Oh, France. Hell, there that’s practically a Sears family portrait.
Even if he actually was choking her, and she clearly didn’t like it, it wouldn’t necessarily be promoting violence towards women. Why is it that people think everything a commercial enterprise says, depicts, or makes is “promoting” that thing? Is National Geographic promoting starvation when they show a starving African?
Pop culture Luddite here. Man, Stephanie Seymour still looks amazing.
Starving African here. Will somebody promote me some food sometime soon? My last Nat Geo photo shoot still hasn’t sent me a check.
I like it and think it’s hot.
Well, maybe. If the caption is “The Hottest New Looks For Fall”…
To be fair, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that if a fashion magazine shows Stephanie Seymour with tousled hair and an unbuttoned blouse doing something on their front cover, they’re expecting their readers will approve that message.
What’s that on her right sleeve?
Did they stick a table napkin in there?
Her right sleeve appears to have a cuff (or maybe it’s rolled up a little), but the other sleeve doesn’t have one.
If they were showing an incredibly gorgeous person starving while being fondled in a manner that makes the photo sexually exciting to some people, then, yes. Advertisers have been attaching sex to various products and ideas they want to promote for centuries, and it works really, really well.
Mind you, I’m not arguing that’s true for this cover.
- And has had 4 children.
Now THAT’S promoting violence towards women. Or a woman. I’ll get the rope, you find the tree… 