Who Do You Have To Sleep With To See A Model Doing Coke In This Town?

Illustration for article titled Who Do You Have To Sleep With To See A Model Doing Coke In This Town?
  • Those Sisley cocaine-snorting ads? Not exactly real. Which makes us sad because we really wanted to see something realistic in a fashion magazine. [Sassybella]
  • You know how sometimes we read too quickly and make up, like, an alternate news story? Um, we didn't with this. You actually can turn peanuts into diamonds. [The Budget Fashionista]
  • Two-thirds of English consumers are happy with their collection of fake bags. And the other 33% would have rather coughed up a few grand on the real thing? [BBC]
  • Lord & Taylor is spending $10 million on a "brand makeover" that will attempt to make you see it as more like Nordstrom. [WWD]
  • Sayeth the lawyer representing Anna Sui in her case, one of many about the stealing of designs, against Forever 21: "I believe that Forever 21's business model is to copy the designs of other well-known designers." Um, ya think? [WWD, sub req'd]
  • American Eagle is giving potential shoppers a free movie ticket for trying on a pair of jeans? That is really convenient, since, um, we were trying to figure out a way to see I Now Pronounce You Chick And Larry without actually, you know, funding the evildoers. [Reuters]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter



@golddigger: So what your comment is basically saying is, "If you can't afford it (lux goods) don't even try. Trying is tacky." While I dislike that your comment is reinforcing the "us" vs "them" class division created by designer goods, I do agree on one level: Buying into it is tacky.

Whether you ARE the person who spends two months' rent for a tacky monogrammed bag or you just ASPIRE TO BE that person you're still putting too much stock in status symbols. you look like a fool to any of us who posess some sense. Wealthmongering is gauche, whether it's done by people who can afford it, or those who can't.

To get nitpicky for a second-

Yes, companies who make fakes are exploiters who run inhumane sweatshops and designers (as one Gawker commenter pointed out during a similar post last week) are sweatshop-running exploiters with better lawyers. Whether you buy the knockoff LV or the real thing, there is blood on your hands. The same is true if you buy just about anything manufatured overseas. J Crew? Outsourced production to China, who then outsourced production to North Korea. That fur trim on your J. Crew parka? Dog hair sewn on by starving people living under a communist regime. (This is true, and not some tacky racial stereotype. I read about it awhile back.). So your'e basically guilty of exploitation just by being a U.S. consumer. Period. Blaming people who buy fakes is just another way of making the rich feel superior and the poor feel guilty for being dissatisfied with their lot in life and aspiring to be like the rich.