Meh. Blarp.
I don't care for Valentine's day advertising; I think I'm not in the least bit alone in this. Since I watch a lot of TV, I've been subjected to some pretty sad V-day product pushing, including a bunch of ads for engagement rings, the smallest of which appeared to be three carats, surrounded by another carat of pave diamonds. They're pretty, but I don't think it's terribly romantic to go $20,000 in debt for a ring. And what's with the "chocolate diamond" thing?! I guess someone said "we got a bunch of brown diamonds here; let's see if we can sell them for even more than the white ones. What do those gals like? Chocolate. Yeah, we call them chocolate diamonds, and the chicks'll go ape for 'em."
Black diamonds have a slight allure, in that there are not very many black precious gems, but brown? Go with the topaz, and save yourself the fleecing from the jewelry industry.
The usual bunch of ads for chocolate, chocolate, chocolate-covered strawberries, chocolate, and flowers have been up - today, I'm seeing them every commercial break, in a last-ditch effort to vacuum money from guys (though, to be fair, the chocolate-covered strawberries ad had a man saying "yes, I'd love to receive these for Valentine's day", so at least someone is assuming that guys might be appreciative of some gift other than sex from their woman). The three standards - chocolate, jewelry, and flowers - are being pushed for all they're worth. If I see another ad for those hideous Pandora bracelets (I apologize if any of my readers have one, and love it - I think they're ugly and shamefully overpriced), Bob is going to take the remote away from me and banish me to the library so he doesn't have to hear me rant about them again.
My vote for the stupidest gift suggestion, though, goes to the giant 4.5' teddy bear from Vermont Teddy Bears. Because no-one really wants a giant toy that takes up space and attracts dust. Small soft toys? Sure. I got a plush Cthulhu from friends for Christmas, and I adore it. For the couples with a good sense of humour, the mono virus plush is a delightful idea. A massive thing that is almost my height and cost $100? Less delightful.
I think I'd prefer $100 worth of flowers, if given the choice, and I'm sure most women (this is not something you buy for a man, and the ad pretty much makes that clear) would come up with similarly non-giant teddy bear choices.
Black diamonds have a slight allure, in that there are not very many black precious gems, but brown? Go with the topaz, and save yourself the fleecing from the jewelry industry.
The usual bunch of ads for chocolate, chocolate, chocolate-covered strawberries, chocolate, and flowers have been up - today, I'm seeing them every commercial break, in a last-ditch effort to vacuum money from guys (though, to be fair, the chocolate-covered strawberries ad had a man saying "yes, I'd love to receive these for Valentine's day", so at least someone is assuming that guys might be appreciative of some gift other than sex from their woman). The three standards - chocolate, jewelry, and flowers - are being pushed for all they're worth. If I see another ad for those hideous Pandora bracelets (I apologize if any of my readers have one, and love it - I think they're ugly and shamefully overpriced), Bob is going to take the remote away from me and banish me to the library so he doesn't have to hear me rant about them again.
My vote for the stupidest gift suggestion, though, goes to the giant 4.5' teddy bear from Vermont Teddy Bears. Because no-one really wants a giant toy that takes up space and attracts dust. Small soft toys? Sure. I got a plush Cthulhu from friends for Christmas, and I adore it. For the couples with a good sense of humour, the mono virus plush is a delightful idea. A massive thing that is almost my height and cost $100? Less delightful.
I think I'd prefer $100 worth of flowers, if given the choice, and I'm sure most women (this is not something you buy for a man, and the ad pretty much makes that clear) would come up with similarly non-giant teddy bear choices.