12.21.05
Christmas presents
I had cause to wonder today what a male friend was buying his girlfriend. Then I began to reflect on what christmas presents mean to women. Jewellery is the only proper symbol of love and commitment. If he’s not getting you jewellery, I’d be worried. Within that catergory there is a hierarchy. In descending order it is:
1. The Ring
2. Necklace
3. Earrings
4. Bracelet
5. Watch
The earrings and bracelet can compete with the necklace if they are very precious. The watch MUST be a dress watch. A day watch is too close to utilitarian for comfort.
On other items:
Underwear very rarely acceptable. It can work if it is finest silk and consists of a beautiful camisole or something. Anything else, and you are in very dangerous territory
Perfume – to a friend maybe, but never a girlfriend – very trivial
Appliances – this means you really do want to break up with her and you are hoping she’ll do it for you
Spa trip – fabulous for wife but for girlfriend that might mean you want her to do herself up…not a good message
Coat – not bad if it is a fabulous coat, like real fur or something
Personally guys, I’d stick to the jewellry. And it should be gold. Don’t get some arty crap that won’t go with anything. Obviously diamonds if you can afford it. All women, even if they try to be cool and different, are suckers for diamonds. Ah, a diamond bracelet and matching earrings. That’s my fantasy present. Go on guys..start saving!
john of Dublin said,
December 21, 2005 at 10:55 pm
A consultancy gift service for males…useful…and well timed….we are always late.
I once was on a business trip to Copenhagen very near to Christmas. Norweigen crafted gold jewellery is kinda famous. So I spent a lot of dosh on gold earrings crafted as small leaves. It would come firmly under your definition of “arty crap”! Yes, it went down like a lead balloon with spousey! That was the last time I chose jewellery myself for her…now we go together…getting it right is easier to live with than the lack of surprise value!
ben said,
December 21, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Remember: when buying diamonds, take extra care to look for the Ohgodnopleasedon’tchopmyarmsoff label. If you’re in the slightest doubt, don’t buy. Fur coats are a judgement call; I think they’re most fabulous when worn by their original owners, but that’s just me.
I am depressed by the mindset that sees winning a who-has-the-most-jewellery competition as what makes life worthwhile. Think of where you could go and what you could do. Then again, the special someone in my life is getting a rawhide bone.
Sarah said,
December 22, 2005 at 8:16 am
Hey Ben, you must brush up on my past writings on the subject of fur.
http://www.sarahcarey.ie/wordpress/archives/2005/08/02/moral-clothes
As a friend of mine said about art, which could equally apply to diamonds, “it endures, when everything else is gone or forgotten, you still have art [diamonds]“
Paddy said,
December 22, 2005 at 9:32 am
I have to concur with Ben. Why waste your hard won cash on a carbon allotrope whose value is artifically maintained by a bunch of dubious South Africans? Or worse still traded to fund human rights abuses and war in central Africa. Buy synthetic if you like the sparkle and with the money you have saved you can do something unique, like buy some eduring art from your friend
ben said,
December 22, 2005 at 9:38 am
Mrs Thatcher: “You eat meat don’t you?”
Alan Clark: “No, I do not, prime minister.”
Mrs Thatcher: “Well, you wear leather shoes, don’t you?”
Alan Clark: “I am sure, prime minister, you would not wish to see your ministers walking around in plastic footwear.”
I do eat meat. I wear leather — nothing kinky, you understand, not that there’s anything wrong with that — and I’m not damn well wearing any plastic shoes. But fur seems to be taking pleasure in more cruelty to less purpose. I didn’t claim this to be a rational argument.
Diamonds aren’t art. Diamonds don’t have any love or creativity in them, they’re just things. They are the thingiest of things; their entire worth is in their thinginess. They are valuable precisely because they are not. They’re Paris Hilton.
Please, please think and act very carefully if you are ever buying diamonds.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/diamonds.html
tom said,
December 22, 2005 at 12:33 pm
what about a book or don’t women read books?
i suppose all they care about it looking pretty and having money spent on them.
Sarah said,
December 22, 2005 at 12:35 pm
a book voucher will do nicely thank you. you can wrap the diamond in it..
Sarah said,
December 22, 2005 at 2:26 pm
that was the same Alan Clark who sold planes and weapons to Indonesia so they could slaughter the East Timorese? I remember seeing Pilger interview him. When challenged on the contradiction between his love of animals and the ethics of selling arms to corrupt governments he said “Well, what one bunch of foreigners does to another bunch of foreigners doesn’t really matter to me”.
I notice no women are joining in the condemnation of diamonds and fur. Look, can I buy any item of clothing or jewellrey that hasn’t been produced on the back of exploited labour? Stop being so ba humbug.
Sinéad said,
December 22, 2005 at 5:35 pm
I’m not that pushed on jewellery, and certainly not on diamonds or gold, (have a solitaire engagement ring and a white gold wedding ring and that’s all I’d ever want). Himself got me a gorgeous vintage necklace and earrings in Rhinestones which are seriously impressive and very different. I didn’t even know he’d heard of the shop.
A lot of thought went in to it, but come to think of it, I bet he got some female advice!
Books and book tokens are my favourite presents.
ben said,
December 22, 2005 at 8:26 pm
“I notice no women are joining in the condemnation of diamonds”
I’m not condeming diamonds. I’m condemning people hacking children’s limbs off, wet liberal than I am. And if fully half of the human race is truly so selfish and venal that having a man buy you something expensive is more important than that, then god damn us, every one.
colette said,
December 22, 2005 at 9:26 pm
I’m not the classiest of birds, it has to be said. But i’m not too sure about this diamonds business. My dream Santa present would be an “omlet” (lunar looking hen house with hen) or even better, a proper coop, run and chicken.Or music, or books, or clothes, or membership of one of those fancy swimming pools with a jacuzzi after instead of a shower…
Sarah said,
December 22, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Well, given that I am not likely to get a diamond anyway, I did a list of what I would like this Christmas:
1. Voucher for Day-spa (at least €200)
2. Elemis night cream for normal to dry skin (€41)
3. Cake tin and cake cover (what’s the point making these cakes if I can’t store them properly)
4. Brown Thomas voucher so I can buy new underwear myself (at least €50)
5. I used to love book vouchers but I no longer have time to read. So not this year, thanks
6. Dinner in Chapter One – never been.
7. Colette, I love your hen idea. Fantastic. Would the omlet keep the foxes at bay?
8. Wedgwood cornucopia covered vegetable dish (€100 roughly)
9. 2 x Waterford Lismore brandy balloon glasses (€100 each I think)
10. 1 x abstract Irish landscape by trendy artist (€3000-€20000)
11. Any nice picture frame of any size
12. Another bun tray. I had to make the mince pies in batches. What a pain. (€20)
13. A full time maid. (?)
14. Another baby with a trouble free pregnancy and no impact on my health or energy levels.
I think that’s it.
declan o' rourke said,
December 23, 2005 at 10:14 am
Baby only makes number 14?. Ouch….
Declan
ps : happy christmas!
Sarah said,
December 23, 2005 at 12:40 pm
15. A sieve. The old one is very bockedy.
Pete said,
December 23, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Sarah, I shall print out your gift advise and put it in my reasons-to-stay-single-if-she-ever-leaves-me file. It is so accurate, and yet so disturbing.
Years ago I gave up hope of ever understanding women, but the way their minds work still shocks me to the core. Why would anyone want to own an object that is useless? Why would anyone equate “money spent” with “love”? Why would anyone unilaterally assign a heirarchy of meanings to gifts, knowing that the gift giver doesn’t know the heirarchy?
My carefully wrapped Christmas gifts for herself do not include jewellery, and do include a small kitchen appliance that she keeps saying she needs. So far, a bad score on your scoreboard. However, I may be saved by the voucher for a facial-makeover-thingy. I might try jewellery next year, as an experiment.
Sarah said,
December 24, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Oh dear Pete. I should stress that I wouldn’t judge the giver of a poor gift if I thought they meant well. On the jewellery issue, don’t you think it’s lovely when she’s all done up in her finery and sparkling? Or to be honest, my favourite items are the ones I wear every day and I know who gave them to me and when I look in the mirror, they are a fond reminder of the person. I’ll have them forever. The other stuff disappears and is forgotten. And you can give it to people when you die so they remember you. My grandmother left me a brooch that must be about 70 years old. I love wearing it because I feel I have the power of generations in me . Isn’t it nice that someone who gave her that for her 21st gave a gift that still lives on? If you give her jewellery next year and its nice, maybe it will end up on someone else in a 100 years. But that’s why it has to be good. It needs to last.
Pete said,
December 25, 2005 at 1:14 am
Hmm. Yes, I’ve noticed that women tend to pass jewellery from generation to generation. Men don’t seem to have any equivalent, except perhaps hand-tools.
Sarah said,
December 25, 2005 at 3:10 pm
You see we are not all bad. Of course, I won’t deny that the value of the gift is still a measure of one’s worth. But it is only because we are so insecure that we require these tokens of love. Do not judge us, pity us.
Pete said,
December 26, 2005 at 11:39 pm
“the value of the gift is still a measure of one’s worth”
Oh God, Sarah, please, please tell me that’s a misstype or something.
Since you’re being so honest, I’m going to let a little male secret out of the bag:
You asked “don’t you think it’s lovely when she’s all done up in her finery and sparkling?” The answer is that, like most men, I only notice what she’s wearing if (i) she’s sensibly and warmly dressed for some enjoyable outdoor activity with me, or (ii) she’s naked for some enoyable indoor activity with me. Anything else basically just pushes a button my brain marked “point your eyes at her and tell her she looks lovely”.
Sinéad said,
December 28, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Hey guess what? I got jewellery after all.
More gorgeous stuff from Rhinestones. A 1940s silver and marcasite brooch of a swallow (totally beautiful on my black Christmas coat) and some matching amethyst and marcasite drop earrings.
Hope you had a lovely Christmas.
s
Sarah said,
December 28, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Sinead you lucky thing. He LUVS you!! Pete, you see, if he goes out and buys the trinket, it DOES say, I’m mad about you and am committed to you and yes I acknowledge that we are in a relationship and not simply “having a good time”. As opposed to (say a DVD or something), I think you’ll enjoy this and sure isn’t everything grand. Well big deal, you could say that to a friend not a GIRLfriend. The only intention displayed in the non-jewellery gift is a lack of intention. That biological clock is ticking. We don’t have time! Get rid of him girls!
Re: clothes. My experience is that, except in some cases, men may not particularly notice the individual items of clothing but they DO notice if you look sexy or not. The trick is to look sexy without the clothes taking attention from the person. A successful outfit is not one where he says, “that’s a smashing dress: i love how she accessorised”. It’s the one where he says “wow, I fancy her something rotten” and thus moving things forward to her not wearing the dress for the later activities. In my own case, HE does notice big time what I am wearing, especially if its wrong, and I am frequently “advised” to rethink a look. I think he thinks shoes are my weak point. But certain tops and too much make-up get vetoed. He can also look a little alarmed if the hair went wrong. A lot of the time he’s right but sometimes I’ll be confident about a look and tell him to get stuffed. Then I make sure not to see a photograph in case he was right.
Pete said,
December 28, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Ok, ok, I’ll try jewellery next year, although as we’re already married I would hope commitment doesn’t need further proof.
I’ll have to take her with me to the jewellers, my chances of choosing something she likes are way below zero. Better start saving too, she has very expensive tastes, I wouldn’t feel safe with less than 1500 euro in the fund.
Darren said,
January 10, 2006 at 6:04 am
Allow me to refer you to http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/conflictdiamonds.htm.
Sarah said,
January 10, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Oh well that was really depressing reading. Made me feel just lovely about my treasured engagement ring. It’s not the full carat but really high grade colour and cut etc. We bought it off a trade guy instead of the crooks on the high street who refuse to give certificates for the diamonds. We ordered a particular spec and came from Amsterdam with cert attached.It’s dainty enough (cos I think big rings are totally vulgar) but i know its good and I never take it off and yeah, its monetary value to add to its specialness and what it symbolises. DEEP SIGH.
Sarah said,
January 10, 2006 at 2:11 pm
does this count for all precious stones? are emeralds and sapphires evil too? are there any ethical jewels? (and I don’t count zirconeum)
Sorcha said,
December 6, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I hope that the opinion of one person does not cause all men out there to believe that all girls have Sarah’s opinion. As Declan, Pete and Darren have pointed out the diamond industry has little to celebrate about. It is sad to see the country we have turned into, who are so materialistic they can’t see where the love is in their lives. Your diamonds, Sarah, may content you for a moment (and please speak for yourself), but what about the long term…or is your life so empty that diamonds are enough to satisfy all your emotional needs? (since us females are so small-minded!)
What a miserable thing life is: you’re living in clover, only the clover isn’t good enough. –Bertolt Brecht
Gabe Giacomo said,
December 8, 2007 at 5:25 am
Firstly, I belive the orignal statement has been somewhat lost through the conversation, if I might interject. While I agree with Sarah that diamonds very well might be a girl’s best friend, what happens after she has the ring, the necklace, and the earrings… and she’s gotten them all for the past 3 holidays? She’s not big into wearing anything on her wrists, so the last two are more or less not applicable. Giving more jewelry is beginning to seem like an easy, albeit expensive, out. She’s getting an hour massage for her birthday (in November) so that is also out. Any advice on the proverbial gift corner I’ve backed myself into?
Secondly, diamonds are indeed materialistic unless you have to work to earn them. Being so expensive, they demonstrate commitment, devotion, and love through the amount of work that was put forth to acquire them, in most cases, one’s job. A practical amount to spend on an engagement ring, for example, is roughly two months salary. Note, the acutal cost will vary between two individuals, but the amount of time put in will be the same. For this reason, I hypothesize, someone who does not understand or appreciate the underlying value of diamonds, someone who only sees them as lives lost and countries divided, will never see eye-to-eye with another who’s loved one has bestowed them with the present of a diamond.