Gee, what’s this, Curvy Cover Girls? Well, we have Ashley Graham, left, well exposed on one of three covers offered by this year’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue.”I have cellulite. I have rolls,” Graham proudly tells SI readers. I hear ya Ashley! Then a more sedate Barbie strides across a recent Time cover.
Advertisers, such as Swimsuits for All, weighted in, too, with a page that sneakily looked editorial in the Swimsuit issue. The company featured 56-year-old Nicola Griffin, below, clad in a reflective gold bikini. “People think you lose your sex appeal as you get older – but that’s a myth,” she said in a statement. “I’ve never felt sexier.”
But one wonders how many buxom beauties, especially those in the 50-and-above age bracket, we’ll start to see on the covers of the likes of Vogue or being lauded by the media in general.
Barbie’s not talking about her body image, but her handlers at Mattel admit it’s time for a makeover. They’re throwing the old Barbie, originally based on a German doll called Lilli, a prostitute gag gift given out at bachelor parties, a few curves. My, what a wholesome lineage!
Time helpfully gives its readers a Barbie timeline that includes a glance at Ms. B pre and post curves, below. Mattel is also adding a tall and petit Barbie.
Take a look at one inspiration for the 2016 curvy update, none other than that Poster Gal for Curves: Kim Kardashian…
Now what comes to mind when you check out the first Barbie off Mattel’s assembly line, below left, in 1956? A Berlin streetwalker maybe? I never had a Barbie, craving Madame Alexander dolls, below right, in all their old-fashioned frills. I recently rendezvoused with a high school friend I hadn’t set eyes on in 50 years. We reminisced and what did she remember? Our Madame Alexander dolls!
As I read about Barbie’s new look, I kept asking myself how many girls are into dolls these days, no matter how modern, culturally correct they appear? Kids with smart phones attached get younger all the time. Will dolls add to history’s pile of disregarded play things?
Back to business as usual. Below right you’ll find a photo from a recent fashion spread in T, The New York Times Style magazine. Note the skin-and-bones motif, not to mention sticker shock. This ridiculous “dress” by Balenciaga goes for $11,300 (not a typo). You choose: look like a fool in Balenciaga or cool in the tunic, left, designed by Ines de la Fressange, the chic Parisian, for Uniqlo. No contest.