The information for pregnant women in America is infinite, and not all of it is focused on pregnant women who are also members of young straight couples; that is to say, a significant amount of the information and imagery could be applied to young lesbian couples as well. But all of the pictures and images in the magazines and their corresponding websites are of pristine and scrubbed clean beauties, in white or blue or some other flowy color, plump in all the right places, happy as can be. It is as if their was a humor coup way-back-when some ginny marketers remembered their moms and decided that a pregnant woman must always be given the Vaseline-lens treatment when represented in the media, her biological change and brains ignored, the social and philisophical implications glorified; this is a women doing what she is intended to do.
This sort of imagery is appropriate to a degree, especially for women who have planned their pregnancies and welcome the time with excitment and elastic-waisted jeans. But what about all of those women out there who get pregnant by surprise and choose to carry out the pregnancy? What about single women? Women who don't have enough money to restrict their diets and buy $200 designer maternity jeans? Unfortunately, there remains a stigma in this country that hangs over pregnancy like a drapey, belly-slimming pall. When dealing with it socially or in the media, pregnancy must always be treated with ecstatic bliss and gratefullness and congratulations/pride. Anna Wintour and her bevy of heel-clicking interns over at Vogue certainly wouldn't have let this one slide:
But the twisted frogs over at French Vogue would.
Now don't get me wrong, at first I was mortified by this spread. I thought the fashion industry was trivializing a real human experience and fetishizing it, much like this shot of a poverty-stricken Indian child in a $100 Fendi bib. Editorial fashion spreads often seem to be pushing the limits for the sake of it, but, while interesting to look at, come off as out of touch, ambivalent, and pedantic most of the time. I have the feeling that whoever came up with this one stumbled on it big time, or maybe not. Whatever the case, this one is actually unexpected, and it does question ways we traditionally view pregnant women. Instead of mature, always rational, and virginal-looking-depite-her-state, the model in this spread is irrsponsible, wild, and kind-of childish:
I mean at least the Frenchies had enough restraint to use a doll, right?
There could possibly be a complaint made that these images make pregnancy look like just another fashion accessory and encourage teens to get pregnant so they'll look cool. But if a teenager's reading French Vogue, she's either French or wants to be, so the irony of these photos will not be lost on her. She won't give up her dreams of clomping past the Siene in a pair of Louboutins for any stubbly quaterback who glances her way. I digress.
The one and only thing that makes these photos at all scandalous in their context of fashion photography (which is rife with violent rape and snuff images) is the fact that the model is represented as pregnant. And that the pregnant-state is one that shouldn't be joked about or looked at in another way than the norm is perpetuated by our own discomfort and reverence for the popular image of a pregnant woman. I mean this would never show up in Glamour:
Maybe you like this spread and maybe you don't. I for one think it's a ridiculous notion to think for an instant that a woman would be able to maneuver a sandwich in those heels, let alone a baby. But fashion is ridiculous. It is indulgent and over the top. It always has been. And I think it's much more empowering and healthy to goof around with pregnancy than with sexuality or sex, which is often given a dark and lurid and sometimes violent treatment for the sake of being interesting. It's nice that something doesn't have to be scary or illegal to be considered stimulating, just a little twisted.
