Ok I was looking in the the list on the Rolling Stone (magazine, to those of you who are immune to plurals) website, and they had this list of "Leading Ladies on the cover of Rolling Stone". Being the idiot that I am I thought, "oh cool" so I checked out. I found it to be so offensive. Approximately 4 out of the 24 (an eighth) covers that were shown were NOT trying to sell these actress's insane amount of sexiness. All the other 20 covers were showered with headlines like "The Naughty Ways of Drew Barrymore" or "Angelina Jolie, Devil Doll". I believe these women have a lot more to offer than their apparent promiscuity and what lies underneath those strategically placed hands. I mean, Nicole Kidman won an Oscar! Having these covers either means that they believe that this is all these women have to offer, or they think it's an easy way to attract readers. Rolling Stone is not "Penthouse" or even "Maxim"! It's a music/culture magazine dammit! Respect women!
They have always great cover!
ReplyDeleteVicky
new post: Back to girly:&
follow me
i've always believed that if the woman is okay and game for showing off sex appeal, whether it's dressed like this or not, it shouldn't be looked at as degrading. i understand the whole interview title is a bit much. sex drugs & rocknroll i suppose is Rolling Stones motto.
ReplyDeletebahah style.com, i actually looked at the site one day, made a bunch of blog posts to possibly discuss, and really enjoyed those looks. :)
i like the no eyebrow and or bleached brow look too, i didn't even realize in that photo they had none!
Have you read the book Female Chauvinist Pigs, by Areil Levy? I highly recommend for a better understanding of the "empowerment" of women choosing to be objectified. http://www.powells.com/s?kw=Female+Chauvinist+Pigs&class=
ReplyDeleteI just think it's hilarious that all of the women are in the same sexy topless but covering themselves/nearly naked pose. Obviously there aren't many creative minds at work putting together these headlines and cover shoots. Definitely leaning more towards Maxim than a music magazine...
ReplyDeletexx
Tiffany
♥nice post.)) love your blog♥
ReplyDeleteI know what u mean.
ReplyDeleteBiggest disappointment, Nicole Kidman.
But c'mon, if you have Jessica alba is not like you have a lot of cards: she's pretty, she's a bad actress, not a singer, not a dancer, not a brain. You gotta sell her body.
I would not even question "why rolling stone does it" cause obviously sex sells. Who cares about respect, the magazine sells and that's all that matters.
The question is "why would someone with a certain image would accept to play this stupid game. I'm talking about you Nicole, what were u thinking?!
thesselle.blogspot.com
no matter what you were thinking or other said about it. this is the new word...
ReplyDeletemay be you just don't no that music in this era always related with sexual, drugs and party...
i follow your blog darling...
I love this!!!!! Rollingstone has always inspired me, I've never seen some of these before, you have some really great images. My favorite is the one with Kurt Cobain
ReplyDeleteugh, i know, i was looking thru the pics going, what? you have to be nude to be on the cover if you're a female? then jessica alba wasn't nude, but it wasn't that much better!
ReplyDeleteSO MUCH AGREE. there is no need for this. although i will not admit to being averse to seeing rosario dawson mostly naked. she is flawless. but also wonderful and talented in so many other ways!
ReplyDelete