When was it really so stylish to show this much down there?

Halle Berry in LaQuan Smith at the 2025 Met Gala. Photo: halleberry/Instagram

Every Met Gala has its fair share of attention seekers. As the years passed, it is a given that at the Met Gala, it really is spectacle over substance. This year was no exception. And the star who totally puzzled was not André 3000 wearing a baby grand on his back, but someone else who decided to do away with the cumbersome—underwear. Halle Berry willingly allowed herself to be fitted by LaQuan Smith in a gown of alternating strips of the sheer and the opaque. And the visual effect went past her crotch, which was curiously less concealed than her feet. Apart from the usual red carpet photos of her circulating across social media, there has also been those that zoomed in on her bare crotch. It is not clear how this can be a reputational advantage to her. It is possible that Ms Berry really wanted to expose her body that way, but why choose the Met Gala, why not OnlyFans?

The negative online reaction to her unnecessary display is understandable and highlights a potential disconnect between the intention behind the look and its reception. The adverse reactions to her look is countered with the usual lines of defence: making a statement, pushing boundaries, leaning on her confidence, feeling empowerment, celebrating her body, expressing an artistic vision. While all of that are valid—although too much even for a seasoned Met Gala goer, it is odd that Ms Berry is limited to showing the areas around her genitals as a way to explore those personal strengths. Is there not a more nuanced or equally impactful way to express confidence, push boundaries, or convey creative might without resorting to such overt display of what is traditionally, and still is, private parts? No woman, as far as we can remember, has gone the distance to flash her pubic region at the Met Gala.

It is possible that Ms Berry really wanted to expose her body that way, but why choose the Met Gala, why not OnlyFans?

Presumably, exposing the breast and the buttocks are well trodden paths. Ms Berry had to try something else, something to her that no longer constitues indencency or lewdness. It has been said that attendees and viewers of the Met Gala generally expect to see unconventional and daring fashion choices. Celebrities attending the annual event implicitly agree to participate in this culture of “expressive dressing”. But surely not exposure of the perimeter of the pudendum. Everyone in attendance and watching at home has the same right to the visually decorous, but Ms Berry’s near-nudity was forced on us, whether we like or not. We are often told that speaking loudly is aural intrusion and is rude, but, curiously, showing off the pubic area is not visual intrusion and neither is it impertinent.

Where does the right to individual expression end and the right to a comfortable public space for all begin? While we still grapple with where to draw this line, there are those who deliberately push boundaries for the purpose of creating buzz and a sexy persona, and pushing body freedom, with no perceptible reputational dent. It is also hard to fathom what all that perilabial display meant when, on the same night but in the other extreme, Amelia Grey wore what appeared to be two panties as part of her Valentino get-up! The underlying why behind these choices is elusive. At its most fundamental level, fashion provides clothing that serves practical needs. It goes beyond that now. The elusive why is intentional.

Halle Berry with LaQuan Smith before they headed out to the Met Gala. Photo: laquan_smith/Instagram

To be sure, slashed garments that show skin are nothing new. Dramatically high slits in skirts and dresses, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century (the qipao [旗袍], for example ), while not technically slashes, are openings that draw attention to bare parts of the body. For a very recent, fairer example, there are the pants that Jennie wore in the music video for her track Zen, released three months ago. The star had on a pair of salchang kojaengi (in the Joseon Dynasty, they were worn as underpants) that was vertically slashed through the crotch. The silhouette of the trousers were similar to harem pants and was from the Korean label Leje, designed by Je Yang-mo and Kang Ju-hyeong. The difference between this trousers and the LaQuan Smith dress for Ms Berry is the underwear that one wearer had on and the other did not.

The obvious irony to us is that, while a celebrity might be lauded for ‘owning’ her body by wearing a revealing outfit, many other women face limitations and frustrations in finding clothes that make them feel good and stylish while covered. Halle Berry’s chosen look also stood in contrast with the organiser/chairwoman Anna Wintour’s. In Louis Vuitton this year, she beamed as the eternal beacon of the very traditional and impeccably tailored, and the uncompromisingly decorous and tasteful. The more extreme or boundary-pushing, or genetalia-baring the outfits—while generating buzz and headlines—inadvertently serve as a foil to Ms Wintour’s ‘classic’ elegance, highlighting her choices to be more strategic than simply personal preference. By consistently embodying a timeless, even if yawn-inducing, style, she create a visual anchor of the sublime against the vulgar. Therein lies real power.

Photo: halleberry/Instagram