Fashion & Style
Sexy Girls and Sexy Lingerie Go Well Together
Just as I believe high-fashion clothes look best when displayed on skinny-minny living mannequin models, lingerie looks best when hugging the curves of gals with boobs and bums, both of which were on display at the French lingerie showcase thrown this week within the hip, cavernous walls of Artscape's Wychwood Barns. What once housed streetcars in need of repair held for a night strutting femmes fatales in lingerie.
And what lingerie! The jiggling, stretchmarks, cellulite, and sexy smiles on display may've been a refreshing break from the usual stern robogirls popular these days on the high-fashion catwalk, but the lingerie--and remarkable styling of the girls--was a treat to observe as well.
The lines represented at the show included all my favourite French brands, including Lejaby, Empreinte, Simone Perele, Passionata, and Chantelle underthings, as well as Elixir and Gerbe.
The Lejaby girls came out in military hats brandishing riding crops, an aggressive look that went well with the sophisticated sexiness of looks that included a nude-and-black corset that would be a perfect fit with a retro Parisian boudoir setting (and looked amazing on the model, who looked like a thirties movie starlet come to life).
Empreinte sent out its model in naughty-teacher glasses, and showed a lot of black and white pieces, while Simone Perele eschewed simple for a lot of bright colour, pointy silhouettes, and fancy patterns (my favourite was the pale green pieces with lilac grapes sewn on top), as well as styling that included pink feather hats.
Elixir and Passionata were the more simple lines shown (although Passionata won the best garter-belt prize with its sheer mesh fabric belt that looked like a single skimpy black ruffle), which complemented the Gerbe show of bodysuits and avant-garde tights.
Chantelle rounded out the showcase with its trademark elaborate designs, which included a navy and seafoam ombre piece embroidered with subtle sequins.
Gorgeous lingerie, gorgeous girls--not a bad way to spend a Wednesday night.
Discussion
18 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
There are a lot of people who will be offended by that comment; however, of the 2/3 overweight or obese N. Americans, few have health concerns that caused that - rather than the other way around.
@jamesmallon: Are you saying these ladies have less-than-ideal bodies? If so - dude, you are PICKY. There's no denying that lots of people in North America are overweight or obese, but I don't see how that's relevant here.
However, if you really want proof of "le thin" here, all you have to do is look at the lines featured: Simone Perele, Passionata, LeJaby, etc, do NOT make sizes that reflect or accommodate the bodies of truly curvaceous women. Passionata and Chantelle do, but some of the pieces are hard to find- and if you do, they're not the pretty things that come in smaller sizes. So again, there's a limitation on how fabulous your underthings can be if you have a certain type of body.
While the lines Briony wrote of are gorgeous, again, keep in mind they aren't made for voluptuous women. I've frequently wished LeJaby's stuff came in the more so-called "unusual" sizes manufacturers like Freya and Gossard specialize in.
For those of us who know our lingerie, the proof's in the labels when it comes to skinny minnies.
Here's where I might get in trouble with Catherine. The above models ARE truly curvaceous and voluptuous, but there's a difference between that and fat. I seriously wish fat women would stop using those words to describe themselves. It's disingenuous and only used to make them feel better about being unhealthy. There's simply no such thing as a healthy or externally sexy person who is 15 or more pounds overweight (that goes for men too). And this isn't about "body types" - again that's just an excuse.
A misogynist on the internet might be one of them though.
In the first paragraph, you applaud designers for having models who are "outside the norm", which means you misinterpreted the first part of the article.
I believe Brinony was implying that lingerie shows (like this, or Victoria's Secret, for example) are a nice change from seeing non-lingerie high fashion shows, where the models are generally super thin. So whether they had more or less cellulite/etc than Victoria's Secret models/"typical lingerie models", too, is both a subjective view and something most of us will never know.
Also, to compare these women to super extra thin models and have that somehow mean that they're outside the norm is really dumb.
These women are beautiful model-y ladies.
(Related aside: I never get how if someone is thin but flat, that means they're skinny, but two giant half-moons on an angular frame is apparently "curvy". Trickery!)
Also dumb is your "externally sexy" comment, not only because it's just dumb but because that is an opinion and not a statement of facts.
and note: big does not mean unhealthy! i used to be big and i was way more fit and healthier than I am now!
On top of that is "how you carry it" meaning, usually, you know how to move and express yourself through movement. Our culture is far too ignorant about the basic ingredients of beauty because there is not much opportunity to sell those ideas. But keeping women hungry and ignorant is not sexy, it's sexist.
I think that all men agreed that woman’s body is naturally sexy and very attractive, but not all women have that perfect goddess look like sexy models and I can not be agree with statement that that fashion in general and lingerie fashion in particularly can ignore and d not address large size women needs to have opportunity wear beautiful lingerie or clothing and feel good about them self.