Talk:Perl necklace

References

A pearl necklace is also... you know what, nevermind. --JohnDoe244 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I added the reference and it was taken out. I think yatsufasa is wrong. in this case the cigar is exactly a penis, as it was in Freud's case. self-awareness not his strong point and all. "pearl necklace" absolutely always means what it means. ask Glen Miller. --Evilkolbot (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You do know that pearls harvested from oysters and made into necklaces are an actual thing, right? Rich ladies wear them. They're considered fancy necklaces, just like the effect description (eventually) says.
    The descriptions make no winking references, and the effect doesn't do sleaze damage or anything. This is a very simple pun that you're reading way, way too much into. --Vorzer (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • i didn't put the reference back because i accept that other people will think i am wrong. i still think i'm right. i know that when jick types "pearl necklace" that that's exactly what he thinks about. every. single. time. just because. --Evilkolbot (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry I'm late for the party. Also: Thank you for the flowers. Nevertheless, I think that not every single time the term "pearl necklace" pops up in KoL it is that reference. I take great joy in KoL's lewd references, but I'm firmly convinced that this is not one of them. They wanted something remotely candy that could have the word "Perl" in it. If there really was something sexual going on, where's the nudge nudge to it in the description?
    More so, neither rainbow pearl necklace, vampire pearl necklace nor freshwater pearl necklace have that reference added, although I think the freshwater one should have it, but only because of the source.
    All that being said, we could both be right. I'll re-add your reference and send Jick a radio question to find out how sleazy he really is. This should be fun... :) --Yatsufusa (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm about as thoroughly shocked as I am wrong. Jick's answer is on the December 4, 2014 podcast, from 51:01-51:36: "Yeah, I don't think I can hear that phrase without thinking of the sex version of it. I don't think anybody who knows the sex version of it can. I think it's inescapable."
      I'm glad we talked about this. Usually I would go and add the reference to the other places now, but I'd like to leave the honor to Evilkolbot, because without her, we would have never known. --Yatsufusa (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say that confirms that they were intended as references to it, but it seems there's a 3 to 1 majority in favor of calling them references, so I won't oppose it. --Vorzer (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)