Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I'll go with the industrial accident. This looks like something you'd pick up at one of those seasonal Halloween stores that pops up in September in an empty storefront. Was there no mirror in her hotel room? Cate. Honey. Just no.
It's horrid, and it doesn't even "work" on Cate Blanchette. There's a freaky face on her left side too.
Kate's outfit is reminisce of "The Vamps" from the "silent era" of cinema. Theda Bara comes to mind. So, what's new under the kliegs in Hollywood land?
Proverbs 30:28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
The last lines of the post made my morning:They should do a remake of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? just to make gay men erupt into sparkles from sea to shining sea.Someone Kickstart this.
I thought it looked good. If you notice, Cate Blanchett is wearing a long, taupe skirt that the other model is not. I think it's that skirt that pulls it together.
I like the model's version better. The way the black emerges at the crotch is sexy.
One would think that a good looking woman with money would have better fashion sense.
Spiders on acid.
Too Addams Family-ish.Would be enhanced by eliminating the mid-section and taking the neck and shoulder design down to the skirt. I like Cate Blanchette actress, but I don't get why it would look better/worst on any other tall, lithe well-poised body.
Ugh. Juuust short of being a trypophobia trigger.
A crazy woman is so sexy to the risk taker man. That dress says I am crazy, give me a try out.
I'm seeing massive fail. For the costume, and its designer. And Cate.
I love it and love Tom and Lorenzo-their writing is hilarious.
"A crazy woman is so sexy to the risk taker man. That dress says I am crazy, give me a try out."She's attending a premiere for a movie in which she plays someone who goes crazy.
It's a great movie and she wears some beautiful clothes in it. I think she's in a beige sheath in about every scene.
I am seeing the movie tonight. The reviews of both the movie and Blanchett have been excellent.Oscars nominations natch.
Obviously not designed by a heterosexual man. It looks damaged and hideously asymmetrical.
Why, why, why would anyone ever wear that in public? Or in private, come to that?I am imagining amiable Asian seamstresses looking at the design and saying to themselves, "well, OOOOkay. If that's what you want."
"Obviously not designed by a heterosexual man. It looks damaged and hideously asymmetrical."Heteros are bugs for symmetry and on guard for hideousness and damage? What evidence is there of that?I see hetero men around all the time who don't seem to mind hideousness and damage.
"I am seeing the movie tonight. The reviews of both the movie and Blanchett have been excellent."I've seen it twice. Obviously, I recommend it. Great, crisp narrative. The story advances very quickly. And the acting is as great as it gets.Clue: Watch the handbags and luggage!
Sorry. Even Kate Blanchette (my favorite actress by far) can't pull this off. looks idiotic.
Ann, while standards of beauty vary from culture to culture, one thing that is a constant is facial symmetry. Asymmetrical features are often subconsciously viewed as evidence of bad genes. While we are talking about clothing, most of it is very symmetrical as well. I can't think of any men's clothing that isn't. The exceptions are in high-fashion women's clothing, and it's usually something like a strap on one shoulder, or a curved or diagonal cut on a dress or skirt, done to highlight one part or another of the wearer's body. In the case of Kate's dress, it didn't highlight anything; rather than accentuating her beauty, it drew attention away from it. You might as well have called it the Harrison Bergeron collection. It was the sartorial equivalent of Miley Cyrus's VMA performance. It got everyone talking, but not in a good way.As for the "not designed by a heterosexual man" bit, a female friend and I have discussed some of the more outrageous fashion runway pictures we've seen in online galleries, and we generally agreed that anyone who would create some of the outfits that not only looked ugly but uncomfortable as well could not like women, at all. A straight man would create something to try to make a woman look good, something that would make a man say, "That dress looks great! She's hot! I want her!" A gay man might try to sabotage her so that the man would say, "That dress looks hideous! She's a hot mess! I pity her! Maybe I should try guys instead."
"While we are talking about clothing, most of it is very symmetrical as well. I can't think of any men's clothing that isn't." So what's the tailor talking about when he asks if you "dress right or dress left"?
Aside from the testicles issue...The handkerchief pocket is on one side.You wear a watch on one side.Most sports are one-sided -- tennis, bowling, golf, baseball...Masturbation... do you balance which hand you use?You guys are very asymmetrical. The whole idea of orientation only to one of the 2 sexes is asymmetrical.
Ann said- "So what's the tailor talking about when he asks if you "dress right or dress left? ... You guys are very asymmetrical."But "dressing" to one side or the other is a hidden asymmetry, which tends to prove Clyde's point (about symmetry at least, I'm agnostic as to what lack of symmetry in a dress says about a designer's sexual orientation. I haven't seen any Quasimodo types on my visits to Provincetown, so I think gays prize symmetry too). If human asymmetry was thought beautiful, a woman's bras & dresses would highlight which of her breasts was naturally bigger (as most are), kind of like a male fiddler crab's display, but with nipples.Read Steve Martin's "Cruel Shoes" & ask yourself who designed those things- a person who likes women? The punchline is that the woman in the story (like Kate with the hideous dress) actually likes the cruel shoes!
Post a Comment