Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Kim Kardashian is capitalizing on women’s impossible beauty standards in newly twisted ways

Published

on

Kim Kardashian is capitalizing on women’s impossible beauty standards in newly twisted ways

More than a decade ago, Petra Collins, a defining millennial photographer whose pastel-colored and unretouched work focuses on the female body, had her Instagram account deleted after posting a photo that revealed her pubic hair. The image is of Collins’ own body, navel to mid-thigh, over a tinsel backdrop. She is wearing full coverage cotton briefs, pubic hair just slightly visible over the elastic waistband.

Collins wrote a response to being censored, posing a rhetorical question: “To those who reported me, to those who are disgusted by my body, to those who commented ‘horrible’ or ‘disgusting’ on an image of ME, I want you to thoughtfully dissect your own reaction to these things, please think about WHY you felt this way, WHY this image was so shocking, WHY you have no tolerance for it. Hopefully you will come to understand that it might not be you thinking these things but society telling you how to think.”

The same visibility that got Collins banned on social media is now being sold back to women on the internet — as lingerie.

Years later, the same visibility that got Collins banned on social media is now being sold back to women on the internet — as lingerie. Earlier this week, Kim Kardashian’s fast fashion brand Skims released a line of thong underwear adorned with faux pubic hair. Available in 12 shades and textures and selling for $32 each, the “Faux Hair Micro String Thong” is currently sold out.

But Kardashian is not joining the ranks of Collins or other feminist voices. She is not taking up the Sisyphean task of fighting to normalize natural bodies, including body hair. Rather, Kardashian’s newest line of faux pubic hair underwear is the latest example of how lucrative the commodification of women’s bodies can be.

Much has been made, including by meof how bodies, particularly women’s bodies, have become little more than an extension of our artificially accelerated trend cycle. In the 2010s, Kardashian and her famous sisters helped usher in “the BBL era”: the popularization of an impossibly curvaceous body. According to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, the number of notoriously dangerous butt enhancing surgeries grew 77.6% between 2015 and 2021, coinciding with the Kardashians’ rise to pop culture dominance, and dominance over women’s beauty standards. More recently, that particular body modification trend has slowed, and another has replaced it: In conjunction with the increased popularity of GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and the categoric rejection of the body positivity movement, super skinny is, once again, the body du jour. Here, too, the Kardashians are at the helm, with rumors of them, along with other celebrities, reversing or reducing previous procedures to slim down and comply with yet another impossible beauty standard.

Kardashian has found her greatest success in a kind of economic-cum-cultural gray area: the plausible deniability granted by sex-positivity and sexual freedom to cynically monetize sex and shock.

And pubic hair itself has been subject to its own trend cycle. Largely dictated by the adult film industry, the so-called 1970s “bush” has been replaced in decades since by waxed and, more recently, lasered bare vulvas. If you think this is a matter of personal preference or, God help you, hygiene, I urge you to consider the feminist maxim, popularized by Carol Hanisch’s 1969 essay: “the personal is political.” Genitalia without pubic hair is often described as “clean,” with the misogynistic implication, of course, that womanhood is dirty. There is also an overt societal correlation between hairlessness and purity and youth, one that historically exists across cultures.

Pubic hair has often been used in fashion to either send a feminist message or subvert one. There was the famous 1994 Vivienne Westwood fashion show during Paris Fashion Week, where Carla Bruni wore a faux fur coat and a matching merkin underneath. Last year, Maison Margieladesigned by John Galliano, sent models down the runway in sheer, Victorian-inspired gowns and visible merkins made with real human hair embroidered onto silk tulle.

Immortalized by a particularly memorable episode of “Sex and the City,” the Brazilian wax was popularized in the late 1980s by the seven J. Sisters’ salon in midtown Manhattan. Laser hair removal, a popular, more permanent and less painful option than waxing, is an industry poised to surpass $1.46 billion by 2031, according to Yahoo Finance. The Kardashians, too, were often filmed discussing their own hair removal techniques, including waxing, on their former reality TV show “Keeping Up With the Kardashians.” I’m willing to bet that the Main Street in your own hometown has one or two chain laser and waxing studios, vying for young women’s time and money.

Kardashian has found her greatest success in a kind of economic-cum-cultural gray area: the plausible deniability granted by sex-positivity and sexual freedom to cynically monetize sex and shock. Let’s be clear: If these items were sold by anyone else, not only would they not have sold out, but they would have very likely been met with ridicule or even disgust.

Kardashian is a master marketer and saleswoman. To chalk up this product to rage bait marketing (a take I’ve seen all over the internet, something akin to Sydney Sweeney’s notorious denim campaign) is both reductive and suggests a misunderstanding of Kardashian’s particular brand of business savvy. Her lucrative career and enduring fame have hinged upon three things: an acute awareness of just how well sex and sex-adjacent products sell, the power of shock, and when to capitalize on an emerging trend.

The new line of Skims underwear is the embodiment of that marketing ideology: a sanitized and profitable version of Margiela’s fashion provocation, and the well-timed reversal of an enduring trend that has already begun to emerge in fashion.

It is truly a stunning example of the ouroboros of capitalism. Consider an entire generation of women, given virtually no other societal option than to eliminate their pubic hair since puberty, now subject to the changing tides of capitalism again. Get out your credit card, you have something else to buy: your pubic hair back.

Hannah Holland

Hannah Holland is a producer for BLN’s “Velshi” and editor for the “Velshi Banned Book Club.” She writes for BLN Daily.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war

Published

on

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.

The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.

But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.

“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.

It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.

But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.

When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.

However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.

On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad ⁠Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.

“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”

But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”

Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.

Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.

In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.

Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.

But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?

All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.

Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.

It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”

The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.

But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.

It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.

In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.

Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.

Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.

It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.

That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

Published

on

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

A California state jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media case on Wednesday, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who brought the case and putting the Instagram maker’s liability at 70% and the Google company’s at 30%.

The jurors later decided to award a total of $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The verdict was reached on the jury’s ninth day of deliberation.

A 2023 complaint accused social media companies of fueling an unprecedented mental health crisis for American children through “addictive and dangerous” products. Plaintiffs accused the companies of deliberately tweaking their products to exploit kids’ undeveloped brains to “create compulsive use of their apps.”

The civil case was brought by several plaintiffs against several companies, but this state court trial, which featured testimonyfrom Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involved a plaintiff described by her initials as “K.G.M.” in court papers against Instagram and YouTube.

In the 2023 complaint, K.G.M. said she was a 17-year-old in California who started using social media at a much younger age, though her mother told her not to and used third-party software to try to prevent the daughter’s social media use. The complaint alleged that the corporate defendants designed their products in ways that let kids evade parental controls and that the companies knew, or should’ve known, that K.G.M. was a minor.

The plaintiff alleged that Instagram’s and other companies’ addictive designs led her to develop “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” and to see “harmful and depressive content, urging K.G.M. to commit acts of self-harm, as well as harmful social comparison and body image.”

She alleged that she suffered bullying, depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia through Instagram and that Meta did nothing in response to a report about it. “Meta allowed the predatory user to continue harming minor Plaintiff K.G.M., including through the use of explicit images of a minor child,” the complaint said, adding that the company’s “defective reporting mechanisms and/or deliberate failure to act caused emotional and mental health harms to K.G.M. in addition to and separate from any third-party conduct.”

The companies, which have denied wrongdoingsaid Wednesday that they plan to appeal.

Jillian Frankel contributed from Los Angeles.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

Published

on

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released hours of deposition footage from its interviews with two former close associates of Jeffrey Epsteinattorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., a member of the committee, joined “The Weeknight” to discuss the interviews and the efforts to hold any accomplices of the late sex offender accountable.

“What is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him,” Stansbury said.

During their depositions, both Indyke and Kahn insisted they had no knowledge of Epstein’s illegal behavior. The New Mexico Democrat cast doubt on those claims, taking particular issue with Indyke’s testimony, during which she said it was possible that Epstein’s former attorney may have “perjured himself.”

“He claimed that he had no knowledge of all of these nefarious activities, and yet he literally has spent decades of his life at the center of this controversy,” she said. “I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”

Stansbury told MS NOW she believed it was important for the public to understand that both Indyke and Kahn “stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution” of Epstein’s will. She added that “the way the will is structured, there is a survivor fund, and at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.”

“We don’t know what was written into whatever contracts, but it’s clear that they have a financial interest,” she said.

Stansbury said the pair’s depositions should be part of a greater effort from lawmakers and law enforcement across the country to pursue accountability for Epstein’s victims, even after his death. She highlighted how her home state, New Mexico, was doing just that.

“That is why we are going to continue to seek justice in this case, and it’s why in New Mexico, not only did we pass a truth commission, but one of the updates that we want to tell people about is that we plan to pursue convictions against individuals who were implicated in these crimes who were not prosecuted by the federal government,” she said. “We want to turn these Epstein files into Epstein trials — and that’s exactly what we plan to do.”

You can watch Stansbury’s full interview in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending