Having an organized and stylish place to keep your weed that you can leave out in plain sight is an option any adult deserves.
Since announcing her pregnancy to the world, Kim hasn't abandoned her regular wardrobe of leather dresses and pencil skirts, strappy, spiked heels and form-fitting peplum tops and trousers. And she's been crucified for it in the same ol' media outlets who apparently hate women for, well, everything.
They're sniping and griping about her weight gain (that particular nastiness has been beautifully destroyed right here), but I'm chiefly interested in the sneers around her maternity wear of choice. The sheer spite, lightly cloaked in faux concern is nauseating: "Ohh, isn't she uncomfortable? Couldn't all those tight clothes... (hushed tones) ...hurt the baby?"
The same used to be said of Victoria Beckham whenever she was photographed strutting through an airport in leather trousers or thigh high boots or some other garment deemed wildly impractical for travelling by the Daily Mail and it's permanently indignant readers; "Couldn't she, like, get a DVT or something?"
Well, she's travelling first class, there's plenty of room for stretching out, maybe she changes into a cashmere onesie the second the plane takes off, or maybe leather trousers act a little bit like those sexy compression socks that I wear on long haul flights. But really, WHO CARES??!!
It's like that frienemy - you know the one, we've all had them - who assumes an anxious expression, lays a hand caringly on your arm and murmurs "are you alright? You look... tired?" when you're really just hungover. Not helpful.
Just because Kim doesn't conform to the typical image of a pregnant woman wearing soft, pastel jersey garments, who are we to judge? Presumably she's surrounded by medical professionals who would tell her if any of her clothing choices might "harm the baby" (as if that's a thing - I checked with my midwife BFF and it really isn't) so this is about shaming a woman for not wanting to check her sexuality at the door the second she becomes with child.
People seem shocked by the site of a pregnant woman being sexy and refusing to change. Some women gratefully seize upon pregnancy as an opportunity to not have to worry about fashion for a few months and that's absolutely fine, but if Kim wants to continue tottering about in her leather, laser-cut Guiseppe Zanotti stilettos then why shouldn't she? It may not to be to your taste, or mine, but it's hers and she has that right.
The thing about Kim is that her image IS sex. That's how her 'career' began and whether you approve or not, it's her business and her brand. I also find it quite refreshing that she's so atypical - most female celebrities these days are more likely to be found looking waif-like in a Chanel shift and boyish brogues than a leather pencil skirt and heels.
Kim's old fashioned kind of sexiness broadens the definition of beauty in the modern age - something we desperately need - to include short women, women with hips and an ass ( that ass!), large bosoms and the rest. She's a diminutive, perfectly proportioned beauty and surely she can't be blamed for sticking to the style that she feels best suits her body, even as it's changing.
Now you may or may not agree with me with regards to Kim K, but I think it's vitally important to recognise how this particular example is just a part of the game parts of the media regularly play and it chiefly concerns women. Such and such a celebrity is too fat, too thin, too sexy, too frumpy - "Is X's rapid weight gain/loss affecting her health?" "Gosh, Y has really let herself go - maybe she's depressed..."
It's all so cynical and sad - this speculation, outrage, 'worry' all whipped up, simulated to make people click, buy, read. I urge you to resist the trap and give Kim and all other women a free pass to wear whatever the hell they want while they're pregnant at least.