The fashion words that cause offence

Until recently, the fashion term 'nude' only referred to a white person's skin - but this is changing. Libby Banks looks at how a new generation of style writers is challenging the status quo.

For anyone familiar with fashion magazines, the term 'nude' - referring to a colour rather than a state of undress - is often part of the established vocabulary.

Used synonymously with 'flesh-toned', it is an adjective liberally applied to anything off-white to champagne, blush and rose.

When Beyonce came to the Met Ball in a peach Givenchy gown, when Michelle Obama wore beige to meet the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and when Kim Kardashian wore a pale-pink bodysuit, style publications repeatedly described their outfits as 'nude' or 'flesh-coloured'.

The problem?

The tone of flesh in question clearly referenced pale-white skin, rather than the skin of the women wearing the clothes.

Nude is often a blind spot for fashion writers, perhaps in part because it is given credence by respected organisations.

Pantone, the world-renowned authority on colour, has a 'nude' shade (a pale pink), which adds an acceptable gloss to the term's use.

Up until 2015, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defined the word 'nude' as relating to nakedness or "having the colour of a white person's skin."

For anyone whose complexion falls outside the description of fair (itself a problematic term), 'nude' underwear, 'nude' lipsticks and 'nude' heels have remained elusive concepts.

The narrow interpretation of 'nude' is an issue from which even Kim Kardashian is not exempt, as underscored by a last-minute dress tweak for the Cannes red carpet in May.

"We had to try to darken the nude mesh dress under the silver layer, because it was too light to match my skin tone," Kardashian explained on her website in reference to a gown by designer Lan Yu Couture. "

Read the full article here