LA Times: Fashion-wise, what's the biggest waste of money?Exactly. When I see these stupid women and men who think simply carrying an expensive purse makes them a better (less ugly, less poor, more fashionable) person I just want to clobber them with my recycled rice bag. Especially when these morons parade their bags in Cambodia like it means something. Yes it does - it means you're selfish and indulgent (and did I mention so stupid as to be taken in by advertising and false "editorials"). Enough to spend a shitload of money on your freaking purse than to consider how else you can spend your money. Like feed a child or support her through school. These people should be ashamed of themselves. It's not just distasteful, Tim Gunn, it's obscene:
Tim Gunn: These days, women don't spend a lot of money on anything. But I think it's the seduction of a handbag. If you don't spend a lot of money, you appear cheap, which I think is ridiculous. I frankly have serious difficulty understanding the appeal of really expensive (and by that I mean over $600) bags. Six hundred dollars is the bare minimum when it comes to those stratospheric bags. The Hermes culture of "Well it's made by 60 people in an attic in the countryside of France" — to be blunt, who cares? And all these matching pelts. Who fundamentally cares? It's a big slouchy hobo bag. It's not as though it's a tailored piece of luggage. I just don't understand it. I say to people who really want to reach and are looking at $5,000 handbags, "Spend half that amount and give the other half to charity." I just don't like conspicuous consumption. I find it distasteful.
1 : disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2 a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage
Another one of these topics that makes my blood boil. I still remember the last time this happened: when I wrote about skin colour. So many people are just so stupid.