V #53 May/June 2008 : Gwyneth Paltrow by Mario Sorrenti

[*Bianca*]

I don't know about the US laws, but what does imply sexual activty mean exactly? I don't particularly agree with this but for example, with that Miley case, one could argue that it implies sexual activity because of the bed and sheet.

Anyway, I guess IMG/V/Tanya knew what they were doing. It just wasn't really necessary, I guess.

 

[RochaLover]

I'm in love of this issue

 

[cestmagique]

I don't know about the US laws, but what does imply sexual activty mean exactly? I don't particularly agree with this but for example, with that Miley case, one could argue that it implies sexual activity because of the bed and sheet.

I think it's a rather complex thing. In Miley's case, there was family supervision on set the whole time; she wasn't actually naked; there was no one in the shot with her; and there was no sexual activity depicted (real or simulated/suggested, which is what I think the 'implied' refers to). There is nothing graphic about the shot and the vibe is definitely artistic rather than sexual-- she isn't wh*ring it up, there's no cleavage, etc. and the pose and coloring are very classical like you might see in an old painting.

In the late 50s there was a French movie called The Lovers that some American theaters refused to screen because there was suspicion that it violated US obscenity laws. It was tame stuff by today's standards but there was a big hoopla, the case went to the Supreme Court, and eventually a judge decided that the film wasn't obscene and didn't violate any laws. He commented on how he came to that conclusion, saying "I'll know it when I see it {obscenity}, and this isn't it." So, long post short , whether or not a certain image is legally considered obscene or p*rn*gr*ph*c is, in part, based on gut reactions. You will know it when you see it, and Miley's photo and Tanya's aren't it.

 

[mikel]

^thanks for that info.

 

[beautexquise]

Zoe Kravitz anyone?

 

[MissMagAddict]

The IMG images are boring, typical & utterly predictable
The Supreme image is so much more original, modern & very effective


Thanks very much for all the scans Luxx

 

[vogue28]

Does anyone have a digital copy of this issue?
I would be very grateful for you to upload it for me. TIA

 

[tarsha]

^ V53 Digital Copy

 

[vogue28]

^Thanks for the link. But I meant for me to download

 

[Darling_Myy]

As you can see, V is too big for my scanner, but I thought I'd still post these in case someone wants to see them (I only remembered about the digital copy after scanning these)

Ladies Man (a picture accompanying an interview with John Galliano)
photography: Matthu Placek
styling: Avena Gallagher
models: Grace Kelsey, Michelle Buswell, Sarah Gingrich, Vika Kuropyatnikova, Viktoriya Sasonkina


Denim Dream
photography: Sebastian Kim
styling: Michelle Cameron
models: Ania Trubalska, Caroline Demarqui, Flo Gennaro, Lawrence Stiers, Malte at DNA, Pilar Solchaga, Ricardo Merini, Santiago at DNA, Scott W. at DNA, Vika Kuropyatnikova




scanned by me

 

[tarsha]

It's such a great issue of V.

 

[MON]

i love the eds and cover!

 

[Legolas]

Funny how Miranda Kerr is the only one showing her bum

Stam and Caroline are also showing theirs... not that they have much of a bum, but

Power House
Photographer: Mario Sorrenti, Alasdair McLellan & Chadwick Tyler
Fashion Editors: Kim Jones & Nicholas Grasa
Agencies: IMG, Ford, Supreme
Models: EVERYONE

btw, I've been trying for ages to find larger and individual versions of the img shots from this editorial... does someone know where to find them, or if it is even possible?