Woman refuses her sister's demand to save every gift she ever bought her daughter, after she donated an outgrown pool toy, saying generosity with conditions isn’t really generosity at all

• 
  via Getty Images For Unsplash+

  Woman sitting in a dimly lit room looking at her smartphone at night.

  ^{Image is representative only and does not depict the actual subjects of the story.}

• Growing up with after all we have done for you as a recurring household phrase does something permanent to how you read generosity. You start clocking the fine print. You notice when kindness gets inventoried. And when someone starts listing everything they have ever bought your kid as an argument, the alarm goes off whether or not that was the intention.

• AITA for telling my sister not to buy things for my daughter if there are strings attached?

• I (35F) got into an argument with my sister (33F) over a donated pool toy that she had bought for my daughter years ago when she was little.

• She texted me asking if I still had it, and I told her I had donated it because my daughter outgrew it a long time ago. She then told me that she thought she had previously asked me to save anything she bought for my daughter instead of donating it, and that moving forward she wanted me to ask her before getting rid of anything she purchased.

• The issue is that I genuinely only remembered her specifically saying that once about a particular item, not every single thing she’s ever bought my child.

• The conversation escalated because she started bringing up how much she’s bought for my daughter over the years and how frustrating it is when things she bought get donated or given away. To me, that immediately felt like gifts and help were being turned into emotional leverage.

• 
  via Getty Images For Unsplash+

  Woman sitting in a dark living room with her hands on her face while looking at a laptop.

  ^{Image is representative only and does not depict the actual subjects of the story.}

• For context, I grew up hearing a lot of “after all we’ve done for you” and “after all the money we’ve spent on you” from my parents, so this hit a huge nerve for me. I am very sensitive to the idea of gifts or support becoming something that can later be held over someone’s head.

• I told her that if gifts come with conditions, expectations, or future obligations attached, then I’d rather she not buy things for my daughter at all. I also told her my child is not going to grow up feeling indebted to people because they chose to buy her things.

• She thinks I completely blew this out of proportion and became defensive over a simple request. From her perspective, she was just asking for sentimental or reusable items to be set aside instead of donated.

• From my perspective, if you give a child something, especially clothes, toys, or baby items, the parent manages those items. Kids outgrow things constantly. I can’t read minds or know which items someone secretly expects returned years later unless they directly tell me.

• Now I feel awful because the conversation got heated, but I still stand by the principle behind what I said.

  Pluriphery

• 
  via Getty Images For Unsplash+

  Woman sitting at a table with her hands near her temples while looking at a laptop screen.

  ^{Image is representative only and does not depict the actual subjects of the story.}

• The pool toy itself is almost beside the point. A child outgrew it, it got donated, that is just the normal lifecycle of a kids item. The request to save everything for potential future retrieval is where things get complicated, mostly because it reframes every future gift as an item on indefinite loan. Parents of small children are already managing an overwhelming volume of stuff that cycles in and out constantly. Adding a mental catalog of which items belong to the giver emotionally is a genuinely unreasonable ask.

• What makes this situation interesting is that the sister probably does not see herself as doing anything wrong. From her side, she has sentimental attachments to things she bought and wants them treated accordingly. That is understandable on its own. The problem is that she chose to make her case by tallying up years of purchases and expressing frustration at how they were handled, which is a rhetorical move that lands very differently depending on who is receiving it.

• Telling someone not to buy things if the gifts come with strings is a hard line to draw, and it probably stung. But it is also a completely honest one. Kids should not grow up with a running ledger of what people chose to give them, and parents should not have to manage someone else's sentimental attachment to a donated pool float.

• The principle was right even if the conversation got heated, and those two things can both be true at the same time.

Tags