my rather non-existent shoe-collection seems to be doubling as i type. it's pretty humble, clearly nothing near close to the ginormous, much coveted one my adorbs friend
seems to have. hell, i would be lying to deny the fact that i would rather pamper myself with some of those drool-worthy gems. but i sort of feel miffed (and a bit cheated, to say the least) at the thoughts of having to pay almost a grand or so for a pair of shoes when i only need to spend a couple hundreds more to get a bag. with that mindset implanted in place, it's a no brainer that every time a new target emerged, i'd painstakingly save up and refrain myself from gorging on any more lavish food for weeks, only to deliberately decide to opt for a balenciaga in the end, which, by the way, only
costs around $1000+ more (side-eyeing my logical self right now) and be haunted by a pinch of remorse that never fails to surge afterward.
but all factors (money, guilt, and money, that is) have been forcing me to hold back on purchasing any more stuff at the moment, considering my latest haul (sam edelman's falken) was done one mere week ago and the previous batch (jeffrey campbell's veronica - along with some clothes and whatnots) fell just a fortnight before. i generally try to steer away from shopping sites because i tend to get extremely lured into buying crap upon searching for some other things that might have been more necessary (and less enticing). however, truth be told, there are times when i can't resist the temptation to indulge myself in the luxury of online splurging. and today is just one of those days...
i'm torn between these two from topshop. they're just too good in their own right. conflicting minds, i hate you :-(