Oscars red carpet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

This is just straight up insane. OF COURSE IT'S AN EATING DISORDER.

Are you one of those ignorant people who think every thin person has an eating disorder? My mother, my best friend and my son are all underweight naturally and have tiny appetites. They're genetically programmed that way. All three have been on weight-gaining diets at some point in their lives.

Also, plump people can have eating disorders too, just so you know. The size you see has NOTHING to do with the existence of an eating disorder.

+1000000000000000000000000000000

FFS, don't gaslight us with this BS about "naturally underweight." Here is what Nicole Kidman looked like in her late 20s:





Here is Demi Moore, also in her 20s:




Emma Stone, 9 years ago:




Ariana Grande, a few years back:



Cynthia Erivo, in 2022




These women are not "naturally" underweight. They are emaciated. They are starving themselves.

I agree. I remember seeing Emma Stone in Superbad— I cannot believe it’s the same person.

I think she looks better with the weight loss. probably not a popular opinion.

She looks like $hit. Like she’s actually starving herself to death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better photo of Zendaya's dress. I just want to compare and contrast with Gwyneth's dress. They are actually similar levels of revealing, because while Gwyneth's has the hip fully visible instead of covered, Zendaya's has more side boob and it' visible skin instead of illusion netting.

But Zendaya's is so much sexier and prettier specifically because it's selective in what it covers up and hides. And in this jersey fabric, it just flowed and moved with her even though the bodice was obviously extremely tailored and then taped into place. It's seductive without feeling naked, whereas Gwyneth's dress is naked without feeling seductive. This winds up looking made for her and comfortable, whereas Gwyneth's dress looked awkward and like it was a joke.

Zendaya’s look is also unflattering. And what happened to Pattinson’s face??

"Unflattering"? Wut. She looks amazing. What about it is unflattering?

He always looks like that but is particularly pasty here.

Her side boob and torso aren’t attractive. She looks too thin.

+1. I think Tom Holland would look better in that dress, because the torso would be more filled out and he probably would have a bigger chest as well.

Zendaya looked so skinny in Challengers I had to turn the movie off. She looked anorexic.

That's a you problem.

She's very tall, this is how she carries weight on her frame. What a weird reason to stop watching a movie (which was really fun!).

She’s 5’10” which is tall, but not THAT tall. And that side boob dress was ugly, sorry.

Isn’t she 6’1”? And yes, that dress didn’t work on her. She’d look better with her boob and side covered up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better photo of Zendaya's dress. I just want to compare and contrast with Gwyneth's dress. They are actually similar levels of revealing, because while Gwyneth's has the hip fully visible instead of covered, Zendaya's has more side boob and it' visible skin instead of illusion netting.

But Zendaya's is so much sexier and prettier specifically because it's selective in what it covers up and hides. And in this jersey fabric, it just flowed and moved with her even though the bodice was obviously extremely tailored and then taped into place. It's seductive without feeling naked, whereas Gwyneth's dress is naked without feeling seductive. This winds up looking made for her and comfortable, whereas Gwyneth's dress looked awkward and like it was a joke.

Zendaya’s look is also unflattering. And what happened to Pattinson’s face??

"Unflattering"? Wut. She looks amazing. What about it is unflattering?

He always looks like that but is particularly pasty here.

Her side boob and torso aren’t attractive. She looks too thin.

+1. I think Tom Holland would look better in that dress, because the torso would be more filled out and he probably would have a bigger chest as well.

Zendaya looked so skinny in Challengers I had to turn the movie off. She looked anorexic.

That's a you problem.

She's very tall, this is how she carries weight on her frame. What a weird reason to stop watching a movie (which was really fun!).

She’s 5’10” which is tall, but not THAT tall. And that side boob dress was ugly, sorry.

Isn’t she 6’1”? And yes, that dress didn’t work on her. She’d look better with her boob and side covered up.

No, she’s only 6’1 if Tom Holland is 5’11…

I think she’s gorgeous but the dress was not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better photo of Zendaya's dress. I just want to compare and contrast with Gwyneth's dress. They are actually similar levels of revealing, because while Gwyneth's has the hip fully visible instead of covered, Zendaya's has more side boob and it' visible skin instead of illusion netting.

But Zendaya's is so much sexier and prettier specifically because it's selective in what it covers up and hides. And in this jersey fabric, it just flowed and moved with her even though the bodice was obviously extremely tailored and then taped into place. It's seductive without feeling naked, whereas Gwyneth's dress is naked without feeling seductive. This winds up looking made for her and comfortable, whereas Gwyneth's dress looked awkward and like it was a joke.

Zendaya’s look is also unflattering. And what happened to Pattinson’s face??

"Unflattering"? Wut. She looks amazing. What about it is unflattering?

He always looks like that but is particularly pasty here.

Her side boob and torso aren’t attractive. She looks too thin.

+1. I think Tom Holland would look better in that dress, because the torso would be more filled out and he probably would have a bigger chest as well.

Zendaya looked so skinny in Challengers I had to turn the movie off. She looked anorexic.

That's a you problem.

She's very tall, this is how she carries weight on her frame. What a weird reason to stop watching a movie (which was really fun!).

She’s 5’10” which is tall, but not THAT tall. And that side boob dress was ugly, sorry.

Isn’t she 6’1”? And yes, that dress didn’t work on her. She’d look better with her boob and side covered up.

No, she’s only 6’1 if Tom Holland is 5’11…

I think she’s gorgeous but the dress was not.

I don’t think the cut out worked either. But otherwise it was a fine dress . I don’t think she was trying to bring too much attention to herself at the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

This is just straight up insane. OF COURSE IT'S AN EATING DISORDER.

Are you one of those ignorant people who think every thin person has an eating disorder? My mother, my best friend and my son are all underweight naturally and have tiny appetites. They're genetically programmed that way. All three have been on weight-gaining diets at some point in their lives.

Also, plump people can have eating disorders too, just so you know. The size you see has NOTHING to do with the existence of an eating disorder.

+1000000000000000000000000000000

FFS, don't gaslight us with this BS about "naturally underweight." Here is what Nicole Kidman looked like in her late 20s:





Here is Demi Moore, also in her 20s:




Emma Stone, 9 years ago:




Ariana Grande, a few years back:



Cynthia Erivo, in 2022




These women are not "naturally" underweight. They are emaciated. They are starving themselves.

I normally really hate the body shaming of female celebs, who are already under so much pressure appearance-wise, including the shaming of thin women for being thin.

But it's very hard to argue with this post. These are all beautiful women but there's no question that across the board, they are all significantly thinner than they were 10 or 20 (or 30) years ago. And none were heavy to begin with -- they were all already thin, but with some actual normal body fat and *some* curves. Without singling anyone out, it's absolutely true that there is a downward trend in terms of actress's weight in the last decade or so, and it's just not possible that it's healthy (or is having a healthy impact on people watching them from home). It's probably not just ozempic -- I suspect it's a combination of weight loss drugs, orthorexia, the obsession with "clean" eating that can often be a mask for disordered eating, and just plain old fashioned dieting. But this can't be good, it's so extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

This is just straight up insane. OF COURSE IT'S AN EATING DISORDER.

Are you one of those ignorant people who think every thin person has an eating disorder? My mother, my best friend and my son are all underweight naturally and have tiny appetites. They're genetically programmed that way. All three have been on weight-gaining diets at some point in their lives.

Also, plump people can have eating disorders too, just so you know. The size you see has NOTHING to do with the existence of an eating disorder.

+1000000000000000000000000000000

FFS, don't gaslight us with this BS about "naturally underweight." Here is what Nicole Kidman looked like in her late 20s:





Here is Demi Moore, also in her 20s:




Emma Stone, 9 years ago:




Ariana Grande, a few years back:



Cynthia Erivo, in 2022




These women are not "naturally" underweight. They are emaciated. They are starving themselves.

I agree. I remember seeing Emma Stone in Superbad— I cannot believe it’s the same person.

I think she looks better with the weight loss. probably not a popular opinion.

She looks like $hit. Like she’s actually starving herself to death.

DP. I think she looks amazing now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigourney Weaver, fantastic job

I hate this. I don't think the gold suits her and I hate the neckband and wristbands.

Agree. It's so matronly. The phrase, a "handsome woman" comes to mind.

She’s 76 so maybe she felt anxious about not dressing mutton as lamb. But I agree it could have been a little less…buttoned up. Either a more open neckline or more open sleeves. I like the color on her though and I think the silhouette is also in keeping with her general style. I think she looks 10 years younger than her age, at least!

She definitely does not look 76! She looks amazing, minus this dress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

I guarantee you that all of these people are using a GLP 1 in addition to their highly disordered eating.

Just stop. Sure, some of them use GLP-1. Others don't and always have been - and always will be - thin. Zendaya, for one.

Zendaya is also so young — I was so thin in my 20s and could eat like a linebacker while staying a size 2. Sigh. Now I diet constantly to stay a size 10. Who knows if she’ll be thin forever but it’s probably pretty easy for her now.

Research has shown that metabolism is fairly stable from 20 to 60.

I know they say that, and maybe it’s true for some people. But I bet if you just studied people who are very thin in their teens and 20s, maybe there would be a difference? There’s definitely a thing with some women who are effortlessly thin when young who then chunk out in middle age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

I guarantee you that all of these people are using a GLP 1 in addition to their highly disordered eating.

+1 I think that’s the difference we’re all noticing lately - that naturally skinny women in this industry are topping off their crazy eating and working out combo with GLP1s.

Yes. This. And many of them have gone overboard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

I guarantee you that all of these people are using a GLP 1 in addition to their highly disordered eating.

Just stop. Sure, some of them use GLP-1. Others don't and always have been - and always will be - thin. Zendaya, for one.

Zendaya is also so young — I was so thin in my 20s and could eat like a linebacker while staying a size 2. Sigh. Now I diet constantly to stay a size 10. Who knows if she’ll be thin forever but it’s probably pretty easy for her now.

Research has shown that metabolism is fairly stable from 20 to 60.

I know they say that, and maybe it’s true for some people. But I bet if you just studied people who are very thin in their teens and 20s, maybe there would be a difference? There’s definitely a thing with some women who are effortlessly thin when young who then chunk out in middle age.

A lot of the people who "chunk out" just eat/drink more to cope with the stressors of middle age. Not just women, men too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

This is just straight up insane. OF COURSE IT'S AN EATING DISORDER.

Are you one of those ignorant people who think every thin person has an eating disorder? My mother, my best friend and my son are all underweight naturally and have tiny appetites. They're genetically programmed that way. All three have been on weight-gaining diets at some point in their lives.

Also, plump people can have eating disorders too, just so you know. The size you see has NOTHING to do with the existence of an eating disorder.

+1000000000000000000000000000000

FFS, don't gaslight us with this BS about "naturally underweight." Here is what Nicole Kidman looked like in her late 20s:





Here is Demi Moore, also in her 20s:




Emma Stone, 9 years ago:




Ariana Grande, a few years back:



Cynthia Erivo, in 2022




These women are not "naturally" underweight. They are emaciated. They are starving themselves.

I agree. I remember seeing Emma Stone in Superbad— I cannot believe it’s the same person.

I think she looks better with the weight loss. probably not a popular opinion.

She looks like $hit. Like she’s actually starving herself to death.

DP. I think she looks amazing now.

For some of them, it’s the losing face fat that comes with age (sadly.eating cake does not cure that problem, ask me how I know) plus those women all do weight training (which is recommended as you age but leads to that stringy arm look instead of the soft thin look they had as 20-somethings).
Yeah. Some of them are microdosing GLp1 but for others this is what happens to thin women as you age, if you eat the recommended Mediterranean diet, exercise the recommended amount (like 30-60 minutes of cardio a day) and lift weights. Most of us don’t look llle the because we eat spaghetti and brownies and work at a desk job all day then watch Tv on th couch instead of working out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ozempification of Hollywood has gotten out of hand. Some of these women look like walking skeletons. Georgina Chapman, Demi Moore...shocking. Refreshing to see some normal actresses like Rachel McAdams and Kate Hudson, who look like they simply eat healthily and work out.

+1. So many people looking positively skeletal.

I’m more weirded out by the plastic surgery faces. At some point, looking 20 years younger than your real age isn’t impressive. It’s just weird looking.

Agree. And some of these women are not thin due to ozempic. Demi has looked this way for decades now. I think some of those women limit carbs, eat no sugar, and work out a couple hours a day. Anniston is another like that. I don’t even think it’s really an eating disorder — they are actually probably really healthy but I would be homicidal if I lived like that. But I do know people who really love a lean chicken breast over bulgar with kale followed by an hour of Pilates.

I admit it totally don’t know but Kidman has the look to me of someone who is so stressed out by her perfectionism that she has diarrhea almost every day. She just seems so, so tightly wound.

I guarantee you that all of these people are using a GLP 1 in addition to their highly disordered eating.

Just stop. Sure, some of them use GLP-1. Others don't and always have been - and always will be - thin. Zendaya, for one.

Zendaya is also so young — I was so thin in my 20s and could eat like a linebacker while staying a size 2. Sigh. Now I diet constantly to stay a size 10. Who knows if she’ll be thin forever but it’s probably pretty easy for her now.

Research has shown that metabolism is fairly stable from 20 to 60.

I know they say that, and maybe it’s true for some people. But I bet if you just studied people who are very thin in their teens and 20s, maybe there would be a difference? There’s definitely a thing with some women who are effortlessly thin when young who then chunk out in middle age.

A lot of the people who "chunk out" just eat/drink more to cope with the stressors of middle age. Not just women, men too.

I do stress eat but I ate so much more in my 20s. Like tonight we had spaghetti and meatballs and I only had half a plate of pasta and two meatballs and no dessert. In my 20s I would have had half dozen meatballs, two full plates of pasta, a glass of whole milk and then a large dessert. And weighed 110. God. I wish I had appreciated it more. I ate bread every single day! Like for every meal! Multiple oiecss of delicious white bread every meal, with ice cream and cake pretty much every day. Sorry, you triggered me with the suggestion that I eat more now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of maternity, Wunmi Mosaku is wearing a dress in the most amazing color. The neckline is a bit fussy for my taste but the color and beading is exquisite, and her hair and makeup is amazing as well:

I posted the above -- it was a top 5 look from the awards for me. But then Wunmi went and wore the below to the Vanity Fair party, which I also love, and also just love them next to each other. She totally won the night for me.

Ugh! I hate both of these.

Why?

It's hard to do maternity on the red carpet and these both seem to nail it -- great colors, textures, they fit well, there's some drama. Seems like she nailed it.

All that puffy fabric attached to the dress. Looks cheap.

...? Are you talking about the cape? That's not attached to the dress. It's strapless sheath in one fabric, and then she's wearing a cape made with what might be pin tucked organza? It's removable and not part of the dress. It doesn't look cheap to me and the color looks so fantastic with her coloring, plus it is hard to fit a sheath at that stage in pregnancy but they did a great job showing off her shape instead of it looking stiff or tented, despite the weight and dimensionality of the fabric.

DP. I agree with the PP. It does look cheap. You can just let it go without having to go into in-depth explanations of why you disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better photo of Zendaya's dress. I just want to compare and contrast with Gwyneth's dress. They are actually similar levels of revealing, because while Gwyneth's has the hip fully visible instead of covered, Zendaya's has more side boob and it' visible skin instead of illusion netting.

But Zendaya's is so much sexier and prettier specifically because it's selective in what it covers up and hides. And in this jersey fabric, it just flowed and moved with her even though the bodice was obviously extremely tailored and then taped into place. It's seductive without feeling naked, whereas Gwyneth's dress is naked without feeling seductive. This winds up looking made for her and comfortable, whereas Gwyneth's dress looked awkward and like it was a joke.

Zendaya’s look is also unflattering. And what happened to Pattinson’s face??

"Unflattering"? Wut. She looks amazing. What about it is unflattering?

He always looks like that but is particularly pasty here.

Her side boob and torso aren’t attractive. She looks too thin.

+1. I think Tom Holland would look better in that dress, because the torso would be more filled out and he probably would have a bigger chest as well.

Zendaya looked so skinny in Challengers I had to turn the movie off. She looked anorexic.

That's a you problem.

She's very tall, this is how she carries weight on her frame. What a weird reason to stop watching a movie (which was really fun!).

+1
I grew up tall and very, very skinny and I can't tell you how many dummies would ask if I had anorexia. No, idiot. I'm just tall and skinny, thanks for making me even more self-conscious. Some people just can't grasp that bodies come in all different sizes and shapes.

Of course people come in all shapes and sizes. Some of those shapes and sizes look unattractive, like Zendaya’s.

Totally disagree. She has the perfect figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better photo of Zendaya's dress. I just want to compare and contrast with Gwyneth's dress. They are actually similar levels of revealing, because while Gwyneth's has the hip fully visible instead of covered, Zendaya's has more side boob and it' visible skin instead of illusion netting.

But Zendaya's is so much sexier and prettier specifically because it's selective in what it covers up and hides. And in this jersey fabric, it just flowed and moved with her even though the bodice was obviously extremely tailored and then taped into place. It's seductive without feeling naked, whereas Gwyneth's dress is naked without feeling seductive. This winds up looking made for her and comfortable, whereas Gwyneth's dress looked awkward and like it was a joke.

Zendaya’s look is also unflattering. And what happened to Pattinson’s face??

"Unflattering"? Wut. She looks amazing. What about it is unflattering?

He always looks like that but is particularly pasty here.

Her side boob and torso aren’t attractive. She looks too thin.

+1. I think Tom Holland would look better in that dress, because the torso would be more filled out and he probably would have a bigger chest as well.

Zendaya looked so skinny in Challengers I had to turn the movie off. She looked anorexic.

That's a you problem.

She's very tall, this is how she carries weight on her frame. What a weird reason to stop watching a movie (which was really fun!).

+1
I grew up tall and very, very skinny and I can't tell you how many dummies would ask if I had anorexia. No, idiot. I'm just tall and skinny, thanks for making me even more self-conscious. Some people just can't grasp that bodies come in all different sizes and shapes.

Of course people come in all shapes and sizes. Some of those shapes and sizes look unattractive, like Zendaya’s.

I think zendaya looks great. She has always been skinny like that even when she was on Disney, I think it is just how she is built.

+1
Nicole Kidman is another who has always, always been tall and very thin and probably will be for the rest of her life. Some people just can't stand it, I guess.