It’s not the dress, it’s the female inside it

It’s on the basis of the political implications only that I run this now at OoL.

A lady friend commented on Sparkle’s dress:

I have to say that,although it could have been more form-fitting,(and the neckline called out for a show-stopper necklace)I thought the dress gorgeous,the veil gorgeous and the bride equally so.One piece of royal jewellery (which she may have been expecting) would have transformed that dress. Shame she wasn’t loaned one.(Did not like the bandeau at all).

So, only qualified approval, no? LOL. I was more scathing and longwinded:

The dress didn’t fit her, it was in folds. She was walking around in a duvet.

Kate’s on the other hand [at her wedding] was delicate and feminine. Remember that word? Feminine? She’s not particularly feminine in general with that jolly hockey sticks manner and harsh body but the dress eased that somewhat and Pippa was all curves and bottom – now she had style.

There was a comparative pic made of the other bridal dresses [sent by fos]:

… and what came through was what the women inside them were like, how they carried the dresses. You could instantly see the women who were comfortable in their sensual femininity … and then Meghan standing classlessly like a demi-man.

There was a similar stark comparison in the rebooted Bond movie years ago where Naomi Harris [in the promo] stood beside Berenice Marlohe:

Interesting that Metro called Harris “hot” because she showed more flesh but she lacked all grace, having been living like an entitled, grotesque demi-man all her life. If you look at her, she just stands there with zero style, front-on like a man.

Berenice M though exuded curves and wiles, stood, sat and moved like a woman, even though the basic material is not particularly alluring in her case. Look how little flesh she’s showing and yet she has panache.

Anglosphere women are too horrified to act feminine today, they’ve grown up entitled, with scrambled brains, it’s almost tantamount to a loss of power to be feminine, so they playact at it in a movie or at a wedding and it is with varying degrees of grotesque. You did see the Americans making fun of Pippa’s tea advertisement dress – at least Pippa was slightly more feminine than usual and not just because of the baby bump.

Meghan Markle has that demi-manliness in shovel-loads but you could see she’d made an attempt this time at femininity in a paint-by-numbers way but when I saw that it was not just a female designer who’d designed the dress – Clare someone or other – but also a British designer, not Givenchy nor any of the real couturiers, then it was clear what had happened and the heart sank. Hell, I could have done a better job – at least I know where women’s protruberances are and how they move.

The difficulty is getting “women” in the Anglosphere to see this – that modern feminism has killed femininity which, after all, is a woman’s main asset.

They’ll never admit it because, in a boiling frog way, they’ve never known it and instead will bellyache on about how they can STEM as well as any man, keep up with any man on the front line of battle – but none of that addresses the sad fact that they have the shape God gave them and then gone right ahead and spoilt it, trying to be men and only coming across as a grotesque parody of men.

It’s not beautiful.

8 comments for “It’s not the dress, it’s the female inside it

  1. James Strong
    May 22, 2018 at 7:31 am

    You really have strained to make this about ‘political implications’ but what you have done is just show that you dislike Meghan Markle.

    What is this ‘Sparkle’ nonsense. You’re not an immature teenage boy or an ‘edgy’ comedian. You’re a man well into middle age.

    You made a different silly and nasty comment in another post about George Clooney, calling him Z list. As well as being unpleasant that is wildly inaccurate, Clooney is as A list as anybody in Hollywood. And you mis-spelled the name of Mrs. Clooney in an oh-so-clever way, changing the ‘m’ into an ‘n’.

    You are entitled to your opinion on anything, including that wedding dress. You are not entitled to have your opinion respected. I didn’t see the wedding, but since Saturday I have sat or walked in 3 groups where people have discussed what they saw on the TV of the wedding. Everybody, men and women, said they thought the bride looked lovely and the dress was strikingly good.

    You also put in a wholly gratuitous dig at the Duchess of Cambridge that is irrelevant and inaccurate.She exhibits no lack of femininity at all.

    Get your malice goggles off and see the world as it is.

    • May 22, 2018 at 7:55 am

      I do. You’re the blinkered one, James.

      [By the way, I do enjoy your input – one day some of it may seep through to my addled brain.]

    • rapscallion
      May 22, 2018 at 8:28 am

      We must have been reading a different article then James Strong. I didn’t notice any “political implications”, but then I wasn’t looking for them. As for celebs, frankly I couldn’t give two hoots – as far as I’m concerned they’re all Z list. I mean look at the crap they come out with FFS.

      James does have a point about femininity though. The really strange by product of Feminism has been the ability to remove femininity from the feminine

      • May 26, 2018 at 7:05 am

        “The really strange by product of Feminism has been the ability to remove femininity from the feminine…”

        And demand it in the should-be-masculine!

        • rapscallion
          May 26, 2018 at 9:26 am

          Indeed, and where, pray, is the allure of a masculine female?

  2. May 22, 2018 at 2:14 pm

    One nice thing at that wedding was Chelsy Davy going up to Megs and the latter hugging her. Not protocol, say the protocolers. The feminists were out in force too, saying Megs was sitting “submissively” at Hal’s feet.

    Was itching to go to the comments thread and say good thing too, a woman should do that … but ran out of time. I don’t believe that of course, just as I know some fabulous Englishwomen, plus I’d never want a woman obeying me, plus I’d cook for her half the time … but the temptation to wind up the feminists was strong indeed.

    I once visited a mate who had a rabid feminist wife, she actually came out of her kitchen to greet me, I asked, “What are you doing out of the kitchen?” Did she take it as a joke? Did she hell. Didn’t need to get my coat, it was still on.

  3. Pcar
    May 22, 2018 at 10:32 pm

    @ James Strong,May 22, 2018 at 7:31 am

    Everybody, men and women, said they thought the bride looked lovely and the dress was strikingly good.

    People these days are scared to truthfully differ due to “hate crime” Stasi Laws. On the dress, same reaction here.

    However, when I say it looked nice, but a bit frumpy and didn’t fit well – wow. Most start speaking truth.: neckline wrong for broad shouldered body, didn’t fit, how much?, waistline bad, hair not good, lack of simple jewelry to accentuate, flew guy from LA for makeup…

    It’s almost like she didn’t want to look feminine and would have preferred a pagan uniting with both in overalls.

    I mostly agree with what James H wrote and, James S, this site is for “You are entitled to your opinion” and airing it.

  4. Pcar
    May 22, 2018 at 10:35 pm

    @James Higham

    “Sparkle” and similar wit are fine in comments, not in articles.

Comments are closed.