ESTHER WILLIAMS made her living in one. Marilyn Monroe posed in one -as did modern-day counterpart Farrah Faw-cett-Majors -and gave cheesecake a new reputation. And for 25 years Bert Parks sang to a perpetually smiling beauty wearing only three-inch heels and one.
The bathing suit -those one or two pieces of fabric that cover the bare essentials, and occasionally a little more -has created sex objects, launched careers, and contributed to the moral tone of fashion for nearly a century. No small wonder, then, that a woman sometimes harbors a tiny hope that just the right swimsuit might change her life.
Actually, like skillfully applied makeup that has the correct amount of shading, sculpturing, and highlighting, the right swimsuit can camouflage a multitude of sins and cellulite. But what is considered adequate coverage and acceptable to today’s eye -that is, baring the flesh in a way that is morally correct and fashionably on target -is a far cry from what our Victorian sisters sallied around the beaches in about 81 years ago. To say “we’ve come a long way, baby” is quite the understatement.
Suffice it to say that our turn-of-the-century sisters didn’t do a lot of laps across the pool in their cumbersome swim-dress getups. The proper bathing dress of that period was specifically to provide an opaque cover between the neck and the knees. Underneath, serge or jersey stockings topped by bloomers completed the costume. Swimming was out of the question-a good soak in all those yards of fabric meant a trip to Davy Jones’ locker.
Australian aquatic star Annette Kellerman would never have made swimming history if she had succumbed to such nonsense. In 1900 Kellerman set about introducing the first one-piece swimsuit that one could actually paddle around in -and considering that for the early part of the 20th century women were still being arrested for wearing bloomers on the beach, that was gutsy. The one-piece swimsuit, or maillot (pronounced my-o), was simply scandalous and it took a good 10 years before it replaced bathing dresses.
By 1924 it was finally approved by society, but not necessarily because it was considered attractive fashion. What had happened was that the sun was suddenly discovered. “Sunbathing” became all the rage, and the only way to do it without looking like a patchwork quilt was to, heaven forbid, bare the neck, back, and legs. Hence, the introduction of a “scantier” one-piece suit. The first clinging knitted suits appeared in 1927, and the first backless swimsuit made its shocking entry in 1930.
One can simply assume that when the first two-piece suit reared its teasing face on the fashion scene in 1934, the sight of a fair, bare midriff was probably more than the average male could bear. History books record, however, the origin of the bikini in a number of ways. One account says that the bikini was launched in Paris by designer Louis Reard in 1946, four days after the atomic explosion at Bikini Atoll. Another historic version says that the bikini -called the “atom” – was introduced from the French Riviera in 1946.
But Dallas fashion consultant and expert Anne Smoller, who received her fashion design training in wartime London, says that Merrye Olde England actually spawned the bikini. During World War II, she recounts, no swimsuits were being made in Great Britain and most were imported from the United States. Since fabrics were not available because mills were geared to wartime production rather than for home consumption, someone got it into their clever minds to tap the large stock of men’s printed handkerchiefs as a fabric source. The first Liberty print bikini – consisting of one hankie for the top and two hankies for the bottom, tied at the sides-put the British battalion at attention. From there, the bikini spread to Paris after the war where it was technically perfected. Whatever the origin of the bikini, men throughout the world are eternally grateful.
Bathing fashions were getting along swimmingly until the early Sixties when women’s lib reared its bra-burning head and a trend toward nudity emerged. In 1964, much to the consternation of many California beach patrols, Rudi Gern-reich’s topless bathing suit elicited arrests for indecent exposure. By 1972, the monokini made its debut on European beaches and then spread to both California and Florida-but by that time, bare breasts were such an everyday thing that pure seductiveness was lost in the commonality of the exposure.
Hence, the unalterable fact that morality and value systems do go through periods of change. Anne Hollander, author of Seeing through Clothes, notes that regional origin, social style, sexual and moral outlook, and attitudes toward work, money, leisure, and pleasure contribute to the associations one makes consciously or unconsciously toward the clothing one wears. In fact, she says, the meaning of particular garments change while they themselves remain unchanged. In layman’s terms, that means that the same string bikini appearing in fashion layouts in both Playboy and Ladies’Home Journal will have a dirtier connotation in the former.
One’s choice of swimsuit -one-piece or two-piece, bright stripes or sexy black, full-cut or skimpy-may in fact have nothing to do with the obvious visuals. Clothes often make reference to an image, be it the one that we have of ourselves, the one we think others have of us, or the one we want them to have of us. Explicitly, a woman may wear a bikini and say she feels good in one; implicitly, her seductive behavior may bely an insecurity that causes her to draw attention to herself.
The majority of us, happily, know that probably only Bo Derek could get away with going topless. Since most of us know we’re far from a “10,” we try to cover up our imperfections and still look halfway decent in a swimsuit. In trying to do so, of course, it is helpful to know a few tricks that will allow us to get a good suntan and still camouflage a small bustline, slight waistline roll, or bulges at the thigh.
Speaking of thighs-that area of the anatomy that most women would rather not speak of- one can be surprised at how decent they can look in the right cut of swimsuit. If the thighs are on the firm side, even if a little heavy, the high-cut French leg can actually create an optical illusion of lean legginess. A modified French leg-cut high in the front but with some shirring from the sides to back – is much kinder to an ample fanny. Wrapped front or draped tie-side suits also give plump thighs a break optically.
The second sore point with most women is the bustline – it’s always too large or too small to satisfy. Here again, optical illusion and the right neckline makes a difference. The straight-across strapless bandeau -particularly with a little side-shirring-provides ample benefits to the small-busted, but doesn’t do a thing for the Mae West types. They’re better off showing their assets in a shaped halter neckline that not only shows a little pretty cleavage but also gives support. And conventional sweetheart necklines with some shirring or draping from the center or sides does nicely on almost all figure types.
Recall, if you will, the image of Bo Derek running in slow motion across the sands of Las Hadas, and you will understand perfectly the fact that nylon and spandex tank suits don’t hide a blooming thing. So if one is further plagued with midriff bulge, protruding tummy, or dimpled behind, bequeath your smooth racing suits to your skinny daughters and look for a suit with shirring in the front, back or sides of the suit. It’s amazing what those gathers will hide.
Also remember that color and pattern make a big difference visually. Dark solid colors, or miniprints on dark backgrounds, always make a body look trimmer. Geometric stripes, either across the bodice or diagonally placed, also create a slimming effect. Forget about stripes across the hips, for obvious reasons.
The best test for a bikini is all the dreadful fluorescent lights in all the dressing rooms. If your body passes the illumination test, check out the three-way mirrors and get a good look at your body from the side and back. Enough said.
We all know that the fashion magazines show lots of one-piece suits, but remember this: A smooth thigh-high cut maillot can actually be more revealing than a well-fitted bikini. And let’s face it -if a woman’s figure is good and she likes to sunbathe, she’ll be in a bikini anyway. Who wants tan arms and legs and a lily-white tummy? Just take that light and mirror test and make sure the bikini fits well and is flattering.
Swimwear for 1981 is an exciting mix of both one- and two-piece styles, so there’s something for everyone. Just be prepared to try on a lot of suits, since swimwear manufacturers have yet to come up with a standard size and fit formula. And don’t get bent out of shape if you have to go up a size -that’s par for the course.
In fabrics, nylon and spandex blends are still predominant, but there are also those same blends mixed with cotton; all cotton suits; velours, terries and chenilles; and spandex and nylon suits with new shiny finishes.
Colors range from the classic navy, white, and black to neutral grays, bright colors, and solid colors shot through with gold metallic threads.
Aside from the border prints, geometric placed stripes, and miniprints that surfaced last year, this year’s prints take on an ethnic flavor in Aztec motifs, South Seas cotton batiks, and African and Indonesian prints. Animal prints and great American plaids are also new.
As in dresses, ruffles make a splash in swimwear -cascading across a neckline, down a surplice wrap, flirtatiously wrapping around the hips for a miniskirted effect. Even bikini bottoms sometimes have a loincloth or ruffled miniskirt.
The newer bikinis have halter necklines rather than bandeau tops, although most of the maillots still have the straight-across bandeau top.
So what the heck. Why not work outat the spa, get a good tan, pick out agreat suit and give Bo Derek a run forher money?
