yikes at her being reduced to like, a disembodied mannequin. i don't know who these two are ,but you can literally only see 'parts' of her - save for the close up of her face. It's uncomfortable to look at, she's like less than an accessory
I agree. That was my feeling too when I saw this. Very sad for a woman's magazine to do this.
I dont get the hate though. This to me looks like an accessories issue. Raymond Meier always does the same for American Vogue, without a man, so what's the difference? Also when Vogue only left Mr Big's legs on the cover with SJP, didn't hear people complain then.
ì
lol are we really comparing the objectification and disembodiment of the female body to the male one? in the specific case of an all female film's star and her love interest?
and there's a huge difference between an accessories ed where you only see an hand / leg and this instance where the female body only becomes an actual accessory to a man, and like someone else said it's her head that's missing, to make her as anonymous as possible, it's just a random female body