Gautam Malkani’s debut novel, Londonstani, revolves around a group of 19-year-old South Asian rudeboys based in Hounslow: Hardjit, Ravi, and Amit, along with Jas, who joins the group to become a “ hard m an” and who narrate s the novel. While Malkani’s entertaining novel is successful in portraying the “bling bling” urban youth culture, the masculinist and fashion-forward lifestyle of the rudeboys, maintained by misogyny and homophobia and enhanced by their hiphop ethnic identities, remains highly problematic. This essay has two goals. First, it investigates the relationship between the “bling bling economics,” a term for luxury consumption, and the “cool” creative masculinities invented and performed by Hardjit’s lot. Despite Malkani’s liberatory notion that identities and masculinities are a “cut-and-paste” invention, the masculine bravado embodied in Hardjit’s rudeboy group, made up of violence, abusive slang, and designer brands, has little to do with a thoughtful critique of gender division. Rather, what Londonstani reveals vividly is the extent to which gender identity ― becoming masculine -is now defined by the consumption of “masculine” commodities, such as a Porsche 911 GT3, Gillette Mach 3 blades, and a Dolce & Gabana suit. The latter part of the essay hones in on Jas’s “choice,” which leads the white Jason to live a life of an Indian rudeboy, speaking Hinglish and mimicking Hardjit’s machismo behaviors. Borrowing from Irvine Welsh and Philip Goodchild, I argue that Jas’s “choice,” albeit seemingly voluntary and independent, is an illusion fabricated by consumerist society. This is because in a late-capitalist society where real political oppositions are no longer possible, an endless catalogue of commodities with seemingly diverse yet highly limited options (size, color, and so on) concocts an illusion of “freedom of choice.” This freedom of choice, however, assumes an oppressive perimeter of choices given by global corporations and does not allow for real creative choices outside that perimeter.