So, now that I've seen the picture, I can't figure out what the fuss is about anyway. There have been pictures like that on the covers of so many magazines (and not only men's magazines), that I can't even count them (not that I can count higher than 20 anyway).
Pretty much it. Didn't Miley Cyrus just pose nude with a sheet in Vogue? Had a blast reading the thread, but didn't we do this awhile ago ... I think that's when I started bonding with Geek.
I still feel the same, especially about the double standard. The pics aren't offensive, but neither are they "empowering" (empowering?!?!), worthy of applause, or much else. They certainly aren't "art." (Sorry, Stud, I know Raphael did nudes, but not this way.) This is advertising to sell a product and cash in. She's a model, that's what she does; it's a way to earn a living. End of story. As for her activism and dreadful "heartbreak," I couldn't give a toss. Thanks, Kurt for the witty post. And, like Sam, and despite being at the opposite end of the political spectrum, I don't give a toss about rodents either. PETA -- blech. Pamela Anderson -- blech.
Amanda can drop trou to earn big bucks, and she won't get a sore neck and shoulders from a desk job, but no one is going to take her "seriously" for it. She can, however, seriously earn money, and kudos to her, but it says nothing more than she has a great bod and looks good in earmuffs. And she certainly does! Leave it at that.
I appreciated Willow's sentiment from a couple pages ago. Trying new things and possibly messing up and carrying on is to be commended. Since Amanda has made modeling a business, I don't think it's a "mess" though. Perhaps the activisim is a mess. I don't mind about that. But I generally don't listen when celebrities (can they spell clenbuterol?) engage in activism. My only disagreement with Willow is that, while Amanda has worked hard for her great bod, I'm not sure why that means she necessarily has to seek out others to appreciate it.
So, now that I've seen the picture, I can't figure out what the fuss is about anyway. There have been pictures like that on the covers of so many magazines (and not only men's magazines), that I can't even count them (not that I can count higher than 20 anyway).
Pretty much it. Didn't Miley Cyrus just pose nude with a sheet in Vogue? Had a blast reading the thread, but didn't we do this awhile ago ... I think that's when I started bonding with Geek.
I still feel the same, especially about the double standard. The pics aren't offensive, but neither are they "empowering" (empowering?!?!), worthy of applause, or much else. They certainly aren't "art." (Sorry, Stud, I know Raphael did nudes, but not this way.) This is advertising to sell a product and cash in. She's a model, that's what she does; it's a way to earn a living. End of story. As for her activism and dreadful "heartbreak," I couldn't give a toss. Thanks, Kurt for the witty post. And, like Sam, and despite being at the opposite end of the political spectrum, I don't give a toss about rodents either. PETA -- blech. Pamela Anderson -- blech.
Amanda can drop trou to earn big bucks, and she won't get a sore neck and shoulders from a desk job, but no one is going to take her "seriously" for it. She can, however, seriously earn money, and kudos to her, but it says nothing more than she has a great bod and looks good in earmuffs. And she certainly does! Leave it at that.
I appreciated Willow's sentiment from a couple pages ago. Trying new things and possibly messing up and carrying on is to be commended. Since Amanda has made modeling a business, I don't think it's a "mess" though. Perhaps the activisim is a mess. I don't mind about that. But I generally don't listen when celebrities (can they spell clenbuterol?) engage in activism. My only disagreement with Willow is that, while Amanda has worked hard for her great bod, I'm not sure why that means she necessarily has to seek out others to appreciate it.
