I don’t see much about the Rolling Stone cover that is sexual in nature. I don’t really buy that, and I’ll tell you why. I can’t imagine it will take too long for someone to claim that Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who has had a long career on television and somehow avoided the need to use her sexuality to her advantage (other than, you know, being a very attractive woman), has now succumbed to being a sexual object in order to sell a magazine. It’s sort of the status quo, no?Ī day later, however, I’ve had more time to process what’s so great about the Rolling Stone cover, which could easily (yet misguidedly) be deemed “oversexualized” and “objectifying” by the knee-jerk reactionists across the Internet who greet every nude photo of a woman with puritanical notions disguised as progressive, thoughtful, social activism. And then I went about the rest of my day, because at this point in my life, I don’t think too much about naked people on the cover of magazines. Good for her.” It’s not very often you spot a 53-year-old female performer in this sort of scenario, particularly when the woman in question is a comedic actor. Yesterday, when I spotted the cover of the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone that features a nude Julia Louis-Dreyfus - whose back is tattooed with the Declaration of Independence, for some reason (it represents some very thoughtful Veep-related symbolism from Rolling Stone‘s photographer and creative team, I’m sure) - I thought, “Wow, she looks great.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |