US GQ December 2019 : The 'Men of the Year' Issue by Daniel Jackson

[KoV]

gq.com


I assume Tyler the Creator and Robert DeNiro & Al Pacino have covers as well. Also this may be a Dec/Jan combo issue, not sure yet.

 

[KoV]

gq.com

Would a mod be able to edit the thread title to include the additional cover stars?

 

[JPineapple]

WOOOOW Jennifer’s ed is everything. I want her abs so bad!

 

[MON]

The JLO cover is STUNNING

 

[Phuel]

How long has it been since American GQ has had such a straightforward dropdead-Fred gorgeous covershot as Jennifer’s????

The shot puts the Vogue Australia covershot of hair-in-the-face to great shame-- like the difference between an experienced-eye and half-baked amateur photography. For shame I&V!

 

[DK92]

Jennifer Lopez cover is perfect, love it!

 

[Lola701]

Is JLO doing a remake of her flashdance video on this ed?
The cover is very Janet Jackson.
I love it! It feels fresh and different from her...
And the various cover stars are on point!

 

[DK92]

GQ.

 

[Benn98]

Sigh, there goes her Vogue cover!

Jennifer indeed looks her sultry self, my God, these images may as well have been shot around during her On the 6 phase. As for Tyler, pass! Mid-life crisis De Niro, pass. Who else made the cut?

I thought the #NewGQ doesn't show sexualised women anymore?

 

[KoV]

Sigh, there goes her Vogue cover!

I think she still has a great shot at Vogue. I'm still predicting she'll get the February or, hopefully, March cover. She's doing the halftime show on February 2nd and has a really good shot at winning Best Supporting Actress at the Oscars on February 9th. Plus she's getting rumored to be getting married to A-Rod in March, a year after getting engaged, if I recall? How can Anna resist that? The 73 Questions video would be a smash hit, too.

I thought the #NewGQ doesn't show sexualised women anymore?

I think this shoot is really a great example of how positive changes have taken place at GQ in that regard. She looks sexy in these shots, but she's clothed, exhibiting power, and the cover itself is a closeup of her face. She's being presented as something more than a sum of her body parts. Comparing this to how women have been represented in/on GQ even as recently 2018, there's a significant difference.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Although fully clothed, Jennifer’s still showing off T&A— with wet hair to boot. It’s the same as if she were writhing in a bikini /wet t-shirt contest, as far as I’m concerned. She’s still “exploited” for her womanly charms. Why aren’t Al and Robert shot with wet hair, wet t-shirt, showing some skin…???

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with any woman shot in a sexually provocative tone for a men's fashion rag. It’s perfectly healthy for straight men to want to see a half-naked woman in a (hetero) men’s publication. Just like there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a men sexually objectified in any publication— straight or gay: GQ Germany’s Dec issue features two great, red-blooded gorgeous men, Florian and Lewis in various stages of undress, with Florian in his glorious buff for his feature. And what a wonderful sight.

I despise this attitude that it’s somehow exploitive/wrong/negative to showcase a beautiful body naked/half-naked— men’s or women’s, and that somehow fully clothed equates positivity/progressiveness/empowerment.

 

[vogue28]

Jennifer Lopez has, unsurprisingly, photographed like a dream for Daniel Jackson, absolutely gorgeous photos and styling from Mobolaji Dawodu (which reminds me of Kim Kardashian by Mikael Jansson for American Vogue). Cover shot is indeed very Janet Jacketon, @[B]Lola701[/B]!

 

[KoV]

^^^ Although fully clothed, Jennifer’s still showing off T&A— with wet hair to boot. It’s the same as if she were writhing in a bikini /wet t-shirt contest, as far as I’m concerned. She’s still “exploited” for her womanly charms. Why aren’t Al and Robert shot with wet hair, wet t-shirt, showing some skin…???

She's not showing any *** in the photos I've seen from this shoot whatsoever and she's showing no more cleavage than she might on a red carpet. I don't think this is the same thing at all as writhing in a bikini or in a wet t-shirt. Contrast this to how Rihanna was photographed for woman of the year, any of Jennifer Aniston's covers, Kylie Jenner sat half-naked on a fully dressed man's lap last year, Beyonce's most recent cover/shoot, etc. etc. etc. I've just looked through the GQ cover archive. Since 2000 there have been over 50 covers featuring women, and this cover with Jennifer show's less skin than any of them. There were less than 5 that weren't explicitly sexual. Several of them feature clothed men with unclothed or less-clothed women. There are loads of covers of men where it's cropped to be mostly a closeup of their face but this is the *first* time a woman has been presented that way on a US GQ cover in decades. To me the difference is clear. Oh, and I'm also fairly certain Jennifer is the only woman over 50 to cover US GQ.... ever? I know you're being facetious about Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro being photographed sexually, but actually GQ has photographed plenty of men no less sexually than they photographed Jennifer. Think of all the athletes and fit, younger actors showing off their muscles over the years. This shoot is more equal to to how some conventionally attractive men have been photographed in GQ. Sexy, but more than just an object of lust.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with any woman shot in a sexually provocative tone for a men's fashion rag. It’s perfectly healthy for straight men to want to see a half-naked woman in a (hetero) men’s publication. Just like there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a men sexually objectified in any publication— straight or gay: GQ Germany’s Dec issue features two great, red-blooded gorgeous men, Florian and Lewis in various stages of undress, with Florian in his glorious buff for his feature. And what a wonderful sight.

I despise this attitude that it’s somehow exploitive/wrong/negative to showcase a beautiful body naked/half-naked— men’s or women’s, and that somehow fully clothed equates positivity/progressiveness/empowerment

In theory that's true, but when a magazine *only* shoots women in a sexually provocative tone it sets a precedent that if a woman wants to be in/on the magazine, she must be sexualized. It calls into question how much pressure was put on women be displayed that way, how much personal autonomy was involved. Men in GQ have been allowed to be all things. Young, old, fit, husky, formal, casual, funny, serious, fully dressed, showing-off, etc. Women were only allowed to be young and sexual, and, for decades, always a sample size. Adding insult to injury, for years GQ often commissioned known sexual predator Terry Richardson to photograph them.

Also, is GQ really a "hetero" men's publication at this point? I'd wager they have a large gay and female readership, in addition to straight men. It's not that I believe women can't be naked or sexual in a magazine, it's that she should be able to be other things, too. Women's magazines allow men to be more than *just* beefcake. Men's magazines should afford women the same luxury.

 

[Fiercification]

Fantastic cover of J.Lo. One of the best I've seen recently. The other covers of Pacino, De Niro and Tyler are pretty solid too. Not bad, considering that Daniel Jackson's recent work for US Vogue ironically has been looking a lot cheaper than his work at his prime (circa 2010 Vogue China IMO).

 

[honeycombchild]

I swear, this woman has sold her soul to some higher power in return for an immense level of amazingness that only increases the older she gets.

 

[Benn98]

She's not showing any *** in the photos I've seen from this shoot whatsoever and she's showing no more cleavage than she might on a red carpet. I don't think this is the same thing at all as writhing in a bikini or in a wet t-shirt.

Well, her nipples are either visible in most of the shots or there's a sexy cleavage. And then there's the wet hair, which has always been historically associated with sex (it's even a cultural taboo in Arab countries.) GQ released a short excerpt of her Q&A feature online and it's just messy. They may have been crafty enough to get a female writer to protect them from backlash, but the piece very much falls in line with Emily Ratjakowski's brand of feminism. The writer jumped right in with 'Are you a bad b!tch?', 'is Ramona (her Hustlers character) a bad b!tch?', 'does money make you horny'? I'm assuming this copy will appear right next to these images? Just in case the reader failed to recognise her sexual currency, the copy will make sure of that. And yes, I'm well aware of the 'b!tch' context here, but next to these images? How woke, GQ. You would never see this combo in Vogue or Elle because there's a reason for that. It doesn't fall in line with their ethos. Lopez, bless her heart, graciously responded and tried to move away from this writer's 'baiting' questions. A true class act!

Let me just add that I've personally got zero problems with the shoot in principle. It could be for Russian or Italian Elle/Marie Claire, and I wouldn't flinch. If magazines want to show sexy people of any gender, fine. But don't jump on moral high ground and going to great lengths to show how woke you are the one month, then fall back on the same bro-centric tactics you deplore the next, only because (presumably) your stocks have taken a bit of a dip. You can't have it both ways.

 

[KoV]

Well, her nipples are either visible in most of the shots or there's a sexy cleavage. And then there's the wet hair, which has always been historically associated with sex (it's even a cultural taboo in Arab countries.)

I know this is getting into the details maybe to an extent that isn't super helpful, but by my count, there are more shots of her released so far with without either cleavage or nipple outline visible through her top than there are with. More significantly, she is completely covered up on the cover. As for the wet hair, it's sort of inbetween, not a full wet-hair look. Besides, magazines like US Vogue certainly use wet hair when styling women, and not just Kim Kardashian. Keira Knightley's had a couple wet-hair looks on American Vogue covers. In American culture, of which this magazine is a part, it certainly isn't as sexually provocative as it might be in other parts of the world.

GQ released a short excerpt of her Q&A feature online and it's just messy. They may have been crafty enough to get a female writer to protect them from backlash, but the piece very much falls in line with Emily Ratjakowski's brand of feminism.

They hired the journalist who wrote the original article that the movie Hustlers is based on to interview Lopez for this issue.

The writer jumped right in with 'Are you a bad b!tch?', 'is Ramona (her Hustlers character) a bad b!tch?', 'does money make you horny'? I'm assuming this copy will appear right next to these images? Just in case the reader failed to recognise her sexual currency, the copy will make sure of that. And yes, I'm well aware of the 'b!tch' context here, but next to these images? How woke, GQ. You would never see this combo in Vogue or Elle because there's a reason for that. It doesn't fall in line with their ethos. Lopez, bless her heart, graciously responded and tried to move away from this writer's 'baiting' questions. A true class act!

But.... Lopez famously helped popularize the phrase bad b*tch, didn't she? "Doesn't money make you horny" is a famous line Lopez's character says in the movie she's doing this interview to promote, a movie she also produced. I'm not saying they're great questions, in fact I hate the "does money make you horny" question, but context matters and that certainly makes it less egregious. And I don't really think Lopez tried to move away from the questions too much. I mean, her response to the horny question was "alot of things make me horny". She's in on the joke.

Let me just add that I've personally got zero problems with the shoot in principle. It could be for Russian or Italian Elle/Marie Claire, and I wouldn't flinch. If magazines want to show sexy people of any gender, fine. But don't jump on moral high ground and going to great lengths to show how woke you are the one month, then fall back on the same bro-centric tactics you deplore the next, only because (presumably) your stocks have taken a bit of a dip. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think US GQ has made any proclamations about no longer featuring sexy women (or men) and decried the existence of sexy photos of women as necessarily unwoke. Additionally, this shoot couldn't possibly be a reaction to the reception they received for the November issue, I'm assuming this shoot took place before that issue was released. Where did they claim the moral high ground and how is this shoot or interview bro-centric? They have a woman in her 50s showing no skin on the cover, being declared "icon of the year", interviewed by another woman, seemingly in control of her image and talking about all sorts of things, not just sex. I don't understand why people seem to suggest that if GQ is trying to do better by women they have to depict them as totally sexless or it's hypocritical. There's middle ground! I don't see how this feature is in any way counter to anything GQ has been trying to do recently, and in many ways it *is* counter to what they had been doing for much of the previous 20 years. For reference, I'm including 3 GQ covers featuring another wildly popular and successful A-list Jennifer. The growth in this magazine, to me, is clear.


gq.com

 

[DK92]

 

[dodencebt]

My God, JLo is a classic. I know a lot has been said about her lack of talents, but the girl works hard and knows how to put on a show even on the cover of a magazine.

 

[Royal-Galliano]

that picture of jlo in the leather dress would make a perfect vogue cover.