I use the term disparagingly to describe certain presents. Such presents involve little or no thought on the giver's part, in terms of suitability for the receipient. This is due to the giver's belief that the act of giving to the receipient is a chore or a duty. As a result, the present is unusable by the receipient, and it is given away in the hopes that is useful to someone else. Unfortunately, if the present is truly worthless, it will create an infinite cycle of giving. Hence, the gift that keeps on giving.

Personally, I believe the term is a misnomer because of the difference between Presents vs. Gifts. I do not think giving away such an item is wrong. While it may be true that "it's the thought that counts," since little thought was put into it, I feel it is justified.

A tip for those who obtain such a thing: label who gave it to you, so you don't end up giving it back to them next Christmas, Boxing Day, Kwanzaa, Hannukah, or whatever gift-giving occasions you may celebrate.


On a more humorous (or sick, depending on how you look at it) point, this term could be applied to venereal diseases and afflictions such as scabies.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.