The Scariest Slippers

Food for thought: these are made for wearing in the privacy of your home. But would you want to?


"Monique" by Bonjour Fleurette ($69.95 on zappos.com)










"Hairball" by Sanuk ($29.95 on zappos.com)
The name explains it all.








"Glamour II" by Daniel Green ($49.95 on zappos.com)









"Coquette" by Ugg ($78.95 on zappos.com)










"Fiesta" by Acorn ($53.95 on zappos.com)










"Easy Traveler" by Acorn ($50.95 on zappos.com)












"Cheyenne" by Woolrich ($35.95 on zappos.com)

Friday Top Fifteen

Greetings! This Friday is a rundown of 15 of the ugliest pairs of shoes I could find (keep in mind there are countless thousands more out there, but I don't have the time or energy to hunt them all down). They are in no particular rank or order--I found them all disturbing.
Happy gagging!







"Jennifer" by Fitzwell ($35.95 on zappos.com)
Tee-hee!







"Y6520" by Tapeet by Vicini ($328.95 on zappos.com)
I just don't get it.









"Ugar" by Robert Clergerie ($498.95 on zappos.com)
These are so ugly I can't stand it. Who would even think to purchase these from a thrift store?








"Crystal" by dollhouse ($108.95 on zappos.com)
...









"Mohawk" by Elle ($203.95 on zappos.com)
They certainly are rustic-looking, aren't they?











"7917" by Vigotti ($29.95 on zappos.com)
Words cannot express what I am feeling at this moment.









"Gorgeous" by Annie ($44.95 on zappos.com)
It's even got rhinestones!!!









"Pizzaz" by Steve Madden ($83.95 on zappos.com)
All this shoe is good for is gagging (at it, hopefully not on it...please).









"Sadie" by DKNY ($298.95 on zappos.com)
Hehe!








"Adora" by NaNa ($73.95 on zappos.com)
A little something for the hooker in all of us.









"Mandalay" by John Fluevog ($216.95 on zappos.com)
I literally gagged. Ack.
They bred a Dutch clog with...with... ... see, I'm speechless. Ack.









"663904" by Marc by Marc Jacobs ($253.95 on zappos.com)
It's so...colorful.










"Blizzard" by akademiks ($148.95 on zappos.com)
They mummified it.
Another reason you should never trust a company that spells its name wrong (hint: the correct spelling of the word is a-c-a-d-e-m-i-c-s, academics).









"Downtown" by Ugg ($143.95 on zappos.com)
All I can say is, "WHY???"













"4794 Vivienne" by Fornarina ($203.95 at zappos.com)
This is the "lovely" plum hue...it also comes in burgundy and black!

Fairly Attractive Winter footwear

WARNING: None of the shoes below are made of synthetic materials. Your feet will not shrink, sweat, turn green, smell, die or whatever it is they do in plastic/"man made upper" shoes.


"Not Even" by Kenneth Cole Reaction ($72.95 at zappos.com)
Jeans or slacks (just make sure they're long enough).










"R7859" by Lumiani ($29.95 at zappos.com)
This shoe would work well under jeans or slacks, and maybe with a flirty (but not poufy) knee-length skirt.








"Cos I'm Hot" by Kenneth Cole Reaction ($201.95 on zappos.com)
Yes, I actually think this is attractive. Do not wear it with a skirt, capri pants, a dress or any item of clothing other than jeans or dark colored slacks. The pointed toe and thin heel make this boot more attractive than your "run of the mill" honkey-tonk clunkers (which many sorority and wannabe-sorority girls seem to love wearing with mini skirts. Gag.).





"Flo" by Anne Klein New York ($403.95 on zappos.com)
This is an incredibly attractive (and expensive) shoe for going out. It's a classic color (that can go with just about anything, just so long as you're not wearing metallic colors anywear other than your handbag or jewelry) and style, and doesn't look like it would be terribly uncomfortable.

Quality vs. Quantity

Where do you shop?
The question is important, simply because it says a lot about what you're wearing. If you shop at stores with lower prices (Target, Wal-Mart, JC Penneys, etc.), you're getting what you pay those cheap prices for: cheap clothing. If you are shopping at places where you pay a little more for your clothes, they will be higher quality and they will last longer.
More homes of poor quality clothing: Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, The Gap, Old Navy, (insert mall store name here).
This goes for other things too, not just clothing. Cover Girl=cheap price, =cheap quality. This isn't a tirade against the people who buy these things, but rather a warning, a bit of advice. If you want to look nice, and if you want clothing that will (probably, if you get the right size) fit you better and last longer, you need to put down some more money for it.

The moral of the day: you pay for what you get.

Serious Fashion Blunders

Some fashion blunders I have encountered repeatedly, that make me shudder every time:

1. UGG BOOTS. Why? Why am I so adamantly against these hideous things? Everyone's wearing them, right? That's because everyone hasn't looked at themselves in the mirror while wearing ugg boots, obviously. Ugg boots are large and shapeless. They are fat. How does that reflect on the person who is wearing them? If the person is average sized to large, ugg boots make her (or his, in rare cases) legs look shapeless, fat and short. If the person is thin, the ugg boots are usually wider than the legs and thus you have the illusion of toothpick legs. Need I say more? Some people say they're comfortable. I don't think image self-sacrifice is worth "comfort." Bah!

2. Shrug sweaters. They are short, and most of them are rounded in the front. Large women wear them under the impression that they will look slimmer in these things. Nope. They look rounder, and like they have less of an hour-glass figure. You get more of a butterball turkey look. And on average to thin women? They just look silly. Come on now, it looks like you couldn't afford a whole sweater.

3. Wide-leg capris (aka gaucho pants). Not only are they usually made out of the same material as sweatpants (on the University of Arizona campus, anyway), they have a weird flat stomach panel thing. And guess what these do to your rear end? It looks larger than life, and shapeless--and that's not just because most women have that sort of rear. These pants are shapeless, creating a shapeless image for the wearer. Comfort, you say? Ugly rear-view is what you're really getting out of it.