On QVC (and other shopping channels), the hosts are emphasizing "layering" in jewelry. The thought is that since layering is hot in clothing, you should pile on jewelry. Isn't this just a nice way of saying you should be ostentatious? One host recently whined that she hated wearing a watch because because it took away space that could be used for more bracelets. Not surprisingly, the host (and the others that dish this line) is morbidly obese. When I see person wearing three necklaces, four bracelets, and rings on every finger, I see someone that isn't pleased with themselves on the outside (a fattie) or unhappy inside and they use to jewelry as anti-depressants. They essentially admit it when they call in and say how "good it makes me feel." Admittedly, I'm not a jewelry junkie (but love Nike watches), so I don't quite understand the obsession with it.
Clearly, it is working because the ladies call up and tell their stories of going out and being "noticed".
2006-12-03
19:48:18
·
5 answers
·
asked by
yogineocon
2
in
Beauty & Style
➔ Fashion & Accessories
First, I'm half-joking on the tone, but the essence of the question remains. Of course someone who is overweight isn't always using jewelry as a substitute for genuine happiness. However, when you drill into women that they need layers of makeup, multiple chains, etc., you are telling them you can buy happiness. Clearly, this is selling exterior happiness instead of genuine contentment. Needless to say, the overweight aren't the only ones with this problem. Men/rappers/celeberties that drive $200, 000 cars, furs, gold chains etc., are indeed deriving happiness from a non-internal source. Everyone likes "things", but instilling in people that they have to buy their happiness is wrong. I can appreciate tasteful jewelry, but when one triples the amount they wear specifically to get noticed, they may in fact be spending money to derive that happiness. I might add that they essentially admit this when the say they like getting noticed or complimented for their jewelry. No offense.
2006-12-03
21:42:03 ·
update #1