Reah here, bb. Long article but it's in there.


Damn! The girl owns a BMW M5, that thing is like $150,000.
It's GQ. I think it's done tastefully. It's not like she is looking directly at the camera with a hardcore face on and showing her privates. I actually think it's quite sensual then sexy.

I think Miranda's semi-nudes are equal in class caliber to any playboy model. Same type of images. And ewwww..... she posed with her tatas out for slimy Terry. YUCK!
Is nudity all the same to you? 

and no one says anything or acknowledges, but have her in a risky GQ shoot, all of a sudden she is no different then a play boy model.
Please, explain?! Exactly!Just because men don't notice the 'details' doen't mean they don't exist. What kito was trying to say is that the shoot Miranda did is aesthetically different to another shoot for Playboy, or Ralph, or Maxim, or whatever. Yes, there is a difference between them. You can't say that just because there is nudity, all nude (or semi-nude) shoots are the same. I, for one, do not put Heidi Montag's Playboy shoot on par with Lara Stone for Paris Vogue. Some shoots are poorly done and are in bad taste - this makes them "skanky". Other shoot are done with taste, and are executed with the utmost professionalism. That's the difference.
That couldn't be more further from the truth.this is no different to glamour modelling.. a womans semi or total nudity is always for one reason only. When it comes down to it men dont look at the details and even if they do.. its still all about sex.


I think I should have separated my comments... or written it differently. I am not put off by her doing semi nudes or nudes period.... ha ha... just ewwww.... for Terry. he is SO gross.
And I think that PlayBoy does tasteful nudes. They see the body as a really sexy (and sometimes inflatable) art form..... um okay.... slightly less class in caliber...
Was not Miranda bashing. I just kind of think she's so adorable that she does not need to expose what her momma gave her.![]()