yeah... sorry about that not posting thing.
if you're looking for some good snark, check out fuggirls. they do it better and they've been doing it longer ;)
i'll still be complaining about bad grammar and ugly clothes over on twitter for a while, but i'm going to focus my blogging energies into a new project, Wicked Slimming.
if you struggle with eating well or keeping extra pounds off, come on over!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Attack of the Nasty Shoes
thanks to huffington post for rounding up the most hideous of the footwear strutting down the runways at paris fashion week, because it's finally inspired me to snark a little. not that there hasn't been plenty of ugly out there, i just haven't really felt the impetus to bitch at length about it. twitter is far easier.
these, however-- these needed to be shared. i know fashion shows are generally more about shock value and 'art' than actual practicality or attractiveness, and i have recently come to (sort of) appreciate the out-there concepts in some designers' shows. that said, though, i don't think there's any excuse for doing ugly for ugly's sake.
first up, the jesus/white trash hybrid by chloe! good times. now you, too, can look like the son of god who has grown too old to be working at cheaters! even if it weren't for the transparent, foot-distorting nastiness of the last (that's the part that goes over the top of your foot, for those of you who haven't worked in footwear), check out that 90's-tastic block heel. oooh, gorgeous, honey, you'll look real stylin' in these. and in this economy, getting your friends drunk on just water is definitely a great party trick.
designer jean paul gaultier obviously thought to himself "how could i one-up that fucking hideous trend of lopping the toes off of boots from this past year? YES! let's lop off the HEEL! oh and can steal doc martens' style while we're at it plz? 'cuz you know, grunge is back, and stuff, and god knows doc martens isn't making shoes anymore."
what if you have a really important event for which the invitation reads "make sure to dress like a 1987 bride just threw up on you"? what's a girl to do? never fear, fashionistas-- viktor and rolf, whoever they are, have you covered:
...and just in case you've decided to change your name to chastity and get a tasmanian devil tattooed on your boob, lanvin offers another take on the stripper heel:
that's hot.
these, however-- these needed to be shared. i know fashion shows are generally more about shock value and 'art' than actual practicality or attractiveness, and i have recently come to (sort of) appreciate the out-there concepts in some designers' shows. that said, though, i don't think there's any excuse for doing ugly for ugly's sake.
first up, the jesus/white trash hybrid by chloe! good times. now you, too, can look like the son of god who has grown too old to be working at cheaters! even if it weren't for the transparent, foot-distorting nastiness of the last (that's the part that goes over the top of your foot, for those of you who haven't worked in footwear), check out that 90's-tastic block heel. oooh, gorgeous, honey, you'll look real stylin' in these. and in this economy, getting your friends drunk on just water is definitely a great party trick.
designer jean paul gaultier obviously thought to himself "how could i one-up that fucking hideous trend of lopping the toes off of boots from this past year? YES! let's lop off the HEEL! oh and can steal doc martens' style while we're at it plz? 'cuz you know, grunge is back, and stuff, and god knows doc martens isn't making shoes anymore."
what if you have a really important event for which the invitation reads "make sure to dress like a 1987 bride just threw up on you"? what's a girl to do? never fear, fashionistas-- viktor and rolf, whoever they are, have you covered:
...and just in case you've decided to change your name to chastity and get a tasmanian devil tattooed on your boob, lanvin offers another take on the stripper heel:
that's hot.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
close your legs, woman!
today's rant (well, #1- it's early yet) is about people who have too many goddamn babies.
a guy shot up the discovery channel offices a couple of weeks back. what pissed him off so much he had to go on a rampage? their glorifying-disgusting-reproduction-habits programming like 'kate plus 8' and 'the duggar family.'
this is an oldie but goodie (although outdated, as this psychotic 'quiverfull' family has since expanded even farther)
i'm sick and tired of seeing families with BROODS or CULTS of children. as a bleeding heart liberal i can't possibly genuinely support the idea of forced sterilization because it infringes on peoples' rights, but honestly i do feel that there should be a test you have to pass before you're allowed to bring a human into this world. kind of like the intake at an animal adoption shelter, but more stringent. do you have the means and the inclination to provide well? do you have a history of neglect or abuse? ...complete with home inspection, background check and a basic intelligence test (true or false: it is OK to duct tape your baby to the wall when you want it to sit still. check one: appropriate snacks are a) fruit b) cereal c) crack rocks.
etc.
the list of people who should go away (maybe being shot is too extreme, but they should disappear into an underground bunker, never to be heard from again) includes 'octo-mom', barbie i mean 'kate', and certainly the above-mentioned quiverfull cultists themselves.
here's a nice little graph someone put together including the skyrocketing population in real time:
too many goddamn people already; put a raincoat on that shit!
(click on population)
will people ever learn? probably not as long as they still think 'every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. if a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate.'
if i believed in their god, i'd be hard-pressed to tell myself he wasn't fucking PISSED about us destroying his paradise by fucking and fucking and popping out a dozen or more little brats without compunction.
snip it, excise it, cover it, don't fuck; i don't care. just stop having so many goddamned babies.
a guy shot up the discovery channel offices a couple of weeks back. what pissed him off so much he had to go on a rampage? their glorifying-disgusting-reproduction-habits programming like 'kate plus 8' and 'the duggar family.'
this is an oldie but goodie (although outdated, as this psychotic 'quiverfull' family has since expanded even farther)
i'm sick and tired of seeing families with BROODS or CULTS of children. as a bleeding heart liberal i can't possibly genuinely support the idea of forced sterilization because it infringes on peoples' rights, but honestly i do feel that there should be a test you have to pass before you're allowed to bring a human into this world. kind of like the intake at an animal adoption shelter, but more stringent. do you have the means and the inclination to provide well? do you have a history of neglect or abuse? ...complete with home inspection, background check and a basic intelligence test (true or false: it is OK to duct tape your baby to the wall when you want it to sit still. check one: appropriate snacks are a) fruit b) cereal c) crack rocks.
etc.
the list of people who should go away (maybe being shot is too extreme, but they should disappear into an underground bunker, never to be heard from again) includes 'octo-mom', barbie i mean 'kate', and certainly the above-mentioned quiverfull cultists themselves.
here's a nice little graph someone put together including the skyrocketing population in real time:
too many goddamn people already; put a raincoat on that shit!
(click on population)
will people ever learn? probably not as long as they still think 'every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. if a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate.'
if i believed in their god, i'd be hard-pressed to tell myself he wasn't fucking PISSED about us destroying his paradise by fucking and fucking and popping out a dozen or more little brats without compunction.
snip it, excise it, cover it, don't fuck; i don't care. just stop having so many goddamned babies.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
what the fuck happened to courtney love
i just got a twitter feed from eonline talking about how courtney love 'cleans up nice and with lots of cleavage, too.' i like cleavage. so i clicked. OH, GOD, MY EYES!!!
let's discuss the things wrong with this picture
-madonna arms (sorry, but women should not have this much sinew)
-botox face = blank and expressionless; doesn't even look like herself. are we sure this isn't kim catrall?
-shoulders wider than hipbones (what the hell? did she have a hipbone reduction?), not to mention bones sticking out all over the place where they oughtn't...
-weird blousy waistline
-blue eyeshadow with a red dress? meh
-decollete monster trying to engulf collarbone and swallow necklace
it could just be a weird angle, but it looks to me like she's back on the smack or has eschewed all nourishment lately (which is an excellent model for her teen daughter, clearly). terrifying bikini pics from a couple of years ago suggest she's had a problem for a while now:
(at the very least it appears that the boobs in the red carpet photo may be due to a miracle bra and not implants, but geez, court, eat a sammich.)
granted, she's not a total mess facially like she has been in the past, but i disagree with eonline. i think she looks terrible. i prefer my glam courtney a little bit more filled out, thank you, like so:
*sigh*
let's discuss the things wrong with this picture
-madonna arms (sorry, but women should not have this much sinew)
-botox face = blank and expressionless; doesn't even look like herself. are we sure this isn't kim catrall?
-shoulders wider than hipbones (what the hell? did she have a hipbone reduction?), not to mention bones sticking out all over the place where they oughtn't...
-weird blousy waistline
-blue eyeshadow with a red dress? meh
-decollete monster trying to engulf collarbone and swallow necklace
it could just be a weird angle, but it looks to me like she's back on the smack or has eschewed all nourishment lately (which is an excellent model for her teen daughter, clearly). terrifying bikini pics from a couple of years ago suggest she's had a problem for a while now:
(at the very least it appears that the boobs in the red carpet photo may be due to a miracle bra and not implants, but geez, court, eat a sammich.)
granted, she's not a total mess facially like she has been in the past, but i disagree with eonline. i think she looks terrible. i prefer my glam courtney a little bit more filled out, thank you, like so:
*sigh*
scrawny-ass chicks
i'm playing around with looklet right now, where you can style models with different clothes... like polyvore only they go on a CGI chick. my problem is that they only allow you to choose a scrawny-ass model. i don't want chicken legs sticking out the bottom of a cute skirt in my picture-- why can't i choose a REAL woman?
love the hair, and she's gorgeous, but what is up with those skinny-ass calves? i don't think she could support herself with those sticks, never mind walk the runway (i can hear her tibia snap clean in two- BAM!).
there's long been talk of the 'changing standard of beauty' supposedly brought on by curvy girls like j-lo and beyonce (and now the ever-irritating but undoubtedly genetically blessed kim kardashian), and it's lovely that there is some concern over too-thin models as well as a movement to embrace the majority of the U.S. female population who are considered plus-size... but it's not enough. there are still girls like this being glorified on the runway:
you see how her shoulder joints are bigger than her actual biceps? that's one of the classic symptoms of anorexia. no doubt she has to wax her face because of her lanugo, too.
it's a shame, a shame. pathetic, actually, that fashion continues to perpetuate this unhealthy example of beauty, largely because it's less expensive to make tiny clothes and real women fill out the designs with (gasp!) unsightly bumps and bulges. also, "they" can't sell you what you already have, so while the average size has gone up, the models have gotten taller, lighter and less healthy (see this article on idealized body shape over the past century).
they say christina hendricks can't even get the major designers to give her a dress. she's a size 12 or 14, with DDD bazongas, and she looks INCREDIBLE, yet she's being shunned because she refuses to try to diet down to a fucking little boy body.
more of this.
...and less fucking ignorance. get on it, fashion world.
love the hair, and she's gorgeous, but what is up with those skinny-ass calves? i don't think she could support herself with those sticks, never mind walk the runway (i can hear her tibia snap clean in two- BAM!).
there's long been talk of the 'changing standard of beauty' supposedly brought on by curvy girls like j-lo and beyonce (and now the ever-irritating but undoubtedly genetically blessed kim kardashian), and it's lovely that there is some concern over too-thin models as well as a movement to embrace the majority of the U.S. female population who are considered plus-size... but it's not enough. there are still girls like this being glorified on the runway:
you see how her shoulder joints are bigger than her actual biceps? that's one of the classic symptoms of anorexia. no doubt she has to wax her face because of her lanugo, too.
it's a shame, a shame. pathetic, actually, that fashion continues to perpetuate this unhealthy example of beauty, largely because it's less expensive to make tiny clothes and real women fill out the designs with (gasp!) unsightly bumps and bulges. also, "they" can't sell you what you already have, so while the average size has gone up, the models have gotten taller, lighter and less healthy (see this article on idealized body shape over the past century).
they say christina hendricks can't even get the major designers to give her a dress. she's a size 12 or 14, with DDD bazongas, and she looks INCREDIBLE, yet she's being shunned because she refuses to try to diet down to a fucking little boy body.
more of this.
...and less fucking ignorance. get on it, fashion world.
Monday, September 20, 2010
harem sweats: the ugliness knows no bounds
look, when m.c. hammer and freaky electric-violin-playing punks (like my camp counselor Matt, circa 1987) started wearing drop-crotch pants, it was awful but maybe tolerable given their eccentricities as artists. there is absolutely no need to bring that shit back to the mainstream.
a relative of mine was recently voted one of the 100 most fashionable people in boston. last i saw her, over the summer, she was in a black saggy-crotch sleeveless jumpsuit and silver gladiator sandals. if that's what's fashionable, i'm all set with outre, thanks.
forgive me for saying this as it is horrifically over-used, but...
...i just threw up in my mouth a little.
fucking NASTY, dude.
if i see people wearing these i'm going to laugh, and laugh, and then mock them profusely to their faces.
a relative of mine was recently voted one of the 100 most fashionable people in boston. last i saw her, over the summer, she was in a black saggy-crotch sleeveless jumpsuit and silver gladiator sandals. if that's what's fashionable, i'm all set with outre, thanks.
forgive me for saying this as it is horrifically over-used, but...
...i just threw up in my mouth a little.fucking NASTY, dude.
if i see people wearing these i'm going to laugh, and laugh, and then mock them profusely to their faces.
lies, lies and more lies about our food safety
i'm one of those tree-hugging, organic-buying, troop-hating commie liberals who actually gives a shit about the state of food in the U.S.-- more than caring how much i have to shell out for it, i mean. what i resent most is being lied to about what i'm eating or not being given enough information to make an informed decision.
i'm pretty pissed off this morning that huffington post and eating well have teamed up (perhaps due to a bribe or threat from the corn refiners' association?) to claim that high-fructose corn syrup is 'just like' other sugars. this comes hot on the heels of the controversial announcement that the corn lobby is changing HFCS's name to corn sugar, and (coincidentally?) not long after two separate studies demonstrated that, in fact, corn syrup is not just like real sugar, because it makes us fat and feeds cancers. wheee!
since corn syrup started replacing regular cane sugar in baked goods, sodas, ketchup, and everywhere else it sneakily turns up (like in bread? ew), americans have gotten fatter and fatter. corn is overgrown and HIGHLY subsidized by the U.S. government, which is why it's so cheap for manufacturers to use it and why they push it so hard.
don't fall for the bullshit. read labels. eat whole foods-- those which are minimally processed are best. no, cane sugar certainly isn't perfect, and much of it is highly processed (often with bone meal as a bleaching agent, so if you're vegetarian or vegan, avoid anything heavily refined), but it's still closer to its original state than any sweetener made from corn (or other little-known corn-based chemicals , thickeners and preservatives like dextrose, etc.-- Michael Pollan says if we are what we eat, we're made of corn at this point). don't try to tell me corn is healthy because it's a vegetable, either. it's not.
i'm pretty pissed off this morning that huffington post and eating well have teamed up (perhaps due to a bribe or threat from the corn refiners' association?) to claim that high-fructose corn syrup is 'just like' other sugars. this comes hot on the heels of the controversial announcement that the corn lobby is changing HFCS's name to corn sugar, and (coincidentally?) not long after two separate studies demonstrated that, in fact, corn syrup is not just like real sugar, because it makes us fat and feeds cancers. wheee!
since corn syrup started replacing regular cane sugar in baked goods, sodas, ketchup, and everywhere else it sneakily turns up (like in bread? ew), americans have gotten fatter and fatter. corn is overgrown and HIGHLY subsidized by the U.S. government, which is why it's so cheap for manufacturers to use it and why they push it so hard.
don't fall for the bullshit. read labels. eat whole foods-- those which are minimally processed are best. no, cane sugar certainly isn't perfect, and much of it is highly processed (often with bone meal as a bleaching agent, so if you're vegetarian or vegan, avoid anything heavily refined), but it's still closer to its original state than any sweetener made from corn (or other little-known corn-based chemicals , thickeners and preservatives like dextrose, etc.-- Michael Pollan says if we are what we eat, we're made of corn at this point). don't try to tell me corn is healthy because it's a vegetable, either. it's not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)