I don't see how showing love through gifts is always "material". If I know my partner likes Witcher 3, I'd get them a witcher medallion because it would remind them of their favourite game and make them happy. I enjoy receiving gifts because I like having items that remind me of people I love. Maybe it's just me, though. Like "give experiences instead of material goods" as if those goods can't be tied to experiences? I've always been a collector so again, maybe it's my particular case, but items that remind me of pleasant memories are always something I look forward to. It's what gives value to those items/gifts in the first place. Heck, going with your partner on a holiday to a place they've always wanted to see as a surprise for them is a gift that will inevitability produce pleasant and authentic experiences for you both. The language of this article is needlessly gloomy, "imposing item on a recepient" is a very weird way to say giving someone an item. And I don't see what's wrong with appreciating someone's effort to make us happy even if we don't really like that particular colour.

I understand there are dark and problematic implications regarding our consumerist culture and the empty compulsion to buy things constantly, or to give ourselves an upper-hand in a relationship, but individually, "gift giving" could be and, in my experience mostly is, a positive act for all parties involved. It's needlessly reductive to separate gift-giving and attentiveness/shared experiences as if they can't coexist and positively influence one another. I wouldn't even consider giving material goods to gain power, abuse someone or gain something in return to be "gifting".

Not to mention people who expect being gifted back in a relationship are that way usually because they have themselves tied "love" to the attentiveness needed for a meaningful gift, they think they are loved if their partner does the same thing they do. Which is wrong, sure, but a less gloomy and understandable position for someone to find themselves in.