Kim is such an a@@hole.
The smallest dress size you could buy during Marilyn’s lifetime was an 8 — sizing conventions, as well as the size (and shape) of American bodies, have changed a lot in the last 60 years. Even at MM’s most zaftig (right around Some Like It Hot), she was roughly the equivalent of a modern 6.
When she wore this spangled number, her measurements were 35.5” - 23.5” - 33.5”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a person on this side of the millennium who’s built like that! Like, not even a Victoria’s Secret Angel.
Kim K has a rockin’ figure — not knocking it — but, by contrast, her hips are something like 41”. So yeah, not 6 dress sizes smaller…
Edit: I swear I don’t have some kind of disturbing fixation on celebrities’ body measurements. I minored in costume history in college and just really like old clothes, despite the fact that most don’t fit me, either!
themarilynmonroecollection.com
Grotesque implants, down there.
Here's 1 website I found on the topic. It's not the end all be all, but I thought it was interesting.
Marilyn Monroe's True Size. Her clothing tells the truth.
Read about Marilyn Monroe's actual size, and she wasn't "plus sized" after all. Her personal clothing items prove just how small she truly was.
This doesn't make sense to me. I saw the photos of where the dress was stretched and how the dress was left almost completely open at the back, and there was no pull at all where the photos say the dress was stretched - because it wasn't done up. On the other hand, I also read a report from 2017 saying the dress had damage then comparable to what appears to exist now. You can see in the photos showing the damage that it has occurred where the dress was hooked closed. But Kardashian didn't wear it closed, so that just doesn't make sense. And it wasn't left a *bit* open - it was left a LOT open. If they'd done it up and she'd sat in it - I can see that as a problem. But unzipped, standing, for a few minutes - I'm just not seeing it. I don't see why hooks that weren't closed would be showing stretch, or how a bunch of sequins could jump off in a few minutes. Also, remember it was so tight when Marilyn wore it that it had to be sewn onto her. It was also tight on the mannequin, and had been for years.
Here's how open it was at the back. You can see that where the damage is shown wasn't being pulled when Kardashian wore it.
As for the dress - (and I'm not directing this comment at you, @autumngems, but rather all the people I've seen commenting on this online) - it belongs to Ripley's Believe it Or Not. They bought it and it's theirs. They can do what they like with it. I can't stand this whole "It's iconic and belongs to the people" thing. I actually read a comment from someone on some website saying - "This dress belongs to the people! So that means this dress is MINE! How dare she wreck it!" No. It's not yours. One of the things we all love about America is its free market. The dress was for sale. It COULD have been left to a museum - but it was sold and Ripley's, a purely commercial venture, bought it. They've been displaying it as part of their Exhibits and Archives for years, but decided to take it out for a whirl. It's their dress and it's within their rights. Frankly, I think the JFK museum in Boston should have bought it - what a coup that would have been! But, since they didn't, it rightly belongs to Ripley's and they can use it as they see fit. I might not like it (tho I do tend to believe things should be used, just in general), but it's not mine to dictate.
Personally, I think Kim looked awesome, tho I did think the hair was a tad severe. Did she stretch the dress? Maybe, tho Ripley's says not (believe that or...er...not...). But I think everyone laying into her is rather unfair. She seems to me to have been at pains not to damage the dress in any way. Anyway, I think we could all probably name 50 iconic outfits off the top of our heads, so to my way of thinking, if we want to preserve something, we'd be better off trying to return famous looted works of art from the second WW to the appropriate countries, or we could have reacted more strongly to ISIL's devastation of the Old Sites in the Middle East - which was an absolute travesty and utterly heartbreaking.
And in the final analysis, the dress is back on display and will probably never be worn again. Until Ripley's goes out of business, of course, and sells off all its assets to some power crazy trillionaire who lets his mistress wear it while drinking champagne and trailing a fur around the room, singing Happy Birthday Mr President. Call me a cynic, but that seems to be the way of these things. Very little lasts forever - which is why I love diamonds.
300x240.png)
