Kim Kardashian Bare Baby Bump Photo Draws Criticism

Poor Kim Kardashian just can’t win when it comes to maternity fashion!

The reality show star’s beautiful bikini bump photo was just what she needed to take the attention away from her Met Gala gown, but now she’s getting criticized for staging her big bump reveal. And to make matters worse, it also looks like she’s still being iced out by Anna Wintour — Kim was cut from Vogue’s coverage of the Met Gala.

Kim’s bikini bump recently popped up on the cover of Us Weekly along with a message to all of Kim’s pregnancy weight haters: “You call this fat?” Kim looks pretty incredible in her eggplant-colored teeny bikini, so it’s almost a shame that she can’t let her bump roam wild and free all the time — it’s really painful to look at photos of Kim’s pregnant belly being smothered by tight clothing.

Kim’s bare bump might be a welcome sight, but her Us Weekly cover is still being scrutinized — Jezebel points out that the photographer who took the “candid” cover photo of Kim in a bikini can actually be seen hanging out with the Kardashian family on their yacht in one of his Facebook photos. Jezebel author Dodai Stewart wrote of her suspicions, “These pictures look like the stars-without-makeup/caught-in-their-natural-habitat candid paparazzi photos readers are used to, but with a photographer embedded with the family – and the amount of body makeup Kim is rocking with that bikini – one has to assume they’re really NOT.” Luckily no one will likely be very shocked by allegations that Kim staged her big bikini bump reveal, so let’s move on to the latest “scandal” involving her mess of a Met Gala dress.

The reality star was going for a fresh take on punk with the floral frock that she chose to rock at this year’s Met Gala, but her granny gown by Givenchy just didn’t fit the “Punk: Chaos to Couture” theme. Apparently designer Riccardo Tisci was well aware of the ridicule that Kim’s wallpaper-wear received, because he tried to defend the gown by telling Women’s Wear Daily, “People can say what they want. To me, pregnancy is the most beautiful thing in the world, and when you celebrate something, you give people flowers. I think she looked amazing. She was the most beautiful pregnant woman I dressed in my career.”

You also give people balloons when you celebrate something, so at least Tisci didn’t dress Kim in shiny rubber. Then again, it might have been a better choice for the night’s punk theme.

Robin Williams also wasn’t a fan of Kim’s dress. He gave Joan Rivers the perfect idea for the next “B*tch Stole My Look” segment of “Fashion Police” by tweeting a photo of Kim’s Met Gala gown alongside a photo of himself dressed in a similar flower-covered frock from the movie “Mrs. Doubtfire.” The photo was accompanied by the message, “I think I wore it better!” So now Kim is getting compared to a man dressed in granny drag. At least Robin can’t wear her eggplant-colored bikini better.

Vogue also dissed Kim Kardashian’s dress in a big way. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Vogue left Kim out of its 77-slide photo gallery featuring the best-dressed stars at the Met Gala. To add insult to injury, Vogue added Kanye West to the gallery but used a photo of the rapper holding Kim’s hand. However, the rest of his baby momma has been cropped out.

There have long been rumors that Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour can’t stand Kim, but it looked like the ladies might be burying the hatchet when they went to dinner with peacekeeper Kanye over the weekend. Kim’s cut from the slideshow could be evidence that this fashion feud isn’t over, but Wintour shouldn’t have treated Kim’s gown so coldly — she also wore a floral-patterned frock to the Met Gala. However, her youthful gown looked more Suri Cruise than Mrs. Doubtfire.

So do you think that Kim’s maternity fashion has come under fire just a touch too much?

Source: Yahoo

Still independent.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top