March 22nd, 2014

Illusion of a tiny waist?

Who wouldn’t want a “waist-whittling illusion dress”? Me, for one, because I think these look like lampshades. Only a certain small (and I mean small) subgroup of women would look good in this style, and they are women who would probably look good in anything.

And although yes, their waists do look even smaller because of the wider tops, it’s not really an illusion that they have tiny waists. They really do have tiny waists.

Picky, picky, picky, I know.

But anyway, here are the weird silhouettes:


It’s actually the larger tops and bottoms that are the illusions. I predict this look will not catch on.

Unlike the trapeze:


The chemise (on the left here):


And the balloon:


I remember each of those styles in its heyday. And I also remember this song, which may be obscure enough that you’ve never heard it before, unless you’re of a certain age:

23 Responses to “Illusion of a tiny waist?”

  1. Sam L. Says:

    Old enough, but never heard this one!

  2. Gringo Says:

    Love that saxaphone rock!

    Like Sam L., I don’t remember hearing this song before.

  3. expat Says:

    The sneakers really add a touch of elegance to the ugly dress on the left.

  4. Ira Says:


  5. Tonawanda Says:

    Black is the only solution to the question of personal body aesthetics which does not scream pathetic desperation.

    Each person must ask: am I drawing attention to the very (supposed) defect I am trying to cover?

    The look to go for in these situations is something which says dignity, always dignity: “I realize I have this (supposed) defect, but I am wearing something (or doing something) which addresses the situation in a graceful way.” Either way, desperate or graceful, folks notice.

    The fact that very wealthy men cannot hide dye jobs (for example) ought to give everyone the clue that your anxiety should not get the upper hand on your dignity. All you are doing is advertising your anxiety, not a pretty thing.

    If wealthy people cannot spend their way out of the (supposed) defect, no one else can do anything about it. There is no beauty Viagra.

    Harsh reality is harsh. But we can all make ourselves look better, even beautiful, in the way we respond to it.

  6. Charles Says:


    Good description; but, I thought those were only worn on the head during rambunctious parties?

  7. mizpants Says:

    Interesting observations, Tonawanda.

  8. kcom Says:

    Those are just about the ugliest dresses I’ve ever seen.

  9. Tesh Says:

    Ugly, but mostly modest. A fair trade, I think.

    The one on the right is an interesting case study on what contrast and shape do to the eye’s natural assumptions, though.

  10. Beverly Says:

    I do love the balloon dress. So girly!

  11. Ymarsakar Says:

    So which one is this, Asian balloon or Asian trapeze?

    Oh, btw, I half suspect the sneakers on the left are for out running the rapists in Hollywood, as well as the perverts in authority.

  12. Nick Says:

    The one on the left isn’t that bad-looking, although I think you could accomplish the same effect with a well-cut vest. The one on the right looks like some kind of ball-jointed child’s toy.

  13. Doom Says:

    Lovely reminders, except for the trapeze, which only really works for very few women. I do love the lampshade look. There is something… about it. And the chemise is my second favorite. But styles were really only made for… the petite, small, demure.

    Otherwise it’s like seeing a five footer (man) hop out of an oversized vehicle, lifted to the sky, with super-sized tires. It… just doesn’t work.

  14. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Top right pic. The woman is standing awkwardly, pigeon-toed. Is this on purpose or was she caught trying to figure out right or left?

    Sort of OT. From time to time you’ll see young women standing with feet together, ankle bones no doubt touching, perfectly parallel.
    Men don’t stand that way. Men, try it and see if you feel a bit anxious for your balance. As if you’re vulnerable to some contingency. So why would women do it? An endearing, vulnerable cuteness? Emphasize feminity?

  15. Nick Says:

    Richard – Body language. Men subconsciously try to take up more space to look more powerful. Women typically signal more closed-off. Plus, the obvious reason that males can’t put their legs together as tightly as women.

  16. rickl Says:

    Not really on topic, but regarding the song, I’ve noticed that a lot of publicity photos for rock musicians in the 1950s showed their heads tilted diagonally. I wonder why?

  17. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Okay. But try standing like that and see if you feel comfortable or vulnerable. IMO, women take the risk for…some reason.

  18. Ymarsakar Says:

    Richard, I would think the primary issue is the high heels.

    The only aspect profile for a woman to stand on her toes like that is when she is kissing a much taller person.

    Also the one leg kicked back, standing on one leg is another pose.

    All of which requires some kind of balancing agent, generally external.

    A position or stance that requires no external aid is less vulnerable yes.

  19. Lee Says:

    The female on the right reminds me of those toys that were half together by some elastic and when you pressed the bottom of the stand they’d collapse, and when you released it, they snap back into place.

  20. red sweater Says:

    The illusion also makes their heads really tiny. Hideous.

  21. Random Says:

    Every one has this backwards, the optical illusion isn’t giving Keira Knightly a small waist. She’s built like Skeletor, the illusion is making her look like she has hips and a bust.

  22. Dang Says:

    The illusion of clothes that don’t fit.

  23. Instaforex Says:

    Seriously, incredible blog structure! Just how extensive have you been blogs for? you make blogs glance easy. The total glimpse of your respective web site is terrific, together with the written content!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge