Friday, April 20, 2007

Can You Believe This Isn't From Utah!

I signed up for emails from Daily Candy with their promise of art, beauty, food, and fashion. And most days they live up to their mission statement by showcasing cute shopping finds or fun websites. But recently this was the featured item - swimwear that "highlights the face rather than the body." And it wasn't even April Fool's Day.I understand the inclination to cover up at the beach but I really don't think this is a more flattering option than just proudly showing your flabby white thighs. If this mix of Victorian values and modern materials isn't weird enough for you, they also offer an "extended" model with sleeves just above the wrist and legs down to the calf.

Worst of all, it's from somewhere in the Portland area.

6 comments:

Sara McOllie said...

Well, there is a large population of apostolic lutherans and russian orthodox in the area. They probably are what is driving this "fashion" choice. Still, it is very disturbing that this would be the showcased item for the day.

Chelsea said...

ewwwwwwwwwwww! Looks like something the company I work (which shall remain nameless) would sell:)

Tara said...

i saw this awhile ago, and it's a line created for muslim women. maybe muslim women won't allow themselves to be photographed in them?

Hey, It's Ansley said...

Well now I feel bad. If it's for Muslim women, that make sense, but nowhere on the site did it mention anything about that so I just thought it was ugly without a good reason. It's still ugly, but at least with a purpose.

Emily said...

ah man,
(head hanging down)
I thought is was cute....

Marie said...

I kinda like the old-timey skin-tight knee-length unisex swimsuits, circa 1920. You can show off your shape without showing off your unwaxed bikini line and razorburned thighs. But I'm not fond of this design. Swim skirts are very iffy -- few look un-frumpy.

Speaking of religious clothing guidelines, it used to really bug me how we endowed Mormons were given such strict rules about not taking off our temple garments, and then there was this huge exception for swimsuits, as if swimming half naked in public were some inalienable eternal right (I love swimming and wouldn't want to crack down or anything -- I just didn't understand why things were the way they were). Now my theory is that garments' purpose is only secondarily to encourage modesty -- their religious/ritual purposes are far more important, and that's why the length and shape of garments have changed dramatically without changing their purpose. I wonder if they'll get any shorter in my lifetime...? There must be some line that will never be crossed? Mid-thigh? It would be interesting to do a comparison of Mormon and Muslim female modesty customs and how they have changed over time.

Sorry to ramble. The topic fascinates me. I'm also on the market for a new swimsuit this summer, so the psychological trauma is intense at the moment. I think I'm going the tankini route this time. No more tall-girl riding-up blues!