It's been a short while, but I purchased the January/February 2010 issue of Playboy, featuring none other than Tara Reid; with the notable exception of vintage 60s and 70s issues that I bought in 1998 to fill my home library and to have a few choice Hunter S. Thompson texts few others had on my bookshelves, this was the first time I'd ever actually bought (as in 'paid for') a Playboy, and remains the only time I've ever paid the full price for it.
If I want smut, I want all my money to go on the smut, and want the least text possible in there. When I aim to read something, I generally either want to be able to read it in public (the most free time I have is when I'm in transit) and/or don't want my reading having to be interrupted by jerking-off sessions.
But I was curious as to how they were going to take one of the most public downfalls in Hollywood - my guess is Lindsay Lohan is next - and try to make it into an ''underdog-defeats-the-odds'' story; it turns out they didn't fare much better than Rolling Stone, Maxim or Blender usually do. But the stories on Cuba and the mob (two separate stories) make it worth the ten bucks I shelled for it - more than the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, anyway.
But, of course, the blogosphere, predictably, jumped on it like hyenas on an injured baby; instead of reading the story, they went after the pictures: Perez Hilton, Celeb Jihad, News Toob and countless others all decrying Playboy's airbrushing/photoshop of the pictures, like it's the first time they - or anyone else showing women, for that matter - did this.
I, for one, think the pics look great* - they have that 60s feel of old picture. I'm also not offended that the pictures could (and likely are) 'shopped. In this particular case: who cares? What difference does it make, apart from perhaps accentuating her natural good looks (remember when everyone thought she was hot in 1998? Those good looks, that she was born with). The blogs say it hides her scars... again, who cares? That's great. Time and poor choices have left their marks on her body, and Playboy, who want to show women in all their splendour and glory, have either brought her back to their standards, or added them onto her. Good for all.
In comparison, I'm much more appalled by Demi Moore's hips being removed from the cover of W, or already-picture-perfect Tina Fey (Vogue) and Kate Winslet (GQ) having stuff taken out for them to meet standards they don't agree with themselves. And that's without counting all the no-name models who grace the covers of Seventeen and Y&M projecting the idea that 100-pound women are too heavy onto gullible little girls.
Yeah, sure, once in a while a tabloid, newspaper or magazine will criticize it, but at that time the rest will stay mute, and the story will go away, until a competitor will come up with it two years later, but again no one will jump on the bandwagon, and it'll die.
The critics need to band up, make a common front and go to war, depicting real women the way real men (and real lesbians) really like them - normal and healthy. And, if anything, those who aren't merely normal and healthy could, perhaps, be enhanced, Hollywood-style: bigger curves, boobs, lips.
More is more. Less is evil.
And Tara Reid looks good in these pics.
*all the pictures look great, but the cover pic looks weird, especially when you notice her right hand, which looks like it could be hiding a sixth finger somewhere. But the play on words, ''MASSIVE DOUBLE ISSUE'', with her assets sticking out like that, makes for a nice redemption.
No comments:
Post a Comment