"Muscle gain and "lifting" what you have. Squats. Lots of weighted squats. I see it happening in my gym all the time. :-) Small/flat butts enter and larger/round butts exit."

So all of that mass is muscle? Interesting. I wonder how increasing it through "extreme" exercise affects other areas of ones body. Balance-wise for instance. I know body builders whose mobility is compromised by their huge muscles. I think it would be similar for "butt builders".

Hi snookums2, I was not suggesting that people should not notice what others look like. I was just pointing out that some people have a hard time noticing what others look like, such that they have to work at noticing/recognition -- even to the point where it might be considered a disability. jellytoast might be on the other side of the spectrum, and I think the differences are interesting.

>>>You can't stop people from observing or thinking, and I don't think we want to encourage more brain dead, empty headed, mindless people in the world.<<<

This almost sounds like one of the anti-PC statements.

Observing and thinking vs. broadcasting rude, insulting, demeaning, cruel, ugly, etc. thoughts are quite different.

No one has said that everyone should feel the same way about anything.

Saying whatever you're thinking, whenever you want, wherever you are without any thought of the consequences is what brain dead, empty headed, mindless people in the world do - they surely aren't just thinking and observing.

rossstink, I don't think it's possible for just anyone to grow a butt of epic proportions in the gym, but if you are genetically blessed with a big behind, weight lifting can most definitely enhance that and make a big butt defy gravity.

Really, I don't care if a woman has a big butt that is artificially enhanced, naturally enhanced, gym enhanced, or defies gravity without any effort whatsoever. If she likes it, great!

Yes, first impressions can be wrong, but that doesn't and won't stop the human brain from making those snap judgments as they are inherent. If your first impression doesn't match what's inside then the first thing you are doing is creating a mixed message which then you will have to overcome in order to be perceived as the person that you are or at least the person you would like to be perceived as. That is not a them vs. us problem. That is simply a you vs. me problem...who are you, what do you want, can I like you, can I trust you, is your intent toward me beneficial or detrimental. Unfortunately, the first thing the mixed message delivers is don't trust this person as s/he is not whom s/he appears to be....which then too has to be overcome.

The problem with the winning team argument is, again, there is a difference between judging someone for the things they cannot change vs. judging them for their behavior and the choices they make. We are talking about fashions and style (or at least we were) which is a nonrestricted club open to everyone...so it is about behavior and choice. And those behaviors and choices communicate something and have an effect on how someone is perceived. And even if you "drop out" of such communication by choosing to pay no attention to how you look or present yourself, then that too is a communication.

Olychick, some of your comments lead me to ask you a question...do you even know any men?

Just try to imagine accomplished men having this discussion.

I know of men, "accomplished men" (whatever that means) who like to gossip, like to dis other men's appearance, and I happen to know of a CEO of a major corporation whose favorite mag is People. And I can guarantee you that there are many "accomplished" men who have discussed KK's behind.

Why would I care if Hillary got her lips plumped? Because it would imply that she is trying to present herself as something she is not. It would suggest she is concerned about coming across as too old for the job. Because it would definitely give the opposing party something else to harp on, potentially affecting the outcome of the race. Heck, the simple act of wearing/not wearing an American flag lapel pin has been a huge issue.

I always suspected that one of the factors in why John Kerry didn't beat W in 2004 was because he was trying to look younger and had his forehead botoxed which made his face far less expressive, so his words didn't match his face leading people, whether implicitly or tacitly, to question his sincerity.

"Why would I care if Hillary got her lips plumped? Because it would imply that she is trying to present herself as something she is not."

Unheard of in a politician!

"Why would I care if Hillary got her lips plumped? Because it would imply
that she is trying to present herself as something she is not. It
would suggest she is concerned about coming across as too old for the
job. Because it would definitely give the opposing party something else
to harp on, potentially affecting the outcome of the race. Heck, the
simple act of wearing/not wearing an American flag lapel pin has been a
huge issue."

So you wouldn't vote for her? So, of course, you'd want to know if any male candidates had hair implants or cosmetic dental work or? And that would mean they had the same or similar issues and should be what we focus on in candidates? Doesn't ever seem to be an issue until a woman rises to a powerful position, then the focus turns to externals.

I just want to know if they are competent candidates and could do the job.

I agree, olychick. I don't quite understand the whole anti-cosmetic enhancement thing. I understand why someone wouldn't want to do it themself, but don't understand why it matters if someone else chooses to do it. If I color my hair, paint my nails, wear lipstick, wear a push-up bra, etc., am I presenting myself as something I'm not? Maybe if Hillary got her lips plumped it would indicate nothing more than dissatisfaction with the current shape of her lips. Is that so different than being dissatisfied with the color of them and applying lipstick? She certainly wouldn't be the first woman to be dissatisfied with her "natural" appearance, so I wouldn't fault her for it.

Everything a candidate does, male or female, becomes fodder in a political campaign, from kissing babies to flipping pancakes and yes hair dos and cosmetic treatments. Have you not heard all the comments about Donald Trumps hair? Why do you suppose the panel of candidates in the debate is a sea of red, white and blue? Dare not one wear a brown suit lest they be challenged as unpatriotic. Would it be a deciding factor in an election? Probably not. Would it be another feather in the quiver of deciding who to vote for? Absolutely. It's about where their priorities lie. It's about how far they're willing to go to win the office. Winning elections is all about image.

There have been a number of research studies (see also this one) showing that people do better than chance at selecting winning candidates based on a photo alone.

Here's what I don't get...I don't get why you think this is only an issue for female candidates and not male. Regardless of competence, it was the appearance of Dukakis in the tank that is widely credited for tanking his campaign against GHWB in '88 (no pun intended).

My Australian TV crush, Karl Stefanovic, wore the same blue suit on air every day for a year to see if anyone noticed, in reaction to the often incendiary comments his co-presenter Lisa gets on her outfits. No one did. She mentioned that most of the insulting comments came from women. The best part is that Karl is a bit of a berk himself.

Yes, men are judged by appearance, but I'd say not nearly to the same extent as women. I also don't think it's a point of pride that elections are decided on appearances, especially since humans are quite bad at picking out competent leaders. On the other hand, I do hope the republicans have found the one person in the world who could possibly lose to Hillary given the depth of rancour that still seems to exist against her.

I can't imagine Canadians decide elections on appearances since we're in the process of perhaps re-electing our own prime minister who has all the charisma and warmth of a komodo dragon combined with a lack of good looks - well, it's the lack of soul I think. Our last longstanding prime minister was no prize in the looks department but he did have a scrappy charisma. In fact current ruling party ran an ad back in the day mocking Chretien's looks and were widely reviled for it as being way too petty.

Of course the ad was a gold mine for Chretien (an extremely tough and fairly dirty longtime pol) who didn't hesitate to tug on the old heartstrings: "Speaking in Nova Scotia, Chrétien stated that "God gave me a physical defect, and I've accepted that since I was a kid." He compared the Tories to the teasing children of his youth: "When I was a kid people were laughing at me. But I accepted that because God gave me other qualities and I'm grateful."

The argument is, so far as I understand it, that's the way the world is, so deal with it. But it would also be nice to fight against it, or at least not join in on the self policing with catty appearance comments. Yeah I brush my hair every day, well, most days, and probably some self grooming is important for any animal looking to attract a mate, but I don't think it's possible to deny that there is a double standard and that women are pretty complicit in enforcing it.

Donald Trump's hair is a non-issue for me.

Presdulac, if a celebrity purposefully does something above and beyond to their body and then photographs it to show the world, you bet it's open season for me or anyone to critique what they've done. What, am I supposed to think, "Oh look, KK has two basketballs hanging off her back. How cute!"

Oly, I can't respond to anything you say because you keep taking everything I write out of context. Not voting for Hillary because of her lips? Really Oly?

To each their own :-) I'll continue to try (hey, I never said I was perfect) to keep my negative thoughts about the way people look private or, at least, confine them within the walls of my home. To act otherwise is a little too trumpesque for me :-P

Back to the subject at hand, I'm looking forward to some serious people watching during the last half of Paris Fashion Week next month. I'm going to do my best to check out the action at the Chanel and Valentino venues <humblebrag hehe>

We all make snap judgments based upon appearance. It's how we are wired, and if you say that you don't do so I believe you're disingenuous. I find myself making those assumptions every time my path crosses with another person's, but knowing how wrong I have been on so many occasions does make me stop and rethink. One of the scraggliest-looking men I know is also one of the most intelligent and expressive.

I have tattoos. I have a lot of tattoos. I had surgery a few years back and as you know, that means your body is exposed in all its glory. Following surgery as I was recuperating in the hospital, I got the shock of my life when the anesthesiologist asked me, "Did you used to be a stripper?"

Gobsmacked.

I'm an executive assistant, having worked in the legal and corporate worlds all my life. I just happen to like body art.

Now that I've put some time between that episode and the present, I am rather amused by his assumption and I'm not going to fault someone for forming an opinion about me based upon the ink I wear. I chose it, and they are welcome to choose their own thoughts about it. Who cares?

I'm guessing that's very much how Meg Ryan, Kim Kardashian, et al. feel about the modifications they have made to THEIR bodies.

C'est la vie.

Hey Annie....the tank picture, eh? Yup, it was an issue... but don't ya really think the Willie Horton dirty innuendo campaign thing was the real issue used against Dukakis ?

And you think it was Kerry's use of Botox?? Couldn't have been the Swiftboating??

He was a genuine war hero... running against a moron who went AWOL.

Good points Jen! I never thought Meg Ryan was washed up. I (for whatever reason) assumed she went on with other things. Never thought her lips ruined her career . . .

>>>We all make snap judgments based upon appearance. It's how we are wired<<<

Assuming you can see. Curious though, in sighted people do you think the appearance judgments persist if a minute later, you can't recall much of someone's appearance? Or if a person sometimes has a hard time recognizing by sight people he/she knows?

Pres, please do read my post again. As well as the thread.

s2, I see no reason for your post unless it's to admonish me for not seeing things your way in which case, you shouldn't have bothered.

I interpreted your post the way I read it as written, you lost me at 'thought police'. As for this thread, unfortunately, I've read it in its entirety more than once.

I was done with this earlier, I am truly done with it now.

"

snookums2 15 hours ago

Pres, please do read my post again. As well as the thread.

presdulac 14 hours ago

s2, I see no reason for your post unless it's to admonish me for not seeing things your way in which case, you shouldn't have bothered." ....

"

Let's see, Pres, you post to admonish me for posting once (while you 'tirade' on at least 3 occasions here to admonish people) and then admonish me again when I respond to you. Well that is truly amusing!

My "point" was that you did not even comprehend what I wrote when admonishing - to the extent of rephrasing what I had said, ("While demeaning public ridicule is a cruel, unnecessary thing that serves no purpose ...") as if you were arguing with an opposing point of view.

If you are going to misrepresent me, and call me out, I still have a right to speak.

On part 2 of your admonishment, people are indeed being admonished for what they think, with you smacking the life out of that like button throughout. That is why I suggested you read the thread content again.

I have no delusions that you are going to see things my way. I do have an equal right to express myself, however.

What is that saying. Don't let the door hit you in the a $$ on your way out.

Observing and thinking vs. broadcasting rude, insulting, demeaning, cruel, ugly, etc. thoughts are quite different.

Agree. No denying that thoughts pass through our minds, but that doesn't mean we should give voice to them. Filter.

this whole forum would consist of an exchange of pleasantries and complements if people didn't voice their opinions!

I agree with the adage 'never judge a book by its cover' --- I honestly don't care what the cover looks like if, on the inside, it's a really good book. but, that's doesn't mean my negative opinion of the cover will change if I dislike it! if the artist who created the cover explained a cover that i didn't like to me, I might understand it better tho... and maybe could even appreciate it. most artists really couldn't care less if everyone likes their work or not and appreciate/learn from most reviews- critical or not. if they don't have thick enough skin to hear differing opinions, they're probably not going to be successful. I would guess celebrities with outrageous implants/body modifications and personalities love the attention they get from them- negative and positive!! they love being unique!

I don't think kk or nm would find anything that was written here demeaning or cruel... I agree with aunt jen that they would probably be amused with all the comments- and happy they were the subjects of commentary.

aunt jen, you clearly didn't fit the anesthesiologist's idea of what someone with many tattoos would be like so s/he asked about your past life... your cover probably didn't match your content, in their opinion... (a behind the scenes job, like anesthesiology, with little pt interaction was probably a good career choice for him/her!)

To get back where this thread began, I watched Fashion Police who were pretty consistent that Heidi Klum was the worst dressed at the Emmy's. I for one did not understand this dress at all. Considering she's a judge and host on Project Runway, and considering that she could pretty much choose any Versace to wear she wanted to (or I'm sure a lot of other designers as well), it's beyond me why she choose this one. Big bird during molting season comes to mind.

Busybee - It really wasn't until I'd been dismissed from the hospital that I was fully able to process his comment, and I honestly felt stunned for quite some time! I was thinking about the whole thing after I posted about it, and he actually asked me if I used to be an "exotic dancer." Pfffft. Stripper. Same thing. ;-)

But yes - his people skills were a bit "out there."

Busy, I bet anesthesilogist everywhere are learning to zip it. lol. I also agree about not judging a book by it's cover. I've heard KK is a very nice person, but it's that thing on her back that puzzles me. I've never heard or read where anyone has said it looks nice. Maybe Kanye, but that's it.

Anesthesiologist with a big mouth

For one that shade of yellow is extremely unflattering.

And yet, no one says a thing when a male.... a male with a gaggle of h, er, followers, feels entitled to judge women and their fashion and design choices.

And some, not all, hang on his every word.

Pal, you're right...yellow is a tough color on the red carpet anyway, but especially on someone with light skin. It can be a real washout. Though in this case, Heidi isn't washed out as much as she just looks silly, despite her great body.

I don't envy Klum's position. She is under great pressure to innovate and look great at the same time. And that is a tightrope.

People used to accept celebrities with a "signature" look, but now that gets dismissed as the same old thing.

Men can show up in a slightly different tux, and critics will call that innovative.

I think there are some good aspects to the dress, and they can't all be winners.

I've shaken my head many times at winners selected on project runway...they come down the walk and I say no way only to find out it was one of the judges top choices. I must be missing something as they are all pretty consistent with the choice. Heidi has done a number of misses. The red carpet look at last year's emmy's that was designed on Project Runway was likened to a car wash brush.

I'm not sure the "signature look" is so much an issue though. For example, Victoria Beckham always looks great and her clothes are very similar in style...well tailored, wearable, body conscious and classic lines...nothing OTT.

I have seen fashion police dump on Anna Wintour for wearing the same dress multiple times, but I think that's not only because of her role in the fashion industry, but because of her reputation as a barracuda.

at least it's a nice shade of blue...! :)

Fashion Police - blah! I wouldn't waste my time. Talking about judgemental LOL!! Although I don't care for either of the dresses shown on Heidi, I've seen lots worse. She is golden/bronzed so I don't think the yellow is that bad on her. The blue, of course is much better. Perhaps she wants to push the button? Regardless, it would be hard to make her look bad.

Do you think there is a different set of expectations of Klum as a former model to be more "daring" rather than making sure she always looks good? (In the classic sense). Many fashion designers themselves, and people in editorial as well, seem to wear a limited "uniform" of clothing.

I think in the initial period of haute couture/ready to wear (1920s to maybe early 1960s) clients would go to small shows and see a specific dress and have it made to order with slight adaptations as needed.

I think in the 1960s and forward, runway haute couture evolved into a conceptual form of expression that designers mostly never expected to actually produce intact for clients. They were the concepts from which the pieces they actually made sprang, but in more "realistic" form. And ready-to-wear was what made it into stores intact.

Maybe we are in a period where celebrities and people in certain industries are wearing the more conceptual kind of stuff.

The left half looks okay by itself:

Actually the dress looks like a diagnostic for anorexia....her bones are too prominent and it is not her pose.

The pieced-leaf fabric looks like a throwback to the 1970s. In fact the whole thing, left side, right side, whatever, looks like a failed home ex project that someone's anorexic older sister is wearing.

We are so used to seeing heavier people today, but when I go through old pictures, lots of the adult women in the photos are essentially this body type but on a more petite scale. A lot of my mother's friends were built like this. Both of my sisters weighed slightly over 100 lbs when they married.

And I can only remember one of my mother's contemporaries who was pretty clearly bulimic. The rest of them definitely ate and drank. (they also smoked which of course, kept weight off).

Pal, once again, we agree. I watch a lot of old movies and Perry Mason reruns and what was considered a normal height/weight in the 60s looks skinny today by comparison. Today's average woman's BMI is 28.7 vs. BMI of between 24.9-25.2 for the 60s, 70s and 80s. An average woman today who is 5'4" would be 167 lbs. vs. 145 lbs back then. By comparison, models have maintained the low BMIs, so the gap between model thin and average has grown. (See article here on body image and BMI over 100 yrs.)

On project runway, they have had the designers do 2 versions of a dress...the runway version and the ready-to-wear version. They have critiqued some designers for designing too ready-to-wear and not runway enough on some outfits.

I think there is extra pressure on Heidi because she is hosting the design show and is always pushing the designers to "wow them" or see something "fresh and new".

Seeing your edited image of the half dress, with the emmy in the background...perhaps her dress was supposed to be a take off on that...with the wing?

Another thing that bothers me about fashion week is, is it from WWD? Or do they all get a memo? How is it when designers are all supposed to be doing their own design thing, each season there are always "themes" be they colors (not necessarily from pantone) or a feature like a peplum or a fabric or an accessory like "zippers were hot this year". It can't all be spontaneous...

I grew up in the sixties and seventies with a mom who was, and still is 115 lbs. she is 5'6" (or was, she has probsbly a little shorter now at 82) and you have never, ever been able to see the bones in her chest as you can see Klum's in the picture above. She has a low BMI, but does not look anorexic.

Is seeing a collarbone really unnatural?

Don't you think there is a qualitative difference between generations? A lot of the women in my mother's circle were thin, but they weren't particularly "athletic" or "fit". Most of them did no exercise beyond some low-challenge aerobics. The tennis fanatics had collarbones.

I think Heidi is athletic, but I think as the woman in the red dress becomes the new norm, that level of thinness is starting to look unnatural on everybody, whether it's their natural build or not.

Heidi Klum looks anorexic? There must be something wrong with my eyes! There are many more pictures of her posted on the internet in the same dress, and her body looks incredible.

Heidi is certainly much thinner than average, but doesn't look dangerously thin to me... I'm sure she weighs significantly less than her 'ideal' wt on those ideal wt charts. her legs don't have that 'anorexic look' ... posing in the 'skinny arm' pose makes her arm look even thinner! she also looks like she has a small bone structure- if I weighed what she weighs, I probably would look anorexic because my large bones would be very prominent....

In Heidi's defense, I also have a prominent collar bone and bony shoulders. I am thin but not anorexic. I honestly would have to gain about 30 pounds for my collar bone to vanish. All the weight goes to my bottom half first.

OTOH, I can not defend Heidi's choice of cheap sparkly mesh and stripper shoes for the red carpet.

I'm sure she weighs significantly less than her 'ideal' wt on those ideal wt charts

I am not even sure about that...I tend to be within my ideal weight range, but at the upper end of "healthy" and twice, when I veered toward the lower end of ideal, people asked me if I was having health problems, one time stress, the other time if I had cancer.

On the other hand I was temporarily on a medication that made me gain weight and I was halfway between the lowest end of clinically overweight and the lowest end of obese. (this is a range of thirty lbs at my height. A number of women I work with told me I "was finally starting to look 'healthy' and 'a normal weight for my age'. "

I think our perceptions are really somewhat skewed.

Annie,

I think all American designers are influenced by the same cultural references at the same time..and the same street fashion, and after a while they are all trying to change from similar sorts of looks into something else. Cars look a lot alike, too.

In the documentary about Isaac Mizrahi, one season he was doing a sort of Russian Dr. Zhivago kinda thing, which had been done before, but not in a while, and he thought it was going to be really different, and he found out right before the show that somebody else was doing the same thing, independently. He was furious, but there was obviously something that influenced them both.

IMO, this gal looks anorexic, not Heidi. Anorexic is skeletal, unhealthy looking. Heidi looks quite healthy.

what a bizarre photo... what the heck is she modeling?? much different than Heidi- also, much younger. looks like quite a variation in sizes at that 'event'....

What on earth?

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/9148005470576615/

It's not the prominent collarbone that prompted my response, but the visible bones in the chest below it. IMO, the dress is horrible and the cut of the top, in that light, makes her look anorexic whether she is or is not. The picture of the model wearing a loincloth is equally bad design but presents an obvious illness.

Sometimes I think women who frequently dress at that level of couture are so tired of the styles they've worn before---regardless of how flattering----they just crave something new.

Annie, the last picture you posted looked altered to me, so I went Googling. Here is an article about it and other photos, with the unaltered originals.