Are these people for real?

Carla Bruni's nipples: Discuss

The French president's hot wife may or may not have gone braless, but either way, I weep for humanity

By Kate Harding

Reuters/Miguel Medina
French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy welcomes Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev and his wife Svetlana for a state dinner at the Elysee palace in Paris March 2, 2010.

French first lady Carla Bruni's body has long been a subject of interest to many, but the Times of London has taken scrutiny of the former model's rack to a whole new level. Based on photos of Bruni in a form-fitting but full-coverage Roland Mouret gown at a state dinner on Tuesday night, Times writers Hannah Betts and Sarah Vine have A) determined that she is not wearing a bra and B) offered a helpful point-counterpoint on whether she should be slut-shamed for it.

• Continue reading

Before I get into their arguments, I'd like to state for the record that unless that dress is totally backless, I'm not convinced Bruni isn't wearing a bra. Yes, in at least one shot, you can see her nipples, hence controversy -- but that only tells us conclusively that she is not wearing a very thick bra. In fact, I would argue that if you quit staring at her nips and look up, you can see the outline of some kind of straps; perhaps it's only a slip, but it's something that in my opinion renders the whole argument moot. (I know, common sense and journalistic integrity ought to render the whole argument moot, but that ship has sailed.) In any case, she's well covered and certainly not screamingly unsupported; if they'd cranked the heat a couple of degrees higher, there would be no issue here.
But without the fake issue, we'd never have gotten Betts' florid and slightly bonkers defense of going commando, which would be a damned shame.

Our culture is obsessed with heaving, blancmangey cleavage, but the erect nipple is a far more potent yet insouciant sexual signifier. The pert pap winningly protrudes between the sluttish and the demure: contained arousal, clothed incitement; an invitation more beguiling for being a whisper rather than a shout.
​

LOLwhut? I mean, whatever, fine point about the erotic mystery of the covered nipple, but I think it's possible that Betts is overthinking this one. I can't quite picture Carla in her dressing room, all, "Well, I could go for straight-up bare boobies at this state dinner I'm hosting, but I'm feeling something more ... potent yet insouciant." And that's sort of the whole problem here. Betts' premise is that Bruni made a conscious decision to draw attention to her "embonpoint as a means of signalling youthfulness and a provocatively literal grip on power." But as someone who once gave a reading at an outdoor wedding in a dress that looked fine inside but turned out to be scandalously see-through in broad daylight, I'm rather less inclined to assume Bruni deliberately set out to share her nipples with the crowd. Accidents happen.
Vine, meanwhile, doesn't even mention Bruni's name in her position statement. Ostensibly representing the "Yes, it was a boob" viewpoint, she pretty much just muses on why she likes wearing bras, making her side officially a non-argument about a non-controversy. Which, while not as amusing as Betts' approach ("when Carla brandishes her bosom, she is merely the latest in an august line of Gallic consorts who have proffered their breasts to suggest physical and political prowess ...") is sort of awesome in its own way. "Bras: I'm for 'em! Can I have my money now?"
As for me: I'm for 'em -- but I also really don't care if anyone else is, even the French president's hot wife. What I do care about is how women in the public eye are endlessly monitored to see if they've put a toe (or nipple) over the line of acceptable sexuality -- a transgression matched in manufactured outrage only by their failures to be feminine enough. (I weep for the day Shiloh Jolie-Pitt hits puberty.) And as long as a woman wearing a boatneck, long-sleeved, full-length gown with sensible low heels can be cast as trampy and inappropriate because she got photographed in unfortunate lighting and/or a drafty room -- as long as the line highly visible females are expected to walk is that freakin' fine -- I really don't want to hear one more word about how sexism has nothing to do with the lack of women in positions of real power.




Source: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/03/05/carla_bruni_braless/index.html

I don't even believe this was an issue...

 

I saw pictures of Carla Bruni in that dress and I honestly thought that she had gone out of her way to dress rather demurely. I too think she's in underwear but what does it matter. Women in the public eye can't win. As far as journalists perceive things, the woman is either too overtly sexy or dowdy. There is ,in their minds, no middle ground.

 

She looks like a real person. lol

 

You... you mean REAL WOMEN have NIPPLES?
Huh, I thought only whores had 'em.

 

She's beautiful. I'd not complain regardless what she wore.

 

if I was there all I would care about is what for dinner!! hehehe
it seems that some people need to have sex he he he

 

Wow, what an important issue facing the world...

Not that it matters but I think she looks fabulous

 

She's an ex model. There are plenty of provocative pictures of her, so who the hell cares!?

She is pretty, she obviously isn't trying to show her nipples, she shouldn't be called a slut.

 

Oh no...not tits...Disgusting things...disgusting slutty woman...If I was her I'd go around topless, playing with my own tits. Never mind the president.

 

my sisters, its time we stood up! be proud to be strong and independent women!!!

 

For Pete's sake. The first lady of France has nipples!! I can't believe anyone cares in this day and age. She was covered neck to freakin' toe. How bizarre to insinuate she's a slut.

This was in the Times of London? And I thought our press was puritanical.

 

She looks like she can go anywhere she wants bra-less

 

I was being sarcastic if it was my post that you were referring too.

 

I was expecting scary nipple missiles, but you can barely see those unless you're really looking for them (unless you're a horny photog with a camera anyway..)

 

Why is this in the Feminism forum, because objectification only happens to females?

 

How many female reporters take pictures of men's (gasp) bulges?

 

Not all journalists, I think she looks quite lovely, bra or no bra. She is dressed well and suitably for the occasion. Anyone who takes the time to observe that closely should be the one deemed inappropriate not her.

 

I'm pretty sure if a woman wrote an article about how tastelessly a man was flaunting his package, she would be booed down and labeled a pervert, slut, and I don't know what else, for even THINKING that the man MIGHT have a penis while his clothes where still on.

And I say this while normally feminism really pisses me off. But yeah...

 

exactly my point