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

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Published

on

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.

In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.

Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.

In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”

A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.

Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.

Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.

In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.

It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.

On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.

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

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

Published

on

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.

All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.

The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.

The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.

The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

The Times summarized the broader context nicely:

Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.

Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.

In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.

The article added:

Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.

Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.

This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Published

on

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.

* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”

* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.

* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.

* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.

* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.

* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending