Here's the thing about so-called "timeless" clothing -- unless I can be guaranteed not to gain or lose any weight over the next 10 years, it ain't gonna be "timeless."
Well, that's true. Although if you both gain and lose weight, your stuff goes in and out of fitting, and that's where timeless helps.
I have to say, I don't have a real problem with the Marie Clare list. I mean, I think it's ridiculous, but it doesn't make me angry. It's aspirational and I think it knows it's ridiculous. As can be noted by the bit about making an appointment with the Dalai Lama. I firmly believe that they don't ACTUALLY think a significant part (or any part) of their readership could actually do that.
hooray! I named a thread!
Are people with both the means and the inclination to hobnob with the Dalai Lama likely to be reading Marie Claire?
I'll be all right without you.
You know, if he ever hurts you, true love won't desert you.
I do want matching luggage. It's one of the things in the "frivolous stuff I'll buy when I have enough money to buy some frivolous stuff" list. But I certainly see no reason why everyone must have it. (I currently have a random assortment of bags, some of which actually do match -- my parents bought them for me in high school -- but most of which were just things I picked up cheap when I needed a particular size bag that I didn't have. And I think it looks ugly to travel with a bunch of mismatched bags, but I'm totally aware that this is my own personal neurosis.)
I couldn't read that Marie Claire article as anything other than deliberately flip. Okay, pointed and flip. It felt more like a "go out and do, don't be routine for no reason" article.
If all my luggage is black, does that count as matching?
You know, I've thought about buying matching luggage, but with the way that airlines treat luggage, why spend the money?
Also, wasn't it framed as "should get," not "must have"? Everyone
should
get a lot of money! God knows I'd like to!
