My first ever reveal!!!

[zjajkj]

Well, OK. You could have written it as it is. This gives no misunderstanding.

Well, never say never ... what would you do around here, if you decide you one day *need* a Birkin?

Yeah!!! I don't need one definitely, but I WANT one.. LOL.. That is my dream bag.. Abit far fetch lol..

 

[Queenie]

Pardon my ignorance but I don't understand why hand held bags are not appropriate for someone having a hectic lifestyle.

I have two kids and I love my hand held bags. And by the way, I have a job.

Also, isn't birkin a hand held bag???

 

[zjajkj]

Pardon my ignorance but I don't understand why hand held bags are not appropriate for someone having a hectic lifestyle.

I have two kids and I love my hand held bags. And by the way, I have a job.

Also, isn't birkin a hand held bag???

Yeah birkin is hand-held that is my dream bag so maybe I can forgo my dislikes of hand-held for this exception. LOL.. I do not like hand held bags as I find it a trouble and hassle to hold something in my hand w/o option to carry other ways (such as on shoulder, sling etc). Each to its own. I understand many ladies here favor hand-held. But is just not for me unless I love a bag so much to willing to make an exception (Birkin and Kelly) are the only ones in my list that I am willing to make such exception.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

If it is just not for you, then speak for yourself only.

We certainly do not need anyone to perpetuate the perception that people who live here can only buy their bags because of rich husbands. Sheesh. That was seriously offensive and insulting to read.

 

[zjajkj]

If it is just not for you, then speak for yourself only.

We certainly do not need anyone to perpetuate the perception that people who live here can only buy their bags because of rich husbands. Sheesh. That was seriously offensive and insulting to read.

Refer to Post #60.
FYI, when did I pose the imply of that phrase?
Not matter who buy (self or husband), it should be appreciated by the receiver. Which sentence of mine misleads u?

-held bags doesn't suit my lifestyle or rather most Singaporean hectic lifestyle unless they are Tais Tais (rich lady who has a rich husband to support them) - reason why I quoted the brackets is because many readers here are US or English citizens, they may not understand the term 'Tai Tai'.

I can jolly well end the message with: held bags doesn't suit my lifestyle or rather most Singaporean hectic lifestyle unless they are Tai Tai.
I wanted to say non-workers, but that term isn't right as non-workers maybe unemployed and does not have the purchasing power to buy.
The next best term I can think about is Tai Tai (yet I do not know how to explain in Broad English). Hence maybe my quoted bold brackets are trying to explain the term for Tai Tai.

And not for implying ladies who need man to buy them expensive hermes.
If man buy, that is a bonus and great happy thing.
If not, we can earn for them ourselves.
Either way is fine.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

But honestly speaking, hand-held bags doesn't suit my lifestyle or rather most Singaporean hectic lifestyle unless they are Tais Tais (rich lady who has a rich husband to support them).

Nah, my comment was trying to comment that I envy their sort of life
For me, perhaps handheld bags do not suit me at all as it is very troublesome to hold something in my hand.

Not matter who buy (self or husband), it should be appreciated by the receiver. Which sentence of mine misleads u?

I do not see any link between ladies with rich husbands and using hand-held bags or you preferring to use other bags. I don't know why you must present your thought as hand-held bags equates rich ladies with rich husbands.

I'm certain many ladies using hand-held bags do not wish to be looked upon as rich ladies who have rich husbands to support them. On the other side, I'm also certain that there are people who don't use hand-held bags, that have rich husbands. It's neither here nor there and it doesn't make sense at all.

This is a really thoughtless statement and it would be proper if you would speak for yourself only from now and not label a group of people indiscriminately. (and then try to back-paddle, and not very well, at that.) Whether you envy people or not still does not give you the right to label people who may or may not fall into that category.

Some ladies here work for their luxuries. They succeed in life. They do not have to depend on men. It is insulting because your statement insinuated that they only managed to do that because of rich husbands, and it makes light of their achievements.

Your responses show you don't understand what the above posters are driving at.

Let me sum it up for you:

1) Don't make assumptions (and then post it in an international board).
2) When someone calls you out, think deeply, then post a thoughtful reply, even if you do not understand why. Do not dig a bigger hole.

I hope the above helps you in general about why people might feel offended about what you wrote.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

Refer to Post #60.
FYI, when did I pose the imply of that phrase?
Not matter who buy (self or husband), it should be appreciated by the receiver. Which sentence of mine misleads u?

-held bags doesn't suit my lifestyle or rather most Singaporean hectic lifestyle unless they are Tais Tais (rich lady who has a rich husband to support them) - reason why I quoted the brackets is because many readers here are US or English citizens, they may not understand the term 'Tai Tai'.

I can jolly well end the message with: held bags doesn't suit my lifestyle or rather most Singaporean hectic lifestyle unless they are Tai Tai.
I wanted to say non-workers, but that term isn't right as non-workers maybe unemployed and does not have the purchasing power to buy.
The next best term I can think about is Tai Tai (yet I do not know how to explain in Broad English). Hence maybe my quoted bold brackets are trying to explain the term for Tai Tai.

And not for implying ladies who need man to buy them expensive hermes.
If man buy, that is a bonus and great happy thing.
If not, we can earn for them ourselves.
Either way is fine.

I thank you for your effort to put your statement into context.

But it is really the mentality that I have a problem with. You said you worked to pay for your Dogon. Would you feel good if you heard a stranger say "Oh, it must be your daddy or boyfriend who bought it for you." because it implies that they think you wouldn't have the capability to earn it yourself.

 

[tulemar]

Love the orange dogon...It is a great great wallet.

 

[gem]

Refer to Post #60.
FYI, when did I pose the imply of that phrase?
Not matter who buy (self or husband), it should be appreciated by the receiver. Which sentence of mine misleads u?

-held bags doesn't suit my lifestyle or rather most Singaporean hectic lifestyle unless they are Tais Tais (rich lady who has a rich husband to support them) - reason why I quoted the brackets is because many readers here are US or English citizens, they may not understand the term 'Tai Tai'.

I can jolly well end the message with: held bags doesn't suit my lifestyle or rather most Singaporean hectic lifestyle unless they are Tai Tai.
I wanted to say non-workers, but that term isn't right as non-workers maybe unemployed and does not have the purchasing power to buy.
The next best term I can think about is Tai Tai (yet I do not know how to explain in Broad English). Hence maybe my quoted bold brackets are trying to explain the term for Tai Tai.

And not for implying ladies who need man to buy them expensive hermes.
If man buy, that is a bonus and great happy thing.
If not, we can earn for them ourselves.
Either way is fine.

You have a strange way of explaining your implication.

Please then explain why I disagree with your statement:-

I am one of the "most Singaporeans", I have a hectic lifestyle, I buy hand held handbags, be it Birkin or Kellys or other brands.

or another scenario (my wish/my aim),

I have led a hectic lifestyle, earned enough to quit the scene and now earn my own keep from investments. I am not a Tai Tai. I buy more handheld bags. I dont have rich husbands to support me.

------------
So what do you say?
------------

Please do not speak for "most singaporeans".

 

[Queenie]

I do not see any link between ladies with rich husbands and using hand-held bags or you preferring to use other bags. I don't know why you must present your thought as hand-held bags equates rich ladies with rich husbands.

I'm certain many ladies using hand-held bags do not wish to be looked upon as rich ladies who have rich husbands to support them. On the other side, I'm also certain that there are people who don't use hand-held bags, that have rich husbands. It's neither here nor there and it doesn't make sense at all.

This is a really thoughtless statement and it would be proper if you would speak for yourself only from now and not label a group of people indiscriminately. (and then try to back-paddle, and not very well, at that.) Whether you envy people or not still does not give you the right to label people who may or may not fall into that category.

Some ladies here work for their luxuries. They succeed in life. They do not have to depend on men. It is insulting because your statement insinuated that they only managed to do that because of rich husbands, and it makes light of their achievements.

Your responses show you don't understand what the above posters are driving at.

Let me sum it up for you:

1) Don't make assumptions (and then post it in an international board).
2) When someone calls you out, think deeply, then post a thoughtful reply, even if you do not understand why. Do not dig a bigger hole.

I hope the above helps you in general about why people might feel offended about what you wrote.

Amen sister.