Vanity Fair and Sexploitation.

"Johansson, Knightley Bare All for Magazine."

It's not so much the posing-nude-on-magazine-covers that I have a problem with. It's the two-women-posing-nude-with-a-fully-clothed-man that bothers me. That smacks of something, and hello, mindless drone of the patriarchy if you think it doesn't. Vanity Fair turns my stomach. The cover isn't the only instance of this, either. Here's an excerpt from the article: "Another shot depicts a fully clothed George Clooney as a director filming a large cast of women wearing skin-tone underwear." Interesting.

And then, of course, a big deal is made out of Rachel McAdams backing out of the shoot (it should be noted that she didn't know they were going to ask her to pose nude, so it's not like she went back on her word) when this woman should be APPLAUDED for refusing to allow herself to be sexploited. And don't anyone dare call her a "prude," which I know is a word ignorant people like to throw around. She has been topless in a movie before. Not that I agree entirely with that decision (You never see men having to strip down and show any truly intimate parts, so most nudity in films is just more evidence of sexism. Personally, I think people are sexier clothed, anyway. Leave something to the imagination.), but that, at least, had a purpose, unlike the entirely gratuitous nudity on the Vanity Fair cover. "They" say it's "provocative" when it's the same old cover shot that basically shows nothing.

Tom Ford, the fully-clothed man on the cover, had this to say: "I said to them, 'When you're 70 you're gonna look back and say, 'Thank God for this picture - look how amazing I was.'"

Actually, they're going to look back and say, "My God, look at how much I let myself be objectified for the amusement of men."

Also? Sure, they look amazing. If by "amazing" you mean "chalky corpses." How sad to take two usually beautiful women and make them look like lifeless mannequins.