It was reported that former X-Files star Gillian Anderson “shocked the world” with her “vagina covered dress.” Weeell … I had to check that story out. It wound up being a trip down the proverbial rabbit hole. (Don’t go there.) It turned out to be a bigger tissue issue than I ever would have imagined.
My first reaction was to the editorial claim that Anderson “shocked the world.” I suspect most folks in the world have not even heard of a “vagina dress” – and nothing Hollywood does in terms of genitalia can be shocking these days.
In fact, the dress (pictured above) was rather modest by Tinseltown standards. It looks more like a traditional wedding dress. Wearing it as a bride might be more shocking than appearing in this year’s vulgar-wear at a Hollywood event. Try to find a Hollywood event in which some so-called starlet does not attempt to gain attention by outrageous high … ooops, I mean … low haute couture.
The dress motif is not obvious – especially from a distance. The stylized vaginas are embroidered in white against a white background. Aesthetically, they reminded me of those double imagery floral paintings by Georgia O’Keeffe – only less obvious.
If I had seen the dress without advance warning, I might have thought it was a visual accounting of the men who have had access to Anderson’s real vagina. Sort of like notches on a shooter’s gun handle. Anderson said she wore the dress for many reasons. So, maybe my theoretical explanation is one of the reasons. Of course, she does offer up some threadbare cliché – like it’s all about protecting female victimization. Leftwingers tend to believe in exposing injustice by exposing the anatomy.
If you think her display is motivated by serious social issues, consider this. People Magazine headlined their story with, “Gillian Anderson Shares Cheeky Behind-the-Scenes Photo Eating a Sausage in Her Viral Vagina Golden Globes Dress” – accompanied by photo. (You just cannot make this stuff up.)
In diving into the bush even further on this issue (stop it), I did learn that Anderson’s professional career has been associated with genitals more than you might know – or want to know. She played a sex therapist on a program called “Sex Education.”
According to USA Today, her character hosted “vagina workshops and had vulva-inspired art throughout her (the character’s) home.” Anderson described the set as filled with props that “looked like penises and yonis.” (Vulvas if you do not speak Hindi.) Anderson said she took “lots of pictures of them.” (Are we seeing a common thread here?)
In view of her “interest” in the subject, Anderson says that “Now people send me stuff that they’ve seen, basically anything that looks like a penis or yoni. Sometimes it can be hard to capture them, like if you’re in a cab going through London and you see something. I haven’t gotten to the point yet when I’m like, ‘Stop the cab!’ But I guess I might.” (Memo to Anderson: That phallic image you see in the skyline is the Tower of London.)
As long as we are on the subject, Anderson’s vagina dress that “shocked the world” is a sequel. Back in 2016 such wannabe starlets as Bella Hadid and Giulia Salemi wore versions called vagina dresses. These generally featured a two-inch wide floor length loin cloth that concealed nothing as it waved with each step or slight breeze. Other dresses were styled and colored for more graphic images of vaginas. Maxim, the online lifestyle magazine, declared the 2016 fad a future trend in fashion. It did not live up to the prediction until Anderson resurrected the style.
Finally (thankfully), can we ever forget those knitted “pussy” hats that the ladies wore as symbols of protest against something or other. On yeah! Trump’s election. At the time, I said it only seemed fair to have a feminine version of “dickhead.”
Anderson called her dress “brand appropriate.” Not sure what she meant. Was she branding herself as a ______. (Fill in the blank yourself because I am not using the word)? The genital lady of Hollywood may have played a sex therapist on the screen, but methinks she may consider seeing a real one.
So, there ‘tis.