#534 Ooh la la! Lonely Lingerie by Lonely Hearts

It would seem that most of our Auckland based designers didn’t get the memo about the country being in economic despair. If they’re not opening up new stores like Karen Walker, WORLD, Zambesi or Annah Stretton, they’re heading into sexy new waters like Lonely Hearts. Lonely by Lonely Hearts is the mouth wateringly hot new lingerie line by the Auckland based streetwear company, and, as a special Happy Birthday treat for me, they gave me first dibs on the lookbook photos. So here they are for you. They were shot by Karen Inderbitzen Waller, and feature international model Mak from August. So far the lingerie has been picked up by a few Australian stores, including the online MyCatwalk. It will also be available in Auckland from MyHart.


share on TumblrShare on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter


  1. says

    That girl looks way too goddamned young to be featured in a lingerie shoot! And, those photos would be very enticing to someone into kiddie porn! I can just imagine some pedophile getting his rocks off while viewing them!

    Whoever put that campaign together needs to have their head examined!

  2. Anonymous says

    Beautiful. But put it on a real woman pleeeeeaase. One with womanly sex appeal, not one who may or may not have completed puberty and who, clearly, needs a bowl of pasta.

  3. says

    @ Penguins, anon and Beauty Bible:

    First of all, let me say that I saw this model Mak on the catwalk at Sydney Fashion Week, and she doesn’t look nearly this young in real life.

    That said, she does look very young in these photos, particularly in the one I put up as the main photo. It’s something about her pose and the bunny ear things that does it I think.

    I knew that in putting these up, especially with that one as the main image, they would cause quite a reaction.

    I’m interested that Penguins – a self confessed 40 something year old married man – has such a strong reaction against them, while Kate (Beauty Bible ed.) – a 20 something year old girl – has the opposite reaction.

    Let’s open it up to the floor… What does everyone think? But keep it intelligent please, I’m not going to post ridiculous, abusive anonymous comments.

  4. Kate says

    At first look I find the model looks rather young, her figure appears pre-pubescent and some of the poses seem quite child like. But Isaac makes the fair point that the girl doesn’t always look so young.

    I think these photos raise the question of why such images are used so often to sell lingerie for women, who have curves and actual breasts. I think it’s sad more than anything. Why do so many labels choose child like imagery to sell clothing for adults?

  5. says

    Interesting discussion hey!

    My immediate reaction as a 20something fashion kid who DOESN’T have that body is “wow, pretty, beautifully shot, delicious, but freak.. I’m never going to look like that…”

    If it was shot as an art piece then yumm but if its shot as a piece to “sell”… whats it selling?

    Should lingerie adds include the curvy bits?! maybe its the oneside of this industry that could get more LUSCIOUS without to much of a fuss…

  6. Anonymous says

    beautiful face, beautiful soft light, but they might as well have used a 12 year old boy. I guess they were trying to avoid a Farmers campaign look, but it really isn’t doing the knickers justice, just causing more Pavement-esqe controversy.

  7. Anonymous says

    i’m not so sure this lingerie can hold any curvy bits – does Lonely Hearts go any bigger than a b cup?

  8. says

    hey anon [11.56pm] your comment just made me laugh so hard! ahhh lingerie that doesn’t go larger than a B cup… hilarious!!!

  9. Anonymous says

    to be boring is a sin, if i was lonely hearts i would be happy with the commotion this has caused. even though i am sure thats not what was intended. its lingerie not porn for goddsakes! has anyone seen the sadistic shoots in paris vogue lately? i guess not… all you anons up late bitching, now thats hilarious…laugh off your fat boring hating ways now while you can.

  10. says

    Hi Isaac,

    While that “young woman” may well be over 18, the way the shoot was staged, and the fact that the model is markedly underdeveloped for her age, all make for something that is very suggestive of a prepubescent or very early stage pubscent girl.

    Perhaps they are trying to portray the sexual awakening of a young girl. And, that, indeed, is a reality. However, as a marketing campaign, which it is, I find it distrubing, for the reasons I wrote of in my first comment. And, quite frankly, unnecessary for the task at hand; which is selling clothing.

    Whoever shot it can go on and on about it being “art”. And, as someone with a fine arts background, I do understand the subject. However, when advertisers use images of supposedly prepubscent girls, in order to peddle their wares, I have to draw a line there and say, NO! To me, it’s akin to child prostitution.

  11. G says

    Pretty girl (yes VERY young looking in the first pic – like 9 years old looking) but not so bad in the others.

    But my main probelm is, yet again with these fashion lingerie lines, gorgeous lingerie that would only be functional for someone with the rack of a 9 year old. Annoying. And I’m talking as a C cupper, hardly in need of extensive scaffolding.

  12. says

    I do like these i think (and I dont think she looks as young/vulnerable as she would if these had been taken, say without makeup and in a darker setting).

    Personally I actually prefer lingerie campaigns/eds featuring flatter chested girls – being one myself, I get frustrated that all underwear is generally shown on busty, perky tanned girls with boobs and ass (aka very far from my body) so I tend to prefer shots like these.

    I also think that the nature of the lingerie – flimsy, delicate (perfect! love it!) would have looked vulgar and a tad seedy on someone bustier (yes I know, that means it does limit who “can wear it”. I think the delicacy of her figure goes well with the lingerie.

    But I do agree strongly that models shouldn’t appear to young – It unsettles and worries me (Especially in underwear editorials) as does the use of worryingly thing models doing underwear swimwear (Eg this: http://www.fashiongonerogue.com/?p=5832 ).

  13. says

    I do like these i think (and I dont think she looks as young/vulnerable as she would if these had been taken, say without makeup and in a darker setting).

    Personally I actually prefer lingerie campaigns/eds featuring flatter chested girls – being one myself, I get frustrated that all underwear is generally shown on busty, perky tanned girls with boobs and ass (aka very far from my body) so I tend to prefer shots like these.

    I also think that the nature of the lingerie – flimsy, delicate (perfect! love it!) would have looked vulgar and a tad seedy on someone bustier (yes I know, that means it does limit who “can wear it”. I think the delicacy of her figure goes well with the lingerie.

    But I do agree strongly that models shouldn’t appear to young – It unsettles and worries me (Especially in underwear editorials) as does the use of worryingly thing models doing underwear swimwear (Eg this: http://www.fashiongonerogue.com/?p=5832 ).

  14. says

    When I first saw this, I thought:

    1 – what STUNNING lingerie (and I wonder if I would ever be writhing around so gorgeously on white sheets)
    2 – what AMAZING skin (I should slap on more sunscreen in summer…)

    It’s sad that we don’t even notice the clothes anymore, but rant and rave about her age/sex/calorie intake. Obesity is a bigger health issue, but as much of a health problem (as the other end of the spectrum) but I haven’t seen people exclaiming that people like Beth Ditto, or the like, need to have their jaws wired shut.

  15. Anonymous says

    Pretty knickers but I’m disappointed that all the bra-type-thingys look like they wouldn’t support or fit anyone over a B cup especially since the average bra size is quite a lot bigger than that!

  16. says

    @ Tiam:
    I think that’s a very interesting point. It’s so politically incorrect to talk about fat people, but everyone feels like it’s their God given right to go on and on about skinny people.

    Maybe Lonely Hearts were targetting skinny people with their lingerie. If they were, probably a lot of smaller girls out there are rejoicing at being able to find beautiful lingerie to fit their bodies.

    Fashion isn’t all inclusive, it’s not about one size fits all or beauty from the inside, designers have to choose their market and run with it.

    If I had posted pictures of plus sized lingerie, I’d guarantee I wouldn’t have received one comment. Why? “Because it’s wonderful that ‘real women’ with curves can love their beautiful bodies.”

    Why can’t skinny women with less curves love theirs?

  17. says

    Isaac your last comment is so true. Why can’t skinny girls love their bodies too?

    I couldn’t tell you how many tiny sized friends I have that hate the fact that it doesn’t look like they have thighs, that hate their flat chests, and that wear baggier clothes in the hopes that they’ll look bigger.

    I’m tired of everyone focusing on the ‘bigger girl’ ads because I see people laughing about them more than saying, ‘oh look finally!’ So doesn’t that just make people even more insecure?

    Besides most plus size models are just wider but they’re stomach isn’t very large just wide.

    I think the pictures are extremely beautiful when I first looked at it my first thought was, ‘OH MY GOD WHO IS THAT?!’ At first I thought she was Allison from America’s Next Top Model.

    And just like as many have said, just like there are lots of girls out there with chest and ass there is also lots of girls out there that don’t have those things. Yet everyone forgets them because, hey, skinny girls can’t complain about their bodies? Just eat more…right?

    Wrong, some girls just ARE that skinny EATING as much as they want.

    Rant over.

  18. Rebeccah says

    I really don’t think fat vs skinny is an appropriate or terribly relevant argument. Fat or skinny girls may or may not be happy with how they look and may or may not have health issues.
    This girl, who in my opinion genuinely looks to be 13 or maybe 14 is advertising lingerie. The whole pitch of this campaign is a girl who doesn’t look old enough to legally consent to having sex, looking sexually alluring. What’s up with that?
    Surely Lonely Hearts are playing on the shock factor here? And that’s all they’re trying to do?
    Which means that they are selling the idea of under aged sex. If you think that’s ok, fine. I’m just not that into it.

  19. says

    I think these shots are indeed beautiful – she’s a gorgeous girl and while she may look very young and not have a body that would actually need to wear lingerie in the functional sense, Lonely Hearts obviously know what customers they want to target with these images and have successfully done that.

    Lonely Hearts are obviously appealing to slim, boy-figured girls/women with their “lingerie”, as those the type girls who also buy their clothing. they are expanding their line as another way to create revenue within their niche market – skinny hipster girls. they don’t target regular-sized woman because THEY DON’T WANT TO. which i don’t think is a great thing, but is very much fair enough.

    What I don’t agree with is Tiam bringing up the obesity issue as I don’t think anyone was saying the model was anorexic or emaciated, just that she has a naturally boyish, petite figure. And talking about people not openly criticising over-weight people like Beth Ditto about her weight is wrong, as I have read many comments online and otherwise where people have called her a fat pig and other nasty things and HAVE basically implied she get her jaws wired shut. i think the amount of slack both ends of the scale cop is quite equal, if not more for fat people, as they are generally regarded as non-existant in the fashion world, for one example.

  20. Anonymous says

    I have nothing against how skinny the model is, (I have two sisters that are thin and eat craploads, its a metabolism/lots of exercise thing) I just find it…I guess the right word is disappointing…that none of the bras or tops would fit me whatsoever…I’m a size 10 but with a bust and if I wore any of them it would not be a pretty sight. More like a floppy sight.

    And I do realise that the reason for that is that Lonely Hearts are not a lingerie brand, and how hard it is to get fits right for underwear, so these tops are more like camisoles and really aren’t about support at all…which I think is ALSO the reason that such a small-chested model has been used.

    Mostly I just wish I could wear super pretty no-support lingerie like this but its never going to happen…so maybe someone out there should do a collab with Fayreform or Bendon or someone and make some beautiful, fashionable and also supportive bras?

  21. Anonymous says

    I hate this ‘eat a pie’ talk. Slender women are ‘real’ women too, despite the fact that there may be less of them. I thought we had moved forward from this primitive and somewhat condescending emphasis on the female form as reproductive/’fertile’. I don’t think her body looks prepubescent. She clearly has hips and breasts. They’re just small.
    Lonely Hearts aren’t promoting underage sex. That is a drastic and simplistic conclusion which makes no concession for the diversity of the female body.

  22. Anonymous says

    @ the Anon from 12.33…Elle Macpherson does do pretty and supportive lingerie…but a lot of it only goes up to a C cup which isn’t entirely helpful.

  23. Steph says

    The cost to produce good quality bras, with full support (underwire, padded cups etc) onshore is far more than doing so with simplified styles. Maybe Lonely Hearts was wanting to create beautiful, quality, made in NZ lingerie but were also being realistic with costs for themselves and also for their customers. Perhaps they really are taking into consideration the ‘economic crisis’ more than everyone seems to think?

  24. allie says

    i don’t actually have a big problem with designers using such petite models. their clothes are their art, and they want to show off their art the way it looks best. just like in an art museum how they have perfect lighting to view the paintings. but probably in poorer lighting they wouldn’t look as good.

  25. Anonymous says

    Isn’t this the is the first time this brand has tested the waters with underwear? – give them a break, gees maybe there will be under wires next season- unless they can’t be bothered after this bitch session. Nice effort for actually doing something interesting I say!
    Very pretty photos- can’t wait till I can buy some.

  26. says

    The model’s age (or depicted age) aside – some lingerie is made specifically for lying around looking gorgeous – no support is required for that!

  27. Anonymous says

    My guess is that its more for just feeling flirty, lounging around at home, looking sexy rather than practical everyday stuff? Not all lingerie needs to support you like a sports bra or pad you up.
    Not sure if this is relevant and dont want it to be taken the wrong way but on the subject, is quite interesting that one of th LH designers isn’t what youd call slim – so she’s not thinking of herself when she made this, its for a particular market.

  28. Anonymous says

    Amazing how this discussion has swerved into fat vs thin/if only those flimsy bits of naughtiness would support larger breasts. Both perfectly valid conversations, but it disturbs me that the true issue here is mostly being overlooked – in the first photo, the girl looks underage, a sexualised 12 year old. Deliberately so. The pose, the ears, the expression, the fingers, the angling and shape of the body make her seem pre-pubescent. The rest are mostly just beautiful photos of lovely lingerie on a gorgeous, model-shaped, legally-aged girl. But that first one – Isaac made it the main shot for a reason. It’s deliberately controversial. Taken on its own, it’s kiddie porn. Why isn’t this bothering more people??

  29. Anonymous says

    I am just jealous I can’t wear this gorgeous flimsy stuff!
    The shoot is beautiful though, doesn’t look like kiddi-porn if the girl is over 18, well that’s what some 18 year olds look like aaaaaaaand, sometimes they’re sexually active!! and wear lingerie.. and probably are the fashion loving no responsibilities yet, people who lonely hearts are aiming towards with their beautilicious product! sheesh!

  30. Anonymous says

    Hating on skinny is nowhere near in the league of hating on fat, because skinny is still the promoted physical ideal.

    So skinny lasses can complain all they like about how they hate their B-cups and it’s not fair for people to tell them to eat a sandwich – which it’s not, it is rude – but my sympathy for that kind of complaint runs a little dry, because at the end of the day those girls don’t face the relentless discrimination that anyone over a size 16 does, day in, day out, especially from the fashion industry.

  31. says

    @Anon – If you’re meaning Colourful guy is Paul Blomfield, I know for a fact that he’s not. And plus – Paul’s wife isn’t a business consultant.

  32. Anonymous says

    Hey Isaac you should put up more NZ designer lookbooks, since noone does that now that RR is no more. Would be great to be able to discuss them (though maybe not so critically as the above although the haters make things interesting as much as anyone) I’m sure there is plenty of positive and interesting stuff to be said and I for one love talking about and looking at fashion!!!

  33. Anonymous says

    I can’t believe that Penguin guy considers these beautiful photos to be “akin to child prostitution”. What!?!? Do you really believe that these photos of a 19 year old woman who has chosen to model underwear is the same as children being forced to have sex?? A truly ignorant comment which minimises the seriousness of, and misery caused by child prostitution.

    The photos are stunning as is the lingerie. Just because a woman doesn’t have curves doesn’t mean she looks like a child or is prepubescent. We should applaud the fact that for once lingerie is not being modeled by mens magazine types – diversity is a beautiful thing.

    As for the comment about the Lonely Hearts designer that’s just mean, wrong and completely irrelevant.

  34. Anonymous says

    If you are not putting up ridiculous posts then why have you posted a comment comparing this to child prostitution when you know that the model is 19 and not a prostitute?

  35. Anonymous says

    i agree! i think there are way too many ridiculous posts from stupid idiots with nothing intelligent to say and obviously no knowledge of the industry at all.. its bringing your site down isaac. youre the one thats publishing the drivel, why dont you ignore some of these middle of the road twits and block out the bullshit, its getting boring.

  36. says

    @anon 8:45am: I’m not going to explain myself to you. If you don’t like my comments, or my posts, then don’t read them. It certainly wont upset me if I don’t have your attention. And, it will probably be healthier for you, if you don’t read them, as your blood pressure wont go so high. 😉

  37. Charlotte says

    oh, these are so cute/hot! i want the set in the last pic – thanks isaac for the heads up (though i already die at the price, i assume), oh and yeah, she’s quite a babe. makes me want to lay about in these scanties with a ribbon in my hair.

  38. Anonymous says

    While everyone’s entitled to their opinion, I think the people comparing this to child porn are being ridiculous. The girl is 18, and in almost all of the shots looks exactly that.

    Clearly, the older you are, the younger she will probably appear, but I have to wonder if the people saying she looks 12 have actually seen a real 12-year-old girl recently. They don’t look anything like this.

    Guessing ages is always ambiguous. I get regularly IDed for alcohol and I’ve been legally able to buy it for a decade. If the model is 18, it’s fine. Hey, if she’s 16, it’s legally fine too, but the photographer obviously built in a safety margin.

  39. says

    Clearly, the older you are, the younger she will probably appear…

    I think you’re just being ageist here and that statement has no basis in fact. So, there’s nothing really clear about your assertion.

    I do agree that in several of the middle shots she looks 18+. However, in that very first one and the last, she doesn’t. And, if I were the editor of whatever publication was going to run these shots, those two would not make it past me; simply because they suggest a sexualized prepubescent girl.

    I’m actually pretty damned liberal when it comes to sex. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with content of a rather explicit sexual nature, full frontal nudity and the like, being on TV, etc.. However, photos that are suggestive of underage boys and girls, that could used by a pedophile to feed their fantasies, being run as advertisement are where I draw the line.

  40. Anonymous says

    I’m not being ageist (that would be silly as I’m probably one of the older readers of this blog).

    If you are 18, this girl probably looks 18. If you’re 45, this girl probably looks like ‘a teenager’, with a more ambiguous age.

    Either way, the only publication currently running these pics (they’re from a lookbook, not a campaign) is IsaacLikes. Are you calling Isaac a child pornographer?

  41. says

    Again, your arguement has no basis in fact. Also, it wouldn’t be silly if you were harbouring ageist thoughts, as people do that all the time without even being aware of it. I’ve even done it myself, on occasion. And, I could point out so many examples of ageism in the industry that it would literally overwhelm you.

    Regarding Isaac, I’m pretty direct. Therefore, if I was going to call him a child pornographer, I would have done that long ago. However, I will go as far as stating whoever styled and shoot the set could be considered that. How’s that for directness? 😉

    By the way, a lookbook is still considered a “campaign” as it’s used to sell product. Designers and retailers don’t put these things together just for fun. It’s all about marketing and the dollars.

  42. Anonymous says

    hey colourful guy.. can you go back to your own blog page now and get off this one, youre ruining the tone of this website with your ranting.

  43. Anonymous says

    Just because people ‘in the know’ are aware that the featured model is over 18, it does not mean that the ‘market’ is aware of this- I think the first pic is VERY dubious but the others are ok. A very YOUNG looking girl in bunny ears in that pose- I’m sorry but it looks very controversial. In my opinion a paedophile would probably be interested in the first pic. Its now what you know about the shoot/model. its what the stand alone photograph is portraying that is important.I think that image is designed to get peoples attention by being controversial. An image that leans towards the inappropriate is just that, it does not become ‘fashion’ or ‘art’, it is what it is.

  44. Anonymous says

    i cant beleive this debate is still going on, it is not pornographic or paedophile in nature at all.
    is a girl who is comfortable in her skin having fun in lingere so big a deal really? she is not underage and as mentioned in previous comments on this blog and we all have different opinions when guessing age, often because of how old we are.
    its clear that she is not underage,give or take one or two of you who have begged to differ.
    this would just not be done and there is way more to be outraged and shocked about out there than a youthful image, she is not nude and those who find this kiddie porn are to be seriously questioned.
    these blog sites really tend to cottonpick the crap out of everything. this energy could be channeled into much more causeworthy issues.
    sure have your own opinion, but if your mouth is constantly leaking crap then maybe its time to give us all a break and shut up.


  45. Anonymous says

    the olsen twins look super young and they are definately “old enough” and seen a few things or two.. if they posed in lingere would that be kiddie porn too?

  46. Anonymous says

    I’m a 25 year old woman with small boobs so its nice to see a lingerie add with smaller boobies cos i cant relate with those VS model racks. And i find it hurtful that someone would use words “pedophile”, “undeveloped” or “man” in a sentence where they would describe a body shape i was born with. I certainly don’t say insulting comments about people who are a different shape than i am. We come in different shapes and sizes people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *