One of the ways we, as a society, went wrong was by buckling into the red-paint-splashing fur-haters.
We can have a debate about the ethics of wearing fur–you’ll lose, but we can have it–but the issue should’ve been removed from the table the instant terrorist tactics were used.
Yeah, pro-oil and pro-fur. And yet, not really conservative. Heh.
I mention this because Malkin is in the new Clare Booth Luce “Conservative Women” calendar. Now, the Luce family was corrupting media long before our current, completely disreputable media was even born. (Henry and Clare dropped LSD–responsibly, under a psychiatrist’s careful gaze–back in 1958!) But that’s a separate subject.
The subject here–the salient, eternal subject–is women in fur. Mmmmm. There’s not much better than a woman wearing a fur. Maybe it’s some primal thing, going back to when you had to hand kill the bear. Maybe it’s that whatever they think consciously, women seem to respond in a primal fashion to wearing fur. Not too long ago, and for quite some time, the fur coat was the epitome of the luxury romance item, alongside of diamonds and fine chocolates.
Anyway, the pix…are a little disappointing. There’s a great shot of Coulter up front, and Malkin’s looking good. But they over did the makeup on Mary Katherine Ham–I know what they were going for, but it required more skill and lighting. MKH looks marvellous with a more “natural” makeup. You can see the same thing in the other pictures, too, although for some reason it works on Amanda Carpenter.
Tragically, I couldn’t find a picture that really epitomized what I was thinking of while writing this. But how about a little Marilyn? An archetypal woman in an archetypal symbol of romance.