zengirl Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 OK then the whole issue of Christmas gifts should be completely irrelevant for you. Christmas is a national holiday in America, as well as most countries. I celebrate it as a secular holiday, as I presume it must ALSO be (in addition to those who choose to celebrate it as a religious holiday), since it is a nationally declared holiday in a country that claims to have a separation of church and state. Santa Claus, Christmas trees. . . these ideas were all co-opted from folktales and pagan religions anyway. I celebrate Santa Claus, Christmas trees, stockings, green and red, Christmas lights, days off, winter weather, spending time with friends and family, and all sorts of non-Christian aspects of Christmas. I essentially celebrate "X MAS" as opposed to Christmas, as do many people. I don't go to midnight mass, I don't believe Jesus was anything more than a decent guy who made some speeches (and was actually born in March more likely anyway), but that doesn't mean I cannot have a fun holiday. You're just being silly. Christmas is most definitely a "Christian" holiday. Now it sounds like you're maneuvering to explain why you expect to be given gifts on Christmas when you're not even Christian. It is not solely a Christian holiday. But you're not Christian. So it really doesn't matter what does or doesn't happen on Christmas. You don't need to even have Christmas if you just want to exchange gifts with someone. Go ahead and feel free to do that any day of the year. But the point you seem to be missing is that exchanging gifts on a holiday like Christmas, Christian or not, is about what you give, not about what you receive. If you want to buy him a gift, buy him one. If you don't, don't. Many non-Christians celebrate Christmas and the holiday season. If you're not materialistic or greedy then whether or not someone gives you a particular gift should be completely irrelevant. I guess I'm materialistic and greedy about the thought, if you consider that greed and materialism. Money? Don't give two figs. Thought? Yes, I care. I care a lot. I don't consider that materialism, nor would the definition generally support saying, "I expect thought and care to be put into my gift" as a sign of materialism. Once again, if you choose to give someone a gift, you should try to put some thought into it. That's entirely different from having any expectations as a recipient of a gift. The recipient of the gift in this case could clearly see he'd put no thought into it. I think having expectations of that thought is normal. The point you seem to be entirely missing is that you want to impose your personal standards for gift giving on other people. Yes, everyone does this when they judge others. I shower every day, and I wouldn't date -- and yes, would criticize -- someone who doesn't generally shower every day (exceptions for like a long camping trip or a day they were in the hospital or something). I completely judge people by MY standards. That's what personal standards are for. In this case, I don't think my personal standards are outside the norm. The girl should've gotten her own gift, not a generic copy of one. If you think your relationship is significantly dependent upon receiving a specific level of holiday gifts then hopefully you can find someone compatible with that idea. I would rate this issue about 500th on the priority list of what I look for in a partner. Pretty much no one --- and certainly not me --- told the girl to dump her BF over this. The general consensus seemed to be that it was a flaw, but not a fatal one. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that you're entitled to put as much thought and energy into giving gifts as you like, but that doesn't mean you have a reasonable expectation that your partner should do the same. Well, I think it is a reasonable expectation. That's where we differ. I don't expect the same "level" or calculate it out that evenly, but I expect some thought and a non-generic gift from my SO. If my SO got me a generic gift, I'd address it, and try to make him see it was important to me to get a gift that was thoughtful on the next occasion. But I've never had that problem. I date thoughtful people, and every thoughtful person I know, gets this idea. That doesn't mean the gifts are always AMAZING, but they always make me happy and make me feel like they're just for me. I think everyone, the OP included, deserves the same. Now I'm aware some people don't care----that's fine. But it's relatively common to care, and I assume that thoughtful people bring themselves to care about their SO's happiness and expectations. Gifts are simply not that important in a relationship, in the great scheme of things. True. It's the thought behind it I care about. Not the gift itself. Maybe your priorities need readjustment, then. Do you seriously believe getting that CD or sweater is so important? I think being remembered and cared for on the holiday, through the traditional method, is important. Couldn't care less about the CD or sweater. When people say it's not about the money, it's about the money. So now you're okay with changing the meaning of what people say? You were a big proponent of taking people at their word before.
NoLongerSad Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 Christmas is a national holiday in America, as well as most countries. It's a national holiday to the extent that the vast majority of citizens of the U.S. are Christians. It's not a national holiday in the sense that the U.S. is supposed to have separation of church and state. Either way, since you're not a Christian, it should be largely irrelevant to you. I celebrate it as a secular holiday, as I presume it must ALSO be (in addition to those who choose to celebrate it as a religious holiday), since it is a nationally declared holiday in a country that claims to have a separation of church and state. It's not a secular holiday, it's a religious holiday; and since you're not a Christian, you don't "celebrate" Christmas in any greater sense than you might "celebrate" your birthday or Valentine's Day. Since most of the U.S. is Christian, those of us who are not must accommodate the wishes of the vast majority, as there is not much choice to do otherwise. Being pleasant and accommodating is not the same thing as "celebrating" the holiday, at least in some sense other than the way you "celebrate" your birthday. Santa Claus, Christmas trees. . . these ideas were all co-opted from folktales and pagan religions anyway. That's right. They're all pretty much irrelevant to the core idea of Christianity and hence of Christmas (celebration of the birth of the Christian savior). I put gift-giving at Christmas in exactly the same zone as Santa Claus and Christmas trees. Not very important, particularly if one does not recognize the theology underpinning the entire reason for being of the festival. I celebrate Santa Claus, Christmas trees, stockings, green and red, Christmas lights, days off, winter weather, spending time with friends and family, and all sorts of non-Christian aspects of Christmas. Right, everything except what Christmas is actually supposed to represent--the theological component, which you don't accept and therefore dispense with. It's all very peripheral to the core concept, so basically all you're doing is making Christmas just another excuse for personal enjoyment and hedonism. That's fine, but it's not very important. You can have a party any time you choose, and you can give gifts any time you choose. I essentially celebrate "X MAS" as opposed to Christmas, as do many people. I don't go to midnight mass, I don't believe Jesus was anything more than a decent guy who made some speeches (and was actually born in March more likely anyway), but that doesn't mean I cannot have a fun holiday. Right. It's just a party time for you, that's fine, but parties just aren't that important. It's just some casual hedonism with no spiritual component. Nothing special, and therefore, no reason to get offended if you don't get all the attention lavished on you that you think you might be entitled to. It is not solely a Christian holiday. If your contention is that you celebrate Christmas as a totally secular occasion, like Valentine's Day or your birthday, that's fine, but then it's not a particularly significant occasion. Since Santa Claus and Christmas Trees and even Jesus himself are mythical/legendary/pagan, why is getting a gift on Christmas at all important to you? The reason is obvious: Because you want to get something. It has nothing to do with any idea of "Christmas" as some sort of special occasion, because to you, it isn't a special occasion. It's a bunch of people who happen to believe in unicorns and leprachauns deciding to have a great big nation wide party. You don't believe in the leprechauns and unicorns, but hey, if there's a party, you're definitely in on it. Lots of people feel exactly the same way that you do, but that doesn't change the fact that a secularist attitude reduces it to a rather insignificant occasion. Many non-Christians celebrate Christmas and the holiday season. Yes, the same way that you do--as a consumerist, hedonistic "party." That's how little children view Christmas--that's when we put up the pretty lights and tree, get a vacation from school, make snowmen, and get lots of presents. Yay! None of that has anything to do with anything of importance in a mature relationship, of course. I guess I'm materialistic and greedy about the thought, if you consider that greed and materialism. Don't be so oversensitive. If the significance of a holiday such as Christmas (doesn't have to be Christmas, could be any "holiday") is centered around people giving you "stuff," with no spiritual component whatsoever (since you don't believe in that part of it), then, yes, that's a completely materialistic (as opposed to "spiritual") attitude. What do you think "materialistic" means? It means you define the celebration and your understanding of your social relationship with other participants in that celebration, in terms of the exchange of material objects. Your insistence that what you give/get don't give/don't get is so important that it would actually impact your close personal relationships, depending upon what objects are exchanged, is nothing other than a "materialistic" attitude. Money? Don't give two figs. Thought? Yes, I care. I care a lot. I don't consider that materialism, nor would the definition generally support saying, "I expect thought and care to be put into my gift" as a sign of materialism. If all you cared about was the "thought" and were not materialistic then you would not have an expectation of receiving anything at all of a material nature as a "Christmas gift." This is precisely the problem that confronted the OP so I'm actually glad that you're laying it out in this way. You are materialistic, but you don't want to own up to it. You are just as materialistic as the significant number of women who post at LS with an expectation that the male is "supposed to" pay for their dates together, but who don't want to be perceived as gold diggers or materialistic. The recipient of the gift in this case could clearly see he'd put no thought into it. I think having expectations of that thought is normal. No, the problem is not the amount of thought he put into it; it's that the OP did not like what she received--she didn't want flowers. Yes, everyone does this when they judge others. I shower every day, and I wouldn't date -- and yes, would criticize -- someone who doesn't generally shower every day (exceptions for like a long camping trip or a day they were in the hospital or something). I completely judge people by MY standards. That's what personal standards are for. In this case, I don't think my personal standards are outside the norm. The girl should've gotten her own gift, not a generic copy of one. I agree wholeheartedly that your personal standards ARE "the norm" in our consumerist, materialistic culture. We live in a materialistic consumerist culture, as is EXEMPLIFIED by the way Christmas is "celebrated" by many people, and you ARE the "norm." Pretty much no one --- and certainly not me --- told the girl to dump her BF over this. The general consensus seemed to be that it was a flaw, but not a fatal one. The only "flaw" was in the OP's expectations. Well, I think it is a reasonable expectation. That's where we differ. I don't expect the same "level" or calculate it out that evenly, but I expect some thought and a non-generic gift from my SO. If my SO got me a generic gift, I'd address it, and try to make him see it was important to me to get a gift that was thoughtful on the next occasion. But I've never had that problem. I date thoughtful people, and every thoughtful person I know, gets this idea. That doesn't mean the gifts are always AMAZING, but they always make me happy and make me feel like they're just for me. Maybe you should try celebrating a holiday for once in your life without expecting anyone to give you anything other than sharing time with you. I think everyone, the OP included, deserves the same. Now I'm aware some people don't care----that's fine. But it's relatively common to care, and I assume that thoughtful people bring themselves to care about their SO's happiness and expectations. OP wants a bf who gives her nice gifts so I'm sure that's what she'll try to find. Whether that will result in her being happy in the long run, is an entirely different question. True. It's the thought behind it I care about. Not the gift itself. No, it's the gift. If it was just the thought that mattered then you wouldn't require a gift. I think being remembered and cared for on the holiday, through the traditional method, is important. Couldn't care less about the CD or sweater. You care about someone giving you a material object of sufficient importance, in your own mind, so as to validate your own sense of ego. If you do not get that material object, whatever you think you're entitled to, you feel diminished. You associate being loved with being gifted. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't care at all about receiving gifts on holidays which you don't believe in. So now you're okay with changing the meaning of what people say? You were a big proponent of taking people at their word before. I didn't change the meaning of anything. When people insist that they're not materialistic, yet tie their expectations into receiving "stuff," the conclusion is obvious, though.
anne1707 Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 Not addressing the rest of your post because much of it seems off topic. However you say that the OP did not like the flowers, not the lack of thought: No, the problem is not the amount of thought he put into it; it's that the OP did not like what she received--she didn't want flowers. However when you look at the OP, she clearly states she likes the flowers and the issue is the lack of thought for any originality: I like the flowers. They are nice but my issue is that he did not bother thinking about anything for me. I'm inclined to think that the OP has a clearer idea of what the problem is for her than you do.
zengirl Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 It's a national holiday to the extent that the vast majority of citizens of the U.S. are Christians. It's not a national holiday in the sense that the U.S. is supposed to have separation of church and state. Either way, since you're not a Christian, it should be largely irrelevant to you. It is a national holiday, as in a bank holiday, and a day when all public buildings are closed. We have the day off to celebrate something. And you have no right to tell me or other agnostics/atheists what should be irrelevant to us. I, like many others, choose to celebrate a secular Christmas. No crosses, nativities, or bibles in my house, but there's always a big, beautiful Christmas tree and lots of lights and decorations. It's not a secular holiday, it's a religious holiday; and since you're not a Christian, you don't "celebrate" Christmas in any greater sense than you might "celebrate" your birthday or Valentine's Day. Since most of the U.S. is Christian, those of us who are not must accommodate the wishes of the vast majority, as there is not much choice to do otherwise. Being pleasant and accommodating is not the same thing as "celebrating" the holiday, at least in some sense other than the way you "celebrate" your birthday. Christmas is both a secular and religious holiday. Actually, your reasoning for it being a U.S. holiday would be VASTLY unconstitutional. Majority does not rule in such matters, which is why the founders put separation of church and state into the Constitution, to make that very clear. I'm not "pleasant and accomodating" of Christmas. I celebrate it. Wikipedia notes that many non-Christians do, specifically saying: Although nominally a Christian holiday, Christmas is also celebrated by an increasing number of non-Christians worldwide,[COLOR=#0645ad][1][/COLOR][COLOR=#0645ad][13][/COLOR][COLOR=#0645ad][14][/COLOR] and many of its popular celebratory customs have [COLOR=#0645ad]pre-Christian[/COLOR] or [COLOR=#0645ad]secular[/COLOR] themes and origins. Popular modern customs of the holiday include [COLOR=#0645ad]gift-giving[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0645ad]music[/COLOR], an exchange of [COLOR=#0645ad]Christmas cards[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0645ad]church[/COLOR] celebrations, a special meal, and the display of various decorations; including [COLOR=#0645ad]Christmas trees[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0645ad]lights[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0645ad]garlands[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0645ad]mistletoe[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0645ad]nativity scenes[/COLOR], and [COLOR=#0645ad]holly[/COLOR]. Have a look at the whole article if you like. But I have just as much a right to my secular Christmas as anyone has to their religious Christmas. That's right. They're all pretty much irrelevant to the core idea of Christianity and hence of Christmas (celebration of the birth of the Christian savior). I put gift-giving at Christmas in exactly the same zone as Santa Claus and Christmas trees. Not very important, particularly if one does not recognize the theology underpinning the entire reason for being of the festival. But to me, Christmas is ABOUT Christmas trees and Santa and all that stuff. I don't believe in a real Santa, but I've always believed that Santa was the giving nature deep inside all humans. I love Christmas trees. To me, these things ARE important, definitely more important than somebody else's fake God. Who are you to say what's important? Right, everything except what Christmas is actually supposed to represent--the theological component, which you don't accept and therefore dispense with. It's all very peripheral to the core concept, so basically all you're doing is making Christmas just another excuse for personal enjoyment and hedonism. That's fine, but it's not very important. You can have a party any time you choose, and you can give gifts any time you choose. Many people celebrate a secular Christmas. And yes, it's for personal enjoyment. Holidays are meant to be fun! Right. It's just a party time for you, that's fine, but parties just aren't that important. Not that I'm saying parties are more important than basic needs, but I do think that festive occasions, fun, and celebrations are important to quality of life. A religious Christmas is no more important or useful than a festive, secular Christmas. . . both bring about a sense of community and commemoration of something each group supposedly enjoys. It's just some casual hedonism with no spiritual component. Nothing special, and therefore, no reason to get offended if you don't get all the attention lavished on you that you think you might be entitled to. It is special to me. It is a special time to my boyfriend, who is an atheist. Who's to say spiritualism is more important than anything else? If your contention is that you celebrate Christmas as a totally secular occasion, like Valentine's Day or your birthday, that's fine, but then it's not a particularly significant occasion. It is, to me, and many others. Since Santa Claus and Christmas Trees and even Jesus himself are mythical/legendary/pagan, why is getting a gift on Christmas at all important to you? The reason is obvious: Because you want to get something. It has nothing to do with any idea of "Christmas" as some sort of special occasion, because to you, it isn't a special occasion. It is a special occasion. I have many Christmas rituals, besides gift-giving. I love making Christmas cookies. I love decorating the tree. I love hanging lights and stockings. I watch Christmas films with friends every Sunday in December. I don't need Jesus to celebrate my Christmas. It's a bunch of people who happen to believe in unicorns and leprachauns deciding to have a great big nation wide party. You don't believe in the leprechauns and unicorns, but hey, if there's a party, you're definitely in on it. Or agnostics, atheists and other non-Christians (not all but many), we have our own Christmas, as Christians borrowed many elements for their Christmas from others before Christianity. Lots of people feel exactly the same way that you do, but that doesn't change the fact that a secularist attitude reduces it to a rather insignificant occasion. To you, maybe. It's no less signficant to me. None of that has anything to do with anything of importance in a mature relationship, of course. Thoughtfulness has everything to do with a mature relationship. Don't be so oversensitive. If the significance of a holiday such as Christmas (doesn't have to be Christmas, could be any "holiday") is centered around people giving you "stuff," with no spiritual component whatsoever (since you don't believe in that part of it), then, yes, that's a completely materialistic (as opposed to "spiritual") attitude. What do you think "materialistic" means? It means you define the celebration and your understanding of your social relationship with other participants in that celebration, in terms of the exchange of material objects. Your insistence that what you give/get don't give/don't get is so important that it would actually impact your close personal relationships, depending upon what objects are exchanged, is nothing other than a "materialistic" attitude. But I don't care about the stuff. I care about the ritual and thought behind the stuff. You don't seem to understand that concept, and I don't know what else to tell you about it. For example: If my boyfriend put great thought into buying me a gift and it was stolen before I could get it, I'd appreciate the thought just as much. The actual stuff of the gifts? Couldn't care less. Nice bonus, but, really, it's the occasion I appreciate more and the thought behind everything. If all you cared about was the "thought" and were not materialistic then you would not have an expectation of receiving anything at all of a material nature as a "Christmas gift." I don't care about the material nature. I care about the thought. As I've said. One of the best Christmas gifts I ever received was a donation in my name to a cause I care about. This is precisely the problem that confronted the OP so I'm actually glad that you're laying it out in this way. You are materialistic, but you don't want to own up to it. You are just as materialistic as the significant number of women who post at LS with an expectation that the male is "supposed to" pay for their dates together, but who don't want to be perceived as gold diggers or materialistic. I'm not that materialistic and rail against it in general. I value money very, very little, except in that I need it to survive. I don't have a lot of stuff or value stuff. I value thoughtfulness. Generic gift giving is not thoughtful. No, the problem is not the amount of thought he put into it; it's that the OP did not like what she received--she didn't want flowers. I still think the problem is the generic nature of the gift and lack of thought. Maybe you should try celebrating a holiday for once in your life without expecting anyone to give you anything other than sharing time with you. One year, family celebrated a Christmas where we did good deeds for Christmas and then created cards for everyone to share them. That was nice. But it was planned that way, and very thoughtful. Nothing generic about it. No, it's the gift. If it was just the thought that mattered then you wouldn't require a gift. The gift is part of the thought in this case. And I don't necessarily always "require" one. I just don't want generic ones. I do like gift-giving, and do gift exchanges, because they're fun and a great way to show how well you know a person and feel mutual appreciation. You can denigrate that all you want, but it's no different than anything else people find fun. You care about someone giving you a material object of sufficient importance, in your own mind, so as to validate your own sense of ego. If you do not get that material object, whatever you think you're entitled to, you feel diminished. You associate being loved with being gifted. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't care at all about receiving gifts on holidays which you don't believe in. I do believe in Christmas. My Christmas is just not your Christmas. Again, you are missing the point. I don't associate being loved with the "stuff." It's the thought and effort to celebrate the event together that builds affection. And I would, yes, need someone who celebrates in a similar way to me. Just as I need someone who views personal hygeine in a similar way to me. Others may have their own standarsd, but it's a fairly common standard that it's not okay to get your SO a generic gift, just as it's a fairly common standard to want to date someone who smells nice. These things are both "superficial" to who the person is, deep down, I guess, but entirely reasonable nonetheless.
Madgick1 Posted January 1, 2011 Posted January 1, 2011 ALso some people just aren't good at gift giving; just as some people aren't good at cooking or spelling. Sometimes it just doesn't mean anything more than that.
zengirl Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 ALso some people just aren't good at gift giving; just as some people aren't good at cooking or spelling. Sometimes it just doesn't mean anything more than that. Well, I agree with that, and a bad (but not generic) gift wouldn't bother me, personally, if it looked like there was some acknowledgement or thought in it. I think it's important to distinguish bad from generic. I don't like the idea of dating a guy who can't and won't cook or can't and won't try to spell words correctly. . . really, who doesn't try to do everything to the best of their ability. That doesn't mean I'd mind if a guy tried to cook me a meal and burnt it. I'd still be happy that he tried. But if he was too lazy to even try and had a bad attitude about it, like he couldn't be bothered with it, I'd be bummed, just like I'm bummed by when my students misspell the same word repeatedly, despite my correcting it in a previous paper. That's just lazy, not a lack of innate skill.
Ay Diesel T Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 So um, 19 pages later, nobody's realized the OP was a troll? Lmao.
Recommended Posts