2 definitions by pandrea
an individual who has been terribly sheltered for too long. her parents still run her life, especially her father (who seems rather suspicious and creepy). she has also been spoiled, but not to a point that would ruin her personality.
jessica simpson is often credited by magazines for being one of the most attractive women in the world. unfortunately, a lot of INDIVIDUALS beg to differ. while she was blessed with a very good body, her face is not too attractive and she requires heavy makeup to bring emphasis to her eyes instead of her nose and squared jaw.
her voice is great but not exactly put to good use as far as music goes, having the back beats destroy the way she flows.
her hair is platinum blonde, much as any other pop star's. she seems quite a bit like almost all of the girls that one sees nowadays on networks such as MTV and VH1's top lists.
her intellect is questionable. televised, she seems to have the personality of a rock and a brain the size of an aspirin. whether this is an act or it is realistic is a good question.
if it is an act, she is very disrespectable for putting on such a derogatory show in order to make money, for it does not just disrespect her, but also the female gender.
if, in fact, she really is that dumb... well, i'd blame her parents for focusing more on her celebrity life than her brain, for she seems like she has the potential to be at least moderately smart.
jessica simspon, in my own opinion, is overrated and highly ANNOYING. however, many males (as well as female fans of her music and role as daisy duke in the recent production of "the dukes of hazzard") will beg to differ that she is a "blessing" and a "gift from god." that's actually just their erections talking.
jessica simpson kind of gives girls a bad name, idea, and self-image with her "innocent" personality paired with her risque behaviors/photoshoots/etc. she is slowly becoming lindsey lohan-esque.
jessica simpson is often credited by magazines for being one of the most attractive women in the world. unfortunately, a lot of INDIVIDUALS beg to differ. while she was blessed with a very good body, her face is not too attractive and she requires heavy makeup to bring emphasis to her eyes instead of her nose and squared jaw.
her voice is great but not exactly put to good use as far as music goes, having the back beats destroy the way she flows.
her hair is platinum blonde, much as any other pop star's. she seems quite a bit like almost all of the girls that one sees nowadays on networks such as MTV and VH1's top lists.
her intellect is questionable. televised, she seems to have the personality of a rock and a brain the size of an aspirin. whether this is an act or it is realistic is a good question.
if it is an act, she is very disrespectable for putting on such a derogatory show in order to make money, for it does not just disrespect her, but also the female gender.
if, in fact, she really is that dumb... well, i'd blame her parents for focusing more on her celebrity life than her brain, for she seems like she has the potential to be at least moderately smart.
jessica simspon, in my own opinion, is overrated and highly ANNOYING. however, many males (as well as female fans of her music and role as daisy duke in the recent production of "the dukes of hazzard") will beg to differ that she is a "blessing" and a "gift from god." that's actually just their erections talking.
jessica simpson kind of gives girls a bad name, idea, and self-image with her "innocent" personality paired with her risque behaviors/photoshoots/etc. she is slowly becoming lindsey lohan-esque.
by pandrea July 31, 2006
a once "outdoors" store that now sells clothing aimed at upper-middle class teenagers and young college students. the clothing may be a bit overpriced, but it is definitely not other stores/brands such as the buckle, urban outfitters, lacoste, le tigre, or lucky brand. they advertise with a slogan of "casual luxury," which, indeed, it is. the clothes are generally very comfortable and fit well.
since it is targeted towards an OLDER audience than most "brand name" apparel, the clothes are made to fit misses sizes and young men.
abercrombie generally has a "mountain-range, yacht club" atmosphere, and it's younger counterpart, hollister co., has more of a "beachy" feel.
hollister is also owned by abercrombie, much as hot topic, old navy, and the gap are all owned by the banana republic.
hollister is significantly cheaper than abercrombie because it is targeted towards a younger audience that generally does not produce its own income.
contrary to popular belief, hollister is no more expensive than american eagle and pacific sunwear (pac sun); in fact, most of the items there are cheaper. some may argue that american eagle is THE BEST THING SINCE EVER, but i personally find that their clothes stretch out way too much after a only couple of wears, and their jeans have had a noticeable increase in price over the past few months (ranging from $29.50 which is a very good price to $59.50 which is the same as the most expensive hollister jeans available atm). while american eagle does have a great sale rack, hollister does, as well, and you can also find some pretty nice things at abercrombie.
abercrombie and fitch carries clothing that will last for a great amount of time. i, personally, have a purse and several shirts that have lasted me since the 8th grade (i am now a senior in high school). they also seem to have very friendly service.
some individuals get beyond too carried away with the idea of being able to wear "high quality merchandise." these are usually, but not always, the kids who you see with popped collars, aviator sunglasses, and those annoying, "i am better than you" attitudes. this is not to be blamed on the store, but rather, the individuals and their love for shows like laguna beach. they tend to take things a bit too far, and yes, i agree, end up making themselves look moronic.
the truth is that if you don't like abercrombie and fitch or hollister, you DON'T have to wear it. no one is forcing you to do that. holding a grudge against individuals who do, simply because they are wearing a brand that you don't like, is immature. brands are brands; let people live with them.
since it is targeted towards an OLDER audience than most "brand name" apparel, the clothes are made to fit misses sizes and young men.
abercrombie generally has a "mountain-range, yacht club" atmosphere, and it's younger counterpart, hollister co., has more of a "beachy" feel.
hollister is also owned by abercrombie, much as hot topic, old navy, and the gap are all owned by the banana republic.
hollister is significantly cheaper than abercrombie because it is targeted towards a younger audience that generally does not produce its own income.
contrary to popular belief, hollister is no more expensive than american eagle and pacific sunwear (pac sun); in fact, most of the items there are cheaper. some may argue that american eagle is THE BEST THING SINCE EVER, but i personally find that their clothes stretch out way too much after a only couple of wears, and their jeans have had a noticeable increase in price over the past few months (ranging from $29.50 which is a very good price to $59.50 which is the same as the most expensive hollister jeans available atm). while american eagle does have a great sale rack, hollister does, as well, and you can also find some pretty nice things at abercrombie.
abercrombie and fitch carries clothing that will last for a great amount of time. i, personally, have a purse and several shirts that have lasted me since the 8th grade (i am now a senior in high school). they also seem to have very friendly service.
some individuals get beyond too carried away with the idea of being able to wear "high quality merchandise." these are usually, but not always, the kids who you see with popped collars, aviator sunglasses, and those annoying, "i am better than you" attitudes. this is not to be blamed on the store, but rather, the individuals and their love for shows like laguna beach. they tend to take things a bit too far, and yes, i agree, end up making themselves look moronic.
the truth is that if you don't like abercrombie and fitch or hollister, you DON'T have to wear it. no one is forcing you to do that. holding a grudge against individuals who do, simply because they are wearing a brand that you don't like, is immature. brands are brands; let people live with them.
by pandrea July 26, 2006