As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

How Sexy Should First Ladies Be?

That’s what the Washington Post wants to know, because it noticed this cover shot of Mexico’s first lady, Angelica Rivera de Peña, and her daughter:

Mexico first lady

¡Ay, caramba! Why are all those people leaving the country?

Looks like Ms. Rivera has her own ¡Vamos a Mover! program, and it works pretty well. 

The Washington Post notes that here, such a thing would be OH SCANDALE!

By comparison, when U.S. first ladies have been photographed for glossy magazines, the mood of the images has been regal, maternal and occasionally even business-like. Sex appeal is not an intentional part of the package.

For an American woman who steps into the role of first lady, the body must be denied. It can’t be too exposed. Too strong.  Too overtly sexual. Beauty is acceptable — even expected. But that most intimate expression of self — sex appeal, sexuality — is off limits. It goes unmentioned . . .

Other countries have been somewhat more forgiving. In France, for instance, the media referenced former first lady Valerie Trierweiler’s “sexy decollete”  with approval, not reproach. But Rivera seems to go a step or two farther than a neckline. Her sex appeal is holistic: studiously planned, styled, professionally lit and air-brushed. And the result is a portfolio of pictures in which she seems exceptionally alive — wholly visible.

Oh well, it’s okay. A little prudery in a world where sexual imagery bombards us from every media device or magazine rack is not a bad thing.

We don’t have to sex up our first ladies. Some just needed a sweater and a bit of wind.

Jackie Kennedy

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

37 Responses to How Sexy Should First Ladies Be?

  1. Sexy? Something the Mooch never has to worry about.
    A pleasant disposition, nice smile, a good, genuine hearty laugh, good conversationalist, that’s a head start on being sexy, IMO.
    Jackie Kennedy put the First in First Lady.

  2. MrsObama did try, she did. She went for the too tight, too short, bare-legged, cross your legs, painted cleavage, and sprarkle attire to showcase her inner Beyonce. It just never worked for her, thank goodness.
    Now she seems to be in her MrsCleaver phase of 50’s housedresses, and some pullover t-shirts. That’s not working either.
    She can tear down the facade anytime now and go right to her Angela Davis-like ensembles to show her true self.

  3. They are both beautiful. However while they are posing for those shots, they should also be concerned with thousands of children being smuggled and or walking across OUR BORDER.
    Sorry guys, I had to bring up ugly news while you are enjoying the picture.

    • These children are passing through Mexico and not planning to stay there. Besides, Mexico turns its head when illegals use their country as a path to El Norte.

  4. Has the WaPo ever mentioned ‘our’ First Covergirl being adoringly airbrushed and photoshopped down a size or two? Or her “sexy decollete” hanging over the school children?

    Didn’t think so :P

  5. Whatever. It is a cesspool of a country and if I lived there I would be pretty irritated to see this cover. As an American, until Mexico stops exporting cartels, and illegals I could care less. And spare me what we do to deserve this.

  6. OT Obama’s remark about not apologizing for trying to do something (re Boehner’s lawsuit) is a clear admission of knowing guilt.

  7. This clinches things. For the last year or so I have wondered why Obama is literally shunning the glamorous first couple of Mexico. He was sooo friendlhy with the Calderons, as was the Mooch. TWO STATE DINNERS in four years. Malia even took a private vacay to Mexico.

    Well, it looks like the jealous bit*ch at the WH has decreed that Obama is not allowed to have anything to do with Mexico and their beautiful first couple.. This explains why there has been no effort to get our Marine back. .

    • Did anyone notice the body language of the President with Mrs. Bergdahl in the Rose Garden? He had his arm around her, they were holding hands, and even kissed! It looked like they were on a date. Funny, I didn’t see Michelle that day, or he would have gotten the Thorning-Schmidt scowl.

      • Like the selfie with the Danish Pastry – That’s just a ploy to make you think he likes women.

        Don’t be fooled..

        There is NOTHING either of these two do in front of a camera, that isn’t planned. Nothing..

  8. Speaking of Mexico:
    I just read on Drudge that Mexican Military chopper crosses US, shoots at Border Agents. No one was hurt.
    Someone one needs to really draw a big line along the border. No one seems to understand their is a border.

  9. First ladies don’t have to be sexy but they should have some dignity and class, things that the lowlife ghetto grifter in the white house now wouldn’t know anything about.

  10. “— wholly visible.”

    What does that mean exactly? That somehow acting sexy makes First Ladies more — what? The causes that liberals take on — First Ladies are being deprived of their right to be photographed in a sexy way — ? Wow, let’s all get indignant on their behalf.

  11. Doesn’t look anything like those women and girls at the border. I feel now more than ever those poor fleeing Mexico, should be shaming Mexico.

    Unless they are intentionally treating them as peasants. As anyone seeing El Paso form the America side can plainly see.

  12. Serving with distinction and class should be the First Ladies’ objectives.
    Laura Bush did that very well, but the present one is not classy at all!

  13. Seriously, Michelle Obama is a MAN! His name before the sex change operation was Michael LaVaughn Robinson, AKA Michelle Obama! He/she/it still has her Johnson which is perfect for the gay resident in the white house! That WO MAN is a man, NO CLASS with that bunch. And you can tell that Michelle’s mother was a prostitute!