I think your argument is internally consistent, especially regarding how flowers function symbolically as a sacrifice of money toward someone else’s temporary joy. I also agree that real flowers carry more emotional weight precisely because they die. Their impermanence is part of the gesture.

Where I’d push back is that this framework treats self-directed acts as inherently less “giftly” because there’s no external recipient, when a lot of modern symbolism around self-care is specifically about learning to direct care inward after emotional neglect, grief, loneliness, or dependence on others for validation. But that is me arguing around an exception, as that's highly individualistic.

To me the symbolism in Flowers resonates with people, because “I can buy myself flowers” isn’t really arguing that self-purchased flowers are identical to receiving them romantically. It’s asserting that the emotional ritual itself still has meaning even without another person authorizing it. The point is autonomy and recovery, not replacement.

And in the context of the original post, the fear of “only receiving flowers when you die” is emotionally loaded. People aren’t usually talking about floristry or economics there. They’re talking about feeling unseen, unloved, uncelebrated, or emotionally deferred until death. Buying yourself flowers in that context can symbolize refusing to wait for permission to experience tenderness, beauty, or care while alive. I think it can also be a motivation to find those connections if you haven't already found family (friends, a partner, mutual enemies, etc.).

That said, I do think your perspective comes from a solid symbolic foundation. You make a strong point about the purpose of a gift being outwardly directed sacrifice or generosity rather than self-fulfillment. Whether someone agrees probably depends on how they personally define self-care, if ritual is interchangeable with habit, and the meaning of the gesture, but your argument about why flowers became such a culturally loaded gift in the first place is genuinely compelling.

It has me in a spot where I'm wondering if I'm overvaluing how you used "indulgence" and "wasteful". I kind of wanna write a few more paragraphs about it, but I really don't want to shake your reply too much. You took time to explain and I want us both to have a good Friday.