You…think Michelle Obama is “thick”? Like, physically? Like, overweight and with too-large hips? Really?
Really?
I think it looks much better in still photography than it did on tv. On tv, it really looked horrible–like she was either about 5-6 months pregnant or massively sway-backed. Something about the way it caught all the lights, maybe, but it had zilch to do with the shrug.
This tunic outfit, in theory, isn’t bad. Aside from it making me want to ship her back to 1988, that is. It fits okay, the pants are skinny enough to fit with the trend without looking like she’s trying look 20 years younger than she is, it’s not a bad color on her. But in execution, it all falls apart. The bands of trim are of a terrible proportion, and don’t really relate to each other at all in either color, texture, or style.
Still, I think the real killer is the belt she put on, just in case it didn’t look Jubilee Jumbles enough on its own. I think she was trying to define her waist and tie the top together with the black pants. But the whole point of a tunic top is that the waist is undefined, the whole point of black pants is that they don’t need to be tied together with anything, and that top was way too busy already.
But…but…those aren’t the same dress at all! True, one is reminiscent of the other, but the neckline, the hemline, the seams in the torso and the pattern of red splotches is entirely different!
If made by the same people, this pattern was “scaled up” entirely wrong!
The most important thing is whether she liked it, but since you asked…
The two cardigan thing isn’t a big deal; I mean, I probably would’ve picked one and been done with it, but what the hell. Also, the pants might’ve looked a bit better with the tunic/cardigan combo were they a bit more slim and a bit lighter in color.
The main thing is, there’s way too much going on between her waist & mid-thigh region. You’ve got the checkerboard-looking patterned belt with the hot pink buckle, then immediately underneath you’ve got three or four rows of frilly, flowery type stuff in differing colors and patterns (and possibly textures - can’t tell). It’s way, way too busy.
Knock off a couple rows of flowers (or make them all of the same style & fabric) and change up the belt to a solid color.
Then again, as I said, I don’t have to be the one who’s happy wearing it.
It’s the “same” dress, made by the same people. It’s the difference between runway and ready-to-wear, doubtless with some alterations specifically meant for Michelle. And if it’d been me, I’d have kept the sweetheart neckline, ditched the sweater, and kept the red on the bottom in a proportion more similar to the runway dress.
Actually… I take that back. I think that they brought the red down more to avoid giving her the appearance of a “pooch”. So if anything, I think maybe I’d have extended the red area, and kept it more “spotty”, like it is on the runway dress.
As others have said, this looks like the kind of thing a lot of college girls are wearing now. I don’t find it an especially outlandish outfit in and of itself, although it’s maybe a BIT young for a woman in her 40s. That’s what I’d be thinking if I saw the same outfit on a woman of the same age at the supermarket: “Lady, you need to stop going to the sorority house and stealing your daughter’s clothes.”
I don’t think that tunic would look good on a college aged girl either, but I wouldn’t be at all *surprised *to see it on a 19 year old.
I think that removing the flowers and ribbons would render this a nice enough outfit for either the college student or Ms. Obama, though. Maybe the row of flowers at the bottom could stay, but as things are there’s just too much going on there. The photo is also unflattering because she’s in mid-stride and turned partially to the side, a pose that’s making her hips and thighs look wider than they are. But excessive trim aside, the sweaters, tunic, and pants combo seem fashionable enough to me, and I think the yellow sweater and checkerboard belt are rather fun.
I like that she’s willing to try something a little crazy. I also like that, even while wearing the fake flowers, she looks like she could kick my ass if I said anything bad about it.
The difference is that the model doesn’t look like a pregnant woman in an apron. Michelle’s dress was the [del]worst[/del] now the second-worst thing she’s ever worn.
I’m so sorry that my realistic outlook and unwillingness to insult people I don’t know offends you. Whether or not you approve, healthy women are supposed to have fat deposits in certain places. The best way to get skinny is to give up dairy. Then you don’t get calcium. And when you’re sixty, you’re hunched over like the Queen Mum. But hey, at least you didn’t have a muffin top when you were 25. Sorry, I don’t think that’s an acceptable tradeoff.
It’s a big leap from the OP-linked photo to obese, and I was not lauding obesity. But I’m not going to join in putting down myself and the majority of other women for being normal. And it is normal to have hips wider than your waist.
I think her hips are wide, yes. Really! Yes, really! Really! No, really! Overweight? No idea but I didn’t say that, now did I? Since you asked: thicker than I would care to be, but not really overweight.
Oh, please. No one is saying that she’s obese but your stupid “real woman” BS is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn’t offend me, it makes me laugh. Oh yes, one can only be a “real woman” if she has fat deposits. I guess Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a real woman just like you. :rolleyes:
Exercise and eating sensible will help just as much as giving up dairy, so please don’t quit your day job to give dietary advice. The only choices are to have a muffin top and drink dairy or be thin and have osteoporosis. Any other great advice to give?
I like it except for the pants…what WAS she thinking? :eek: Leggings or tights with this outfit, preferably in a bright color co-ordinating with one of the ones in the rest of the ensemble.
I suspect the pants was a concession to the “formality” of the occasion and her position 
I agree that at LEAST we have a First Lady who shakes it up a little and goes beyond the uber conservative mode. 
Recently she was being criticized for wearing a, GASP!, sleeveless dress in an official portrait…HELLO! she looked great…any woman her age with arms like that would be crazy NOT to go sleeveless whenever possible! 
And since when did showing some upper arm become “indecent” or “inappropriate” (terms used by a few critics of her choice…perhaps they’d have preferred she wear a burka?:rolleyes:)
All in all, though, I think we have a few more pressing issues at hand that what the First Lady of the U.S. is wearing :smack:
To me, “thick” implies “overweight.” Thanks for clarifying.
And where did I say that Mrs Obama is thick? My reference to thick was to the stupid “real women” comment. Nowhere did I refer to Mrs Obama as thick.
Okay, how am I being stupid? What’s fat and what’s thin, to you? What should a woman look like? And I said fat deposits, not fat everywhere from head to toe.
I’m confused, because just a few posts up you said that she was “thicker than you would want to be,” but now you are saying that you have not referred to her as “thick.” OK, buddy, whatever. If there were a thread about “Dumbest nitpicky argument you have been involved in on the Dope,” I would nominate this one.
Sorry for the hijack, everyone else.
Fat and thin can very from person to person so how on earth could I possibly explain it to you other than to say that your implication that if a woman doesn’t have fat deposits then she isn’t a “real woman” whatever that means. It is positively stupid and just as insulting to women as saying that women who gain too much weight aren’t “real women.” It’s ignorant. You’re just as rude by saying that as someone is for making fun of someone for having too much weight. Period. If that is really too hard for you to understand then I’m not sure what else to say to you.
First, I’m anything but your “buddy”. Next, just because someone is thicker than I would want to be, that doesn’t make them THICK in an “official!” sense. You’re picking and choosing what you want to read into what I’m typing.
Also, stop and reread what you’ve typed here. You accused me of calling her thick/overweight BEFORE I said she was thicker than I cared to be. Me saying that was in response to YOU questioning me on whether I thought she was overweight. Go back and read the words that are there & in the order they appear and perhaps you won’t be so confused. You jumped the gun with your “Really!? Really!?” comment simply because I pointed out that she has wide hips. I am technically under the “perfect” weight for my height and my thighs are too thick. (Really? Really?! Yes) So, my thighs are too thick but I’m not overweight. See how that can work?
How could anyone understand you? You’re just rambling and babbling; I’m not sure even you understand what you’re saying.
Yeah, it’s terrible. I really hope it’s not fashion forward otherwise that means we’re in for a pretty horrific trend shortly.
Nice excuse but let’s break it down in cavewoman speak just for you. Okay?
Is that simple enough even for you?
It’s pretty hilarious there are so many “high minded people” here who think they are accepting of other people, but only fat women can be “real women” on the Dope. I guess those transgendered females will need to be sure they get fat deposits along with their surgeries so Rilchiam will accept them as real women.
You are truly an open minded woman.