Would you date a girl who spent 1K on a handbag?
| low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/06/07 | | low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | alcoholic lay | 02/07/07 | | house-broken indirect expression | 04/24/07 | | diverse brass boltzmann | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | diverse brass boltzmann | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | turquoise factory reset button | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | turquoise factory reset button | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | turquoise factory reset button | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | turquoise factory reset button | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | turquoise factory reset button | 02/07/07 | | mischievous rigpig casino | 04/24/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Doobsian Chest-beating Digit Ratio Partner | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Doobsian Chest-beating Digit Ratio Partner | 02/07/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/07/07 | | Doobsian Chest-beating Digit Ratio Partner | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | Doobsian Chest-beating Digit Ratio Partner | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | diverse brass boltzmann | 02/07/07 | | Beta primrose hissy fit | 02/06/07 | | low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Effete State | 02/07/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | razzle-dazzle pale market juggernaut | 02/06/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/06/07 | | Cerebral pisswyrm | 04/24/07 | | Bronze Ceo | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | Duck-like Godawful Point Hunting Ground | 02/06/07 | | Bronze Ceo | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | Exciting disrespectful gas station | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Duck-like Godawful Point Hunting Ground | 02/06/07 | | Cracking stage old irish cottage | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Cracking stage old irish cottage | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | diverse brass boltzmann | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Fishy tank twinkling uncleanness | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Spectacular hot hominid | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | Spectacular hot hominid | 02/07/07 | | Well-lubricated Ivory Windowlicker | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Well-lubricated Ivory Windowlicker | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | very tactful insanely creepy hall fat ankles | 02/06/07 | | Well-lubricated Ivory Windowlicker | 02/06/07 | | Talented main people | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | Talented main people | 02/06/07 | | snowy public bath people who are hurt | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | snowy public bath people who are hurt | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | snowy public bath people who are hurt | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Duck-like Godawful Point Hunting Ground | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Motley alpha property | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | Motley alpha property | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | Motley alpha property | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Motley alpha property | 02/06/07 | | Bronze Ceo | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/06/07 | | Cracking stage old irish cottage | 02/06/07 | | black cocky private investor mad-dog skullcap | 02/06/07 | | Razzmatazz Half-breed | 02/06/07 | | black cocky private investor mad-dog skullcap | 02/06/07 | | Exciting disrespectful gas station | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | Outnumbered odious background story | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | Opaque pit filthpig | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | Appetizing startled goyim | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Appetizing startled goyim | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Peach feces | 02/06/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | White supple senate | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | titillating navy church mexican | 02/06/07 | | Appetizing startled goyim | 02/06/07 | | lime plaza sweet tailpipe | 02/06/07 | | Nofapping tattoo den | 02/06/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/06/07 | | titillating navy church mexican | 02/06/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | Ocher misanthropic university | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | Well-lubricated Ivory Windowlicker | 02/06/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/07/07 | | Peach feces | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | brindle cuck ape | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | titillating navy church mexican | 02/06/07 | | titillating navy church mexican | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | bipolar corner | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | lime plaza sweet tailpipe | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | lime plaza sweet tailpipe | 02/06/07 | | Duck-like Godawful Point Hunting Ground | 02/06/07 | | Pearly incel | 02/06/07 | | lime plaza sweet tailpipe | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | sickened area | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Ocher misanthropic university | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | Ocher misanthropic university | 02/06/07 | | Gaped underhanded temple | 02/06/07 | | Ocher misanthropic university | 02/06/07 | | geriatric stimulating halford | 02/06/07 | | geriatric stimulating halford | 02/06/07 | | Insecure fighting field liquid oxygen | 02/06/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/06/07 | | geriatric stimulating halford | 02/06/07 | | aphrodisiac keepsake machete church building | 02/06/07 | | black cocky private investor mad-dog skullcap | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | razzle-dazzle pale market juggernaut | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Trip Laser Beams Location | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | Cracking stage old irish cottage | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | razzle-dazzle pale market juggernaut | 02/06/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/06/07 | | razzle-dazzle pale market juggernaut | 02/06/07 | | very tactful insanely creepy hall fat ankles | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/07/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/07/07 | | razzle-dazzle pale market juggernaut | 02/06/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/06/07 | | Floppy Swollen Heaven | 02/06/07 | | bateful aqua generalized bond | 02/06/07 | | Floppy Swollen Heaven | 02/06/07 | | bright home | 02/06/07 | | Twinkling garrison pistol | 02/06/07 | | fantasy-prone striped hyena base | 02/07/07 | | Boyish party of the first part | 02/06/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/06/07 | | bright home | 02/07/07 | | Adulterous wrinkle depressive | 02/06/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/06/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/07/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | hyperventilating set | 02/06/07 | | yellow faggotry | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | Exciting disrespectful gas station | 02/07/07 | | hyperventilating set | 02/07/07 | | internet-worthy learning disabled ticket booth | 02/06/07 | | Bat-shit-crazy cuckold | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | painfully honest deer antler | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | painfully honest deer antler | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Razzle lodge | 02/07/07 | | Trip Laser Beams Location | 02/07/07 | | Laughsome masturbator prole | 02/07/07 | | lake psychic institution | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | diverse brass boltzmann | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | diverse brass boltzmann | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | diverse brass boltzmann | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | provocative narrow-minded black woman | 02/07/07 | | fiercely-loyal sex offender | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | bull headed charismatic house knife | 02/07/07 | | Yapping Federal Theater | 02/07/07 | | big toilet seat pocket flask | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | big toilet seat pocket flask | 02/07/07 | | bateful aqua generalized bond | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | bateful aqua generalized bond | 02/07/07 | | Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | alcoholic lay | 02/07/07 | | Curious out-of-control nowag | 02/07/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/07/07 | | carmine glittery kitty | 02/07/07 | | Sapphire quadroon | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | Swashbuckling hyperactive trailer park | 02/07/07 | | Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film | 02/07/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | obsidian death wish menage | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | Yapping Federal Theater | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | Charcoal regret | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | White supple senate | 02/07/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/07/07 | | Spruce Space Stock Car | 02/07/07 | | mauve galvanic resort stain | 02/07/07 | | infuriating parlor nibblets | 02/07/07 | | Tan brethren pozpig | 02/07/07 | | arousing bistre sanctuary | 02/07/07 | | Trip Laser Beams Location | 04/23/07 | | 180 Chartreuse Idiot Nursing Home | 04/23/07 | | Awkward clown address | 04/24/07 | | gay soul-stirring whorehouse electric furnace | 04/24/07 | | medicated hairless legend | 04/24/07 | | Confused Kitchen | 04/24/07 | | fear-inspiring telephone cruise ship | 04/24/07 | | mildly autistic turdskin | 04/24/07 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:53 PM Author: low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop
It seems extremely frivolous. If you have so much extra cash lying around, why not just donate it to the poor?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556702) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:58 PM Author: White supple senate
What if I can afford both?
(Or, more realistically for a biglaw associate, if I do not have the time to go to France.)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556737) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:11 PM Author: White supple senate
Certainly, I agree I do not have an unlimited amount of money.
It's just that you haven't done a great job illustrating what priorities should be more important. I could understand if a person placed a high value on something like charity, gave a large percentage of personal income away, and expected the same of others. But what makes liking fashion items more fucked up than liking other expensive consumer goods? What do you think I should be spending my money on that I'm apparently neglecting?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556835) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:42 PM Author: White supple senate
Oh, I'm not arguing that. He can insist on dating people with green hair if he'd like.
I just think that most of the people who have a problem with handbags but not other luxury items are unable to articulate why their luxuries are good and others are bad in any clear way. People who don't have luxuries are on much higher ground, but there aren't many of those in law school.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557033) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:13 PM Author: White supple senate
I am disagreeing, and will move on.
Can't you just disagree with those of us on this thread and move on?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557283) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 8:28 AM Author: White supple senate
I consider travel a luxury good, but if you're giving more of your money to charity than you spend on that and other non-necessities I'd consider your opinions consistent.
Most people - both in law school and elsewhere - don't live like that. They have a right to date whoever they please, of course, but their insistence that spending $20,000 more on a car or $2,000 more on a television is morally superior isn't very convincing (it doesn't strike me as important that something contains more technology if that technology improves a good that's not necessary or improves it in ways that aren't necessary to its function).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559496) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:36 AM Author: Doobsian Chest-beating Digit Ratio Partner
No, it's perfectly consistent, actually. The rough rule of thumb is, the worse the wear on your wallet, the more steady your source of income (since you've needed a wallet longer and it contained an amount valuable enough not to misplace). A woman who buys a new designer handbag is probably new money. New money is filth.
That said, a woman who carries a classic handbag from ten years ago or so doesn't invite the same criticism.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559835) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:40 AM Author: Doobsian Chest-beating Digit Ratio Partner
No, and those are appropriately looked down upon as well. Prestigious people snicker when they watch a sports car fly by.
That said, the new money buying the designer handbag is probably poorer than the new money buying the sports car.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559847) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:55 AM Author: Doobsian Chest-beating Digit Ratio Partner
In those troublesome times when you're torn between the moniker and the man, there's nothing else you can do but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ODmiLRr4SI
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559918) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:54 PM Author: Beta primrose hissy fit
Sure, she wants to look good.
Better that, than looking like a scumbag in public
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556711) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:55 PM Author: low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop
Looking good has nothing to do with spending 1K on a handbag
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556719)
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:55 PM Author: Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film
Oh here we go. What about a guy who spends 75 k on a car? A guy who buys all sorts of video games? Expensive electronics? Expensive watches etc?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556721) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:58 PM Author: low-t twisted pervert gaming laptop
1. A car is different from a useless handbag.
2. Do video games retail for 1K?
3. Electronics have a purpose. You can enjoy an I-Pod, computer etc. A handbag has no function.
4. I don't have an expensive watch. But even still an expensive watch is more worth it than purses that cost 1K
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556739) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:00 PM Author: Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film
How is a BMW different from a civic? Thwy serve the same purpose, one is just fancier.
I'm sure plenty of guys own 1k worth of games and systems.
Why is a watch more, now that makes no sense at all?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556754) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:02 PM Author: White supple senate
A handbag has function - it holds all of your crap.
After a certain level, any increases in price are purely based on aesthetic appeal, but you'll find the same thing with cars and watches and most other goods.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556771) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:09 PM Author: White supple senate
"after a certain level"
I'm not talking about upgrading from a 10-year-old wreck to something decent. I'm talking about the difference between a reliable family sedan and a sports car.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556821) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:14 PM Author: White supple senate
If you're a handbag enthusiast there's a huge difference between a designer bag and a cheaper one.
Why does the car enthusiast's preference get a pass while the other does not?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556858) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:11 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Except that even a $20 bag holds your crap. I've seen tasteful bags made of quality material for $200-300. Personally, I think expensive watches are retarded.
That's not the same thing with cars. You usually get something for the extra money: better comfort, amenity, and speed, which is handy when you're merging in highway, etc.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556832)
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:17 PM Author: White supple senate
You get a higher level of design and style, and greater aesthetic appeal. Tasteful is in the eye of the beholder, after all.
Midlevel cars provide perfectly reasonable levels of all of the things. In many cases, they're also more practical for daily use than little convertibles and require less maintenance. Seems like there's a much better argument for a handbag than a sports car.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556879) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:24 PM Author: White supple senate
Not really, if you know anything about bags.
Especially since many luxury cars are worse at certain tasks than average cars, which should be taken into account.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556934) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:33 PM Author: White supple senate
Look at how much these cars cost. Most of them will do a much worse job of transporting you to work than a Civic, as they aren't appropriate for many street conditions and probably require a great deal of time in the shop.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/04/0304feat.html
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556976) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:52 PM Author: White supple senate
The lowest priced car on that list is $100K, which is not so extreme.
And it's a much higher number of dollars to buy a nice car than to buy a nice bag.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557113) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:22 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
You must be really dumb if you think it's just about taste buds after I've explained it more than once.
Seriously, I'm sure your BF likes you fine or whatever most of the times, but I'm sure he despises you when you're in an argumentative mood. You must be really insecure about your intelligence.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557364) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:27 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Funny you say that, because I'm an excellent cook.
Your BF must be really desperate to date someone so insecure.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557403) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:41 PM Author: Bronze Ceo
If you have an expensive car, you'll get more dates with hot girls.
If you have an expensive handbag, you will NOT get more dates with hot men.
HTH.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557030) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:55 PM Author: mauve galvanic resort stain
As a male, I find the compulsion to buy expensive handbags somewhat confusing, but I don't really judge women for wanting to own them because I assume it obviously means something to them even though that something eludes me.
I do wonder if part of the male disgust with expensive handbags springs from the fact that they really do nothing to enhance the desirability of women in the eyes of men. I think a lot of men would be less disgusted with a tit job that cost 10 times more than an expensive handbag.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557135) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:14 PM Author: mauve galvanic resort stain
Oh yeah, right.
*gets in character*
Handbags are cool, I like puppies.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557288) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:28 PM Author: mauve galvanic resort stain
My tagline actually comes from Mao Zedong's hundred flowers campaign, wherein Mao encouraged criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, only to turn back around and persecute those critics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557410) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:45 PM Author: mauve galvanic resort stain
Here's a totally candid and hot photo of me on the piano.
http://tinyurl.com/h9ada
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557511) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:16 PM Author: White supple senate
That makes sense to me. I do think that guys are far easier on expenses that either relate to female hotness or are on things they like themselves.
But hell, guys spend money on things that women neither like or find attractive. No reason they can't assume that women live for something besides men and their interests.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557310) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:27 PM Author: Duck-like Godawful Point Hunting Ground
women do things irrespective of their effect on men?
*head spins*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557407) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:19 PM Author: Cracking stage old irish cottage
I said largely. You could have a different MP3 player that costs less money. Part of the reason you picked an iPod is undoubtedly because of prestige. Similarly, there are many different ways to carry your shit around.
Don't get me wrong. Anyone who claims that expensive handbags make them "happy" is a retard. Similarly, anyone who claims that they chose an iPod for its superior technology is also a retard.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557337) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:10 PM Author: Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film
My opinion about you is based on as much information about you as you have about me. Now why is yours any more likely to be right?
I think I'm pretty unapologetic about liking what I like, if someone has a problem with that it's their problem. It strikes me as the opposite of not genuine.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556826)
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:39 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
>I'm totally privledged and uneducated.
I rest my case.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557014) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:41 PM Author: Spectacular hot hominid
agreed. I like expensive handbags, although I've never spent $1000 on a bag. There's a big difference in quality, look and hey - I like bags! Designer bags hold their value (I've resold many for more than I've paid) and everyone likes to spend their money on something!
As long as you can afford it and aren't blowing all of your $$$ on something unnecessary, why is a hangbag worse than anything else? It's like art you can use :)
I don't waste tons of money, put most of it in the bank, and never buy anything I can't afford. My boyfriend is the same way and understands, and prefers to buy expensive guitars as his occasional splurge.
No biggie. :)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557908) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 9:19 AM Author: Spectacular hot hominid
so what do you spend your money on? $12 drinks at the bar?
As long as you put $$ in the bank, can afford what you are buying, and it's not harming anyone I'm not going to judge
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559609) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:56 PM Author: Well-lubricated Ivory Windowlicker
Why not as long as she can afford it, and doesn't expect me to pay for that shit.
I would prefer that she spends it on something nice that makes her happy, versus wasting it on poors.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556724) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:56 PM Author: Talented main people
Depends. If she is rich enough to be able to afford it, sure, maybe she'll buy me some dumb shit too. But in the more likely event that she is deep in credit-card debt, no way.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556727) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 8:34 AM Author: White supple senate
Other people don't enjoy such things the way you do, though. Are they expected to have no little pleasures because they don't care for the one luxury you approve of?
If the stance is that extra money should be saved or given to others, that's one thing, but the THOU MUST ENJOY X, OR BE FORBIDDEN ALL OTHER INDULGENCES attitude seems shallow in its own way.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559508) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:57 PM Author: snowy public bath people who are hurt
if she has the cash, who cares? it's her money
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556733) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:02 PM Author: snowy public bath people who are hurt
i just spent a little under 3K on a TV.
and besides, the question is about *dating*, not even monogamy.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556772) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:17 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:07 PM
Author: fruittarte
Anyone who is this judgmental is probably a useless prick who is joyless, insufferable and terrible in the sack.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556807)
Anyone who is as humorless and defensive as you is probably projecting.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556880) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:13 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
I'm whokebe, actually.
I have no problem with going all out on meals with people I like, vacations, or whatever.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556850) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:29 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Are you a fucking moron? One is about sharing experiences and memories with other people. The other is purely about inward indulgence.
You have an excessive love of arguing for the sake of arguing, even when it's pointless contrarianism. I'm sure your BF has pointed this out to you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556950) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:31 PM Author: White supple senate
Why do you need to spend money to do those things? You can share experiences and memories by eating at home and exploring your own city. For people who don't have a taste for travel or expensive cuisine, eating at a restaurant or going to a foreign country is indulgence.
Nope. I'm actually pretty agreeable in real life. But I don't know many people who try to take silly stands like this.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556965) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:36 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
You're avoiding the issue. Of course they're both luxuries. But that wasn't my point. You're either dumb or disingenuous.
I bet you argue with your BF until you're blue in the face, even when you know you're wrong deep down.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556997) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:38 PM Author: White supple senate
But your point was something that's easily separated from the luxury part of the experience. There's no reason to think that the luxury premium is going to enhance your relationships.
What about nice food and seeing new things is valuable to you apart from that?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557008) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:45 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
>There's no reason to think that the luxury premium is going to enhance your relationships.
Good atmosphere, impeccable food with fresh ingredients and competent but unintrusive service are pleasant experiences that are hard to duplicate either at home (because someone is involved in cooking and worries about it) or cheaper restaurants, and people often have fond memories of great meals where everything was just right. Of course it's not necessary; that's why they're luxuries. Still not the same thing as inward, self-indulgent purchases.
I bet you argue with your BF until you're blue in the face, even when you know you're wrong deep down.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557054)
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:51 PM Author: White supple senate
People also have wonderfully fond memories of home cooked meals, served in relaxed atmospheres. Think of all of the people who idolize mom's homecooked meals.
Sounds like you just prefer to indulge your mouth rather than your eyes. Nothing wrong with that, but I have a hard time seeing how it's superior to think about good food and service with pleasure versus looking down at an object and feeling pleasure.
Nope. I think that's you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557105) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:53 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
How does an occasional meal out contradict a home cooked meal? They complement, not contradict, each other.
You're really bad at arguing. I bet you argue with your BF until you're blue in the face, even when you know you're wrong deep down.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557119) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:20 PM Author: White supple senate
But you can have a different sort of experience, one that's at least as memorable (remember mom?).
And stop being so lazy about cooking and the worries involved! Isn't this supposed to be about your loved ones and their memories, rather than your own sloth?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557345) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:26 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Once in a while, I like to take out my mom for a nice meal, before I skullfuck her in the parking lot. Is that so wrong?
I also cook for her sometimes when I go home. Then I skullfuck her while my dad records it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557390) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:34 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Nice meals and vacations are luxuries.
LOL @ dumb bitch who thinks finding gauche spending habits distasteful = judgmental prick.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556986) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:58 PM Author: carmine glittery kitty
Nope, deal killer.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556740) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 8:59 PM Author: bipolar corner
Only 1k?
Have already.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556746) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:06 PM Author: Pearly incel
No, I wouldn't spend 1K on a purse. I wanna make a lot of money but I'd rather invest it rather than spend it on stupid crap. Well other than a really nice house and a Lexus and BMW, I plan to be cheap as hell
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556799) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:11 PM Author: Motley alpha property
my gf and I have had a deal since I've been in ls: she supports me, puts up with my mood swings, anxieties, etc. and I buy her a new purse, of her choosing, every semester.
So far both all have been > $1000; 2 Prada, 1 Yves Saint Laurent, 1 Goyard. We are going shopping in the next few weeks.
And I can't wait to get married to her.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556831) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:45 PM Author: Motley alpha property
your well reasoned, rational insights have caused me, and probably lots of others tonight, see the error of our ways.
why do you feel so strongly about this? I honestly wouldn't feel that strongly about not buying my gf purses. It's just money.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557059)
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:14 PM Author: Pearly incel
"And I can't wait to get married to her."
LOL, no offense but that's pretty sad. You have to make her a deal to be nice to you?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556863) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:19 PM Author: Motley alpha property
"You have to make her a deal to be nice to you?"
No not at all. We're nice to each other. We like nice things. We like to do nice things for each other and give each other nice things.
the purse thing we do began as a nod toward what we both knew would be a challenging time when I started law school and we've continued doing it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556899) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:43 PM Author: Bronze Ceo
Why is law school "a challenging time"?
This is the easiest, most fucking carefree time of your life.
If you are so challenged by it, and you become so moody that you have to buy your girlfriend handbags to appease her, well, she is going to be in for a world of hurt when you start working.
That, or you're going to be buying her handbags on a daily basis.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557042) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:12 PM Author: Razzmatazz Half-breed
I would not date a guy who judged me for spending 1K on a handbag.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556840) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:13 PM Author: sickened area
the guys who are yelling and screaming on the board don't realize that most girls who can afford it have bags that are worth about 1k. all the rest of the girls want one.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556848) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:20 PM Author: sickened area
"I just get the feeling these guys aren't going to be dating women"
you could have stopped there
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556903) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:39 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
lots of cars transport people around. in fact, a crappy starter bmw is not as good of a ride as a better model of a less flashy brand, but tons of people pay for the cache of owning a bmw cuz it makes them happy.
you are basically just picking and choosing luxuries and saying some purchases more sense than others, when really, its just preferences and as long as people can afford them, its fine.
in fact, there are tons of people who can afford both 1k handbags and bmws, and more power to them.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557478) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:42 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
as long as useless things continue to bring people joy, then who cares.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557035)
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:18 PM Author: Appetizing startled goyim
I would not date a girl who didn't own at least one $1000 handbag. Come on.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556890) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:20 PM Author: Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film
Also, the expensive bag is less likely to be made by sweatshop workers. Just a thought.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556906) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:23 PM Author: brindle cuck ape
Dear op, you seem to be not so much asking a question as forcing everyone to give you the answer you want them to give.
Sugary is a good person. It's ironic that you accuse her of being shallow when you're the one judging people by what they buy instead of looking beyond it to see if there might be more to their personality.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556931) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:29 PM Author: carmine glittery kitty
"Sugary is a good person"
Link?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556957) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:52 PM Author: sickened area
"I would never marry someone in their 20s who would spend 1000 bucks on a fucking purse they'll be sick of in 6 months."
yes, i get that. the question is WHY
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557109) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:57 PM Author: Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film
"they'll be sick of in 6 months"
assume much?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557153) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:11 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
>It isn't a matter of being able to afford, it is a matter of showing good judgement.
TITCR
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557267) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:16 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
>It isn't a matter of being able to afford, it is a matter of showing good judgement.
This point cannot be emphasized enough.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557316) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:02 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
material things may not bring true happiness, but if you have the money to afford things and it makes you happy to chew some type of gum, wear nice shoes, get a $300 massage, even if such happiness is temporarily, then thats worth it.
having common sense rule everything regarding how you feel is boring and those people lack joy in life.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557189) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:05 PM Author: Pearly incel
"it makes you happy to chew some type of gum"
Again, if I met a person like this I would send them to a therapist for counseling. I would never date/marry someone who spent money on frivolous like that and said it's because it "makes them happier." Why do things that only make you happier for that moment? Go find a hobby and pray/find religion instead
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557217) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:23 PM Author: White supple senate
Because we're human, and we have expendable income.
I strongly suspect that you have some new clothes that are not from Wal-mart or a thrift store, some entertainment devices, some pretty things to look at in your room and your home, and all sorts of other unnecessary goods. I'm assuming these things give you pleasure. Otherwise, why do you spend money on them?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557369) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:44 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
um, being materialistic and having a good perspective on life are not mutually exclusive things.
you can value your friendships/relationships, family, have morals, be substantive etc. and STILL LIKE NICE THINGS! and theres nothing wrong w/ that and its totally fucking normal to be happy even for a week if you like something new that you purchased. its only becomes problematic if that takes over your life and you are unhappy b/c you dont have certain things.
and just like youve gotten accustomed to a certain lifestyle, tons of people are accustomed to a lifestyle where they can spend money on nice clothes and bags simply cuz they can afford it and they dont need to be practical. so stop assuming that spending $1k on a handbag means youre not able to save toward a down payment or a nice car.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557505) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:59 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
um no, i dont believe in that stuff. i think its healthy to be materialistic to an extent and it makes life more fun and others more fun when they have their own vices.
i dont have a addictive, obsessive personality. i like nice things, but it wont ever affect my happiness just b/c i desire certain material posessions.
sorry, i am not a buddhist, my version of true happiness is not a monk lifestyle. i believe you can have it all i wouldnt date people who are super practical and only buy necessary things b/c they are boring.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557585) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:15 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
youre not getting it, are you.
it makes life more fun for ME to carry a nice bag and different things make life more fun for other people. there is nothing w/ doing things that make your life more fun, as long as you can afford it and youre not hurting others. in fact, i would say my version of fun is a lot safer and healthier than lots of other things people do for fun (drugs, alcohol, etc.)
and i dont understand why you have to make this into something deeper about self awareness. it simply isnt. its not like material goods take over my life if you want them. there are many things that i think about at night and nothing involves handbags or cars or material goods.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557680) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:28 PM Author: titillating navy church mexican
almost all girls worth dating have at least 1 expensive bag. i dont know why they buy them, but there are tons of things woman do that men will never understand. just deal with it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556948) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:41 PM Author: brindle cuck ape
Once upon a time, I found this gorgeous small black leather gucci purse in a bathroom along brighton beach. It was exatly my style.
Then my boyfriend told me me give it to to the nearest cops. I stood there while the six cops discussed who would get to keep the purse. The one on my left won because he was the only one with a steady girlfriend.
I still have no nice purse.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557027) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:56 PM Author: Gaped underhanded temple
I am surprised this has to be taught after preschool.
"it went to the cops' girlfriend."
That doesn't make it yours.
" I actually tried to find the girl but she was gone."
That doesn't make it yours.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557147)
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:02 PM Author: Gaped underhanded temple
Umm, you could put a sign up in the bathroom. Or contact the owner of the place, tell them you found a bag, and give them a number in case someone returns and wants to to reach the person who found it. Or you could put it up on craigslist as an item found.
Giving it to the cops was also the responsible thing to do. It doesn't matter what they were going to do with it. At least it's not on your conscious (assuming you even have one).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557197) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:29 PM Author: titillating navy church mexican
you got me. clearly someone who goes around bragging about how much they make is very secure with themselves. what was i thinking.
edit: fix the board rach
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557416) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:34 PM Author: bipolar corner
Damn, seems like every handbag thread gets 100+ posts.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7556985) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:45 PM Author: Gaped underhanded temple
I think it's because handbags don't have a male equivalent.
Most men appreciate nice watches as much as women love fancy jewelry. Designer clothes/shoes are understandable for both sexes. Electronics are loved by pretty much everyone. I think girls are impressed by nice/attractive cars even if they're not enthusiast themselves.
It's the handbags that makes men scratch their heads.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557062) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:49 PM Author: lime plaza sweet tailpipe
plus, obviously, they're called purses.
Or which came first? The chicken or the egg?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557089) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:40 PM Author: Gaped underhanded temple
I think a handbag is a stupid thing to spend that much money on, especially when you can get a quality designer bag for about half or a third of that.
But just because it's stupid doesn't mean it's irresponsible (so long as it's not paid with money you don't have). People are allowed to splurge. If I want her to approve of my designer suits and home entertainment systems and 60 inch plasma TVs, I have to make concessions somewhere.
She's going to want nice dresses, jewelry, expensive shoes, and a lot more overpriced things to go with the handbag. If you're going to go apeshit over just a handbag then you're better off never dating or finding one of those hippie, outdoors type chick.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557022) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:42 PM Author: lime plaza sweet tailpipe
people pick their luxuries. I wouldn't spend a K on a bag but if I had the money and the home I would spend that on a piece of art. Or a last minute vacation. Some people might spend that on a video camera, or an entertainment system. Whatever.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557040) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:55 PM Author: Duck-like Godawful Point Hunting Ground
as long as I can buy a nice firearm every time she buys a $1K handbag, why not?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557136) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:17 PM Author: Ocher misanthropic university
holy shit, awesome...brand new?
EDIT: meant for David Carr
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557329) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:16 PM Author: geriatric stimulating halford
fuck you the south kicks ass.
speaking of guns my homeboys grandpa who was a Texas Ranger bought a desert eagle at auction sponsored by the rangers for $100!!!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557315)
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 9:59 PM Author: Insecure fighting field liquid oxygen
I can't remember the last time I dated a girl that spent less than 1K on a handbag.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557169) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:14 PM Author: Charcoal regret
I'd be mad about this if there was any way I could justify my love for video games. They cost a lot of money AND waste time.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557293) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:16 PM Author: geriatric stimulating halford
i have dated a couple of chicks like this. they were all from rich families so whatever.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557321) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:23 PM Author: aphrodisiac keepsake machete church building
No. If she spends her money like that, imagine how she'll spend yours.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557372) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:28 PM Author: black cocky private investor mad-dog skullcap
What a wretched, materialistic bunch of shits. Any girl who would even want to spend 1K on a handbag is a worthless whore. End of discussion.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557412) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:43 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
It pretty much boils down to this:
>It isn't a matter of being able to afford, it is a matter of showing good judgement.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557499) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 10:56 PM Author: razzle-dazzle pale market juggernaut
I didn't know that a post with the word handbag in the title could generate this much discussion.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557568) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:11 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
I've been thinking about it a lot. And I can't figure out what bugs me about it. I need to come up with an articulable principle so I can argue with Rowan.
I don't mind the mere idea of purchasing expensive goods... but something about extravagant luxury items really bothers me (both the $1000 hand bag for girls and the $100k car for guys).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557656) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:33 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
theyre just making exceptions for items theyd personally be more interested in b/c no one is totally above materialism.
in the case of a car, super expensive cars always require a lot more maintenance and are not as reliable as a honda or a toyota.
but guys understand horsepower and engine size a lot better than quality of leather and hand stitching.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557836) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:20 PM Author: Cracking stage old irish cottage
"You're wasting far less money on the car."
Under what economic theory? In one sense, you're wasting vastly more money on the car, given that it loses approximately a quarter of its value the minute you drive it off the lot and over half its value over five years. There are not a few $1K handbags that you can sell on Ebay for near their full value five and ten years later.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560272) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:28 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
This is at least part of it.
I was thinking it may have to do with paying gross markup beyond actual cost, where the markup is created almost purely by luxury item demand. So that the extra cost you're paying doesn't actually net you anything extra, at least measured by the cost of the input. You're just paying to walk up the luxury goods line, not for more input value.
That's far too economic for what it actually is (and of course the purchasers of fine handbags can correctly argue that certain types of leather costs more, the hand stitching costs more, etc.)
Anyone know what the standard markup is on a car (in terms of average price, so you can subtract out fixed cost R&D expenses and stuff).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557788) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:18 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Could it be vacuous materialism?
Could it be a lack of restraint and moderation? You know, the very thing we find distasteful when a poor who wins the lottery goes on a gauche spending spree? Just because you can do or buy something doesn't mean you should.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557708) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:25 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
Oh, this is obviously part of it. I think conspicuous consumption is morally detestable. But of course, I've never heard anyone (at least not on XO) admit "Oh, well, I purchased this product as a status item." For example, sugary always talks about her bags in terms of quality of stitching, that it is handmade, the quality of the leather, etc. And I'm not even accusing her about being disingenuous about those things. But I have a very strong mental reaction to it that I haven't quite been able to pin down to a rational thought process.
The question I'm trying to figure out is where are the lines drawn. For example, I don't have a problem with a $2000 TV, but I would have a problem with a $2000 watch. Why?
I feel like there is a difference between the two, but I'm not really sure what it is.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557774) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:45 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
you probably sort items in terms of those that are shown off in public versus stuff like a sewing machine. i know people who pay like $1k for rare stamps cuz theyre hardcore collectors. would that rub you in the wrong way?
there might be a certain vulgar element to spending on status items like jewelry, cars, handbags, but then again, i know lots of girls w/ handbag and shoes collections, lots that theyve never carried out or worn in public. i just dont think people spend money on these items purely for status, there is something about those items that makes people happy outside of the status part.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557950) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:53 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
>there might be a certain vulgar element to spending on status items like jewelry, cars, handbags
You got it.
>there is something about those items that makes people happy outside of the status part.
Yes, their tastes are dictated by fashion magazines.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558030) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:58 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
One thing I will say that I have heard is people saying that they "Like the feel of going out knowing they are wearing something really expensive." I've overheard guys say this about suits ("You just feel more confident wearing such-and-such a brand of suit") and girls say this about dresses ("There's just a certain feeling you get knowing that you bought something really nice for yourself.")
That's not exactly a conspicuous consumption status-oriented thing, but I think I still find it objectionable in kind of the same way.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558078) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:39 PM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
What would you think of someone who built a home theater with soundproofed walls, a huge projection screen, and an expensive sound system for a marginal markup?
I think it has more to do with the immoderate proposition of buying something because you can.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557893) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:43 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
I'm actually planning on building exactly this kind of home theater setup once I buy my first house.
Another example of a really expensive purchase that my parents made that I didn't mind was my dad bought a grand piano for ~$30k.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557929) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:49 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
Yes. And I also know that this thing was just magnificently assembled. It is a gorgeous piece of hand-made furniture that will become a family heirloom.
It also helps that I know that it is something my dad has wanted since he was 15 years old, and that he's been waiting literally 40 years to own one. It really is, I think, a dream come true to him, and something that perfectly represents his rise from the child of a sign-painter to the Vice President of one of the world's biggest companies. There's a lot of sentimental symbolism there.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557988) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:00 AM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
He did good; he should be proud.
Maybe it's just my upbringing, but I've always had the notion that whatever education, power, or money I accrue were to be used toward a bigger purpose than accumulating frivolous toys. With great power comes great responsibility and all that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558088)
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:36 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
This definitely plays into it. But how can I defend my own personal sense of "what is reasonable."
For example, I don't own a shirt that costs more than $40, or a pair of pants that costs more than $30 (my suits excepted). Most people wouldn't even blink at paying $60 for a pair of jeans though.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557871) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:46 PM Author: razzle-dazzle pale market juggernaut
Yeah, it seems to come down to a subjective standard in the long run...My spending habits are restricted as well, in that barring work clothing (which I sadly need more of because of a summer job), most of my stuff is pretty inexpensive. And even though I'm female, I have two purses, each of which may have cost $60 at most.
I personally can't justify spending a large chunk of money on something like a bag or a pair of shoes, but I also don't have the money to spare for it and I lived for two years on even less than what I have currently as a student. So part of it might just be that I'm used to not spending large sums of money on things like clothing or bags. Even if I had it though, I think I personally wouldn't spend it in that way...but that's really just a personal call. I'd rather not buy 15 bags and a lot of pairs of shoes and get a grand piano instead. :-)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557968) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:23 PM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
On the board, the closest I've heard is stuff like "You just feel better going out when you have a really nice outfit that you spent a lot of money on."
In real life, I've heard people admit to it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560292) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 2:19 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
guys are clueless about fashion and handbags. when they think of expensive handbags, they think of monogrammed LV/gucci/fendi/prada bags or things that are consipicuously flashy and those on the whole are often purchased to show off the brand and almost everyone who them do so for status (they also tend to cost slightly less than $1000).
whereas people who know and collect handbags usually buy styles and brands that no one would even know cost that much, so i honestly dont know how that becomes a status thing when 99% of the population have no idea you are even carrying such an expensive bag. some of the most expensive bags arent even mainstream brands that people know. have you heard of nancy gonzalez? probably not. bags are not like cars, they dont obviously show a brand or how expensive they are. some people just simply like beautiful handbags and you can resell those bags later on ebay for sometimes more than the original price if the style was discontinued. good handbags dont lose that much value if you keep in it good care.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561004) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:31 PM Author: Floppy Swollen Heaven
If she's hot, then probably. She gets points deducted for buying one, but it's nowhere near a dealbreaker unless symptomatic of a larger attachment to excessively expensive luxury goods that she cannot afford without parental (or future spousal) assistance.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557816) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:34 PM Author: bright home
Unlikely, though there are mitigating factors.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557841) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:40 PM Author: Twinkling garrison pistol
i don't know why i made another thread for this.
___
an expensive tv or car has features whose development required pushing the edges of human knowledge. an example that has become familiar to many is "the mirrors" in DLP TVs. (see TI commercials with xoxo's favorite little girl.) this technology required millions of dollars, many years, and many scientific breakthroughs to develop.
a high-end MB has laser-guided cruise control. a high-end lexus has automatic parallel parking. twenty years ago, high-end vehicles were the first to have airbags. the premiums these vehicles command is due to the safety and performance features they offer. men want these items because they offer quantifiable advantages over cheaper cars.
in the thousands of years since man has tanned animal skins to make bags, has there been a breakthrough in bag design other than the invention of the zipper?
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576294&forum_id=2#7557850
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557906) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:44 PM Author: Boyish party of the first part
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557942) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:46 PM Author: Adulterous wrinkle depressive
Yes, 1K isnt what it used to be.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7557954) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:54 PM Author: mauve galvanic resort stain
Question for everyone: guy spends 4000 on a bespoke suit - vulgar consumerism analogous to 1000 dollar handbag?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558040) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:40 AM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
To be fair, you can get a perfectly serviceable bag for $50; the same cannot be said of a suit. I think it would be pretty difficult to find a suit for less than $200.
A $750 suit is, IMO, a lot like a $200 bag.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558382) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:52 AM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
I already wear them about 3 times a week. Once I start working, I'll wear them 5 times a week for at least 5 years.
I wouldn't have spent $200 on shoes, except that the $130 pair I got were absolute rubbish and fell apart after 5 months of relatively light use.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558465) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:51 AM Author: Rambunctious Center Sneaky Criminal
>>At that point it's a measurement of scale I suppose<<
I think that's precisely the point being made.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558452) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:43 AM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
a) I would tell you not to be an idiot but that would be pointless.
b) My parents wanted to give me more than that to buy a suit as a gift. I refused.
c) A bag is an accessory. Pretty much everyone in LS has at least one nice suit for interviews, functions etc. Rest of my wardrobe is modest.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558409) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:55 PM Author: hyperventilating set
You guys act like a 1k bag is a huge deal. Most girl bags run $600+ nowadays, and most girls have a dozen bags.
Priorities for girls are: bags + shoes. Pretty simple actually.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558044) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 2:10 AM Author: Exciting disrespectful gas station
My priorities are oddly out of whack with what they should be, apparently.
Idiot.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558987) |
Date: February 6th, 2007 11:58 PM Author: internet-worthy learning disabled ticket booth
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558082) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:00 AM Author: Bat-shit-crazy cuckold
Further proof that xoxo is full of virgins and faggots. And fake women who are surprisingly well versed in the curious economics of handbag shopping.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558092) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:30 AM Author: Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library
This whole thread is ridiculous. The question was whether you would date someone who would spend a grand on a bag. For many people the answer is no, because to them wasting $1000 on a tampon carrying case displays preferences that are completely at odds with their own. I don't see how you can argue with this. Spending $1000 on a bag will always make someone a vapid bitch in my opinion, there really isn't anything you can do about that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558313) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 8:49 AM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
Showing good judgment =/= judgmental.
HTH
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559539) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 1:01 AM Author: painfully honest deer antler
What seems to always get the handbag debates going to such an extent is that the girls on this board who buy such expensive things are also the same girls who seem to sniff at others who buy jeans for less than $200 or Coach purses. There's nothing wrong with expensive taste, especially if you're earning good money and are financially responsible, but it's vapid twattery to act superior to other women who have different priorities.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558525) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 1:07 AM Author: painfully honest deer antler
I'm just throwing out examples. I remember someone else mentioning that they didn't own a pair of jeans that were less than $150. You're sugary, right?
I'm really bad about spending money except for when it comes to food. I'm totally inept at shopping for myself so I have very little brand awareness. How has Coach turned to crap? I always thought that a lot of their goods looked very nice and wore well.
Edit: why did you switch from sugarywitch? That was a really cute sn.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558584) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:11 PM Author: Sinister Cuckoldry Stag Film
Oh thanks, I just figured it was time for a change. She might come back. Coach at one point made wonderful stuff, but the demand for their things is so high right now that they can peddle crap and people buy it. It just get's me going when people will sit around thinking I'm somehow bad for how I "waste" my money when they just waste on other things. :)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560234)
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 1:01 AM Author: Razzle lodge
For me it's that the value girls derive from these is most likely something like "hey look at me! I have soooooo much money I could buy this ultra-expensive bag and you can't!" What other explanation is there for spending the exorbitant markup? I can't put my penis into a girl who thinks like that and sleep well at night.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7558533) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 4:04 AM Author: Laughsome masturbator prole
how the hell did this topic get so many posts?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559365) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 9:03 AM Author: lake psychic institution
Nearly 400 posts. Jeez.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559573) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:29 AM Author: buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate
Here's my issue, and I think this is what a lot of other guys think as well.
It's one thing to spend a more money on an item that gives you more value/functionality/quality. As an example, most people would not think it was ridiculous to spend $400 on an iPod that has 80GB of storage and plays movies even though there are mp3 players out there for $50 that have 256MB of storage and don't play video. Similarly, I certainly don't find it ridiculous to spend more money on a handbag because it is larger, or better quality so that it won't fall apart or look ratty.
That said, most guys find it ridiculous when a girl buys a $1K handbag that, for all intents and purposes, is the same size/quality/function as a bag she could have purchased for $350, except that the more expensive bag is "Fendi" or "Gucci". It's analagous to a guy who could buy an Acura TL for $35K or a car almost the same as a TL, except that it has a Rolls Royce badge on it and some minor bells and whistles, for $100K. In both cases, you have to question someone who is willing to spend so much extra money for what amount to a very small gain in utility at the margin.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559805) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:36 AM Author: White supple senate
I think you're misinterpreting people disagreeing with your reasoning with not realizing you feel that way. You can face the fact without approving.
As for the "this stores more" argument, it's kind of a shallow one. Why does a device that stores more have more value? Why does a device that plays media have value at all?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559832) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:42 AM Author: buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate
Think about my car example. Would you find it strange if a guy bought a car very similar to a TL except that it has Rolls Royce badging and cost $65K more than a TL? I certainly would. I would find it odd that someone spent $65K more on a car for the simple purpose of a badge that shows that he spent $65K more on a car.
An mp3 player that stores more information serves a purpose. Maybe I have 100 CDs that I want to store electronically. I can do that on an iPod but not a $50 mp3 player. I am not spending an extra $350 on the iPod simply because it has the name iPod.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559855) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:48 AM Author: White supple senate
I'm not a car person, so this is not a good example to me. I have trouble seeing differences beyond styling in luxury cars versus decent quality midpriced cars, and don't really understand why people care to spend money on minor differences in speed and handling except to say that they drive an X or a Y. I recognize that other people perceive differences and respect what makes them happy, but I don't really get it.
But what is the ultimate purpose of storing those CDs? What do your ipod and your CDs do that is useful?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559884) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:56 AM Author: buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate
You're missing my point. I admit that bags have value. I admit that expensive bags have more value.
What is troubling is someone who spends a lot more on a bag that is largely similar to another.
If Mr. X bought a suit for $1K that fit perfectly, was made very well, holds up over time and looks fantastic, would you find it odd that Mr. X bought a suit that did the exact same things except that it was Ralph Lauren Black Label and cost me $10K? I would, because the person places $9K of value on a label, which either (a) makes that person feel good, which is shallow, or (b) is meant to show others that Mr. X dropped $10K on a suit?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559924) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:00 AM Author: White supple senate
I assure you that I understand your argument.
I'm asking you a further question - why prizing a label is worse than the many other preferences people have. What is the purpose of having a suit that looks fantastic? Why do people need to have contraptions that hold prerecorded music?
I'd also say that I think it's not a proven presumption that clothing items and accessories level out at a very low level. Just as I do not like cars enough to discern or value differences between upper end models and midrange ones, I think you should at least consider the possibility that you don't know enough about items that don't interest you to judge their objective quality.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559938) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:12 AM Author: buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate
>> I'm asking you a further question - why prizing a label is worse than the many other preferences people have. What is the purpose of having a suit that looks fantastic? Why do people need to have contraptions that hold prerecorded music? <<
I suppose this is personal preference on people's personalities. I can at least understand, even if I don't agree, as to why someone spends a lot of money on something that serves a function, is higher quality, etc. What bothers me is someone who spends money for a label, or something that provides very little tangible marginal benefit at a great cost.
>> I'd also say that I think it's not a proven presumption that clothing items and accessories level out at a very low level. Just as I do not like cars enough to discern or value differences between upper end models and midrange ones, I think you should at least consider the possibility that you don't know enough about items that don't interest you to judge their objective quality. <<
Agreed. I was just using these as examples.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559986)
|
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:15 AM Author: White supple senate
If it correlates with personalities, it might be valid. I'm not really sure it does. As for marginal benefit, there are a lot of items for which that is subjective. What would you think of a person who spent a great deal of money on expensive artwork, which to you was no more valuable than very inexpensive decorative items.
That's fiar.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560000) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:22 AM Author: buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate
For me it's not that someone spends money, it's why they spent it.
I can understand why someone would spend a lot of money on artwork if they loved art. Here's what I find troubling. Suppose someone saw two paintings that they abosultely loved where one was painted by a recent artist being sold for $30,000 and one was painted by Van Goh and was being sold for $500,000. I would understand if that person wanted the Van Goh because it was a known commodity and was likely to hold its value. What I would not like is if that person wanted the Van Goh simply because they wanted to show that they bought a Van Goh and let everyone know they paid $500K for a painting. It's odd to me that someone would place an additional $470K of value on impressing people or looking "high society".
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560040) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:25 AM Author: White supple senate
What if the person bought the painting by the recent artist instead? The person in question is buying it because they like it, even though you find it no more aesthetically valuable than a $200 painting from a store.
Alternately, what if someone buying a handbag simply likes that bag, for its visual properties or whatever?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560056) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:29 AM Author: buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate
If he bought the $30,000 painting over the $200 one for it to be a status symbol, then I would not agree.
If a woman wanted an alligator skin bag because she's always wanted an alligator skin bag, loves alligator skin and has the money to pay for it, then go ahead. If she chooses one alligator skin bag over another because it is significantly more expensive and is used to show status, then I find that pretty vapid.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560066) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:35 AM Author: buck-toothed adventurous station degenerate
Honestly, it depends on how much more she likes that design than another and how much more expensive it is.
If she likes a bag that cost $200 95% as much as one that cost $10,000, I would think that was ridiculous. I usually think it's ridiculous when people place extraordinarily high value on what amounts to very little marginal benefit.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560088) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:00 PM Author: White supple senate
Would you apply the same value to the person purchasing the painting?
Though, realistically speaking, you know if you ask the person they're always going to give a very high valuation. It's not like this is testable IRL.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560185) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:43 AM Author: Coiffed lascivious internal respiration library
The question posed in this thread was "would you date a girl who spent 1K on a bag?" First of all, most girls really shouldn't be able to answer this because they aren't going to be dating girls anyway. Second, girls have been arguing that the purchase is justifiable, and therefore men have no reason to hold ownership of an overpriced bag against a girl. This argument ignores the fact that men in fact do hold it against women, as is evident by the fact that so many people have said so in this thread.
The "stores more" argument is not shallow, even if it is off topic. Most people buy things because they perform a function. If something performs that function better or has more capabilities a higher price is justified. There is virtually nothing that a 1K bag does that a $300 bag doesn't do, and therefore spending $700 on the more expensive one is stupid.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559858) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:53 AM Author: White supple senate
It's a thread on a message board - people reply, and otherse discuss the replies. And, um, saying that the way a person feels is unreasonable does not deny that they actually feel that way. It implicitly recognizes the fact. (In the same way, you can argue that it's unreasonable to hold certain political or social opinions without denying that people hold them.)
It's shallow because it's not examining whether all "functions" are valid. What is the purpose behind the "function" of an MP3 player? What good does it ultimately do for the user?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559911) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:39 AM Author: diverse brass boltzmann
most men on this board, who are insecure losers. most confident, successful men don't look merely at the price tag of things, but rather whether it's something that makes them or someone else happy. if it is, it's worth it.
if you don't want a girl that wants nice things, then avoid them.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559842) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:35 AM Author: provocative narrow-minded black woman
They will argue with you that the utility's to be had in their aesthetic value.
Of course, these are the same vapid women whose aesthetic sensibilities were cultivated by Vogue.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559829) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:46 AM Author: fiercely-loyal sex offender
Sure. This thread is stupid and half the rags posting in it have never seen a human vagina.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559873) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:47 AM Author: bull headed charismatic house knife
Honestly, I would find her more attractive.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559878) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:50 AM Author: Yapping Federal Theater
Absolutely. I'd at least give her an shot initially.
For a chick to spend a G on a freakin' bag, I'd assume she (or her family) must be loaded. I've dated rich girls before, it's the shit (it's also how I got my first playstation). Why should I be the only one bringing cheddar to the table?
For the guys who made the blanket "any girl who spends a G on a bag is a vapid bitch" statements, think of it this way: Charles Barkley recently said he blew $2.5 million in Vegas in a six hour period. That to me sounds irresponsible, until you realize what this guy must be worth (well, it's still probably irresponsible, but it certainly doesn't make him vapid or an idiot or anything -- we've all done irresponsible things in our lives and it doesn't make everyone a schmuck). If you have the ends, fuckin' enjoy it.
I personally wouldn't spend that kind of money on a bag, but I might spend considerably more on, say, a hot piece of sports memorabelia, and that's debatably less practical than bag because it has no functional use (unless you view it as an investment, but it's not like I would ever sell a Jordan autographed jersey or something).
I guess the bottom line is, the fact that a girl spends a lot on her handbag doesn't necessarily mean she's a moron or undateable. It might just mean she has loot. Last time I checked that's a plus.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559897) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 10:54 AM Author: big toilet seat pocket flask
yes, provided she can afford it but not if she's got 10k in cc debt and is still buying expesnive bags.
i like nice things too, and there's nothing wrong with indulgence if you have the means. plus, it'd be handy to be able to point to that the next time i want to buy some expensive bullshit.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559915) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:08 AM Author: bateful aqua generalized bond
Yeah provided it wasn't a sign that she was irresponsible with money or she bought it simply as a status symbol.
I don't think I'd even be able to tell if a bag costs a grand just by looking it and nothing would turn me off faster than having her volunteer that information without me asking.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7559966) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 11:55 AM Author: alcoholic lay
Getting back to the original post, buying a $1000 handbag is stupid, but its better than giving $1000 to poor people so they can buy drugs and malt liquor. Flushing the money down the toilet is better than giving it to poors.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560157) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:03 PM Author: Curious out-of-control nowag
I am a guy who owns a $500 briefcase.
I don't see much of a difference.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560192) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 12:15 PM Author: carmine glittery kitty
Upon reflection of all the posts, I believe my opinion is the most correct.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560250) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 1:07 PM Author: Spruce Space Stock Car
The real question the bag supporters need to answer is: "If I was unable to take this bag from my home (i.e. others will never know I have it), would I still buy it?" If the answer is no, you are vapid.
I know you will counter with "but I bought the bag to be functional and carry stuff, THE STITCHING IS SO GOOD." OK then, suppose you are allowed to carry the bag and use it to its fullest, and it appears to you as you bought it. However, suppose it appears to others as a plain, styleless $100 bag (in other words, you get this perceived functionality/style for yourself but no gain from others' envy/perception of you). Would you still buy the bag? If no, you are vapid and possibly the lowest scum on this earth.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560568) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 1:13 PM Author: Spruce Space Stock Car
No, those that are low key would impress your target audience if you were such a person - people with the same tastes can identify the bag and envy you.
But if solely for personal benefit, I guess I could live with this. I am a huge car nut and would absolutely spend 100k on a car. I would absolutely (maybe even moreso, since I hate showy people) buy it if it appeared to others as a Pinto.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560610) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 2:26 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
handbags are not like cars, you cant tell the brand/how much it costs upon looking at it. some of the most expensive handbags are from small designers nobody would be able to identify upon sight. and i dont have enough money to start just collecting handbags, but i have shoes that ive never worn out but i bought because they are beautiful (wrong size sometimes).
your pinto example doesnt fly considering car brands are much more showy and conspicuous than handbag brands and the price will always include a built in factor that itll be shown off when you drive it around in public.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561032) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 2:44 PM Author: Spruce Space Stock Car
reading comp
I am presenting a hypothetical, and my pinto example absolutely works. Basically, I am taking out the "impressing others" element. If anyone buys anything in order to impress others and not for their own benefit and enjoyment, in my opinion they are the most pathetic people on the planet.
If people are buying expensive things solely for themselves, I see no problem with this...at this point it's just a matter of personal preference and whether that person really can afford it. I am a car enthusiast, and would buy a super expensive car that appeals to me, even if I could only drive it on my private island where no one saw it; or others (hypothetically of course, this is impossible) saw me driving a pinto.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561105) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:26 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
your hypo doesnt work in the real world, thats my point. theres not this dichotomy btwn either purely for yourself or purely for impressing others. and im saying for your car example, the fact that you cant drive it on a private island and it will be on the freeway where people will see it and you will still feel proud of your car in public, even though your main reason wasnt to show off.
theres absolutely nothing wrong w/ doing things that may have an element of impressing others anyway, as long as it doesnt drive your purpose in life. when you buy things, theres usually a mix of both, and thats totally normal and human. consumerism and some level of materialism is totally fine compared to stuff like cheating, lying and other things htat truly make people pathetic.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561301) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:37 PM Author: obsidian death wish menage
ha.
good luck finding a mate if thats your attitude.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561374) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 1:57 PM Author: White supple senate
I would buy my most expensive bag if no one knew it how much it cost or what brand it was (it's not a terribly upscale one, and I suspect anyone who knows enough about handbags to identify them on sight wouldn't be at all impressed). Would I buy it if it looked like an ugly black nylon bag to everyone but me? Probably not at that price.
But doesn't this apply to anyone who buys clothes that are of better style those provided at Wal-mart? I'm certain everyone on this thread has at least a few items of clothing that were purchased with the intent of appearing more attractive to others.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7560908) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:01 PM Author: Spruce Space Stock Car
I will retreat a half-step and say that business-related clothing etc should be treated slightly differently. Wearing very bad clothes that show a lack of judgment under some circumstances could have a very real negative impact on your life, i.e. not get a promotion. Then again, thats why there are dress codes...to make everyone appear professional. People can appear professional while still suiting their own tastes and not buy 10k suits simply to impress others.
Otherwise, no, I have never bought anything to conform. And I'm not some weirdo, hippie, emo, punk etc kid - I wear what others would consider normal clothes. I just think people that follow trends to fit in are some of the saddest people on the planet.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561177) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:05 PM Author: Yapping Federal Theater
"I wear what others would consider normal clothes. I just think people that follow trends to fit in are some of the saddest people on the planet."
There's a hypocrisy buried in here somewhere...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561194) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:26 PM Author: White supple senate
I'm just a little suspicious. People I know who've really gone and examined their possessions and how much they cost and why they own them (it was a common religious exercise where I grew up) were generally less confident about their motives than before they looked at them.
Obviously there's no way for you to prove this to me so I won't ask you to. But at minimum, I think that your outlook condemns almost everyone in this society.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561303)
|
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:54 PM Author: White supple senate
The tone was somewhat offensive, since you haven't really established yourself of relatively more free of material biases by my standards (especially as a car freak) and your advice on my purchasing habits was not asked for. Then again, I offer advice without being asked and in a similar manner myself, probably more than I should.
I'm primarily defensive because this topic comes up over and over again on a board that's otherwise terribly obsessed with money and other goods. The things women like are singled out so often that it seems like an extension of the misogyny that's so common here.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561502) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 4:06 PM Author: White supple senate
I've read your posts - but my posts on your little part of this thread are an extension of the thread as a whole.
I think there's enough male showing off here for many posters, not necessarily you, to be equally implicated. Car threads and suit threads involve this to at least some degree, and if you really want to veer off topic there are a number of threads about women and showing them off to others. I suspect the girls here are easily condemnable by less materialistic folks, but I think the board in general would fare badly.
I suppose there's also the larger question of "I want people to think I look pretty" and whether it's morally more or less superior than "I like fast things", but at some point this thread is getting too long.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561566) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:42 PM Author: White supple senate
I don't think I'm arguing that - I didn't leave a lot of room for a person to be non-materialistic.
I think everyone is materialistic to some degree, and agree that there are different degrees of it. I'm just using a different way of assessing materialism - to me the danger signs of excess are taking it so far that it's fiscally irresponsible or placing so much importance on it that you're frequently judging other people based on what they own and like. A lot of guys seem to be defining it as liking items that are related to appearance and aesthetics, which conveniently excludes much male consumption.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561404) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:49 PM Author: White supple senate
If they simply said "I like X over Y, therefore I think I will be most compatible with another person who also likes X over Y", there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
I think the namecalling and the pretense that others are materialistic while they are not are both problematic, at least among those who seem to be equally interested in different material goods (including ones with high, but not particularly useful, functionality).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561461) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:13 PM Author: White supple senate
What about at social events? Do you wear suits, or other formal dark clothing, to weddings and funerals?
Excessive conformism certainly isn't a virtue, but I generally don't believe people who say they have never bought anything (or even anything non-business) to conform or because of how other people perceive it. I mean, of all the possible garments you could wear, it's likely that you've settled on clothing styles and colors that have been reasonably popular among people of your gender in your country in the last 50 years.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561230) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:27 PM Author: Spruce Space Stock Car
I wear what fits the occassion, but with my own personal style, whether or not it is popular. For example, if I had to wear dress pants somewhere and pleats were very much in style, I would still wear flat fronts because I think pleats are fucking awful.
To the other point, I only have so much to choose from and I am pretty lazy. If there was some Russian garment that perfectly suited me, I would not travel there to get it, search all over the internet to find it etc. I can only choose from whats there. But if you want further proof, I routinely wear things I bought 8-10 years ago, as a teen. I liked them then, and if I still like them now, I wear them.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561310) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:14 PM Author: mauve galvanic resort stain
I imagine his answer would be that he owns a suit for his own enjoyment not to fit in with others.
I understand this argument to an extent, but I think it's pretty unrealistic to say that we can purchase everything w/o consideration for how it will be perceived by others, even if the third party perception only plays a small role in the decision.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561233) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2007 3:42 PM Author: mauve galvanic resort stain
My comment was not addressed to you specifically, but people generally.
I find it dubious that you make all your purchases with reference to only your own enjoyment, and that third party judgment plays absolutely zero part. However, I'll accept it for the sake of argument. I do not accept that this sentiment is true for most or many people.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561410) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 2:22 PM Author: infuriating parlor nibblets Subject: Final Authoritative Answer
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561018) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 2:24 PM Author: Tan brethren pozpig
I WOULD!!!
All you bitches who got 1g handbags. I can tell the difference between the one bought at Armani boutique and the flea market. JU KNOW???? so holler at a player. I wants to fuck with all you hoes for real. That shit means something to me. On the really though.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7561028) |
Date: February 7th, 2007 6:52 PM Author: arousing bistre sanctuary
would i date my mom? gross
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7562420) |
Date: April 23rd, 2007 9:12 PM Author: Trip Laser Beams Location
NO.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7989182) |
Date: April 23rd, 2007 11:45 PM Author: 180 Chartreuse Idiot Nursing Home
It's frivolous, but so are many things that people buy. If the girl has a job that can afford her a $1K handbag, or if she experiences some sort of financial windfall and wants to treat herself, who cares?! Is it any more frivolous to "overspend" on a vacation, rent, taking cabs everywhere, a car etc...?
I'd consider it more of a red flag if she bought such things and didn't have the money to really afford them, or if she bought them using someone else's money. If she makes 6 figures or can otherwise easily afford the bag then I don't see the problem.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7990164) |
Date: April 24th, 2007 12:02 PM Author: Awkward clown address
bump for informative discussion
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7992411) |
Date: April 24th, 2007 12:09 PM Author: gay soul-stirring whorehouse electric furnace
Is this a discussion about sugary?
If so, why not? She's pretty cute and doesn't seem elitist or d-baggy in any way.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7992452) |
Date: April 24th, 2007 12:10 PM Author: Confused Kitchen
Would you date one who had 3 or 4 250 dollar coach bags?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7992465) |
Date: April 24th, 2007 5:44 PM Author: fear-inspiring telephone cruise ship
This has to be the longest thread ever.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7994597) |
Date: April 24th, 2007 5:55 PM Author: mildly autistic turdskin
What a large thread
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576187&forum_id=2#7994659) |
|
|