A Leg Up

Yesterday we discussed whether or not JLo showed her nipple at the Oscars. (We did not discuss whether or not any sort of freak out over the alleged aforementioned areola would be warranted. That's because it wouldn't.) Today, I'd like to go over what in the hell was up with Angelina Jolie and her right leg. Behold!

And if that wasn't weird enough for you, it was like that all night. I couldn't quite figure it out. Is it some sort of prosthetic that she's really proud of? Or is it some sort of prosthetic that they put on crooked? Why's it sticking out like that? Are we supposed to be sucked in by the magic of television and just not notice that there isn't an able bodied human being on the planet that would ever naturally stand like that? Because I can't do that. And it's not like I'm the only one who noticed the leg. The leg now has it's own Twitter account, for crying out loud!

That Twitter account has over 25,000 followers. Those people know that it isn't really her leg that's doing the tweeting...right? What cracked me up the most about all of this was how out of her way Angelina Jolie went to make sure that her leg got a little airtime. She's in all of these ridiculous positions which I find simply hilarious.

I can't tell if her heel is all of the way off of the ground or if that is solely the work of a contortionist. Regardless, what is she trying to accomplish? Here's her leg! Is that her best leg? Is it a special leg? Is the leg some sort of a hero? Or is the leg just trying to escape? Look at this one:

Is she peeing? That kind of looks like the stance a female might take in the wild when needing to empty her bladder. It's a look rarely seen at red carpet events, though. Speaking of looks, can we talk about Angelina's? If the camera adds ten pounds, then she must weigh all of 60 pounds. She's damn near gaunt. Angie, sweetheart, have a sandwich. It's on me!
No, really. Did she run out of time and could only manage to shave one leg? So she's keeping that one hidden and trying to detract from its existence by constantly displaying the shaven one? I don't get it. It looks so unnatural and so uncomfortable. And there doesn't seem to be any reason for it! Doesn't she know that it looks weird? (Not that it would matter. This is the chick that used to wear a vile of her husband's blood around her neck. I'm not so certain that she gives a fat rat's ass about what's weird and what isn't.) I mean really weird. Not as weird as this, but still pretty weird.

Maybe that's really what was going on under there. It certainly looks problematic. I can certainly see why she'd want to cover up at least half of that!

Sphere: Related Content

Meat Lady Gaga

Usually after some awards show, I spend an entire blog post going through what various celebritards wore on the barely eventful evening. And especially after an awards show like MTV's Video Music Awards, I usually have plenty of material. But this time, strangely, and sadly, not so much. People were actually dressed fairly nicely and fairly normally. What's up with that?! Fortunately, however, there was one outfit that gives me plenty of material to cover the entire post in and of it's entirety. I present to you Lady Gaga and her meat dress. Behold!

Oh, what the hell is that? That, as I implied so cleverly above, is a meat dress. It's a dress. And it is made out of meat. Need I say more? I think I do need to say more. But before I do, let's try and get to the bottom of this, shall we? Why would anyone, even someone as eclectic as Lady Gaga, wear a dress made out of meat? Even after she has answered this question, it's still a bit unclear.

According to the fine folks over there at the NY Daily News, Lady Gaga said "...she wasn't making a statement about vegetarians with her slaughterhouse chic. Instead, she explained it was about gay rights in the military...". Wait. What now? Gay rights? In the military? That has to do with wearing a meat suit? How...how is that?

She didn't go on to make it much more clear, adding, "If we don't stand up for what we believe in and if we don't fight for our rights, pretty soon we're going to have as much rights as the meat on our own bones...And I am not a piece of meat." Wow. I'm going to have to take that apart one crazy item at a time. I'd like to think that the meat on my bones does have rights. After all, I have rights. So, therefore, doesn't that mean that my meat, which comprises me, has the same rights? Even if it doesn't mean that, I don't see how wearing the flesh of a dead cow is going to help that. I might help get me a prescription for some Xanax, but I'm not so sure about more rights.

As for her not being a piece of meat, I don't ever like to think of people as "pieces of meat". But does she really expect people to not think of her in that manner when she tends to perform dressed like this:

And this:

Or even like this:

All of those outfits are kind of pieces of meat-ish. Is that how it should be? I don't know if it can be any different if you're looking like that. I'm not saying that it's good or bad (I am saying that it's a little freaking weird, though), I'm just saying what does she expect?


The NY Daily News asked a butcher for his opinion on this freak show and he made the assessment that, all in all, she probably had about a hundred dollars of meat there in which to make her dress, her purse and her hat. (Yes, there was a purse and a hat. No word on what was in the purse. A friend of mine guessed that there were bacon bits and an egg timer, for whatever that is worth.) The butcher said, "There are no expensive cuts here, no real steaks...The best you've got is the flank steak on top of her head." There's a sentence I never thought I'd type. On top of her head? Yes. On top of her head. Behold!

Good Lord...OK, look, this is what she does. She's sooooo outrageous. Or something like that. And I don't care what she does. It is entertaining and at least she has the musical pipes to back up stuff like this. But I wills say that I'm a little disappointed at her lack of creativity with the meat get-up. Come on...only one kind of meat? What sort of meat outfit is that?! Jazz it up a little bit! Have a necklace made out of sausage links! Make shoes out of pigs feet! Wear a bra made out of chicken breasts! What about a hot dog belt? She's really limiting herself to only the cow. I expect more out of my freakish pop-stars these days. I really do.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not The Dress That's The Problem

This is one of those posts that started out as one thing, but quickly became about something else for me. Let's head on over to Oxford High School in Oxford, Alabama to check in on some hubbub that's been going on. While we're there, let's create a little hubbub of our own, shall we? Because from what I can tell, we're going to have to, as the part of this story that made me yell, "What?!" was just completely brushed over in the article that I read.

The article to which I'm referring comes to us courtesy of AOL News. It is there that we learn the tale of a one Erica DeRamus, whose choice of a prom dress ended up getting her not only kicked out of the prom, but suspended for three days on top of that. Really? Really. Apparently, the school has a dress code "...which stipulates that necklines must not plunge below students' breastbones and skirt hems must not be higher than six inches above the knee." Huh. Wait. What?

See, now I thought that this was going to either be some sort of ambiguous dress code requirement or it was going to be something that would have required kids to dress in a way that made members of the FLDS church seem like bimbos. Neither one of those was the case! Serious, does that really say that "skirt hems must not be higher than six inches above the knee"?? I believe it does! Look at your knee! Look at where six inches above it is! Holy crap! Six inches?! That's short! I don't care who you are, you're getting into dangerous territory with a skirt that's six inches above your knee. I'm not sure if I think that it's a perfectly reasonable (not to mention easily attainable) limit to set or if I think that they might want to consider making it three or four inches instead. Holy crap, six inches. That doesn't leave much to the imagination. God forbid if they bend over in something like that. That would render the imagination completely useless.

That requirement seems a little contradictory or counter-productive to the other requirement that the necklines not plunge below the breastbone. Look, you can do a lot with cleavage. It's very a very versatile anatomical part. As proud as all of you guys are about your penile units, y'all ain't got nothin' on our breasts. They're magical. We can do damn near anything with 'em. (And I realize that guys don't care what it is that we do with them, just as long as they can stare at them or, on a good day, grope them. But that's not my point and you know it.) But even if the lowest part of the neckline was below the breastbone, that doesn't necessarily mean that an undue amount of cleavage is going to be revealed. It's not like the neckline goes straight across or anything.

So, just to recap this part of the story, it's OK in Alabama to have your ass damn near coming out of the back of your dress, but keep your breasts under some sort of burlap sack, would you, please? Now, just to see where Ms. DeRamus went afoul of these guidelines, let's look at the dress in question, shall we? Behold!

Oh, good Lord, what the hell is that?! Wow. It's like Tinkerbell on crack. That is not an attractive dress, miss. I'm sorry, but it's hideous. I realize that you can't ban someone from the prom for poor fashion sense, but that's really bad. And she's a cute girl, too. That dress really doesn't do her justice at all. But judging solely on the screen shots from the video (thanks for the crappy reporting WBRC-TV and not including a head-on full length shot of her wearing the dress in question), I'm not sure where you would begin measuring that thing. It's awfully poofy.

According to the principal, a one Trey Holloday, the students and their parents were notified three times in advance of the prom as to what the dress code standards were. That seems reasonable. He also said that "Of the 352 Oxford High students who attended the prom, officials said 18 violated the dress code." Hmm. Five percent. That seems about right. (After seeing Erica's dress, though, I'd really like to see what other folks who got booted from the prom were wearing! I think that would be highly entertaining, yet probably horrifying at the same time!) All of that being said, her dress, while hideous, didn't seem too out of line. It appears to fit within the 6 inches rule. And the cleavage thing seems within limits as well. But I wasn't there, so it's hard to say. Regardless, I think it's fair to say that the dress clearly could fall within a gray area and she probably should have checked with those who make the decision on these sorts of things beforehand and avoided all of this.

But here's the part that just blew me away. Ready? It doesn't have anything to do with the dress or the prom or the dress code. Of the 18 students, Erica is the only one who was suspended for three days. That's because there was a choice of punishments. Erica's choice was suspension. Do you want to guess what the other punishment was that the other 17 students opted for? You'll never guess, so I'm just going to tell you. The other 17 students opted for paddling. Um, wait. Paddl...what the what?

Correct. Apparently, paddling is a punishment option at schools in Alabama! Are you kidding me?! Since when?! Actually, I suppose that the "when" is easy to answer. It's more the "Why are they still doing this?" question that I'd like to have answered. Even Erica sees the archaic-ness of the practice, explaining her choice by saying, "I'm a little too old to get paddled...This is high school, we're seniors. If we're going to act up, give us another option besides being paddled because this isn't the 1940s. We don't take corporal punishment now." Good. For. Her.

And if you read this article over at AOL News or anywhere else, the whole paddling issue is not even addressed. It's just brushed over like it's perfectly normal (which it is not, by the way). You folks in Alabama really paddle 18-year old seniors (who fit the legal definition of an adult) who act up? Why? What is the rationale behind that? What in the world are you people thinking?!

Of course, now I'm totally curious. What does this paddling entail? How big is the paddle? Are we talking like fly-swatter size? Ping-pong paddle size? Tennis racket size? Oh! Wait! Is it like a spanking machine?? Do they make the wrong-doer crawl through the legs of a line of people and they all swat them on the butt as they make their way through? Or is it some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption that they're strapped to until an egg makes its way down a conveyor belt and lights a match which burns a string that unleashes a paddling device upon the hind quarters of the moral defy-er? That must be it. (I wonder where they keep it. Oh! There must be a dungeon! Schools in Alabama have paddling dungeons! Pass it on.)

And who actually does the paddling? I would quit my job (and seriously reconsider my career choice) if I were told that one of my duties was now going to be to physically beat students. Who is OK with performing that act? What kind of people are they? I guess they're the kind of people who work in schools in Alabama where they still paddle students. Un-freaking-believable. I have suddenly forgotten all about the chick and her prom dress that may or may not have been too short. I am now more concerned by the fact that there are still schools in this country that paddle children as a punishment. And I am consumed by the fact that it is seemingly an accepted practice to many folks. I think I'm going to go and contemplate whether or not the wall around my walled-off compound is high enough. I want those people kept far away from me.

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS - Four Layers During Summer

Up until right now, I have successfully managed to just pipe down about Camp FLDS over there in Eldorado, Texas. (Eldorado would appear to be just outside of Polygamyville and a bit to the west of Pedophile-burbia.) However, I am now unsuccessful in keeping quiet on the whole ordeal because there's no way I can pass this up "Polygamist Wives' Fashion is a Statement." Oh, it's a statement all right. Let's see what it says, shall we?

The "fashion" of the FLDS women looks sort of like a cross between a 6-year old girl on Easter Sunday in 1958 and that of very pastel-y "Little House on the Prairie" garb. It IS a statement. It is NOT stating that is is fashionable. Behold!

Now, I took one look at that and the first thing I thought was, "Oh, my God. It's 1862. My time machine works!" Please note, they do not look happy to be dressed like that. They probably don't look happy in general, but neither would I if I had to wear a lilac-colored frock whilst old men on the compound were waiting to sex me up after I turned 14 and they married me. But that's just me.

It's not just the colors that I have a problem with. It's the whole ensemble that I find disturbing. (Not as disturbing as the entire premise of the FLDS cult-like community-compound, but disturbing, nonetheless.) The style of the clothing worn by these poor brainwashed women is a combination of the styles seen in the early 19th century and that of the 1950s clothing that the church assimilated into their practices. The combining of the two styles seemed to occur "when the church took a conservative turn." (I am more than a little curious to know what the church was like before the "conservative" card was played. I mean, how un-conservative could they possibly have been? What? Did they let sunlight beam down upon their wrists on occasion?)

That fascinating bit of apparel trivia was according to Janet Bennion who uses her schooling in anthropology to study polygamist women. (For some reason, I find that amusing. I can almost hear the voice-overs on The Discovery Channel. "Here we are on the outskirts of a compound where the elusive FLDS polygamist woman is rumored to live. We'll stay crouched over here behind this rock and hopefully some of them will emerge. It is through the diligent observation of the polygamist women that we will learn more about their species and will be able to answer questions such as "What is their habitat?" "What do they eat?" "What do they feed their young?")

Continuing with my reasons that no one should follow this practice at all is the part where anyone who is a member of this polygamist sect, including very small children, is to wear the long white cotton or polyester underwear that covers from their neck all the way down to their ankles. The Jesus Jammies are styled after the original temple garments of Joseph Smith (the founder of the regular LDS Church.)So they're basically sheathed from neck to toe in either cotton or polyester. All the time. Every day. All year-round. (And it sounds just torturous to me.)

Oh, but they're not done getting dressed yet! Now that they are clad from their neck all the way down to their ankles in this underwear, they are supposed to disguise the underwear with at least three layers of clothing on top of that. (You know how I "disguise" my underwear? That's right, I put on some pants. Not three layers of pants. Just one pair of pants. But, then again, I'm not covered in underwear from head to toe, either. But I still like my method better.)

Three layers of nylons are to cover the women's legs. And then they have the polyester frock on top of that! (The frock color choices are limited to the pastel line because "the spirit of God cannot reside in anything colorful". Also, "the spirit of God" cannot reside in anything that is black, anything with a print or anything that is red, as red is reserved for Christ to reside in. So you're looking at between 4 to 5 layers of clothing from your neck to your ankles all the time. Do you have any idea what the average temperature is over there in Eldorado? From June through August, the average temperature is 92 really freaking hot degrees! (I don't recall a whole lot of "Thou shalt sweat like a roasted swine 24/7" in the Bible. And although I don't have a very in depth knowledge of the Bible's content overall, I'm pretty sure I'd remember hearing something about that.)

The women's dresses are meant to show modesty and conformity, which is why they must make sure every inch of skin that could be considered "provocative" is covered. Congratulations, ladies. Modesty? Oh, that garb is modest all right. Conformity? Sadly, it definitely sends the message that you all are conforming over there. John Llewellyn, who is a retired Salt Lake County Sheriff's lieutenant and a polygamy expert, says that the other reason the women are covering themselves is "so that they're unattractive to the outside world or other men." And again, congratulations, ladies. You've made yourself unattractive to other men AND other women as well! Nice job!

Janet Binnion also says that the women's clothing is stitched with special markings which "protect the body and to remind you of you commitment." Protect the body? Probably only if they fell down. They're wearing so many layers, they wouldn't feel a thing! And it would be difficult not to be reminded that you should have yourself committed for wearing 4 layers of cotton and polyester in the middle of the summer.

And what better way to compliment your polygamist woman look that you're striving for than with a hairstyle that screams "I'm crazy!" just as loudly as the rest of your wardrobe does. The polygamist women never cut their hair. No, it's not so they can swaddle themselves in their own hair to cover up their underwear suit. It because when the Second Coming rolls around, they will use their hair to wash Christ's feet. Wait. What?

Wash his FEET?! With their hair!? OK, I'm starting to think that someone is just making this stuff up. And I'd almost believe that were the case if I hadn't seen all of the pictures of these long haired, over dressed, prairie women milling about Texas. They take this hair thing pretty seriously, too. Since there is a quote in the Bible that says that a woman's hair should be her crowning glory (and they don't look like they have a whole lot going on over there that would qualify as "glorious" and that would include the hair), the women have come up with what "crowning glory" looks like. Behold! Crowning glory.

In case you're dying to try this at your next neighborhood polygamist Tupperware party or other festive get together, the bangs are grown out and then they are rolled. Don't be whipping out that curling iron to roll them, though! That's just too modern. The sides of the hair are done in what are called "sausage curls" (a style developed by the wife of Jimmy Dean. Yes, that is correct.) and then the back of the hair is braided. The higher that the "sausage curl" sits above the forehead, the more righteous the woman. The younger women seem to go with a more Elvis-y kind of pompadour look, which clearly strives for the "righteousness" of the elder brainwashed women. And just so you know, the only time you'll be letting that hair down in when it's your turn to go through the turnstile and spend a little time in the sack with your husband. Other than that, you shall always be sporting the self-righteous, sausage-y goodness, poofy, bun-like do on your head. Lucky you.

See what I mean? This is just bizarre on way too many levels. Multiple wives. Polygamist compounds. Several layers of thick clothing all the time. And the heat! My God, the heat! It's all a bit much if you're asking me. But I saved the "crowning glory", if you will, of the imprisoned and brainwashed polygamist wife look for last. To get it to all come together for the full effect that you're going for here, you need to remember two words. Don't tweeze.

Sphere: Related Content