-
sponsorship
Just when I thought that nipping and tucking was falling out of favor in the brave, new “frugalista” era—this creepy, yet informative Washington Post story about Martha Washington sucks us all back in. Apparently, our first FLOTUS was not some dowdy pincushion of a woman; in fact, she liked to get down. Choice quote:
"[George Washington] was clearly sexually excited by her," said Patricia Brady, a historian who wrote the first revisionist biography of Martha a few years ago. "When Martha decided to marry George, she didn't marry him just to be a kind stepfather to her two children. He was a hunk, and I think she decided to make herself happy. ..."
Nice. It is a bit unfair that Martha Washington has been essentially interchangeable with Mrs. Claus in the popular imaginary. But the next Angelina? I respectfully question the intentions (probably commercial) of the “handful of historians” who
are seeking to revamp the former first lady's fusty image, using the few surviving records of things she wrote, asking forensic anthropologists to do a computerized age-regression portrait of her in her mid-20s and, perhaps most importantly, displaying for the first time in decades the avant-garde deep purple silk high heels studded with silver sequins that she wore on her wedding day.
It’s cool to know more about Martha. And I get that first lady fashion is back like black—the Smithsonian is displaying a beautiful onyx pocket watch worn by Mary Todd Lincoln after her husband’s assassination/ (I have it on good authority that DVF is an admirer.) But must we describe Martha’s shoes as “the Manolo Blahniks of her time”? I’m more interested in the mention of her late 18th-century management of five tobacco farms. What was that like? Ironically, this extreme makeover ends up bounding its subject within a rather retrograde portfolio, comprising what she wore and how she related to men and who wanted to diddle her. Exchanging the trope of the schoolmarm for that of the proto-Bovarian fashionplate isn’t really progress, is it?
-
sponsorship
In a weekend New York Times op-ed on hook-up culture in high schools and colleges, Charles M. Blow writes as if casual sex instead of dating is a new-millennium thing: "Dating is dated. Hooking up is here to stay. ... When I first heard about hooking up years ago, I figured that it was a fad that would soon fizzle. I was wrong. It seems to be becoming the norm."
It's not so new, Mr. Blow. From the Vows column from this weekend's NYT, on a couple who met in 1975, married in 1985, divorced in 1995, and remarried on Nov. 29:
They first went "moon eyed" for each other in 1975, skipping past the dating phase, and, in the spirit of the times, jumping into a live-in relationship.
"People didn't date," remembered Ms. Kallir, 54. "You hung out and then you slept together."
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?