Michelle Obama. Image: Getty. Michelle Obama has finally been able to, well, live in the past year. And so she should too! Since leaving the White House , the former First Lady has been spotted holidaying with her former president husband, flouting about on boats with the likes of celebrity pals like Richard Branson and Oprah. Naturally, she's been able to loosen the first lady wardrobe too, swapping out the usual heels and glamorous dresses for the occasional activewear or beach attire. A recent snap of the bootcamp-loving mum of two in a white bikini has sparked a heated online debate about body-shaming and the media's treatment of presidential spouses. Watch out. The year-old was spotted in Miami Beach with daughter Malia recently wearing a swimming costume with some high-waisted white shorts, a bandana and hoop earrings. Well some read: the usual naysayers have posted on Twitter suggesting the attire is "inappropriate" of a former or current first lady and questioning whether or not she is "rockin' it".
You might also like
The biggest internet trends, by email
There was no questioning the First Lady of the Unites States' dazzle-factor in the Naeem Khan she picked for a state dinner at the White House to meet the Indian President and his wife in But it was the pale, oyster-like hue of her dress, which was cause for debate. Described as 'nude' by Khan, the term sparked a furious debate about political correctness in the American press. The Associated Press reported it as "flesh", a description which caused an immediate retort from one newspaper editor: "whose flesh? What Khan, himself an Indian, intended as a "fashion description" opened a can of worms, revealing the careless manner in which "fashionspeak" can, albeit unwittingly, cause offence, or at the very least, mystify in the way it plays fast and loose with semantics. We urge you to turn off your ad blocker for The Telegraph website so that you can continue to access our quality content in the future. Visit our adblocking instructions page.
Did that get your attention? That was the only purpose of the title. Personally I think it's tasteless to go after Trump for something his wife did 16 years ago, although that has become the norm in American politics. Anything a politician ever did, or their spouse or children ever did, can and will be used for ammunition, and is locked, loaded, and fired during election year. The only thing that amazes me more than people using this old picture is my southern, Christian, conservative friends defending it by saying it was just a profession. I've read the Bible many times, yet I don't recall any scripture saying it's okay to do certain things as long as you're getting paid for it, although I'm sure that will make a lot of executioners and assassins throughout history feel better, not to mention prostitutes and drug dealers. Even my friends who were diehard Ted Cruz supporters have long abandoned their anti-Trump campaigns to hop aboard the "Anyone but Hillary" bandwagon. Keep in mind these are the same friends who have attacked Michelle Obama relentlessly for eight years for wearing sleeveless blouses and dresses. I guess for this particular criticism to apply, the person in question has to actually be dressed.
So if you feel like you both are getting serious, then talk to your girlfriend in time and sort this issue out. There's a picture of the magic rock he found while digging a neighbor's well. It's easy to forget why I chose to be with him in the first place. I expect to give up my career once he finishes his training and we start a family. They seriously have movies about it. Marrying a non-Mormon is not something you do it is something that happens. She never mentioned TSCC. You would be her back up plan in case she can't find a guy who is a returned missionary, preferably from a prominent LDS family. You won't know this until you do it and that is really important information to get before a marriage contract. Somewhere down the road, you will find another girl who will be a much better match for you.