Amanda on conservative makeup tips for lefty gals.
As this quote from Coulter indicates, it’s all about the punishing:
As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it’s because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the U.N. Security Council’s approval. Plus, it’s no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call “women” at the Democratic National Convention.
Somewhat fragrant? At least they don’t smell like formaldehyde and brimstone.
I know it’s not something you’d expect from Ann, but this is not an accurate representation of reality. Here are some all-natural women who are not leftists.
See? All women are either vain tarted-up sluts or ugly disheveled prudes. The virgin/whore dichotomy transcends partisanship.
…and they obviously have NO idea who the Lydia in the Bible was. She wouldn’t be spending her time doing what they are, methinks.
I prefer slutted-up tart, thank you very much.
Hmmm…those dresses remind me a little bit of Gothic Lolita clothes…
Wait, there was a Lydia in the Bible? Huh, the only Lydia I ever knew of was Lydia Bennet from Pride & Prejudice, who’s far from a glowing example of modest womanhood.
I love the outfits at the website, though. They’d be perfect for a pioneer-themed dress-up party.
*Snort*
Or an orgy. I know a guy–from San Francisco, natch–who ordered an Amish outfit from a real live Amish catalogue…because he has a big Amish fetish and wanted to, um, dress up in them.
I can relate to that more than I care to admit.
Lately I’ve gone in for more Bilateral Relations.
…Maybe Paul Krugman wanted to let her down easy? He’s classy that way.
You know, I saw the title of this, and I thought it was another post-op post about your baroque chest bandaging.
Oh, Ann. Riding in cars with boys for fun? Don’t you know that parking with boys won’t REALLY make you popular?
And last time I looked at Ann, didn’t look like sista needed a bra, either. *snap, snap* [/catty]
Actually, I’ve seen her in person, and she’s actually surprisingly busty for someone that thin (and with concomitant junk in the trunk).
That’d be “quadruple bind.” Or something. I’ve lost count at this point.
Two more weeks from tomorrow.
What is the deal with Lydia of Purple’s ridiculously long URL?
zuzu Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Actually, I’ve seen her in person, and she’s actually surprisingly busty for someone that thin (and with concomitant junk in the trunk).
Implants, maybe? Mostly when a woman loses weight, she loses cleavage too. I’m thinking her cleavage is a little implausible.
Okay, I don’t understand the difference between the “dresses with capes,” “dresses with optional capes,” and “dresses without capes.” They all look the same to me.
Amish fetish??
Wow. That’s one I’ve never seen. Well done!
Her “pretty girl allies?” Coulter thinks she’s pretty??!!!
Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha. Wait…can’t type. Wiping tears of hysterical…laughter…from…my…eyes.
Seriously, megalomania anyone?
What stuck out to me more was not who she considered her allies, but that she used the term “corn-fed” to describe “the enemy”, as it were. Corn-fed I hear to describe the more rural populace, in addition to “common folk” and “salt of the earth”, and is a positive way of spinning hillbilly – aka Midwestern Conservatives. It strikes me as odd to see that applied to liberal women.
not to increase the cattiness but if those were implants she would be no bra needing as well. get it straight, lady! let’s just say that wearing bras or not wearing them is a moot point.
…Internet modesty?
I don’t understand why the clothes are so ugly. I mean, the uncovered-knees thing is relatively new in women’s fashions; this woman has plenty of artful examples to choose from.
And she’s even using commercial patterns in violation, no doubt, of copyright laws.
I don’t know about that particular site’s definition of modesty, but for Mormons, “modesty” includes the concept of what I would call “not being attractive at all, actually” and what they would call “not drawing attention to oneself.”
So it’s not enough for the dress to be of such-and-such length; it also shouldn’t be too stylish or pretty, because that’s vanity and indicates that you’re thinking too much of the world, the sinful sinful world, and not enough of Christ.
I’d guess something similar is going on with Lydia.
Well, that effect can be achieved without wearing rejects from the costume department of Little House on the Prairie.
I firmly believe that the idea is to call attention to oneself. Mormons and Orthodox Jewish women might be identifiable by their clothes, but they don’t necessarily jump out from a crowd. These clothes would.
She probably boils her own lye for soap and strains her own curds for cheese; I’m inclined to let it slide.
Maybe it’s just a matter of taste, then, because I feel like you could step way back from all that hideous without edging into Virgin Queen territory. Like zuzu said, there are examples of modern modest clothing that don’t look like junior-year home ec midterm projects.
I think so, too–although they probably consider calling attention to oneself as a believer different from calling attention to one’s body. You know, the same thing happened with nuns? Hundreds of years ago, their habits were one kind of women’s clothing, in somber colors, not much more remarkable than a tracksuit or J. Crew separates would be today.
Well? How else is one going to witness to Nellie Oleson?
You’re right that the clothes stand out, and I’m not sure what that’s about. Maybe spiritual vanity; I’m better than you because I don’t think about fashion, that kind of thing, plus misguided nostalgia for the good old days, when it was the whores who stood out by their dress. You could stone them easier that way.
Was “Lydia of Purple” a reference? The “Lydia” in question was a convert and colleague of St. Paul; she was a dye merchant from Tyratira, noted for its purples. (Acts 16:14-15)
Yes, that’s her. Of course, I don’t see very many bright colors on that site. Except for the orca dress.
Oops, sorry: now I get it. I agree with Michelle; I do not think they appreciate the distance they are from our ancestor, whom I take to be a woman of some stature and perhaps less modesty.
Gothic Lolita is much cuter! Also, why don’t they just take the Muslim girl tack, just without the headscarf? (i.e. long pants, long sleeved shirt, see, you don’t stand out and are still modest. Long skirt if trousers are forbidden)
Silly Shannon: if they wear pants you can still see that they have legs.
It struck me how some of the patterns she’s taking from are from 80′s popular fashion. I remember this horrid period when big lacey collars, full skirts and long dresses were ‘in’ for a bit. Or was it just that Lady Diana and people in Michigan wore that stuff?
And now I know why the Mormom women kept giving me dagger eyes when in the early nineties some nice young ‘brother’ invited me to attend one of their sunday worship things. Here I thought it was because I was a hussy tramp for making their ‘brother’ all giddy whilst attempting to lead me to the flock.
Lo! It was the low cut of my dress and the make-up drawing attention to my (then) young, beautiful face, which was indeed, drawing a lot of attention… ;)