it raw. My objection was to your assertion that those who don’t share that opinion are “salivating dogs” and “shallow,” which you seem to have backed away from, so I guess we’re on even ground.
a) The ancient symbolism of flowers has lost its meaning? Possibly so. In the 1800s, specific flowers meant specific things; it was possible to send a bouquet to a person that was almost as specific as a letter. In my opinion, that simply doesn’t happen anymore. That’s the nature of symbolism, though; it can change and grow over time, just as the meaning of words can change over time. Lacking specific information on flower symbolism in the world today, I must resort to the symbolism that flowers hold for my wife and me: they are a symbol of love.
b) Based on your comments, I followed RickJay’s example and contacted the two flower shops I frequent to determine their suppliers. They get their stock from three nurseries and greenhouses in the area. They were incredulous when I asked them if they import flowers. So, for me, the exploitation that occurs in third-world countries is not a relevant factor when determining the romantic value of flowers.
pepperlandgirl: I give my wife books, CDs, massages (both from me and from masseuses), notes, jewelry, cards, candy, perfume, bath oil, trips, time for herself, clothes, flowers, and a host of other small gifts. Can I be classified as a good romantic now, or is there a written test I’m supposed to take?
When a girl wants flowers, she wants flowers, not a lecture on why she shouldn’t want flowers. Give her flowers. This is not about what the giver wants, it’s about what the recipient wants.
If I want flowers and get potatoes and a poetic explanation of how potatoes are a more apt symbol of love than roses and why I shouldn’t want roses in the first place, I will not be pleased. And isn’t the point of bringing me a gift pleasing me?
I don’t need your sarcasm, I was asking some genuine questions. I see next time I deal with this particular bunch of posters, I can throw civility out the window, and be as rude as I want. I’m sorry I wanted to know what gifts other than flowers you give her. I had my reasons (Obviously if I was dealing with a bunch of fools who only gave flowers, than I wouldn’t walk away from this fight, because hey, you’re a bunch of loons!) But since I’m not dealing what that type of person, than I can leave this thread in piece.
Y’know, there’s a reason they call this “The BBQ Pit” …
You wanna insinuate that those of us who give flowers are half-assed romantics, be prepared to be roasted by flower-givers who actually DO understand the concept of romance.
JohnnyAngel, if flowers were produced only in a safe, non-exploitative way, would you still have reservations against buying and giving them? You’ve expressed your opinion that they no longer have significant symbolism or meaning any more, but I wasn’t sure which reason (exploitation vs. meaninglessness) was your primary reason.
Your arguments have reminded me of the issue of organic produce. They are starting to load produce up with so many pesticides that there is a greater trend toward organically grown produce. (A friend of mine grew up on a farm, and his parents are now activists for the organic movement.)
What I hear you saying is “I don’t like broccoli. Not only that, but with the level of pesticides it absorbs, I have a good chance of getting cancer if I eat it.” This is a reasonable position to take. But were you to then advocate that people shouldn’t eat broccoli anymore seems incorrect. Instead, we should work on fighting the corporate farming trend of heavy dependence on chemicals, and promote more organic, less profitable methods, probably through legistative means. You’d still be left with your personal opinion that broccoli sucks, which would be entirely valid, but there’d be no need to propose abandoning it as a vegetable. I feel the same thing is true of the flower industry, which is why I’ve hassled you about the mixing of the two arguments.
You feel flowers don’t have much meaning or significance any more, so you don’t enjoy buying and giving them, so you shouldn’t buy them. You also feel that the industry is exploitative, and shouldn’t be supported, so no one should buy them. This last part may be true, but only as a means of enacting reform. There’s nothing wrong with liking flowers (and I know you didn’t say there was). A better statement would be, “people should try to buy flowers from non-exploitative sources”. Just like people should buy organic produce – if you get a lot of people willing to pay more for a clean conscience (or less cancer), this will make a difference. A lot more difference than just saying that flowers suck.
** Drachillix ** brought a dozen red roses on Saturday night and they are still on my dining room table, glowing and gorgeous. He has brought me chocolates, RollerCoaster Tycoon, icecream, a soft plush Dalmation, gelpens and books for no particular reason. He burned a CD of songs that meant something to us. I love the thought behind all these gifts. He has never asked me why I need flowers or books or anything that I like. He has never informed me that he was not giving me flowers because they were unnecessary and would die and he felt his love was enough of a display and I should be content. He never pointed to the other things he brought me and said those gifts were more lasting, therefore more a display of love.
But my former fiance did. Flowers were useless and I was wrong to want them and he was not buying them.
As useless as the 1+ carat diamond I returned to him: Along with various other reasons, I knew I couldn’t be happy with a man who didn’t want me taking pleasure in the beauty and thoughfulness of flowers he brought me.
If every rose on the planet dissappeared, I wouldn’t expect to receive roses. But I love the roses on my dining room table and I love the man who brought them for no reason.
