The Elle Words: Lindsay Lohan, Leggings, and Lesbian Chic

With the release of her new line of leggings, Lindsay Lohan is making the public relations rounds. Lacking a fresh stint in rehab or a spate of late-night carousing to dish about, the mags this month confront a new facet of Lohan’s public persona: her rumored relationship with Samantha Ronson. Are they? Aren’t they? If two women in L.A. date and refuse to discuss it with reporters, are they in fact a couple? Only a publicist can say for sure!

But the unconfirmed nature of their relationship doesn’t prevent breathless insinuations in Elle and Marie Claire, two magazines in which Lohan appears this month. In theory, the alleged Lohan/Ronson assignation gives the magazines a chance to depart from their heteronormative ways and reflect the lives of a broader range of women. This should be a good thing, right?

Elle thinks so, because they just adore the way lesbians dress! From “Fashion News”:

Red Wing, the 103-year-old Minnesota maker of rugged outdoorsman boots, has finally gotten around to launching a women’s line. These black knee-high classics would go great with fall’s new take on lesbian chic.

And what better way to celebrate that “lesbian chic” than with a bit of sniggering about Lohan? From “Hot Child in the City”:

Until then she’ll have to rely on her favorite new bag—a birthday gift from her …friend DJ Samantha Ronson. [innuendo-relaying ellipsis theirs]

On one hand, I see no problem with calling out the inconsistencies between a celeb’s statements and their behavior. On the other, well, the article continues thusly:

She and Sam have been inseparable for months—providing the tabloids with kissy photos stoking endless gossip fires about their relationship.

Like Elle has provided a real counterpoint to the tabloids by discussing their relationship in a non-salacious fashion? For the record, their article about Eva Mendes—another unmarried female—doesn’t once mention potential lovers.

Marie Claire, to their credit, tackles the whole topic in greater depth and in a more straight-forward manner. From “You Don’t Mess with the Lohan”:

…[the bulldog in Lohan’s trailer] belongs to Samantha Ronson, the proto-scenester and DJ with whom Lohan is enmeshed, although she refuses to confirm no-brainer rumors that they are lovers. Lohan’s anecdotes are studded with references to Ronson…

When she tells me, with a giggle, that she’s looking to buy a house “with someone,” it just seems obvious who that someone is. But when I ask Lohan specifically about the relationship, she says, “Um, people can think what they want. I’m really happy, and that’s all that matters.”

Marie Claire seems to concur with that assessment, continuing for three more pages with little further mention of Ronson. Even better, in “My Rookie Year,” about the first year of marriage, two female newlyweds discuss their experiences alongside three hetero couples. It’s progress—and it’s smart business. Why not incorporate as much diversity as possible? There’s no sense in ensuring that entire segments of society will never identify with anyone in the magazine (or at least not exacerbating the current state of disenfranchisement).

Fashion mags have typically endorsed progressive views like pro-choice legislation and family leave laws. Their current incarnations are based on women’s sexual freedom and economic independence. There’s no reason they should be flummoxed by the notion of a same-sex couple—or, on a less cosmic level, by a celeb’s reluctance to discuss her relationship.

Maybe she’s missing the chance to cash in on Elle’s declaration of the “lesbian chic” trend, but Lohan is certainly not the first actress who doesn’t care to elucidate every nuance of her sex life in the pages of a national magazine. Isn’t respecting that—and respecting a variety of relationships—the chicest thing of all?

Comments

[Jessica]

I would not buy Lindsay Lohan's leggings. I don't wear them to begin with and I don't want to look scrawny like Lindsay.

[Rose]

"Lesbian chic"? For real? Glad to know all of us lesbians can be shoehorned into one fashion sense. Oy vey.
On one hand, I'm happy for most of the coverage of the relationship - most of the time it doesn't seem all that exploitative.
Most of the time.

[Glossed Over]

Jessica: Her leggings also retail for $66, which is as good a reason as any not to buy them. But she looks healthy in these photos--she's certainly been far skinnier.

Rose: Indeed. Elle didn't elaborate, so I can only imagine what they consider "lesbian chic." I can't wait to see which demographic they try to pigeonhole next month!

[laylaness]

Some of her leggings actually run up to $160. And she has these ridiculous leopard print "ankle warmers" in her line.

Aside from dubious fashion choices, I am really growing to respect Lindsay. She's been keeping her cool through so many tabloid rumors (some fueled by her own father).

It's definitely a step forward for Marie Claire to address same-sex relationships equally to hetero relationships.

Elle on the other hand... Wow. I hope they don't go around acrawling "lesbians!" on Lindsay's and Samantha's lockers.

[Erin]

Leggings? I thought those went out a long time ago.....other than as work out wear! I especially wouldn't buy them because they're too darn expensive for what they are. I can probably find the same thing in Marshalls.