Search Box

Wednesday, September 4, 2013


Occasionally you'll see a woman a woman wearing a piece of expensive jewelry and it's obvious she thinks her expensive bauble makes her hot stuff. I always want to ask these women, how does that necklace improve you? Does it make you wittier, or smarter, or more honest, or even better-looking? Did it cause you to lose 20 pounds? What exactly is your thought process?

They seem to feel it somehow makes them more attractive, and enhances them somehow. But it seems to diminish them more. By wearing a fancy and ostentatious piece of jewelry, they become an adjunct to it rather than the other way around.

(When some woman proudly flashes a big diamond engagement ring, I always have to repress a desire to tell her, "You remind me of Gollum in Lord of the Rings.")

In a way, it's a roundabout admission of failure: there's really nothing to admire about me, so, please, admire my jewelry instead.

An expensive watch sends the same message, since these days cheap watches tell time just as well. (Both Rolexes and Omegas are, in spirit, far more pieces of jewelry than timepieces.)

A woman who gets extremely excited over a pricey engagement ring is basically saying: my value has been affirmed! A man values me this much!

(Have you no self-worth?)

In general, the more expensive the jewelry, the cheaper the woman. Such women don't care how witty, or smart, or honest, or decent you are. They only want to know how successful you are. More important than that, how much money you have. And even more important than that, whether they can get their hands on any of your money.

(If you're a stupid-but-rich sociopath, these are the women for you.)

A woman who loves jewelry is apt to see a short, fat, ugly, well-dressed, conceited guy get out of a Ferrari and think to herself, wow, that guy is really sexy. Jewelry-lovers aren't necessarily quite as conniving as gold-diggers, but they do tend to conflate money with sexual attraction.

If having a fancy car or big house is ostentatious, wearing expensive jewelry is ten times more so. It's basically the equivalent of taking a thick wad of hundred dollar bills, encasing them in sheer plastic, and hanging them around your neck.

And if women who wear gaudy jewelry are off-putting, men who wear jewelry are even more so.

What men have traditionally worn flashy jewelry, like gold chains and pinkie rings? Mafiosi.

These days, the gangsters have been surpassed in that department by gangstas.

And gangstas have been outdone by those pretend gangstas, the rappers who have renamed such ornamentation "bling."

In all three cases, the mentality is the same: admire me for my strutting ostentation (....since there is little else to admire me for.)

Just remember, the next time you consider buying a piece of jewelry -- even one piece -- you're taking a step in the direction of Flavor Flav:

Personally, I'd sooner wear a Livestrong bracelet -- and have to tell people I still believe in Lance -- than wear a piece of jewelry.


Bob Wallace said...

I once knew a woman who was about 58 and she spent a lot of money on clothes and makeup to disguise the fact she had reached her peak 35 years before. She was dumber than a rock. Even she own mother said something disparaging about her, to the effect she was "high maintenance." She of course didn't have a clue how she appeared to other people.

John Craig said...

Bob --
That pretty much sums it up perfectly. A lot of the society matrons you see wearing a lot of jewelry have obviously peaked long before, and seem to feel that their gaudy baubles somehow make up for that. And they're just so, so proud of their jewelry.

Why not just get their net worths tattooed on their foreheads?

Glen Filthie said...

In point of fact, the most expensive mechanical watches will lose around 5 minutes of time per month (rolex, breitling, etc). Your el cheapo casio/timex quartz watches will lose about half that. Some so-called 'atomic watches' now self correct several times a day. I suppose everyone else knows that but it kind of shocked me.

As for the ladies, they are vain creatures to begin with and one must make allowances. Good jewelry is actually incredibly hard to find for them: it has to be simple, elegant and understated and work with the other accouterments that serve to separate average women from stunning ones. It simply amazes me how some plain women who know how to 'package themselves' (for lack of a better term) - can completely outshine prettier women that can't! It seems that price has absolutely nothing to do with it either...

John Craig said...

Glen --
Are you sure about the watches? I've had Casio watches which don't seem to have lost any time after several months.

There is something to be said for packaging, but to me, usually "good packaging" has to do with showing the body to best effect and there is no jewelry that will turn a 6 into an 8. On the other hand, losing weight can make for a miraculous transformation.

Glen Filthie said...

I know some of the G-Shocks are linked by satellite signal to the atomic time keepers John...and if memory serves I think you Yanks have yours in Boulder, Colorodo. Precision time keeping is cheap nowadays.

And you are right about bling not compensating for obesity or slovenliness, of course. To me, the best looking women dress very simply, and are very conservative with the makeup and the bling.

And - if I were to go further, I would say that women looked their absolute best during the 40's and 50's...they were slim, elegant, wore tailored clothes and looked like women. In your opinion, John, when would you say women's fashion peaked?

John Craig said...

Glen --
One of my Casios was definitely a G-shock with that atomic timekeeping function, but I've also had cheap earlier models which kept time remarkably well.

That's an interesting question. I'm not much on fashion -- despite the fact that I occasionally write those fashion posts -- so have never really thought about it. But now that you mention it, those 40's and 50's fashions with the tailored suits were attractive. i sort of liked the 60's fashions too, with the mini-skirts and the mod look. Some of those women looked awfully good to me, though that may have been partly a function of my having just just entered puberty at the time. It wasn't the 70's, that's for sure. Nor the 80's. But now that I think of it, I've never really associated attractive women with a particular era, I associate them more with a particular physical type.

Anonymous said...

I find jewellery that has been passed down generations acceptable. My grandma wore a thin, nondescript gold necklace that was her mother's. I reckon that's ok as it has sentimental value, rather than being 'bling'. The chunkier the necklace, the tackier it looks. Wedding rings are also ok, but they must be plain metal rather than have any stones attached, especially not diamonds - diamonds are the most cliched "precious" stones in existence. Earrings are also fine, providing they're small and unostentatious (large, hoopy earrings look horrible on anyone). Basically, jewellery for women is fine as long as it's modest and not 'flashy'. Any jewellery a man wears is bound to look out of place, IMO.


John Craig said...

Gethin --
True enough about family heirlooms. As long as you don't wear them all at once, I suppose. And I can't really argue with the other stuff you say; I was exaggerating my attitude toward jewelry to make a point.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if blacks pass their idiotic "grills" down to their heirs. There's got to be funeral fights over that kind of stuff on youtube, but without a guaranteed First Page search result, it's not worth wasting my life looking at negroes. I've wasted enough just now, typing this.

Anonymous said...

"I always want to ask these women, how does that necklace improve you? Does it make you wittier, or smarter, or more honest, or even better-looking? Did it cause you to lose 20 pounds? What exactly is your thought process?"
I'm sorry- perhaps everything a woman decides to wear should be based on what a misogynistic pig like yourself wants to see. You paint women as such shallow vain creatures, and then yourself refer to them on a numeric scale ("there is no jewelry that will turn a 6 into an 8"). My, how shallow and vain! Perhaps you're more like the gender you seem to belittle so freely.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Ah, you sound like the same person who just commented on the "Rumor mongering" post. (I hope you saw my response to that.)

Well, there's no question that I'm shallow and vain. But to say that jewelry doesn't turn a woman from a 6 into an 8 is merely another way of saying that it doesn't improve her looks. And as vain as I am, I've never been quite so superficial as to think that anything I wear will improve my appearance.

I appreciate your passion, however. And I do hope you will take a look at an earlier post I wrote about women like you: "Feminists bent on proving women unequal," from 5/28 of this year. Maybe you'll have another choice comment about that.