Marilyn Monroe™: Authorisation and the problematic politics of star narratives, sex aids, biopics and borrowed dresses.

This paper considers the ethical politics of star product endorsement, using the somewhat unique and potentially troublesome example of the product marketing for the Womanizer Marilyn Monroe™ clitoral stimulator. Monroe’s persona, with its explicit focus on feminine performativity, is a multifaceted one. Simultaneously discussed as an affecting figure of female empowerment, but of immense vulnerability, recent reappraisals frequently position her as victim of sexual as well as symbolic violence, within a harmful and exploitative patriarchal industry and larger cultural context. The complexities of the star’s charismatic appeal are further highlighted by the fact that this year is the 60th anniversary of her tragic death, and aside from this, Monroe’s image has twice re-entered the public sphere and prompted considerable controversy. Firstly, with the loan of (and alleged damage to) the gown that she famously wore to sing happy birthday to President Kennedy, to the celebrity socialite Kim Kardashian, and secondly, with the release of speculative Netflix quasi-biopic Blonde (2022) In the case of Monroe’s gown, its phenomenal value did not preclude it from alledged mistreatment and subsequent damage, whilst in the case of the latter, accusations of sexism, cruelty and abuse have a number of critics have referred to Blonde as ‘sexist,’ ‘cruel’ and ‘abuses and exploits Marilyn Monroe all over again.’