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
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
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.”
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?