I saw a TikTok from a young woman about how she paid $1000 to go to a yacht event in Monaco and people invited her to parties on some yachts "because I was dressed to impress...you can dress to show you bring value to the yacht."
And I don't know if anyone will tell her that cute dresses are not why young women are invited to yacht parties.
She's getting cooked in the comments -- but only because other young women don't think the dress is cute, not because anyone is pointing out the obvious fact that inviting young women with no money onto yachts is the equivalent of "ladies night" at a bar. The young women -- in any dress -- are there to bring the old men in.
I think this is what happens when young women are told that Old Money is an aesthetic you can buy through clothes, rather than a set of rigid and unspoken social codes that you instinctually understand.
It's also a result of the current nonsense that's been going around for years about "high-value women" or "high-value men" where "high-value" is a euphemism for how much money they have. There's no understanding that people are not their net worth.
she ends up going down a narcissistic spiral of how her choice of a (mass-market) dress has marked her as worthy of being on a yacht, and that the key to being in "high-value spaces" is how women dress....
...when in fact she -- like so many other young women -- was just chosen as sexual chum for shady rich sharks. Who, by the way, are experts at reading people's social class no matter what they're wearing.
Anyway this is an eternal game (the Audrey Tatou movie "Priceless" is about this milieu in Monaco) but one eternal truth is that young women should not be paying $1000 for a ticket to be taken advantage of by the kind of people who go to yacht events.
Here's the very basic dress and a hint of her behavior on the yacht, where she dances by stomping around and whipping her arms in the air like someone in a New Jersey bar (no offense to New Jersey bars!). The baseball cap was a welcome gift from the company selling yachts (which, again, wants young women there in the same way that car shows used to have young women) and she doesn't know not to wear it.
Naïveté is nothing new but I can foresee a lot of Zoomers getting scammed or taken advantage of because they don't know how to function away from their phones. People have agendas, bbs. Be careful out there.
By the way, the dress also costs close to $1000. It's great for a garden party in Westchester, but is not a look for Monaco or yachts.
Another indicator of how young people brought up on TikToks about the "Old Money Aesthetic" and "high-value women" can't
contextualize appropriate dressing or know that just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's appropriate in all social spaces.
It reminds me of the (great) movie Le Divorce, with Kate Hudson carrying her little red Kelly bag from her rich French lover to the grocery store and book readings, and he has to remind her that it has a certain place.
People make fun of fashion as a frivolous pursuit but the truth is that fashion is inextricably caught up with economics, finance, politics, class, social codes and social belonging, and so many people who think it's just about some fabric end up crashing head-first into that realization one way or another eventually.
We didn't roast the men of Monaco here but they also deserve some scrutiny
I should also point out, out of fairness, that no one in Monaco is "old money" anyway. It's a young country and a tax haven, and it attracts those who like brash displays of wealth. Another reason the "Old Money Aesthetic" flops there.
I think this is really smart and sums up the fundamental problem. No shame to anyone who is in sex work or "sugar daddy" situations, but telling thousands of regular TikTok followers to do these things to be "high-value" is fundamentally misleading them about what the point and the transaction is. It's also incredibly dangerous for young women, especially if they're alone as this creator was.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My landlord just sent out an email saying he changed the front-door lock an hour ago (?!) and our front-door keys no longer work and we all have to see him personally for a new key.
No warning at all. No preparation. People are coming home from work standing around waiting for someone else to come out. Residents can't even get into the building to see him (because the key no longer works). Masterfully chaotic.
It gets better, I just went to see him and he's out of copies of the new keys 😂😭
I asked if the lock was changed because someone dangerous had it or something like that, but no. There were complaints for months that the old locks were wonky so he just decided, randomly, today, at 3 pm, to change them 😭
I think a lot of lefties backing Kamala are not genuinely contradicting their claimed ideals but ARE extremely practical about the fact that there is no antizionist candidate, there is no socialist candidate, and it's a waste of organizing time and power to sit on the couch until the perfect one comes along. You have to pressure politicians. They're not going to come to us straight out of the box with the right policies. That's how politics works.
I'm sorry, I'm just really annoyed with the posturing about how True Leftists don't vote for Kamala. She introduced a version of M4A and co-sponsored the Green New Deal, which is as close as this country has gotten to leftism in the past 30 years. She has slowly changed her position on Israel, and that needs to go a lot further. So she can be pushed. Sitting at home and playing with anti-imperialism dolls living in the perfect commune is a waste of the chance to shape the historical moment. There's no purity in sitting around and complaining. Do something, say something, work with this moment instead of wishing for some perfect future that doesn't exist yet. Biden has been pushed out. Changing things is possible.
If you don't think Kamala can be pushed, that's fine and you don't have to invest a single second of your time in that. But you DO have to invest your time SOMEWHERE, maybe making sure that there IS a good antizionist candidate advancing somewhere, or organizing, or pushing some useful policy idea. Sitting on your ass pretending to be above it all until the perfect person with the perfect politics is delivered to your door like a pizza is not going to happen. You have to make the future you want, however you decide to do it.
The idea that Dems are vetting PA governor Josh Shapiro is evidence of how out of touch the party is with the historical moment.
Shapiro is anti-free speech: He wants to harm people who speak up against apartheid and genocide. He's the classic neoliberal concession to mid-2000 neocons, but mid-2000 neocons aren't a real voting bloc any more. He does nothing to combat either the MAGA vote or the young white working class vote that JD Vance brings or the libertarian capitalist vote. Electorally, he's useless.
They can get all the benefits of a "swing state pick" with just an endorsement from Shapiro and a promise to campaign for her. Along with the promise of an ambassadorship. He doesn't need to be VP. And he shouldn't be in the cabinet either, considering his embarrassing and controversial stances against free speech and the First Amendment.
The rest of the country is not Pennsylvania. Getting Pennsylvania's votes - which it's not even clear Shapiro can deliver - will not help close the electoral gap significantly between Kamala and Trump.
This weird Democratic obsession with Pennsylvania is a creation of the Democratic consulting class -- which, by the way, has only ever picked similar liberal neocon failures in that state, like Conor Lamb.
Kamala represents, to many people, a chance for an empathetic future. Beshear is the only choice that works with that energy, and he delivers the Southern and evangelical votes who are on the fence and want an option other than Trump.
For Kamala to pick a throwback Boomer-style West Wing liberal neocon like Shapiro who is cold, rigid and unlikeable will hurt her image -- and her votes -- considerably.
Additionally: Whatever the liberal Democratic consulting class - the people who are ALWAYS WRONG - say, it's crazy work to choose to lock down Pennsylvania while ignoring the enormous effect of Uncommitted in far more important stages including Michigan and Minnesota.
If Dems try to ignore the message of Uncommitted, it WILL come back to bite them. And picking Josh Shapiro, a pro-genocide anti-First Amendment neocon, will lose all those states for Kamala.
It's impossible to stress enough how much the pivot to Kamala means Democrats have to understand what Kamala represents to their base and why she's been able to raise so much and get so many volunteers so quickly:
People want empathy again -- something that was completely missing in Biden, and is missing in both Trump and Vance.
People are uniting behind Kamala because they want their RIGHTS. They want abortion rights back. They want immigration rights. They want free speech rights. They want the end of the disastrous Democratic embrace of Republican restrictions on every part of our lives. People want an ADVOCATE.
Josh Shapiro would sink all of this. Shapiro has no empathy. He's a careerist. He's never helped anyone but himself. He's never STOOD UP for anyone but himself. He's a classic liberal neocon narcissist who wants people to have fewer rights.
Kamala will be kryptonite to Trump, and I'll tell you why: She's attractive. Trump's form of somatic (body-based) narcissism prevents him from criticizing attractive people. He can't help but admire them. Trump is going to fold quickly whenever Kamala comes at him in a debate.
As an example, his one (1) criticism of Kamala this week has been that she has a laugh that he called "crazy," but then he swiftly followed it with "not as crazy as Nancy Pelosi."
Trump will never fully attack an attractive person because he needs to see himself as one of them. As a narcissist, he defines himself by his youthful attractiveness and so he sees other attractive people as his "mirrors," like him. So he will never fully mobilize against another attractive person.
Fundamentally, Trump will always see Kamala as a member of his "tribe" -- the "tribe" of attractive people -- so he's basically KHive. He's never going to be effective in his opposition to her. Even if he attacks her directly, he'll sabotage it, like with the Nancy Pelosi comment.
I saw a TikTok about some eye makeup that was allegedly so good that "it made her ex cook her a roast chicken" and I was like "because of some colored wax and talc? Come on now. Surely men are not THAT stupid." Anyway I tried it and three separate men have respectfully told me I look great today.
We are not here to gatekeep and it's Friday so please go forth and try this this weekend if you are so moved. It's a basic smoky eye but it's very imprecise (and dare I say, French) so it takes literally less than a minute
Corrections and amplifications: The meal in question was apparently a "three course dinner," I do not want to hear from any exes (there was enough of that during the pandemic) and one of the men actually said "when you're cute you gotta hear it!!" which is honestly a man that truly gets it
Pronounced "dess- hab - iyay" by the way, NOT "dish-abile"
Habillér means dressed so déshabille means undressed. For women, it was popularized by Marie Antoinette in her "peasant" dresses, an affectation she loved while Queen of France.
Later, during the French Revolution, French It Girl Terezia Tallien (who was imprisoned for being married to an aristocrat and pissing off Robespierre by encouraging her husband to defend some other aristocrats) turned déshabille style to the scandalous, taking the very light muslin shifts that female prisoners wore during the Reign of Terror and rendering it in sheer, sleeveless silk. Talleyrand was aghast: