Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Celebrity Gossip!
The BUST Lounge > Forums > Media Whores
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83
Yes, hearing about the walking, vermin infested cooze gettting socked in the kisser has brought much joy to my cold little heart *smirk* happy.gif
mouse, my kneejerk to the gaultier thing was that he did it to spite the haters, not to be "progressive", as the media has lit it. i'm interested to hear his intentions.
I've got three words. Spice. Girls. Reunion. Scary Spice is reuniting the girls before she marries Eddie Murphy.

Oh, & Maggie Gyllenhaal & Peter Sarsgaard had a baby girl.
wtf, eddie murphy huh? I missed that one.
I think Gaultier's being exploitive. I also think Karl Lagerfeld has reached that level of insanity that can only be hidden by wealth and fame and laurels that are aging far in the distance...but soon he should be kicked hard for his real hatred of real women.

I wish all designers would be forced to actually figure out how to make flattering, well made clothes for body types which differ from those of teenaged boys. And I wish they were forced to send those models and clothes down a catwalk for us all to see: it'd be pretty easy to tell at that point who's actually a skilled designer, and who is just marketing and fluff.
yuefie, it is the most unexpected joining since tom and katie! (without the contracts and restraints) I'm still reeling. Beverley Hills Cop and Scary Spice.

Peter Saarsgard mmmmm... I'm sure their baby is a cutie (has Jake's genes too after all!) anyone heard her name?
It's Ramona, and she was born 2 weeks before the due date. I'm so happy for Maggie... Ok, stopping with the hero worship.
Madonna's 'people' have said the baby rumour is untrue, according to the BBC this morning.

Am I the only one who thinks punching someone in the face is not on?
Nope. You're not the only one.
any one else read popbitch today? It has the worst blind item ever:

Wake me up before you turn go go

Gamma Butyrolactone (GBL), closely related to
GHB, is increasingly the drug of choice for
London's narcotic connoisseurs. It produces
a short, intense rush, heightens sexual
pleasure and is metabolised very quickly -
so almost impossible for, say, police to detect.

GBL does have one major side-effect. It induces
a deep, unrousable sleep which can come on
quite unexpectedly. Like, perhaps, when you're
a super-famous pop star driving home from a
night's cruising and the traffic lights in
front suddenly turn green...

That makes the one about Johnny Knoxville rimming Jessica Simpson look difficult.

ETA: Sorry about the gobbeldy good there; I just copied and pasted out of my email.
Well two witnesses say that Shanna did not punch Paris and that Nachos was the only one being violent.

Huh, so on top of her recent DUI charge, Paris will be charged with filing a false police report....have they ever visted a jail on The Simple Life?
Well, the charges Paris filed are very telling in that they were "battery" charges, not assault and battery. I think Gollum, er, I mean Elliot Mintz is telling her to publicly claim she was hit, but not to press charges for bein hit, just for someone being in her face, telling her off.

I hate her.

I wish she would go away. She used to have a campy appeal to me, but after seeing her birth canal one hundred times and her bitch attitude, a'la firecrotch, I wish she would move to Ecuador and raise donkeys. Though I have too much respect for donkeys rather than subject them to the idiocy that is Slothy Hilton.
Evidently, Farrah Fawcett now admits she's got a really aggressive form of cancer.

What's this about Johnny Knoxville rimming Jessica?! ohmy.gif

Details, please!
I'm sooooo over Lagerfeld and his weight loss, tacky rings on every finger, and his fuckin' fan.
QUOTE(raisingirl @ Oct 9 2006, 01:37 PM) *

I'm sooooo over Lagerfeld and his weight loss, tacky rings on every finger, and his fuckin' fan.

I second that Raisingirl! He's such a fucking misogynist it's not true. According to him, models who are fit to drop dead are just showing 'self-control'. No they're not, freak, they're showing the pressure they're under from you and your nauseating ilk to weigh nothing or never work in the industry again. I'm so sick of designers bleating on about how clothes only hang well on the very thin. How does that explain the legions of size 12 and over girls I see on the street every fucking day who look stylish and amazing? The man's a complete prick, and he should be pushed off a cliff immediately, along with Alexander McQueen (who I will NEVER forgive for the whole 'Highland Rape' thing) and Roland Mouret (for refusing to use a model in a shoot for the Observer because her hip measurement was over 30 inches). And Chacha, I think you said it best - surely if you can't cobble together an outfit in a slightly different shape to the last one you made, that shows a basic lack of design and/or tailoring talent?
anna k
On Project Runway, the designers had a challenge to make clothes for their mothers and sisters, and a couple were bitching about making the clothes a larger size and how difficult and impossible it was. The clothes they did make end up not being very flattering to the bigger women.
Oh goodness...from Paris Fashion Week
I threw up a little in my mouth when i saw that pic, moxie.
That is not okay. No one should ever look like that. Some one needs to feed that poor girl some of my homemade ramen. With pork fat. Lots of pork fat.
There is no way that child is natuarally that thin.
That's disgusting.
also, that dress would look better on a size 10.
QUOTE(anna k @ Oct 9 2006, 10:56 AM) *

On Project Runway, the designers had a challenge to make clothes for their mothers and sisters, and a couple were bitching about making the clothes a larger size and how difficult and impossible it was. The clothes they did make end up not being very flattering to the bigger women.

And that only demonstrates the lack of aesthetic and skill that seems to be rampant in that industry: it's like they only know how to do ONE thing, and that thing does not apply to all variable situations. So: if you have stick straight body with no breasts, very little waist, and very small hips, a certain type of look looks good on it (layers of clothing, lots of "fattening" details like gathering at the waist line, cropped pants or pants that flare out...necklines that create a bust where none exists, etc. etc.)==what most designers do when faced with a woman's body is try to fit that standard on any size/shape body, which would never be flattered by those details. They take the idea of forcing a square peg into a tiny, round hole too far. And then they blame women for having the wrong body shape/size, instead of just admitting that they are incapable of designing well for the proportions, shape, and size realities of the female body.

The equivalent would be an architect who's a genius at designing structures that work well as parking garages...who then applies the "parking garage" scheme to things like wilderness parks, community town halls, private residences, art galleries, skating rinks and schools alike. And then condemning their clients when they protest that the design isn't suitable for the purpose or the space it is meant to serve.
For as much as the high-end designers only design for teeny tiny models, it makes me feel a little better that the clothing companies who serve the masses don't necessarily think as much this way. Fashion houses like Dior, Chanel, Prada, and the like are going for a very narrow demographic for their clothing, people who can afford personal trainers, chefs, and liposuction. I can't imagine that they're as profitable as the regular clothing manufacturers who see women as markets to make money off of, not human hangers. I'd like to actually see the profit margins for a high-end designer next to the profit margins for a company like The Gap (even though they only go up to a size 20, but it's still a far larger range than only going up to a size 6).
jesus on a stick someone get that girl a lard sandwich ohmy.gif At what point does that look good?

McQueen's paris show had lots of dresses on models with padded hips - to give all these skinny boy-shaped girls figures like, well, real women. Is it just me who thinks that's beyond ridiculous?
cheese and rice!! that has got to be one of the sickliest models I have ever seen! She goes beyond thin to just... emaciated. It really makes me sad ( not to mention furious) that, that is the beauty ideal shoved down are throats these days. And I love how the designers blame regular women for not having the "right"body, that is seriously such a cop out.

Nothing gossipy to add

That's just fucking appalling.

I've thought for years that the vast majority of male fashion designers hate women.

This really disappointed me:

16-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes, an Oscar nominee for 2003's "The Whale Rider," has announced that she is pregnant with her 19-year-old boyfriend's child.
and I think I read that they've been dating for 3 years?
QUOTE(amazonprincess @ Oct 10 2006, 01:46 AM) *

and I think I read that they've been dating for 3 years?

Well, she's Australian, right? I don't know what laws/policies/rules apply in Oz regarding this sort of thing, but here in the U.S., the terms "jailbait" and "statutory rape" are bandied about quite a bit. And those were the first terms that came to mind when I read about her pregnancy earlier today, via People magazine. I didn't know she'd been with the guy since she was 13, though! That kind of makes the whole situation even more fucked up, in a way. Ick.
Oh no, that girl is far, far too young to have children...but who the hell am I to suppose that about her? I just could never have looked after a child at that age (I just learned to tie my shoelaces yesterday!).

Yes, that fashion model looks to be on the verge of death, and the "dress" she's been made to wear would look better on a size 10 (admittedly, a size 10 with no curves at all. Spaghetti straps, my ass).

So--yes, the Gap, Lane Bryant, Addition Elle, Liz Claiborne, Jones New York--all make mass produced brand names with lines that are meant to fit larger women, but I have to say, the designs for most of those clothes are still just enlarged sizes of designs meant to fit curve-less women. Larger breasts need coverage at the shoulders or at least a design which accentuates and flatters the shapeliness of the decolletage--not thin straps, insufficient support, yards of fabric made into your typical T shirt shape or men's shirt design, and a general lack of tailoring. Curvier hips need to have darts or specific types of material and cuts in skirts and pants which are meant to fit them--with proportional cuts in the width of the trouser legs, the shape and length of the skirt, the design of the waist to accomodate rounder bellies. But they don't. Generally, if I can find my size in an article of clothing in one of these stores, I'm faced with a design that has far too many horizontal lines (like tiered skirts or pants with seams that go across my butt or my thighs, a low waistline, and a flared leg as opposed to a wide, straight leg (the flare makes my ass look huge and squat, the other makes it look proportional in size to the rest of me). In general, tops cross over and are now flounced to within an inch of my life (I don't really need to make myself look like my breasts are even bigger than they are) or they are simply bare armed (NO!) or just not flattering. I also can never find the "basics" I need--your basic black skirts and pants, your basic sweaters in good quality materials (wools, good cottons, cashmere...they are scarce) or just a basic dress. Dresses are rarer than platinum in these stores, and I don't know why.

But I can guess. Sometimes I wish I'd paid attention in (giving away my age here, ladies, and it's ancient!) my home-ec classes and actually learned how to sew (as opposed to sneaking the assignment home so my mother could finish it for me). Sometimes, I actually get lucky and find things which look good even though my shape is not ideal.

I do feel like designers really do hate women, and the thinner! thinner! thinner! aesthetic is just a visual way of literally depicting the ideal women as "disappearing"...but I especially feel like I'm the brunt of a joke in the clothing that's available to me as a woman who wears larger sizes.
anna k
It makes me jealous when I see Hollywood actresses who I like get really small and petite and look like little women. So many of them are small, it's like they're diminishing their power by making themselves smaller or competing to see who can be described as "doll-like" and "waif-like." There's a difference between small women who wield power and strength and women who make themselves smaller to fit into smaller dresses and wear big sunglasses to look tinier. My dad's cousin is a thin and petite woman, but she has a lot of strength and character to her, and never dieted herself down to fit into a smaller size.

Whenever I read a profile of an actress that lavishes over her small body (like a writer commenting on Christina Aguilera's tiny feet and tiny hands), it reminds me of an old interview with Tanya Donnelly who said that she hated it when writers called her doll-like and child-like, diminishing her as a woman and making her into something more fragile and breakable.

Sometimes there is a celebration of the "curvy" woman, but it's usually a woman with a small shape and a prominent bust. Since I have a large chest and a round butt, it doesn't make me feel any better when I see small women with C-cups heralded as "curvy."

There's not even many actresses who are very tall and defy the petite stature of many female celebrities. Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Sigourney Weaver, and Uma Thurman are a few who have a tall and commanding presence. The rest just look tiny next to them.
Following up on anna's post about the feet and hands commentary....has anyone noticed the latest trend of dissing female celebrities for their "freakishly" big (and/or "mannish") hands and feet? This one has knocked me over on my ass. It's bad enough that picking on women's body parts has created tons of eating disorders and sent hundreds of thousands of women running to plastic surgeons...what does picking on their hands and feet do to them? Send them for all-out amputations???

More general to the conversation....maybe this is going O/T a bit, but my theory on the increasing push to sickly, starvation-style thinness is that it's a western knee-jerk reaction to the global view of western wealth and western consumption. Nobody wants to deal with the real problems of western consumption (i.e., the free market system, global poverty, western hoarding of global resources), so this is what we get instead. People of size, and especially women of size, have historically been seen as a sign of a society's wealth. Now, however, the new sign of wealth is skinny - the skinnier, the better. The ultra-skinny (especially women) are invariably shown as the advertisers of, and the consumers of, conspicuous material wealth and consumption - the fashion and entertainment worlds representing the most superficial and idealized forms of this.

I think "fat" is an embarrassment to the wealthy western classes, because of the historical, global view of what fat represents - wealth - and because we live in a time of increased consciousness (and an expectation of conscience, i.e., the "human rights" era) about globalized issues like poverty and our own unearned societal/global privileges. However, the people most likely to be "fat" in western culture are now those belonging to the poorer classes (which, as we've discussed before in the Lounge, is likely at least partly connected to the ingredients in the cheaper, processed food products, and to the decreased amount of time working families have to prepare whole foods). And the poorer classes have always been the most convenient scapegoat in any society, which is why I think the frenzied hype of the so-called "obesity epidemic" was allowed to develop and be pushed into general consciousness. Creating a vibe of "hate" around "fat" (as the most visible representation - historically - of "overconsumption") in western culture allows the wealthier class to deflect attention away from their own hoarding of material resources, and gives them a convenient target of blame.

I think the wealthy classes view it as harder for the world to point fingers at those who consume conspicuously when those particular consumers (and those who represent them, like models and celebrities) are as skinny as those who are poverty-stricken and starving in non-western societies. Therefore, uber-skinny has become the ideal because of what it now, newly, represents. To those members of western society who aren't wealthy, it represents the ideal achievement (i.e.: super-thin = wealth/privilege = access to resources/easier life), and to those who are wealthy, it represents privilege, but it also represents freedom from a guilty conscience and blame, with regards to the role that privilege pays in global problems.


I haven't read anything about this "theory" yet, but I've been forming these thoughts (not yet fully formed!) in my head over the last many months or so...
doodle... I've read something like that before - these days, it's more expensive to be skinny; it shows you can afford to be picky about food (as opposed to shopping where almost all the food is processed but cheap). Wealth is deemed attractive, therefore it's a status thing used to attract mates. I think Matt Ridley's book the red queen talks about this. Possibly.

I dislike the habit of calling actresses/singers doll-like. It denies them intelligence and autonomy and reduces them to throwaway, temporary playthings. And as someone with massive hands... can they not leave a single body part alone?
QUOTE(ratgrl @ Oct 10 2006, 02:03 AM) *

Well, she's Australian, right?

She from New Zealand and I am not sure what this has to do with anything. My friend was pregnant at 15 and even though there is a law nothing happened due to lack of anyone in the hospital saying anything.
Looks like the girls are best mates again! I'm kind of disappointed in Nicole....,,4-2006470110,00.html

Hoe Lee Crap, that model is disgusting! The designer should be shot for not covering her poor sickly ribs!

Maybe the best thing to come out of this might be that some chicks who would normally look down on themselves for being normal sized will look at that and go "Y'know what? It's not so sexy to be skinny after all."

Because ribs ain't sexy, folks. Ribs are to be slathered with BBQ sauce, not shown through your pallid, sickly, undernourished skin.
Nicole looks like she needs to go to the hospital... I guess time around Paris will do that to you... tongue.gif

I just want to say that I have had to settle with the fact that, because of my body shape, I will never be "skinny" by their standards. If I ever were to drop down to 100 pounds, I would look terribly ill because I AM A WOMAN. My ribs would stick out, along with my hips and my beautiful butt and bust (Mr. Otaku's words) would disapear. yet if I weigh 130 lbs, which is healthy for me, I'm "fat" not just according to them, but accoriding to my mother as well (sigh, off to the family section).
so you know what? screw 'em. everyone should say this. I HAVE A WOMAN"S BODY, AND I AM PROUD!
nice to say...

also, don't you find it funny that most men find the hourglass shape the most sttractive, yet you see that almost no where in the fashion world?

Nicole looks like she's sick. Literally. Poor thing.

And that model--Gobs!

If you look at her face, you'll see the purple bags under her eyes. How does she have the strength to WALK the catwalk like that?

adding hilarious layers of irony to the keisha castle-hughes story is that she is playing MARY THE TEENAGED VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD in an upcoming movie directed by THE SAME WOMAN WHO WROTE AND DIRECTED "THIRTEEN". the mind reels.

oh and doodle, that is a really, really interesting way of looking at things. i have to roll that around in my brain for a while. kudos to you.
oh. my. in that picture of the model, you can see her left hip bone jutting out...further than her breast! i mean, it's likely because of her posture, but still. i'm pretty thin (not that thin), but if i stood like that, i'm pretty sure my hip would not jut out further than my breast. sorry if this doesn't make sense, but i'm just shocked by that picture. i've seen pictures like that in relation to stories on eating disorders. that dress or whatever it is - it just hangs on her.

chacha, i totally agree with you and everyone else who has commented on the lack of designer skills going into making clothes for the real woman.

doodle, interesting theory.

i, too, am a little disappointed in nicole richie.
I think the rekindled friendship between Nicole and Paris is all for the sake of the show.
Why don't we all adopt this saying: "Nicole who? Paris who?"

Just askin'.

Doodle, your theory is interesting. It has been noted that just as the western symbol of wealth and material riches is embodied in extremely thin women, countries with less access to the kind of stratospheric wealth we have in our society embody their beauty ideals in voluptuous, round, chubbier women. This used to clearly be the case; but I think it's changed slightly so that extremely wealthy countries which don't share our own particular type of material acquisitiveness (think about wealthy OPEC nations, for example) will still "value" women who are larger, curvier, taller, rounder, as, apparently, wealth is still tied to notions of enormous fertility (and the opposite holds true in our culture).

I'm not sure if Keisha is Maori, not just "from New Zealand". If she were, then aboriginal laws about sexual consent don't have to be the same as New Zealand's. And, she seems happy, well-supported, and she's still creative (Mary the Teenaged Virgin movie). I don't think she's your typical, "knocked up teenaged pregnancy", but I could be wrong.
Keisha Castle-Hughes is part Maori; she was born in Australia and moved to NZ aged four, her father is Australian and her mother is New Zealand Maori.
This is to address diva's post below:
I did a little research on the Forbes site, and it turns out that Liz Claiborne, Jones Co. (Jones NY), Levi's are in the top 5 (as far as the American fashion industry). Ralph Lauren is 6th, if I recall correctly. I checked the Forbes Global 2000 list, and it turns out that Chanel, Manolo, Yves, D&G, etc., are the top earners, but Ralph Lauren is still in the mix. They gave mention to Target and Wal-Mart as being just as competitive in the clothing industry (their corporations make shitloads more than any designers--especially Wal-Mart). I think part of the reason why Chanel and those other guys make so much is partly due to their clientele, namely celebrities. Otherwise, working to upper middle class folks are busy shopping at American chains with sizes that go up to at least 12/14.

I'm so glad you mentioned the architecture thing, chacha, because that's the first thing that comes to mind for me. It reminds me of the modern architecture and urban renewal era, when the mindset was "the designer is always right." That's when they started designing crap that was very utopian, including public housing, and assuming that people would assimilate to their environment and everyone would love each other. 99% of those projects were later considered disasters and then demolished. Cabrini Green is a perfect example of this. ANYWAY, enough about architecture. My point is that the architects were WRONG in thinking that people would just adapt to their designs. It's a capitalist economy and people will respond according to their own needs. I wish clothing designers would get the same kick in the ass that other design industries have received.

Okay, back to celebrity gossip...

Does anyone know the latest news on Screech's sex tape?
Unfortunately, Pinkpoodle, Lagerfeld and yes, even Gaulthier construct Cabrini Green after Cabrini Green, never actually "getting" that what they're designing leads us all to the Grim Reaper in evening wear so expertly linked below.

I think Chanel makes a lot more money on their perfumes and cosmetics, frankly--lucrative licensing agreements keep Chanel (and other fashion houses which sell impossible clothing) afloat. After all, I can always wear Chanel makeup or cologne, even if I'm a size 18. There simply aren't enough celebrities and wealthy clientele in the world to help them equate their sales to the Walmarts and Targets of this world; and Ralph Lauren can sell as much money wise because he's also selling licensed goods with no size restrictions.
Yeah, it's probably true that the Pradas, Guccis, and Chanels of the world make more off cosmetics and accessories than off actual clothes. I can wear their shoes and carry their bags and wear their lipstick all I like, no matter what my size (and I do). Being able to buy a Chanel lipstick for around $20 makes them feel accessible, even though they're really not. Sometimes you just want something in the cute package. As far as the celebrity clientelle goes, I think most of them actually get their designer stuff for free for showing up at events or just to wear around town and be photograped by paparazzi. I read an article in Bazaar about that a few months ago.

Poodle, those figures are astonishing. I can't believe Manolo Blahnik is really that high up on the list since all that company sells is shoes. Then there are some brands, like Louis Vuitton/Moet/Hennessy that are up there, but I only figured that was because they're 3 major companies all put together. I'm glad to see Ralph Lauren is up there, though. I love that he designs for everyone, no matter your age, gender, shape, or size. He may have his flaws, but it's nice to see one designer step out of the "real women aren't made over a size 8" (Isaac Mizrahi) box and tap into the larger market.
Celebs also often "borrow" clothing for an event. One can't be seen in the same dress twice afterall! I've seen situations where one star wore one dress to an event & returned it, only to have it loaned out to another star weeks later. Magazines will run the photos together & then make fun of the star that re-wore the outfit in question.
QUOTE(bunnyb @ Oct 10 2006, 10:23 PM) *

I think the rekindled friendship between Nicole and Paris is all for the sake of the show.

I don't think they were ever in a feud, I think they faked it for the show and when execs found out people don't like them apart, the feud was resolved.
anna k
In the new Elle, Jessica Alba was asked about a photo of her that was used on the cover of Playboy without her or her reps' permission, and comparing it to her posing in GQ in a Marilyn Monroe-inspired nude layout.

Though she previously appeared on the cover of GQ wearing nothing more than a pair of granny panties, Alba says there's a difference between the two men's magazines: "You don't open GQ thinking you're gonna look at someone's vagina."

I don't see much of a difference. They're both men's magazines, one that features nudity, and they both sell sexuality whether the girl is completly naked or naked except covering her boobies with one hand. She can say it was "classy" because it was based on an old Marilyn Monroe spread, but it's still the same thing to me. Same as the Vanity Fair Hollywood issue, where a few actresses posed nude but felt it was "classy" and "tasteful" as opposed to being in a men's magazine.

Also, what the hell happened to Rose McGowan?
oh, god, she looks awful. i haven't liked her since her awful interview in bust, though....

as per the jessica alba thing, i think there is a clear difference--gq isn't porn. you can buy gq if you're under 18; it isn't hidden behind the other magazines on the shelf.

the real issue, though, is using her image in that situation without her permission. i don't particularly admire her as an actress or a human or whatever, but i think that she's become one of the most objectified women in show business, like to the level of pam anderson, without asking for it at all. it bugs me how it's sort of free game to go after her simply BECAUSE she isn't a boob-jobbed out, too-skinny, wearing-too-much-makeup, or whatever else sets her apart from other way-up-there sex symbols. does anyone understand what i'm saying? like it's "wholesome" to objectify the girl next door type.
Screech News.

Agent David Hans Schmidt has acquired the rights and is currently seeking a distributor for "Saved By the Smell."

Schmidt tells the New York Daily News, "Just when you think you have seen everything in this business, mankind has raised the bar another notch. Or lowered it."

Diamond's manager Roger Paul hopes the tape will raise his client's profile and help resurrect the acting career that collapsed when "Saved By the Bell" ended in 1997.

He says, "I haven't seen the tape. I've heard rumors. Dustin has been trying to escape the Screech typecast. So this may help me get more bookings."

Diamond will welcome any royalties he gets from the tape -- in June he launched a campaign to save his home from foreclosure, by selling autographed T-shirts on the Internet.

Lawyer quits Anna Nicole Smith's employ

i think i just stopped feeling sorry for anna nicole smith.
daniel's still lying in a funeral home.
and she's jumping off of yachts in a wedding gown, making sloppy attempts to safeguard her inheritance.
pretty hard to give her the benefit of the doubt right now.
Rose, Rose, did you do to yourself?! Ugh. Now she looks like a botox-happy 40 year old.

I hate Jessica Alba, I really do. My roommate decided that I just hate all famous Jessicas, and I think she has a point. But Alba...UGH! Can't stand her. It pissed me off when she did Sin City and was talking about how she refused to go topless because it would've embarassed her dad and been disrespectful (to which I as like *cough*bullshit*cough*), but then she went at posed topless in tiny little panties while covering her boobs that very month of the movie's release. Plus she was playing a stripper in the movie. So when that Playboy thing happened, I was just like, "Go to hell wench." Not that I like Playboy or anything, but she's been selling sex from the beginning, even though she promotes herself as a wholesome girl next door. Her movies and her photo shoots may as well be soft porn, so that's where I take offense to her trying to come off as a classy little wholesome sweetheart. Puke.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2016 Invision Power Services, Inc.