Post by mcbutterfly on Dec 17, 2007 21:27:53 GMT 8
Derrieres are on everybody's lips these days, figuratively speaking. When TMZ.com posted pictures of Jennifer Love Hewitt wearing a bikini that (some felt) displayed her backside in an unflattering light (sunlight), the barbs flew online and the retorts followed.
Hewitt went on the offensive, barking to People magazine this non sequitur: "A size 2 is not fat!" Model Petra Nemcova chimed, "There are different angles that everybody, even if you're in great shape, can look bad in a photograph." And talking heads used the incident as a springboard to rail against scrutiny of the female form, whether the female is famous -- or fat -- or not.
Now, I'm not going to weigh in on Jennifer Love Hewitt's butt. But the controversy has prompted me to monitor the way female bodies are analyzed in publications. What I've learned is this: If people are getting their bikinis in a bunch about TMZ simply posting a photo of Hewitt accompanied by a snarky comment, they should look around more.
The practice is bigger than that. The new trend is rating pregnant women's bodies.
The Dec. 17 issue of US Weekly compared magazine covers featuring an expectant Christina Aguilera and an expectant Britney Spears, asking readers, "Who's the better pregnant cover girl?" (Notice how US Weekly covered its backside by leaving looks out of the question.)
Aguilera's January 2008 Marie Claire cover photo, in which she's wearing a leather windbreaker that fails to contain her breasts or belly, narrowly bested Spears' August 2006 Harper's Bazaar cover, where Brit was clad only in her last shreds of dignity.
Rating the looks of nude pregos? Disgusting! If that were done in a men's publication, there would be hell to ... what's that ... hold on a second ... here comes Maxim.com, which just posted its list of The 9 Hottest Pregnant Women, Ever.
Some excerpts:
* Naomi Watts "has always been hot but a little on the scrawny side for our tastes. Once she got pregnant, she carried that baby weight in all the right places [breasts]."
* "You could put Angelina [Jolie] through a wood chipper and the bits that come out the other side would probably still be sexy as hell. Angelina carried her kid like a champ, even if it was a little more taxing on her body than all that adopting she had done in the past."
Those lads at Maxim.com certainly are shocking, aren't they? Of course, when women-targeted publications such as US Weekly are wallowing alongside them, Maxim's take on the topic might need to go further.
The images accompanying The 9 Hottest Pregnant Women, Ever don't include any shots of the soon-to-be mothers in bikinis, which would help readers get a better feel for their behinds. There's no online message board for guys to quip about the selected women. And it would have helped had Maxim.com posted copies of the ultrasounds, because male fetuses are a total turnoff.
Source: Chicago Tribune
Hewitt went on the offensive, barking to People magazine this non sequitur: "A size 2 is not fat!" Model Petra Nemcova chimed, "There are different angles that everybody, even if you're in great shape, can look bad in a photograph." And talking heads used the incident as a springboard to rail against scrutiny of the female form, whether the female is famous -- or fat -- or not.
Now, I'm not going to weigh in on Jennifer Love Hewitt's butt. But the controversy has prompted me to monitor the way female bodies are analyzed in publications. What I've learned is this: If people are getting their bikinis in a bunch about TMZ simply posting a photo of Hewitt accompanied by a snarky comment, they should look around more.
The practice is bigger than that. The new trend is rating pregnant women's bodies.
The Dec. 17 issue of US Weekly compared magazine covers featuring an expectant Christina Aguilera and an expectant Britney Spears, asking readers, "Who's the better pregnant cover girl?" (Notice how US Weekly covered its backside by leaving looks out of the question.)
Aguilera's January 2008 Marie Claire cover photo, in which she's wearing a leather windbreaker that fails to contain her breasts or belly, narrowly bested Spears' August 2006 Harper's Bazaar cover, where Brit was clad only in her last shreds of dignity.
Rating the looks of nude pregos? Disgusting! If that were done in a men's publication, there would be hell to ... what's that ... hold on a second ... here comes Maxim.com, which just posted its list of The 9 Hottest Pregnant Women, Ever.
Some excerpts:
* Naomi Watts "has always been hot but a little on the scrawny side for our tastes. Once she got pregnant, she carried that baby weight in all the right places [breasts]."
* "You could put Angelina [Jolie] through a wood chipper and the bits that come out the other side would probably still be sexy as hell. Angelina carried her kid like a champ, even if it was a little more taxing on her body than all that adopting she had done in the past."
Those lads at Maxim.com certainly are shocking, aren't they? Of course, when women-targeted publications such as US Weekly are wallowing alongside them, Maxim's take on the topic might need to go further.
The images accompanying The 9 Hottest Pregnant Women, Ever don't include any shots of the soon-to-be mothers in bikinis, which would help readers get a better feel for their behinds. There's no online message board for guys to quip about the selected women. And it would have helped had Maxim.com posted copies of the ultrasounds, because male fetuses are a total turnoff.
Source: Chicago Tribune
