Comments on: Smashing Pumpkin Shoes

By: raincoaster

raincoaster — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:38:13 +0000

Those are hooker shoes. When in doubt, look at the shoes. And today I passed a round dozen hookers when I was out for my walk, and yes, they dressed like this although only one of them could afford implants. Implants don’t say “hooker” they say “stripper”. But you really do have to look at the totality: the makeup, the hair; it’s a hooker look, and I say that as a woman who has written a book on street prostitutes.

Do I have a tank top like that? Yes, but without the implants and with more than two buttons done up, it’s not as slutty-looking. The jeans? They’re “shants” and as such ugly, but not necessarily hookerish.

But we’re talking bleached blonde with roots, more makeup than Tammy Faye, cleavage out to here, and, last but not least, hooker shoes. Hooker shoes that don’t even fit!

None of this rules out the possibility that she is being true to herself in dressing this way. She is clearly identifying herself primarily as a sexual being, whether that is available for hire or not. What I think Glinda is saying is there is a time and a place for that and picking out a pumpkin with your little girl isn’t it.

By: Glinda

Glinda — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:57:07 +0000

It’s mostly the shoes, La BellaDonna, the shoes!

Although I’m sorry, I will NOT budge from or apologize for, the stance that when hanging out with your kids, your boobs should not be “hanging out” either.

As for hookers, I live in Los Angeles. I’ve seen more than my fair share.

By: La BellaDonna

La BellaDonna — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:21:31 +0000

Well, my feet cry when I look at those shoes, but my primary objection is to a) the lipstick, which I think is unflattering; and b) the roots showing, which is hypocritical, because so are mine, and I’m not looking after a child. But she obviously (or at least appears to) takes care of herself, so take care of the roots!

As for her clothes, don’t we usually go on about being true to oneself, etc.? Let me be the first to say that with all the buttons buttoned up high and tight, if I wore it when I was with my nephew, I’d look as if I was about to poke someone’s eye out. And I would wear it if I were with my nephew, and I’d wear it if I were with a son or daughter, instead. It’s what’s in my wardrobe, and I’d wear it without a second thought. I’d wear it with boots, because I think her shoes are an ankle-break looking for a place to happen, but maybe she’s not as clumsy as I am. If I passed her on the street, I’d notice that she was: younger than I am; prettier than I am; with a child who seemed to be very happy, engaging in Halloweeny activities with her pretty mommy. I do NOT think that she looks like a hooker, Glinda; I think maybe you need to see some more real-life hookers, because they are waaaay skanky. She’s not skanky; she’s just wearing something that you wouldn’t.

By: Ninjarina

Ninjarina — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:38:47 +0000

She looks like she’d smell like Calgon Mist, sweat, chimichangas, and wet cat.

By: dangster

dangster — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:58:13 +0000

I’m even surprised she can carry that pumpkin in those shoes. But then again, I’m sure she’s had years of practice prancing around in similar shoes

By: Glinda

Glinda — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:31:34 +0000

Jenbug- I did think perhaps they had stopped off from somewhere else, but I still take issue with the outfit.

Phyllis- Dad is a load, or Dad is loaded? Or both?

Class-factotum- I LOATHE writing on the butt.

Rain- Yes, those are not shoes for the shy.

TG- Do you see the buttons on the tank top? Should they ALL be unbuttoned? If it was a regular tank that didn’t go down in a V between her boobs, I would have been ok.

By: TG

TG — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:46:43 +0000

The shoes are just silly, but to each his own. If she was wearing flip-flops with that same outfit, no-one would be commenting on the tank-top, which, on it’s own merits, it’s a perfectly acceptably sized garment for a mother to wear.

By: raincoaster

raincoaster — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:48:12 +0000

Those are attention-getting shoes. So, we’re paying attention to her.

Some things are good, some things are bad. Those shoes are bad. It’s not misogynistic to say so, either. We make fun of men’s shoes as well; check out Glinda’s post on the lovely and fragrant Liev Schreiber.

By: class-factotum

class-factotum — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:45:47 +0000

By the same token, mothers should not dress their daughters as hookers in training. What’s with the “Juicy” written across an 11-year-old’s butt?

By: Phyllis

Phyllis — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:05:11 +0000

I’ll bet good money that Dad is a load.