Nothing. Zilch. Naught

By Mao Shan Wang

The Hadid sisters: Is there nothing they won’t do for attention? Well, I suppose it’s not entirely their own doing if British Vogue wants them to go naked to help improve the magazine’s sales, or its declared inclusiveness (naked girls deserve editorial space in decent publications too). Well, to be clear, I don’t know for sure. I am uncertain if this is editor Edward Enninful’s specific request to communicate a particular hitherto unexpressed heterosexual leaning. I am not sure if this is the result of lensman Steven Meisel’s urging—some photographers are known to be good at making models take off their clothes. For all I know, maybe the stylist did not bring enough threads, and a page had to be filled.

Still, Vogue is a fashion magazine. It is not Treats!. Those of us who still flip a hard copy (how archaic that sounds!) magazine do so for the fashion (that, too, is outmoded, no?). Sure, in the old days, there were topless photos, but at least there were skirts or pants to look at—oh, how wide the waistband. Okay, even panties—look, how skimpy there are! The Hadids didn’t even have shoes on. Or, we could have said something like how fierce the heels are. Nary a pink pussy hat too, or is that too one-year-ago? Is that why Kim K posted a bare-breasted photo of herself on Instagram about the same time the pre-newsstand publicity for the Vogue shot went viral: not to be outdone?

In an age of #dresslikeawoman (primarily a reaction to Donald Trump’s alleged dress code for his female staff), we have a duo ready to spawn #undresslikeawoman. They are, however, not setting the precedent; they are mere followers in an increasingly pornified media-scape. You could boil it down to female empowerment (as per Hillary Clinton’s encouragement, “To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want.” Anything!), but would assertion of self be less powerful if there were any shred of clothing? Or is bare-all see-all, know-all, understand-all?

It’s not easy to make clear why British Vogue saw the necessity of publishing these two sisters looking pre- (or post-) coital, nor do we want to. Surely this isn’t a sisterly, after-a-shared-shower moment! It’s more problematic because Bella and Gigi, to me, don’t really look related, which gives this same-sex pairing a not-quite-mundane, “creepy”—as the Guardian so succinctly put it—(front) side. Or am I—a damsel from more covered times, who likes seeing clothes on models, not without—just not “woke” enough?

The thing is, people do things that defy comprehension, more so decency. Fashion be damned. In the end, who cares about clothes? Vogue knows you don’t. If you want fashion, go to instyle.com. How about “30 Most Nude Dresses of All Time”?

Photo: Vogue/Steven Meisel/stevenmeiselphoto, Instagram