This is Thylane Loubry Blondeau. She’s ten years old, and she appeared in a deliberately-provocative editorial in French Vogue last December, which appeared to be intended to play with the idea of “dress up”, and perhaps to satirize the fashion industry’s obsession with youth.
The images in question, however, have caused something of a stir, with some people arguing that, however knowingly it was done, the sexualization of ten year old girls in this way just isn’t cool.
(We’ve no idea why this outrage is all happening NOW, when the photos in question were published several months ago, but for some reason it is…)
Thylane herself now has a Tumblr dedicated to her photos, (the owner recently changed the name from “F*** Yeah, Thylane Blondeau” to the slightly less controversial Thylane Blondeau pictures, although as of this morning, that site seems to be down, too), many of which showcase her very “grown up” poses and a much more sophisticated sense of style than we’d usually associate with a ten-year-old.
While some are excitedly declaring her to be “the next big thing“, however, others think Thylane’s sultry pout and “sexy” photos “go too far” – and not just in the French Vogue spread, but in many more of the child model’s shots.
Here are just a few of the contrasting opinions being voiced about Thylane:
“This isn’t edgy. It’s inappropriate, and creepy, and I never want to see a nine-year-old girl in high-heeled leopard print bedroom slippers ever again.”
“…she looks more self-aware and confident than most models working today — to say nothing of grown women in general.” ~ Stylite
“there’s no lightheartedness or playfulness there. There’s none of the unselfconsciousness that let childhood be so much fun… There’s just Blondeau’s dull eyes and pursed, painted, parted lips of a hard-to-get siren, laid out on a tiger-skin rug or placed in a chair with her skirt carefully tucked out of the way to bare her legs nearly to the hip.” ~Feministe
“I personally found the Vogue Paris editorialrefreshing. Sure, it was disturbing, but it seemed purposefully, knowingly disturbing — “ ~ Jezebel
As for us? We think Thylane is one beautiful little girl, and one day she’s going to be an amazingly beautiful woman. And when that time comes, we’ll have no problem seeing her lying on an animal skin in stiletto heels. But there’s plenty of time for all of that, and for now we have to admit that we do find it a little unsettling to find adults drooling over photos of a child.
What do YOU think, though? Should a ten year old be modelling adult fashion in this way, even if it IS intended to make us question the industry, or is it just too young?
“Get a tan!” “She’s too pale!” “Urgh, she really needs some sun!”
These are all comments I’ve read recently on various fashion and celebrity websites – and sometimes right here on The Fashion Police. They probably sound pretty familiar to anyone with pale skin who’s ever been on vacation and returned home to a slew of comments along the lines of, “You don’t have much of a tan!”, always uttered in a vaguely accusing manner, as if the pale-skinned person has somehow failed to live up to some agreed standard of skin colour.
As a pale skinned person myself (I’m more pale blue than I am white: my natural skin colour is similar to Nicola Roberts’ in the image above), these comments never fail to depress me. I don’t tan. Ever. I would no more lie out in the sun without SPF70 than I’d throw myself in the fire. This is not a fashion statement: it’s just plain common sense for someone who burns easily, and who’s in a high-risk group for skin cancer because of it. I will not risk my health for the sake of fashion, and I don’t believe anyone else should, either.
The thing is, I don’t think anyone would argue that a sun tan is worth risking skin cancer for. On our post about Rumer Willis last week, though, for instance, I noticed a couple of comments about Rumer’s skin being “too white”, and those comments surprised me a little because as far as I can see, while she obviously has pale skin, that’s her natural colour.
When did it become OK to criticise people for their natural skin colour, or to suggest that they should cover up, because that colour is somehow too unattractive to be on show? Imagine the outcry there would be if a photo of Beyonce, say, was greeted with comments of “She’s too dark.” And what do the people who criticise pale skin want us to do, anyway? Lie in the sun and risk our health? Grab a bottle of fake tan and turn ourselves orange?
Just to be clear, I’m not against people tanning if they want to, or, indeed using self tanner. In fact, I’ve hit the bottle myself on occasion (the bottle of gradual tanner, I mean. Not the wine bottle. Although that too, sometimes) and will probably do it again if I feel like it. It’s the idea of it being a requirement that bothers me. This idea that if you’re pale skinned, you MUST try to change it, or that a pale-skinned woman cannot possibly be considered beautiful or stylish. (The women pictured at the top of the page would all beg to differ.)
As far as I’m concerned, skin colour is not a fashion statement, and never should be. No one should be made to feel ashamed of their natural skin colour, be it black, white, or any of the many, many shades in between. No one should feel like they have to change their skin colour in order to wear certain clothes or feel “fashionable”. Comments like “she needs to get a tan!” should have no place in an enlightened society.
What’s your take on this one? Can pale people wear shorts? Or do you agree that when it comes to fashion, skin colour shouldn’t be a factor?
OK, sure, when they first came out, we made fun of the name, we admit it. And we did have our concerns that jeggings would be used simply as an excuse for people to try and circumvent the Leggings Are Not Pants Rule. (Just to be clear, this climbdown on jeggings doesn’t change our minds about leggings and their status as pants. Leggings are not pants, never have been, never will be. Not while The Fashion Police have breath in our bodies, anyway.)
But look at the two examples above. Admit it, you thought they were just regular old skinny jeans, didn’t you?
But they’re not. They’re jeggings. And they have finally won us over.
Why we don’t hate jeggings
See, the thing is, jeggings DO look like jeans. In the case of some of the better quality examples (The Citizens of Humanity pair above is a case in point, although we’ve also seen good quality, jean-like jeggings on the high street, at places like Topshop or River Island), they even FEEL like jeans. The cotton is thick, stretchy, and not at all like the kind of fabric you’d expect to find on a pair of leggings.
It’s not denim, though, and this is actually a point in its favour, because while jeggings look much the same as skinny jeans, they’re a helluva lot more comfortable than them, and they’re easier to get in and out of, too.
In conclusion, as long as there’s no camel toe, the correct fit is worn, and they’re not thin enough to create VPL, we’re happy to welcome jeggings into the world of the Fashion Police Approved:
Mind you, there is a downside to jeggings, and it’s a big one. Jeggings, you see, are very much part of that whole “dressing down is the new dressing up, let’s wear pyjamas to the supermarket trend” which The Fashion Police so abhor. Get the look right, and it can be casual but chic: think Victoria Beckham is super-skinnies and a blazer. Or Kate Moss when she’s had a wash. Throw them on with fake Ugg boots and a velour tracksuit top, though, and we have us a whole different story. And now we’re starting to wonder if we should perhaps reconsider our stance.
What do YOU think of jeggings?
Of course, if you still hate leggings, skinny jeans or both (and we know there are a lot of you out there who do), you’re definitely not going to be getting on board with jeggings any time soon. As for the rest of you, however, what do you think: are you ready to give the unholy alliance of leggings and jeans a reprieve, and let them into your life (and closet?)? Or do you think these are definitely a crime of fashion, which should never have existed in the first place? Tell us in the comments section!
Before you ask, we’re not talking issue with what this model is wearing, which is pretty inofensive: we’re just concerned for her. The vacant stare, the slumped-over posture: this model is a zombie, isn’t she? Someone has zombified her! Jeez Louise, modelling really IS hard, isn’t it?
Seriously, though: why does the fashion world do this? Why does it persist in taking pretty girls and forcing them to pose in ridiculous, awkward stances, with facial expresions that resemble those of The Undead? (No offence to the girl in question, here, by the way: it’s not her, it’s the way the shoot has been styled.) Isn’t fashion supposed to be aspirational? Is everyone reading this secretly aspiring to be a zombie?
Someone help this model! It doesn’t have to be this hard, surely?
(If you don’t want to help her, but do want to buy her dress, just click here…)
We’ve said before that we think Photoshop can be equally, if not more, damaging to women than the use of slimline models (after all, slim people do exist; Photoshopped ones don’t), so props to Jezebel for catching Ann Taylor red-handed in the act of Photoshopping this model almost out of existence.
The image on the left is the thumbnail that was shown on the Ann Taylor website earlier this week. The image on the right, meanwhile, is what you’d have seen if you’d clicked on that thumbnail – watch the already-slim model achieve a shape that probably doesn’t exist in nature before your very eyes, folks!
Ann Taylor have now removed the image from their site, but it still begs the question: why on earth was it there in the first place? Did no one look at this and think it looked just a little bit unnatural? And did the person in charge of Photoshop that day seriously look at the original image and think, “Jeez, this chic looks a bit podgy – better shave some inches off her!” Has the world actually gone mad? (Answer: people are still voluntarily wearing Crocs, so yes, it looks like it probably has.)
Down with airbrushing, we say. We don’t really care whether models are big or small, tall or short, black, white or anything in between: all we ask is that they at least look recognisably human. That shouldn’t be too much to ask, should it?
This morning, against my better judgement, I followed a link from Twitter to this article on the Daily Mail website. And was instantly hit with the shocking information that “ALL” women in the world should be a UK dress size 14, according to UK Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone.
Sorry, but what? ALL women in the world should be exactly the same size? And that size should be the apparently randomly-chosen size 14? (Roughly equivalent to a US 12, although obviously it depends very much on the manufacturer) Rubbish. The idea that there is just one “right” size to be; a “one size fits all”, which is healthy for ALL women, regardless of their height, age and body type is ridiculous, and actually rather hypocritical when you realise that this “magic” size 14 is apparently being promoted in order to help rid women of the insecurities created by looking at images of thin models. The article continues:
We’re on the cusp of spring (FINALLY!), and that means leggings and tights will soon start to crop up everywhere. I know they’re fair-weather winter wear, too, but spring is the season when they’ll actually feel comfortable and won’t result in goosebumps all over your legs.
I often have trouble figuring out what to pair with leggings that will look classy instead of ’80s, so I put together this set to show my thoughts. You can see that there are a few common themes:
1) Prints with solids. Generally speaking, if your leggings have a lot going on, don’t pair them with a Hawaiian shirt, and vice versa. You can see that both the shoes and the leggings in outfit #3 are patterned, but they seem to go together naturally rather than clash.
2) Any shoes can work. By that, I mean it’s fine to pair flats, heels, or boots (see outfit #2) with leggings. If your shoes are flashy, see Theme 1 and keep the outfit simple.
3) Accessories should match the spirit of your outfit. What do I mean by that? Well, the black rose in outfit #3 is a little bit grunge, just like the rest of the outfit, and the layered gold necklace in outfit #4 reflects the layers of peacock feathers in the tights. The yellow balls in the necklace of outfit #1 add a pop of color and also mirror the rounded flowers in the dress.
4) Don’t limit yourself to dresses. I paired the leggings with dresses here because I think that can be a tricky combination, but they’d go just as well with skirts or long tunic tops.
This post was contributed by Sara Bimmel, who writes about Halloween costumes over at www.StarCostumes.com.
Last Spring, Marks & Spencer released a ‘modern reinterpretation’ of a vintage frock that seemed to come straight out of my dreams. It was a grey tea dress with cream polka dots and a fan detail on the shoulder (very Phillip Lim). It was chic, simple and fitted perfectly. It was £55, limited edition, and I managed to grab one of the last ones in the country in my size.
Then Myleene Klass wore it. This tainted it a bit for me, because she is much thinner and seemed to be able to wear them damn thing without it creasing, but I still loved the dress and I still loved wearing it even if I couldn’t pull it off with quite such photogenicity as Myleene.
Then Samantha Cameron happened.
A few weeks ago, the wife of the Conservative leader suddenly appeared at a high-profile event in my dress. Except it wasn’t my dress. My dress had sold out months ago. Her version was custom-made at Stuart Rose’s command, was rumoured to have cost over £100 to produce, and had everyone wondering if it wasn’t a bit naughty that she got special treatment just because she’s married to the leader of the opposition.
It felt like every single newspaper ran the story. For about a week you couldn’t open a paper without seeing that bloody dress. It’s now the TORYDRESSFROMHELL. If I wear my frock now, I might as well ram a big blue rosette on my chest and be done with it. My political views don’t lean strongly enough in any one direction for me to want them emblazoned on my chest for the whole world to see. Unfortunately, that dress has become a symbol for how the Torys are Just Like Us and Shop On The High Street Too.
The dress went down so well with the public that M&S have now released a new version, in a black and white print (with the unflattering white bit right around the middle which we really want to divert attention away from) for £45. I won’t be buying it. In fact, I think it’s time I went back to Primark…surely Samantha won’t shop there?
This is Thylane Loubry Blondeau. She’s ten years old, and she appeared in a deliberately-provocative editorial in French Vogue last December, which appeared to be intended to play with the idea of “dress up”, and perhaps to satirize the fashion industry’s obsession with youth.
Thylane herself now has a Tumblr dedicated to her photos, (the owner recently changed the name from “F*** Yeah, Thylane Blondeau” to the slightly less controversial Thylane Blondeau pictures, although as of this morning, that site seems to be down, too), many of which showcase her very “grown up” poses and a much more sophisticated sense of style than we’d usually associate with a ten-year-old.
![LFI Toriesconf4 [Guest Post] Politics and fashion dont mix – how Samantha Cameron ruined my favourite dress](http://www.thefashionpolice.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/LFI_Toriesconf4.jpg "LFI_Toriesconf4")
