BetheButterfly Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I would like to throw him off of the balcony !! Don't cry sweetie we can replace the shoes and the men !! Lol, the only difference is if you throw men off the balcony, you could get thrown in jail... oh wait that's not the only difference! Men are people, surprise surprise. Shoes aren't. That's another difference. We're comparing men with shoes now? Link to post Share on other sites
BetheButterfly Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 First of all: I bet he just threw them away and said that to be dramatic. If he did throw them from a 19th floor balcony, I'm actually most appalled at the fact he could've literally killed someone with the shoes from that height. Imagine being hit by that ( ) or going to jail for committing manslaughter with a Jimmy Choo? Second of all: bummer, those shoes are expensive. I don't understand $400+ shoes, but still a bummer. Though I also wonder why you didn't get them when he was away. Forgot about them, I guess? Oh yeah that's true... very deadly. How could she forget about them? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Somewhere, there is a homeless woman celebrating. or a homeless man masturbating Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Do women really feel better, the more expensive the stuff they wear? One time I asked a female friend why female apparels seem to cost a lot more than male apparels and she said that if they are cheap, women won't buy them. I thought that was pretty dumb. While you may think it's pretty dumb, it's the exact same for men. Women have shoes, designer purses, ridiculously expensive clothes, designer sunglasses etc, we have cars, watches and some electronics. We share iPads (I still don't get it and wouldn't be caught dead with one) and apple products in general along with a washlist of other things. I don't think it's dumb, the desire for expensive goods is just a function that helped us survive and reproduce tens of thousands of years ago and is now being used by smart people to make money. Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 or a homeless man masturbating LMFAOROTF! Art! You dog! I LOVED it though!!! Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 While you may think it's pretty dumb, it's the exact same for men. Women have shoes, designer purses, ridiculously expensive clothes, designer sunglasses etc, we have cars, watches and some electronics. We share iPads (I still don't get it and wouldn't be caught dead with one) and apple products in general along with a washlist of other things. I don't think it's dumb, the desire for expensive goods is just a function that helped us survive and reproduce tens of thousands of years ago and is now being used by smart people to make money. Not criticizing the OP or anyone in particular because you're right, we all have our things we spend $$$ on, but: How did the desire for expensive but otherwise useless things help us survive and reproduce tens of thousands of years ago (pre money)? So confused by that statement. Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Not criticizing the OP or anyone in particular because you're right, we all have our things we spend $$$ on, but: How did the desire for expensive but otherwise useless things help us survive and reproduce tens of thousands of years ago (pre money)? So confused by that statement. I know. I didn't get that either. And I would NEVER spend that kind of money on a pair of shoes. But that's just me. I'd rather use it toward putting up some fencing so I can get some horses. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 First of all: I bet he just threw them away and said that to be dramatic. If he did throw them from a 19th floor balcony, I'm actually most appalled at the fact he could've literally killed someone with the shoes from that height. Imagine being hit by that ( ) or going to jail for committing manslaughter with a Jimmy Choo? I agree. I highly doubt he chucked them off the balcony. He said it for shock value, just as what he supposedly said when breaking up with her. If he threw them out at all, they probably just went down the shute. At least he didn't say he gave them to the "new girlfriend." Although, she had his keys the whole time he was gone and said she went and picked up her stuff... JCs would be the last thing I'd leave behind. Especially if I was having money issues. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Sometimes no contact is a healthier choice. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I know. I didn't get that either. And I would NEVER spend that kind of money on a pair of shoes. But that's just me. I'd rather use it toward putting up some fencing so I can get some horses. She has previously said she has serious "money issues," financially takes care of her parents, and is severely in debt...so much that she cannot afford a single therapy session, which she has claimed she wants to do. I guess we all have our priorities... Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 While you may think it's pretty dumb, it's the exact same for men. Women have shoes, designer purses, ridiculously expensive clothes, designer sunglasses etc, we have cars, watches and some electronics. We share iPads (I still don't get it and wouldn't be caught dead with one) and apple products in general along with a washlist of other things. I don't think it's dumb, the desire for expensive goods is just a function that helped us survive and reproduce tens of thousands of years ago and is now being used by smart people to make money. You missed my point. There is a difference between wanting nice things and wanting expensive things. Men want the nicest things they can get, while the price doesnt matter. On the other hand, many women care more about the value of what they wear, as if the cost of what they wear correlates to the value of the wearer. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Not criticizing the OP You seem to be the only one Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You seem to be the only one I was responding to the theorem. Really wasn't criticizing her. People can spend their money on whatever they like. I just spent $40 on fancy cheese and olives this morning. I don't NEED that stuff anymore than anyone needs Choos. But I find it more satisfying. Yum, brie. . . Link to post Share on other sites
xoxoDaniellexoxo Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Am I the only one who doesn't know what Jimmy Choo is? Can you eat it? Haha if you wanted you could, but the price of them could feeding starving people for like 5 months! Link to post Share on other sites
Kamille Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You missed my point. There is a difference between wanting nice things and wanting expensive things. Men want the nicest things they can get, while the price doesnt matter. On the other hand, many women care more about the value of what they wear, as if the cost of what they wear correlates to the value of the wearer. So men's desires for expansive things (the 3000$ TV instead of the 300$ one) is just them wanting quality, whereas women's desires for nice things (the 400$ shoes instead of the 40$ ones) is just them being superficial. (Never mind that the 40$ shoes will kill your feet and that the 3000$ TV is likely to impress your friends.) Or, in other words, if a man does it, you think it's noble. If a woman does it, you think it's ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So men's desires for expansive things (the 3000$ TV instead of the 300$ one) is just them wanting quality, whereas women's desires for nice things (the 400$ shoes instead of the 40$ ones) is just them being superficial. (Never mind that the 40$ shoes will kill your feet and that the 3000$ TV is likely to impress your friends.) Or, in other words, if a man does it, you think it's noble. If a woman does it, you think it's ridiculous. pwned... Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You seem to be the only one ES could start a thread about having toast for breakfast, and it would go on for several hundred posts, the majority of which would question her judgment or her veracity. She brings out the best in people on LS. Link to post Share on other sites
Pierre Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 From what I can see Jimmy Choo is just another brand name that makes posers and wannabees spend a lot of money to somehow pretend they have class. Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So men's desires for expansive things (the 3000$ TV instead of the 300$ one) is just them wanting quality, whereas women's desires for nice things (the 400$ shoes instead of the 40$ ones) is just them being superficial. (Never mind that the 40$ shoes will kill your feet and that the 3000$ TV is likely to impress your friends.) Or, in other words, if a man does it, you think it's noble. If a woman does it, you think it's ridiculous. True. For what they are (usually ridiculous heels), Choos are actually quite comfortable. They're also generally well-made. I don't get wanting $400 shoes (my clothes and shoes are all pretty middle-of-the-road; not cheap, not expensive), personally, as I said, but it's not a $40 shoe that's just been priced 10x higher. And even if those shoes are for status (to a degree, usually true) don't tell me men don't do status B.S. with their cars and all sorts of things. Men are just as brand-conscious in many cases as women. (In fact, brand loyalty is higher/stronger overall in American men than American women, at least; not sure the worldwide stats.) Link to post Share on other sites
LexiB Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 She has previously said she has serious "money issues," financially takes care of her parents, and is severely in debt...so much that she cannot afford a single therapy session, which she has claimed she wants to do. I guess we all have our priorities... Well she didn't say she bought them recently. They could have been purchased when finances weren't as tight, or even gifted... But still, I know I'd have to have Victoria Beckham's closet in order to even conceive of making that kind of an oversight. I practically have a gps chip installed in the single pair of Chanel pumps I own. Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The greatest question that men around the world ask is how do you spell 'Chanel'? Is it like 'Channel'? Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 ES could start a thread about having toast for breakfast, and it would go on for several hundred posts, the majority of which would question her judgment or her veracity. She brings out the best in people on LS. How dare her use butter that isn't real butter.. that is her problem, always looking to lose a few pounds. "Butter".. "Margarine" Link to post Share on other sites
LexiB Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 waste of money To YOU maybe and that's fine. But are you actually going to say that you've never just splurged on anything? Never spent extra $$ on something even though you knew you could get a similar item for less? Really? Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So men's desires for expansive things (the 3000$ TV instead of the 300$ one) is just them wanting quality, whereas women's desires for nice things (the 400$ shoes instead of the 40$ ones) is just them being superficial. (Never mind that the 40$ shoes will kill your feet and that the 3000$ TV is likely to impress your friends.) Or, in other words, if a man does it, you think it's noble. If a woman does it, you think it's ridiculous. Well, I think you're misconstruing his point, unintentionally so. It's not about spending money being noble for one, and silly for another. Rather, it's about the motivation behind spending that money. A $3000 TV for example: the guy isn't buying or showing off his $3000 TV to impress his friends on the basis that it cost $3000, but rather, that he now has a reeeeeeeeeeeeally effing big TV with awesome quality. Whereas a woman is more inclined to buy and show off fancy footwear on the basis that they cost $700+, not just because they're cute. That's not to say that men don't value expensive things because of the value they impart, but honestly... this is more common among women. Do you see men purchasing "fake" high-end items, like handbags, sunglasses, jeans, etc., because they make it look like you have something more expensive than it is, without regard to quality? ... Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The greatest question that men around the world ask is how do you spell 'Chanel'? Is it like 'Channel'? CHANEL. Just like that. CHANEL. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts