In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Dita von Teese, No Less

zuzu

Dita von Teese, fetish model and wife of Marilyn Manson, has something to say about Hollywood standards of beauty:

Rocker MARILYN MANSON’s wife DITA VON TEESE has hit out at Hollywood standards of beauty, branding them unrealistic and unoriginal.

The curvy burlesque dancer, who has dark hair and pale skin, is frustrated with the pressure on women to be stick-thin, with blonde hair and tanned skin.

Von Teese tells UK’s Cosmopolitan magazine she wishes women would value their health over their looks and be individuals.

The showgirl says, “My advice would be to experiment, ignore trends and work out ‘this is how I look best.’

“We don’t all have to blend in or look like SIENNA MILLER.”

Good for her! Mind you, I wouldn’t call wearing a corset “valuing your health,” necessarily (have you seen an X-ray of a woman wearing a corset?), but she’s on the right track.

I especially like that she mentioned pale skin. Skinniness as a Hollywood value is oft-criticized, but it’s very, very rare to see even thin women with pale skin in movies, Nicole Kidman notwithstanding (and she’s gone blonder as she’s gotten more famous). And rarer to see anyone complain about it.

I remember reading a post on Big Fat Blog about the infamous Dove ads, and amidst all the discussion about the weight of the models (there were those who felt they were too thin to be representative, and those who were happy to see any flesh on a model), someone posted about how disgusted she was that one of the models was very pale; of course “pasty” was used. She did get her consciousness raised by some of the other commenters, but cripes.

Why is it okay to hate on pale people? (And yes, I’m looking at some of you who snarked about pasty redheads).

45 thoughts on Dita von Teese, No Less

  3. Can’t comment about the pale skin thing, but wearing a corset is not the health-destroying instument of torture that everyone seems to think it is, especially today. Tight-lacing, even in the Victorian era, was a more ‘extreme’ thing even then – a bit like extreme low-rider jeans today. Lots of people wear jeans, only a small proportion wear them skin tight and extremely low.

    Today, corsets are not horrible and health-affecting, if you buy/make and wear one that is appropriate to both your size and shape. They can indeed be rather comfortable, make certain clothing choices easier to wear, and can add welcomed support for large-busted women.

  4. It’s so stupid. I’m so pale I’m almost blue, and yet bitching about being pale is easy to fight. I’ve had guys say, “Get a tan!” What else can one say to that except, “Get a brain, moron!”

  5. Why is it okay to hate on pale people?

    Because. they’re. soulless. vampire. people. preying. on. the. life. force. of. humans.

    Why’s this so complex for you pigmentless wonders, anyway?

    (Strawberry blonde and light of skin, just for the record.)

  6. Pale “people”? The whole point of the article was that skin tone is just one more damn way to rate women’s appearance.

    (In the Valley of the Dorks, paleness is prized. Being tan means you clearly don’t spend enough time parked in front of a monitor.)

  7. It’s going to come down to a battle of the prejudices. Which is worse, being pasty or looking old? I would have bet that the anti-age bias would be pretty strong in most, but if that was true, people would stop baking in the sun and using tanning beds.

  8. My best friend and I were sitting on the beach last summer. When we were young, back in the 70s, we were tan fanatics.

    She looked over at me and said, “Jodi! Your legs are so WHITE!”

    And I felt bad (because it’s been years since I’ve tanned) until she said, “They are beautiful! I wish mine were that pale!”

    If my formerly extremely tanned friend can learn to love the nontan look, so can everyone else.

  9. Which is worse, being pasty or looking old?

    Ah, but you see, you don’t have to choose. You can be tan and maintain your youthful appearance. Here’s how:

    1. Plonk down $15 for a bottle of sunscreen for your body.
    2. Plonk down an additional $15 for a different bottle of sunscreen for your face.
    3. Plonk down $12 for self-tanner for your body. (Or, alternately, you can spend a lot more to go to a spa and get a spray-tan, which will look better but will probably involve shivering in a paper bikini.)
    4. Plonk down another $15 for self-tanner for your face.
    Repeat several times a year.

    That’s the beauty of seemingly-contradictory beauty imperatives. They’re really just a way to part women from their money.

  10. Pale-white is the only (natural)* skin color anyone feels entitled to disdain. I mean, can you imagine walking up to someone with dark skin and saying with disgust, “Ew, you’re so DARK!”?

    * I exempt people who have overtanned and thereby destroyed their skin.

  11. Pale-white is the only (natural)* skin color anyone feels entitled to disdain.

    With all due respect, if this were true, then there wouldn’t be any white supremacist groups in the world. Sadly, I think that’s not the case.

  13. I’d write a dissertation on colorism in the black community, but hey, do we count? Not to mention the prizing of the more pale in other communities..

  14. Colorism is one thing, but does it take the form of disgust and comments about how unhealthy you must be?

  15. May I point out how bad being tanned is for your health anyway? Skin cancer people. Skin cancer is BAD. Here in Australia we have one of the highest rates of deaths from skin cancer in the world, thanks to the fact that it’s hot and sunny here all year round.

    Non-tanned* is beautiful and healthy.**

    *As opposed to simply pale, because skin tones of all variety are gorgeous. I’d love to have dark skin. But tanning is bad for everyone — even dark-skinned people can get skin cancer.

    **Okay as long as you get your 10 minutes of sun a day to help your body produce vitamin D.

  16. When will people wisen up and learn that a tan = skin damage? I learned last week that one of my best friends just got diagnosed with skin cancer and will have to have surgery. He’s not the “outdoor” type, and I never thought he’d experience such problems–especially at only 31-years old. Another good friend had to have cancer cut out of her leg several years ago, and my stepmother was also diagnosed with skin cancer. This is no joke.

    Now, when I see these young girls lining up to pay money at the tanning salons so they look like their favorite swimsuit model, I just shake my head. They might as well be jumping in front of a speeding bullet–or a very insidious bullet perhaps. The sunlight you’re exposed to while walking about during the day is plenty; you don’t need more than that. Forget about a tan for the sake of looking good. In the long run, you’ll look better than the ones who bathe in the rays.

    And I think brunettes RULE, so dump the hair dye too.

  17. Dita Von Teese is “curvy”? Jesus Christ.

    Also, I’m wondering how her having breast implants affects the discussion.

  18. Really. I mean, thank G-d we’ve got such courageous figures as Ms. Teese and self-professed “voluptuous actress” Jessica Alba, demolishing Hollwood conventions of beauty. *dies*

  19. Pale-white is the only (natural)* skin color anyone feels entitled to disdain.

    This really is an intra-white-people thing. As somebody already said, if we want to get into the meaning of/disdain for skin shade among, say, African-Americans in the US, it’s a whole different issue.

  20. “I mean, thank G-d we’ve got such courageous figures as Ms. Teese and self-professed “voluptuous actress” Jessica Alba, demolishing Hollwood conventions of beauty. *dies* ”

    Google tells me that Jessica Alba is 5’7″ and 125-127 pounds, which would actually make her about five to fifteen pounds heavier than the average Hollywood actress. How on earth *does* she manage to fit on the screen?

  21. Japan is an interesting comparison. In that culture the paler the woman the more beautiful; hence the rice powder. Being out in the sun is for peasants.

  22. Yea, if the occasional snark is the most you have to deal with, snark back about the disgusting skin cancer they’ll all get or how they’ll look like old grandmas at 30.

  23. This really is an intra-white-people thing. As somebody already said, if we want to get into the meaning of/disdain for skin shade among, say, African-Americans in the US, it’s a whole different issue.

    Right. It is a whole different issue with a whole different focus.

  24. nerdlet:

    That sounds accurate to how much she weighed on “Dark Angel”. Now, she’d be lucky if she weighs over 105.

    Not to get hung up on it. Just to say, I really don’t care about conventionally beautiful women giving me “advice” on how to love my body. That’s sort of condescending tripe. If Hollywood’s convinced them to degrade their looks, obviously the right response is not to be refreshed or enlightened by their responses, but rather horrified at why they feel they have to respond this way at all.

  25. I’m a pale redhead, and I live in LA. Tanned blondes with dark roots are a dime a dozen out here; I enjoy standing out! Take that, Barbie!

  26. Magis: Japan is an interesting comparison. In that culture the paler the woman the more beautiful; hence the rice powder. Being out in the sun is for peasants.

    Isn’t that the way it was in the west until about 100 years ago? Pale skin was good because it showed you weren’t out working in the fields? It was only later, when the bulk of the working class were spending 12 hours a day indoors in factories, that a tan showed that you had the leisure time to spend outdoors.

    Me, I’m pale enough that people have joked that I shouldn’t wear shorts because the glare off my ghost-white legs will blind people. I’ve also had moles removed that had suspicious biopsies, so I think I’m going to avoid the sun, thanks. My skin’s just fine as it is, glare or no.

  27. Magis, I agree. It’s like that in a lot of other countries such as hispanic and latin countries. The lighter you are the more beautiful. To be too dark is not favored as well as looking too indian. I should know, I here it from my grandmother often enough that I am too dark and I have to say that I’m naturally tan (for lack of a better description) but not nearly dark enough to be considered Mexican, which is what I am.

  28. I have the same mole problem as Tamakazura. As it is, I have to get suspicious moles removed every couple of years, even though I avoid the sun like the plague. If I were to get a tan, I’d have to get moles removed every few weeks. No tan for me. Nor will I spend the time with self-tanners. So not worth it. Too bad for anyone who thinks I’m too pale.

    Having said that, it’s odd how many people mistake a simple lack of tan for really fair skin. I’m somewhat olive-complected, so even without a tan, I’m not tremendously fair-skinned. Nonetheless, every time I go to choose a new foundation, the makeup artist always tries to start me with the lightest one in the line. I tell them not to bother, as I’m really not that fair-skinned. Every time, they wind up having to give me a darker shade to match my skin tone.

  29. Gotta weigh in here on the corset bashing (being the costuming geek/historian I am):

    A properly built, properly fitted modern corset will not permanently harm a grown woman’s (or man’s — yep, they make them for guys, too) body provided that it is not worn excessively tightly or for excessively long periods of time. ** Nope, you don’t want to go running in these things, and you really don’t want to tighten them more than about an inch or so, but they DO provide a really nice back support if you stand for a long time or do things that tend to make one hunch over. I can also dig the fashion statement part of them, especially as they tend to flatter more curvy women more than they do thinner women.

    The historic problem with corsets was two-fold:
    1) the fad of “tightlacing” which came and went throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. This was where women were laced in SOOOO tightly that they did, often, faint because of not being able to breathe deeply enough. This was more or less confined to the upper classes, because, um, gee… They didn’t have to WORK for a living. (Believe me, the maids never got to indulge in those kinds of fits! They wore corsets, but generally did not lace *nearly* as tightly as their employers.) Also, many of them took a little arsenic or white lead every day to get that translucent white skin, and be sort of fashionably ill/invalid. Feh! The whole society was a little whacked about female health and vitality at the time, and the corsetry was just one symptom of it.

    2) Little girls, especially in the upper classes, started wearing corsets or boned “foundation garments” that resembled corsets, when they were quite young and their bones were still soft. (Yeck!) The diagrams and whatnot people have seen of corseted women were generally of these girls, who had had their ribcages squashed and their internal organs displaced from having been corseted so young. Generally, that will not happen to a grown woman who puts on a corset for a few hours at a time and doesn’t overlace herself.

    ** there is a subset of body modification that uses tightlaced corsets to modify BOTH male and female bodies. The physiological effect is different from what happens when you corset someone from a very early age. Not my kink. *shrug*

    And BTW: I can’t count how many times I’ve been told to “get a tan!” when I naturally *have* that porcelain skin that would have been prized in a former age. *sigh* I’ve started to get rude with my replies as I have NO interest in fighting off skin cancer, or paying good money to have my skin dyed. I just think it would be nice if *everyone’s* natural skin tone was taken as the unique and beautiful thing that it is. But I guess most human brains don’t work that way.

    Can I opt out of my species?

  30. A properly built, properly fitted modern corset will not permanently harm a grown woman’s (or man’s — yep, they make them for guys, too) body provided that it is not worn excessively tightly or for excessively long periods of time. **

    I’ve got nothing against corsets in general (I even own some), but have you seen Dita von Teese? She goes down to a 17-inch waist or something.

    If you’re moving your organs around, it can’t be healthy.

  31. **Okay as long as you get your 10 minutes of sun a day to help your body produce vitamin D.

    D-Vitaminized milk (or other supplemental way), folks. You’ll live without the 10 mins of sun, and be healthy nevertheless.

  32. zuzu:

    That’s what I meant about modern “tightlacing”, and nope, sorry. Didn’t have time to search for an image of her. (OK, that’s lazy of me, I admit it. ) But I think this is where the concept of “adult consent” comes in. We have plenty of medical evidence to say that yep, moving your organs around is not a good or healthy idea, and that the other things that contribute to a 17″ waist (i.e., the fact that the floating ribs are pushed in and up in the ribcage) are not healthy either. I’m sure she knows this. But she is an adult and it’s her decision. The issue I had with the 19th century version of this is that *children* were being put into garments that restricted their growth and malformed their bodies, and they had no say in it. And young women were being encouraged to ingest things that made them sick in order to be beautiful, and the corsets contributed.

    I just have noticed that a lot of people in general hear the word “corset” and wince. Personally, I have contemplated making one for myself to use when I pull really, really LONG stretches at my cutting table/sewing machine. My back could use it. 🙂

    But regarding a 17″ waist? I do think that’s excessive and not healthy. But the only one really being affected by it is her, and I have to assume that she understood the potential health issues before she started the body modifications. You don’t get a 17″ waist over night, or just by lacing really, REALLY tightly on a given occasion unless you are very tiny to begin with. It’s a long process, and presumably her choice. While it’s not a choice I’d make, I can’t condemn her for making it.

    Glad to hear you’ve nothing against corsets in general, though, and this is mainly concern for her health. I can’t wrap my brain around that type of body modification myself, actually, but I thought that was my Midwestern upbringing rearing its bland head. 😉

  33. It’s not so much that I’m concerned about her health, but that she, as a tightlacer, is advancing corsets as healthy. She can do whatever she wants.

  34. D-Vitaminized milk (or other supplemental way), folks. You’ll live without the 10 mins of sun, and be healthy nevertheless.

    Dermatologists are having a bit of a mindwar here in the States, but the mavericks (15 minutes in the sun won’t kill you, so go outside) appear to be winning the argument, at least from what I’ve read.

    If 10 minutes a day of sunshine is going to induce skin cancer, then your genome had major cancer susceptibility already. If it wasn’t the sun, something else was going to carcinomize you.

  35. Robert, that’s true. But that’s just your low-latitude privilege speaking -going outside and getting 15 minutes of sun isn’t something that I take for granted.

    I’m saying that there’s other simple ways of getting the big D than sun, if 10-15 minutes of sun a day is unavailable for one reason or another.

  36. Re: Vitamin D and sunlight and calcium

    I have read, however, that a short dose of sunlight actually helps the body process/use calcium better than Vitamin D supplements. Can’t remember where, unfortunately, but I tend to treat most medical claims with a bit of skepticism due to several years as support staff for academic doctors. Peer reviewed journals can be brutal in their criticism of writing, methods, arguments, etc. (Please note I said “can be”. Some are better than others.)

    At any rate, 10 minutes of sun isn’t going to fry even MY skin as long as I don’t do it at high noon, and it makes me leave the house. I can certainly sympathize with the lack of sunlight, though, Tuomas, although you get even less where you are than we do in Minnesota. December is still pretty damn dark here.

  37. Robert, that’s true. But that’s just your low-latitude privilege speaking -going outside and getting 15 minutes of sun isn’t something that I take for granted.

    Ah, the joys of Arctic Circle life. On the plus side…ok, help me out. There must be a plus side.

    (Oh yeah! Nobody wants to invade you! Much.)

  38. On the plus side…ok, help me out. There must be a plus side.

    Summer. With the help of Golf Current, summer days are something like +25 celcius (that’s +77 to you fahrenheit heretics) and the sun is up, well, for the most of the time, and that’s when people turn from zombies to vibrant human beings. And some of us do enjoy the winter: It’s not all that dark anymore (days getting longer and sunnier all the time), great for skiing etc. And the days of darkness do have a special kind of appeal with Christmas holidays and all.

    Plenty of plus sides, really.

  39. Too little Vitamin D can also increase your risk of cancer, just not skin cancer. While people who live in sunny climes have high rates of skin cancer, those of us in Articland have high rates of every other cancer. Sun is the best way to get that Vitamin D, but you certainly don’t need more than twenty minutes a day.

    On another subject, I don’t blame Dove for using relatively skinny models. Manufacturers of plus-size clothes have found that, when they use a size 22 model in their ads, they sell fewer clothes than when they use a size 12 model. Even plus-size women can’t stand the sight of overweight women in advertisements.

  40. Yeah… 15 minutes in the sun is enough to make me crispy fried. I am about as fair skinned/pale as you get and I can tell you the number of hideous sunburns I’ve gotten because I just forgot to put sunblock on or stepped outside for “just a few minutes” is quite large. I don’t know how much of a wide spread issue this is, however, so I tend to go with the 15 minutes in the sun is not going to kill you theory.

  41. but they DO provide a really nice back support if you stand for a long time or do things that tend to make one hunch over

    Well, I never thought of it that way, maybe I should get one to wear when roofing or when framing. Do you think the guys would have a hard time calling me boss?

  42. I’m a pale redhead, and I live in LA. Tanned blondes with dark roots are a dime a dozen out here; I enjoy standing out! Take that, Barbie!

    How about pale brunettes with blond roots? *grin*

  44. kate (regarding corsets as back support):
    — Well, I never thought of it that way, maybe I should get one to wear when roofing or when framing. Do you think the guys would have a hard time calling me boss?

    *grin!!* Well, wear it under your regular clothes and they won’t notice it much. Maybe. 😉 And if they still have problems, bring the cat o’ nine or a riding crop to work….

    Seriously, those low back support belts (that people who do heavy lifting on the job wear) are much the same thing, just constructed differently. If you are being at all serious (and I can take a joke if you are not ;-), I’d go for the kind that goes under the bustline instead of over it, and be sure it stops before the hip socket. That will support your low back nicely, especially if you tend to let your lower back hyperextend at all, which I could see happening with framing work.

    I wore an 18th century style one for my wedding and my back felt *fantastic* even after the reception. I’d go for NOT compressing the waist much at all, as you need full range of motion and breath support for construction work, just more or less lacing tightly enough for the boning to help support the back. I personally will be going for the mid-Victorian type that supports the bust, mainly because my hunching over/hyperextension problems are not the result of construction work or lifting, just long periods of standing at my cutting table/sitting at a sewing machine.

    *sigh* I REALLY hope I’m not being made fun of here….

  45. Certainly, it’s true that there is a lot of pressure for African-Americans, Latin Americans, and Asian peoples to be lighter skinned, we’ve all seen and heard plenty of that in our lives, but, I think other races have jumped in on the pale-tan debate for Caucasians as well.

    I have pale skin, grey eyes, and flaxish hair. I’m in grad school now, so in my twenties, and all my life it has never been only Caucasian people who told me to get a tan. I’ve found more sensitivity from people of other races – the Argentinian friend who says “you’re so pretty, but you’d look better if you got a tan.” I think a consensus has been reached somewhere among a lot of younger people, that they are racist in new ways, and they like people like Beyonce, who aren’t white, but come very close in many ways, with light skin and straightened hair, and dainty noses. And conversely, to be too white or white-bread culturally isn’t chic anymore.

    Not that I’m getting a tan, although if I move to Miami next year (I really may go to school there, not just as an example), I may have no choice but to have a spray tan once a week. What else can you do but give in after some point? Besides, I don’t think spray tans are harmful… Not like those weird 80’s “tan pills” turned out to be.

Comments are currently closed.