Anchorwomen Badly Clad

An ABC Talking Head Wearing Too Much Jewellery and a Low-Cut, Sleeveless Evening Dress in the Morning–in Mid-October

This is the same woman who wore a white, sleeveless dress on Good Morning, America after Labor Day. (So did Elizabeth Vargas, who bobbed-up for a special report on the Amanda Knox release in late September.) The GMA anchorwoman, who appears five days a week with George Stephanopoulos (his sartorial style is as good as can be expected, incidentally), has no regard for the seasons, and is stuck like glue to arm-fattening cap-sleeves and hopelessly devoted to sleeveless dresses. It's as though she is constantly trying to show off how "toned" her arms are. Why not just wear a muscle-shirt? And dangling earrings in the morning just don't fly. Some men and women seem to be exempt from receiving style advice on the television production set. Perhaps broadcast standards have just disappeared, which occurs to me when I hear these talking heads mispronouncing simple English words on a regular basis.

And now, from the great American South-West:

It Is Not Advisable to Wear Arm-Fattening Cap-Sleeves, Clunky Necklaces and Too Much Lip-Gloss on Television
Advertisements

Irresponsible Parents Spawn Flu Outbreak; Protect Yourself from Disease

Health and Happiness
Health and Happiness

There they go again: sending high-school teens to foreign resorts for “spring break”, where kids can indulge in barbaric activities, while risking kidnapping, disease and even death. Like the parents of the teenage girl who disappeared in Aruba, these New Yorkers thought it was chic to allow under-age kids to go gallivanting about in tropical climes. For all their purported sophistication, none among these geniuses received the memos about kidnapping, the white slave-trade, and rampant murder in Mexico. And now, because of their mindless allegiance to convention,  which dictates that even the quite young should be allowed to participate in this increasingly toxic “spring break” tradition, these ridiculous parents have imported a deadly flu. We all remember the imbecilic attitude of the Columbine murderers’ parents, and what that  lax bunch spawned….

The authorities tell you to use hand-sanitizer. That’s a good idea. Maybe that little precaution taught to President Obama by President Bush when they shook hands, and which was castigated as “racist” by vicious left-wingers, has possibly saved the president’s life. After all, Mr. Obama shook hands on April 16th with a Mexican official who died from the new influenza just a few days later.

My husband and I have always gone out in gloves. We hate germs of all stripes. I’ve never gone grocery shopping without gloves. For one thing, the carts are filthy, and carry spittle from little kids, a population that seems to often be sick. Once we are home, I wash every item to the best of my ability to kill whatever exterior bacteria they carry; the possibility of surface germ-transference is something I never ignore.

Don’t be afraid to wear gloves. People wore them all the time forty or fifty years ago, and had done so for centuries. Would you rather get a look that could kill or acquire a disease that may kill you from some boorish cad who goes out into the public to spread virulence for sport? And while you’re at it, you may consider following the new fashion embraced by our Mexican neighbors and wear a matching mask; this thing is airborne, as well as communicable through surfaces.

Of course, wearing stylish gloves with today’s inelegant hip-hugging pants and skirts will look silly. I recommend dumping these muffin-top-inducing clothes, as well, and covering up your skin to the waist (unless , of course,  you are planning a belly dancing career and wish to serve as your own best advertising gimmick).

Well, I always look for a silver lining: maybe this outbreak of worrying disease will cause people to wear actual clothing, shoes, gloves and hats…. No, I’m just dreaming–even the threats of economic ruin and dread disease haven’t mitigated the self-destructive behaviour of Americans.

~~Copyright M-J de Mesterton 2009

MSN’s Faulty Fashion Advice

From their page, Swimsuits You’ll Want to Be Seen In
see this. Why couldn’t they put a model in this one? Because no one wants to be seen in it!

And, from their page lauding jeans as a classic: they finally mention something I have been writing about for three years, the muffin-top look, but get it wrong. Just because women have been willing fashion-victims for the past ten years and worn slacks, jeans, pants, trousers and skirts that are hip-huggers without actual waists, it doesn’t mean that the reappearance of an actual waist constitutes “high waisted” items. I wish these brainwashed fashion reporters would use the correct nomenclature. Clothing that is suppressed at the natural waist is NOT “high-waisted”. This idiocy has been reported here on Elegant Survival more than once in the past few months.

High waists are Empire-style, just below the breast, and do just as much to create a big-bellied look as the hip-hugging biker-jeans and “drop-waists” have been doing throughout recent memory. Empire waists create a bulge underneath them, as hip-belted clothing creates a huge belly above it. Want a false pregnancy? Get an Empire-waisted dress or blouse. Then you can pretend that you have an illicit bun-in-the-oven, and are awaiting a Victorian-style punishment. Fashion-victims are masochists, are they not?

~~Copyright M-J de Mesterton, 2008

MSN’s Faulty Fashion Advice

From their page, Swimsuits You’ll Want to Be Seen In
see this. Why couldn’t they put a model in this one? Because no one wants to be seen in it!

And, from their page lauding jeans as a classic: they finally mention something I have been writing about for three years, the muffin-top look, but get it wrong. Just because women have been willing fashion-victims for the past ten years and worn slacks, jeans, pants, trousers and skirts that are hip-huggers without actual waists, it doesn’t mean that the reappearance of an actual waist constitutes “high waisted” items. I wish these brainwashed fashion reporters would use the correct nomenclature. Clothing that is suppressed at the natural waist is NOT “high-waisted”. This idiocy has been reported here on Elegant Survival more than once in the past few months.

High waists are Empire-style, just below the breast, and do just as much to create a big-bellied look as the hip-hugging biker-jeans and “drop-waists” have been doing throughout recent memory. Empire waists create a bulge underneath them, as hip-belted clothing creates a huge belly above it. Want a false pregnancy? Get an Empire-waisted dress or blouse. Then you can pretend that you have an illicit bun-in-the-oven, and are awaiting a Victorian-style punishment. Fashion-victims are masochists, are they not?

~~Copyright M-J de Mesterton, 2008

MSN’s Faulty Fashion Advice

From their page, Swimsuits You’ll Want to Be Seen In
see this. Why couldn’t they put a model in this one? Because no one wants to be seen in it!

And, from their page lauding jeans as a classic: they finally mention something I have been writing about for three years, the muffin-top look, but get it wrong. Just because women have been willing fashion-victims for the past ten years and worn slacks, jeans, pants, trousers and skirts that are hip-huggers without actual waists, it doesn’t mean that the reappearance of an actual waist constitutes “high waisted” items. I wish these brainwashed fashion reporters would use the correct nomenclature. Clothing that is suppressed at the natural waist is NOT “high-waisted”. This idiocy has been reported here on Elegant Survival more than once in the past few months.

High waists are Empire-style, just below the breast, and do just as much to create a big-bellied look as the hip-hugging biker-jeans and “drop-waists” have been doing throughout recent memory. Empire waists create a bulge underneath them, as hip-belted clothing creates a huge belly above it. Want a false pregnancy? Get an Empire-waisted dress or blouse. Then you can pretend that you have an illicit bun-in-the-oven, and are awaiting a Victorian-style punishment. Fashion-victims are masochists, are they not?

~~Copyright M-J de Mesterton, 2008