I’m not even cutting-edge with this one: I think we’re well past the "diamonds are a girl’s best friend" era and well into the "shoes are a woman’s best friend" years. And you know, the mystique of diamonds never held any sort of power on me. Well, sure, I love jewelry in a reasonable, oh-how-pretty way, but I’m not really beholden to it. In a time when top luxury shoes cost probably as much as jewelry, I’d rather show off my shoes then my diamond ring. And if given the choice, I’d definitely take a top-designer brand vs a cheap shoe imitation than a genuine diamond over cheaper jewelry. Too much bling definitely seems too decadent, too much, too ostentatious to me, especially when one piles it on. Shoes–at least you can only wear one pair at the time and they will as surely brand you as a person of taste (and, possibly, means)–or not. Plus, shoes often resemble pieces of jewelry these days.
You don’t need more bling than that when you’ve got these beautiful Manolo Blahnik jacquard slingbacks on your feet.
Why do women like me prefer to show their decadence in footwear rather than bling?
I guess one has to decide on the poison of choice, especially when operating on a limited budget. Standing in beautiful, comfortable, covetable shoes is also extremely empowering. In their most primary function, shoes shield you from the ground you walk on; when that shield takes the form of a work of art, your relationship with the environment seems to take on a new meaning, and you strive to make almost every movement a work of art.
I know I would, shod in those gorgeous, blinding Manolos.