Stamoholic
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 5,055
- Reaction score
- 47
^ I understand both your points and, in a weird way, agree with them both.
SI and VS are very OBVIOUSLY sexual! It's underwear. It's pouting. You know the drill.
HOWEVER, IMO often the sexulaity in HF today is WAY more vivid. Take basically ANY of Lara Stone's editorials for one thing ( where in some shots she is showing her you-know-what and wearing Minnie Mouse underwear around her ankles) or, an even better example, the new Calvin Klein ads! They might not have real " nudity" but the message behind the ads is sexual voyeurism and to me that is way more vivid and disturbing than some chick in a bikini! lol!
In a way, you're both very right, I think. I depends on how you view sexuality.
Hilary just has that Brooke Shields like air of class though, I don't think I've ever seen a shot of her and thought it was trashy, no matter what scale of nudity it had. She's special that way.
Anyway, this may be off topic discussion so I'll be quiet now! lol!
SI and VS are very OBVIOUSLY sexual! It's underwear. It's pouting. You know the drill.
HOWEVER, IMO often the sexulaity in HF today is WAY more vivid. Take basically ANY of Lara Stone's editorials for one thing ( where in some shots she is showing her you-know-what and wearing Minnie Mouse underwear around her ankles) or, an even better example, the new Calvin Klein ads! They might not have real " nudity" but the message behind the ads is sexual voyeurism and to me that is way more vivid and disturbing than some chick in a bikini! lol!
In a way, you're both very right, I think. I depends on how you view sexuality.
Hilary just has that Brooke Shields like air of class though, I don't think I've ever seen a shot of her and thought it was trashy, no matter what scale of nudity it had. She's special that way.
Anyway, this may be off topic discussion so I'll be quiet now! lol!
Last edited by a moderator: