Thanks to Lorraine Dusky for this heads-up on Madonna’s May 5 appearance at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute Ball with boy toy Jesus Luz. The article was published the next day in the London Daily Mail under the headline Is this really a suitable dress for someone trying to win an adoption case, Madonna?
Well Bastardette answers with a resounding NO, especially since Madge debuted Louis Vuitton’s cartoon the day after her adoption appeal hearing in Malawi. Aren’t’ those boots sweaty? And what’s on that her head? A flying fox bat?
There’s a lot to say about this, but why take the time when the Daily Mail (go there and here for more pictures!) says it all:
One would have thought that Madonna would invest her time and energies into getting her house in order to ensure she has every chance of success in her bid to bring Mercy James to the US to live with her.
Instead, she wore an outfit that breached the limits of vulgarity, and displayed her typically arrogant thinking.
And not only that, in another move which may not help her case, she also chose the high-profile fashion event to début her romance with model Jesus Luz, who at 22 years old is 28 years her junior.
And from Mercy James’ father, James Kambewa who is now seeking custody:
Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mail last week Mr Kambewa, who earns just £23 a month as a security guard, said: ‘I don’t think Madonna is a model mum.
He told the Daily Mail: ‘Madonna has millions of dollars but that doesn’t make her a good mum. Parental love is more than money.’
‘How can a woman of 50 dance almost naked on stage? I wouldn’t want my daughter to grow up like that!
‘In Malawi women respect themselves. Cultured women do not go about half-naked.’
There’s lots of comments including these, which take up where the Daily Mail signs off:
Who’s brave enough to tell Madonna her dress is tucked up in her knickers?
… Alice, Barcelona, Spain
If ever there was a case for authorities to deny Madonna adoption its that photo!!!this woman is very sad and desparate!!!was it fancy dress ?can someone not advise this silly woman at her age to dress properly!??between grass dresses ,or next to nothing outfits the woman is a complete mess!!
…christine, Glasgow Scotland
That’s her toy boy? How silly of me, I thought that was the latest child she was adopting.
,,,Karen, Midlands England
no one has the guts to tell her she looks stupid
…Andrew ex pat, Paris France
You’re getting more like my mother every day.
I can hear it now. “Wipe that stuff off your face. I’m ashamed to be seen out with you.”
However, I wiil say one thing that sort of agrees with the Daily Dishrag’s header. Madonna isn’t seriously concerned about anything – other than publicity, that is. Certainly not anything that comes to the public attention.
I normally don’t care how people dress. I was subjected to decades of harping from my mother about my clothes and hair. But I think it’s foolhardy for somebody who is appealing a much publicized adoption rejection to run around like this and shows a certain lack of awareness of how courts look at these things. Or maybe the fix is in and it doesn’t matter. And I do think the outfit is ugly.
I simply adore the velvet scrunchie, and the dress has a certain piquant je ne sais quoi. But thumbs down to the boots. Miss Selfridge on drugs.
Either the fix is in and Madonna’s cocking a snoot, or she never cared that much anyway (other than perhaps some hurt pride that things didn’t go her ways. But then, what would I know about the workings of a celebrity brain?)
Hell, it’s showbiz. It was a high fashion event and Madonna has a talent – even an obligation by now, I should think – to offend. It as in character for her to doll herself up in some bizarre way as it is for the Daily Dishrag to go after her like a swarm of piranhas. It’s How Thing Work. But the Bastardette to jump on the bandwagon? Desperate times indeed.
I just think that going after the way someone dresses is pretty much always a cheap shot.
Of course cheap shots make good copy.
I still think it’s ugly . But the real point is that if you want the kid you play by their rules of adoptitude. If she’s in trouble in Malawi and wants Mercy James she should be serious while she’s working on it.
It’s not the one event, but the aggregation. Madonna may be very serious about this adoption privately, but publicly she’s not, and if reported behavior in the initial pick-up trip to Malawi is correct (even if no all of it), she’s on thin ice. She can throw all the money she wants at her Malawi orphan project, which undoubtedly makes the country happy, but the court of public opinion does count. I’ve always liked Madonna and her outrageousness has never bothered me, but any other pap who pulled her crap would be out the door by now. This is about money and power and arrogance.
The issue is the power -economic struggle between Madonna and the child’s native family; how she dresses is irrelevant. I have met doting moms who dress young, provocatively, or high fashion, and there is no guide to determine age appropriate dress–especially with stars. I was a mom at twenty so I was never sure how to dress as I shopped in the junior department. These comments about dress appropriateness misses the mark, and at first look, seem to be coming from snide jealousy. I thought the issues is about parenting. Now, the young boyfriend, or men in and out of her life who will all need criminal clearance if they spend alot of time in her home–could be tricky for her case.
Oh quite, Marley. Every bit of it.
But nothing fresh there.
“Too late, too late, the old man cried.
The baby’s been and gone and died.”
I totally agree with Genie that focusing on what she does or doesn’t wear distracts from the real issue – which is, as she says, the power-$$$ imbalance.
Pretty much as it always is.
Marley, I can’t believe you’re on about the dress. The dress, the arms, the peek-a-boo thighs, the scrunchie (which Kippa can’t get over). . .oh, puh-leeze. It has no bearing on anything.
My hair was also not in line with “adoptitude”. I had to go to the salon and spend good money because my social worker told me to “fix the hair”. These judgments are baseless ecept they allow the critics to judge women as bad mothers based on their fashion choices. Look at some of the comments on Lorainne or Mirah’s blog when the subject of Madonna comes up.
You do have a point about respecting the rules of the country from which you are adopting. That is the more serious issue for M. and I guess you can argue that the bunny-dominatrix number is a symptom of that, but the event was clearly removed from that context.
You know, with her background she might want to show up as a nun one night. That would either make people shut up or kill her chances altogether.
I too care very little about what a PAP (prospective adoptive parent) wears or doesn’t wear. What I do care about is the message that is sent out about adoptions – that anyone with money can bypass the system and adopt.
Something that hasn’t been addressed is Did Madonna actually get a home study done and approved by the State Department for a 171-H Visa?
My guess is “NO” SHE DID NOT. Remember the adoption of David, was done independently and working direct with the government of Malawai direct (as they didn’t have an adoption program per se). Few million $$ here and there get you far in poor ravished countries.
The baby/child is then put on a private airplane not scrutinized by immigration. Much like Cindy McCain, who stole “Bridget McCain” from India as a medical needs baby. Put on a private medical airplane bound for the USA and slipped by the “system” that us normal folks have to abide by.
This is human trafficking at it’s worse done by wealthy individuals and wives/families of Politicians.
No wonder Americans have such a bad reputation among the world’s countries for International Adoption. Americans believe their money gives them the sense of entitlement to purchase anything including a healthy baby.
If there is no healthy baby available, adoption agencies such as Reeces Rainbow pass off Down Syndrome and other special needs babies for a price. Or agencies will create a baby for you via International Surrogacy Adoption like Partners for Adoption who has a Surrogacy Adoption program in the Ukraine. (Rent a womb)
Nothing like creating more children in a society that already has 100,000+ social orphans!
Yep, rent a womb when your money doesn’t allow you to buy the baby/child of your choice.
Meanwhile 150,000 American children sit in Foster Care paper ready for adoption and the average PAP isn’t excited about the unglamourish prospect of adopting a fellow American.
They have the seed planted that International Adoption is exciting, expensive, your child is “yours” and you can get an infant rather than an older child.
The perfect kid with NO PROBLEMS. An Adoption Agency Executive that works in Domestic adoptions said that he found many PAPs don’t want to know the social and medical history of a child that domestic adoptions have. They prefer to not know if the child has FAS,RAD or other host of issues this is why they adopt internationally, (out of sight out of mind)
http://www.adoptuskids.org look at the beautiful children on AMERICAN soil that so want a forever family before you decide to steal a child overseas.
Maybe not, but Madonna has to know that Malawi is a conservative country. If I were serious about adopting a child from Malawi I would not be parading around like she did.
Anon said “If I were serious about adopting a child from Malawi I would not be parading around like she did.”
Quite. So I don’t think she’s serious. Not *seriously* serious anyway. She and her publicists must have taken into consideration the controversy sparked by her adoption of David Banda.
Of course, it could be a case of Oppositional Defiance Disordere exacerbated by menopause and fame. Poor Madonna. I can just imagine her weeping into her scrunchy and crying, “Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in for me.”
Personally, I see it as an admix of cynicism and sentimentality, both of which are ways of avoiding reality.
Like they say, there’s no business like show business.
LOVE that scrunchy.
MaBimbo’s tastes have never impressed me and I don’t think this woman has a really, coherently serious thought in her head about anything but her “career.” She’s still just an arrogant celebrity thinking she has a right to buy a baby just because she can. As a mother from the EMS/BSE, her lifestyle is what we were accused of and were told made us “unsuitable” to mother our children. What a difference a few bucks make.
And I think her ensemble is comical. JMO
The ensemble Madonna is wearing – along with the shoes – cost more than Mercy’s father earns in ONE YEAR.
Talk about perspective.
About the issue of whether Madonna got a home study. Interesting point. I could only find this 2006 statement in The Independent, around the time of her adoption of David:
“The American singer and her British husband, Guy Ritchie, appear to be adopting David through the English system. If so they must already have been through the same invasive, emotionally demanding approval process as any other couple. “It is only after you have been approved for adoption here and your papers have been approved over there that you are invited to travel out,” said Mr Holmes. Money cannot oil the wheels of the adoption or immigration processes in this country. “There is no way in English law that would work,” said Mr Holmes. “The rules are incredibly strict.”
So there you have it. Not direct confirmation but a strong hunch.
If she wants to run around in her bra and panties its no one else’s business. What is fair game is that she is attempting to buy a child rather than follow regular adoption procedures. I think its unfair and does a disservice to ridicule her manner of dress.
I think it is equally unfair to be a former porn actress, dress and behave like a tramp and buy babies just because she has the cash. No one forces her into those get-ups, she is in the public eye and, therefore, leaves herself open to criticism on all levels.
As a mother of adoption loss who was slandered by the system and others (and I dressed very conservatively), my resentment of her child-acquiring activties is exacerbated by her trampy dress and demeanor. I certainly did not want this woman to be a role model to my daghters.
Oh, and her vocal range leaves a lot to be desired. Cass Elliot, Janis Joplin, Linda Rondstat and Pat Benatar are all superior to her in the singing department.
Madonna had a Homestudy update for Mercy. It was done by a social worker from Vista Del Mar Child Services in California.
I’ll be Anon For This!
If true, that would be rather weird. Why would she get someone from California to fly to England to do a home study, as if there are no social workers in the U.K. and no other Britons ever adopt internationally? Does she plan on moving back to the US?
Re. Vista del Mar.
Found this, from the Daily Express, October 22nd 2006, “She and husband Guy Ritchie filled out an application at a California agency – and even underwent an evaluation process as adoptive parents. But they abandoned plans to take a US baby from the Vista del Mar Child And Family Services Clinic after dinner with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt . . . ”
Oh, those Pitts.
“. . . Madonna, 48, and Ritchie, 38, abandoned plans to adopt from the Vista del Mar centre, which handles children from “ghetto” areas.
Yesterday a source there said: “They were well into the adoption process. They were fingerprinted and went through an interview as part of our evaluation procedures. We were surprised when they lost interest. They seemed incredibly keen.”
Whatever. I was never a Madonna fan anyway.
But that’s still the most scrumptious scrunchie ever. In awesomeness it quite surpasses the radiant handbags of our Own Dear Queen.