That;s what I first thought when I saw this in the Sunday magazine this morning:
https://www.nahoku.com/celestial-collection/celestial-pendant-43680?returnurl=%2Fcelestial-collection%2F
It’s the Na Hoku Celestial Pendant, item #43680.
It retails for a mere $1,699.
Let them know you are thinking about them.
They also come in silver, and as earrings.
Oh, grow up! It’s just a frigging oval.
No…I’m going to go with Cal’s take on this one. Looks like I imagine Andorian vajayjay might looks like. Right down to the stars.
I’m wondering what the O.P. would make of this.
“Click to Enlarge”?
Dramatic, but it’s no Megumi Igarashi kayak.
Your definition of an oval doesn’t agree with mine. Ovals ought not to come to two points.
That jewelry should have gotten the HPV vaccine. Now it’ll take imiquimod therapy, or some liquid nitrogen to remove the lesions.
Dear Santa-
I’ve been a good girl this year (well except that one thing)
I don’t, DO NOT, want a pointy, ovoid sparkly VaJayJay necklace for Christmas.
In general I like things of the sparkly variety. But not THAT!
Your obedient gift recipient:
beck.
Nothing wrong with celebrating some yoni love, it is celestial, an opening to the divine so fear not the vagina.
I think it’s pretty and I would wear it. But I’m not shelling out $1600++ for a piece of jewelry.
The pointed oval or marquise shape is very common in gemstones and other jewelry. Not every pointed oval represents a vulva, just as not every cylinder represents a penis.
Yeah, but this one sure looks like a vagina, even if it is blue.
Certainly wouldn’t wear it in public in general, no more than I would wear that necklace around here somewhere with the man in the moon giving cunnilingus to young woman. I’d link to a picture but that would probably violate the rules (although the young woman in question looks like she’s enjoying the violation…)
Neither do vaginas.
Well, in the sense that every pointed oval sort of looks like a vagina and every cylinder sort of looks like a penis, I guess.
:dubious: That seems to me to be taking sartorial prudery to a positively Victorian level. The pendant isn’t actually showing anything anatomical or sexual at all. It’s just a generic pointed oval with some lapis lazuli and diamonds stuck on it.
You could also get the version without lapis inlay if that seemed less frantically suggestive to you. For a mere $1200, natch.
Isn’t this exactly what spoiler tags are made for???
Karen?
It’s not just the shape – that jewelry has solid gold labia majora. And it’s not obvious from the small pic I linked to (unless you enlarge it), but in the full-page ad in the Sunday magazine you can clearly see that the purple interior is textured in a way that suggests the lania minora as well.
If they’d placed one of the diamonds at the very top to suggest a clitoris, it’d have been perfect.
This would be a great present to pair with a Georgia O’Keeffe painting.
If you’re talking about the pendant at the OP’s link…that’s exactly what they did.