“Bikini body at 62!” screams this week’s headline on the new gossip magazine Closer. Cover girl Jane Seymour sports a pink two-piece and a stunningly perfect set of abs, looking ever so reminiscent of her Bond-girl self of 40 years ago.
I’m exhausted just looking at this. Is age-appropriate flab another thing my generation can’t look forward to, then, along with Social Security? Must we toil away on the treadmill forever?
The “bikini body,” one of the most odious terms ever coined, has become an all-pervasive measure of women’s aesthetic worth. The bikini itself — once a fun, racy icon of the sexual revolution — has become the exacting standard by which all physical assets and shortcomings may be publicly sized up.
Being sexy in your 60s isn’t a bad thing; as life expectancies go up and Helen Mirren shows no signs of being less foxy, our standards on age are evolving. But a shout-out for a bikini body should not be confused with genuine sexiness.
The real irony of a bikini body — on anyone older than about 17 — is how deeply it contradicts its sunny, beachy surroundings. The owner of said body has almost certainly worked her butt off for such seemingly lighthearted photo-readiness. Much exercising and little ingestion of anything containing fat, sugar or any other consumable joy has occurred.
As Seymour herself puts it in the Closer feature, “I hate to deny myself things. If I have pasta, I’ll just eat half of it.” No disrespect to Jane — she looks great in the suit, and if she only wants half, fine — but, Jesus, the woman should be able to enjoy a whole plate of food. Pasta is sexy (just ask Sophia Loren). Being hungry and cranky and weight-obsessed is less so.
The tyranny of the bikini body runs far and wide. Are you a celebrity who just had a baby? Better have your bikini body ready to rock in mere months, or prepare to be fat-shamed. Kim Kardashian was pronounced a success of a person last month by US Weekly: “Six months after giving birth to daughter North West, the 33-year-old reality star is proudly showing off her post-baby body in a skimpy bikini. Strutting confidently along the beach, the blonde stunner flaunted her slimmed-down figure and famous curves in a revealing white triangle top and matching side-tie bottoms. It’s a big milestone for the star.”
In what way, for any reasonable person, is this a big milestone? (I know, we’re talking about Kim Kardashian, but still.) This is a milestone only in the universe of a “Cathy” comic strip. (“Ack! It’s nearly bathing suit season! I must strut confidently along the beach in a revealing white triangle top!”)
In any case, that shoot was eventually revealed — by The Post — to have been enhanced with Photoshop. Because even when you are a real-life cartoon character like Kim, it’s completely unrealistic to have a flawless body that quickly after having a child.
I’m reminded of the credo of British journalist Caitlin Moran regarding any blatant gender divide: “You can tell whether some misogynistic societal pressure is being exerted on women,” she writes, “by calmly enquiring, ‘And are the men doing this, as well?’ If they aren’t, chances are you’re dealing with what we strident feminists refer to as ‘some total f - - -ing bulls - - t.’ ”
Sure, a guy will occasionally get accolades for his shirtless physique (hi, Joe Manganiello!), but there’s nowhere near the level of scrutiny that female celebs regularly endure. A man with a beer belly is par for the course; a woman with one is a national travesty.
In this new year, let’s jettison “bikini body” for something a little more forgiving: the maillot body, perhaps? Or the wetsuit body. It is hard not to look like a badass in a wetsuit.
Perhaps the edgiest ideal, though, comes from the nudists (or naturists, as they diplomatically call themselves). A clothing-optional beach is where you’ll find a crowd truly comfortable with letting it all hang out. Maybe if we lost the tiny cloth triangles, we’d gain a little perspective.
Your move, Helen Mirren.