Thursday, March 8, 2012

The "Pregnant and Naked" Magazine Covers

Okay, can someone please tell me what's up with this clichéd move for pregnant celebrities to appear naked on magazine covers? The latest star to jump on the bare belly bandwagon is Jessica Simpson who channels Demi Moore's iconic 1991 Vanity Fair pose on the cover of Elle's April issue. The 31-year-old star is expecting her first child with husband Eric Johnson so naturally she had to tell the world all about it by stripping off her clothes and flaunting her belly. How original.

Look, I'm not a complete prude when it comes to nudity; it's the complete lack of originality that irks me. Not only has Simpson followed the maternity mag cover trend, but Elle didn't even make this moment their own. When photographer Annie Leibovitz's portrait of Moore appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, it was instantly a provoking image that certainly caused a commotion. It was unexpected and poked at the edges of how society felt about a pregnant woman's body. On it's own it was graceful, but I believe 13 years and countless copycats have turned this into another gimmick to sell issues.

I understand that the female body, capable of bringing life into this world, is incredible, beautiful, and should be celebrated not shrouded in cover-ups and moo-moos, but I don't understand why this celebration has to take place on such a public platform and why everyone has to do the exact same thing. It's okay celebs, you don't have to share everything with us! By all means keep a little something for yourselves. This should be a sacred moment between the parents and baby and b(e)aring all for the world to see just for a feature seems a bit sad and overly done.

Is it just me or are the "pregnant and naked" magazine covers played out? Do you enjoy them? Am I just uneasy because there's so much more skin to show when you're almost ready to pop? Some of these just don't even seem tasteful to me - just another call for attention.

(By the way, I'm also annoyed by the "I'm Gay!" magazine covers because homosexuality just shouldn't be earth-shattering news anymore. You never see any "I'm Straight!" covers do you?)

Images: omg.yahoo.com, vanityfair.com, hollywood.com, dailymail.co.uk, usatoday.com, hollywood.com, lifeandstylemag.com, and blackthespian.com

9 comments:

  1. Hey my comment didn't go through.. I wrote that Snookie's pregnant ass will be on the cover of a magazine too.. stay tuned for that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonderful. Can't wait for that!

      (*Please note sarcasm.)

      Delete
  2. I would never buy such a magazine - but they must sell or they wouldn't publish them. I guess one could blame the (brainless) folks that drool over the "waste of air" Kardashians et al.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They totally sell, I just don't understand why. The only thing distinguishing one from the other is the face above that belly. I think it's laziness on the magazine's part, but I'm also sure celebs look at the popularity of these issues and what the same when their time comes.

      Delete
  3. Yeah, they're pretty much played out. I mean geeez, we ~just~ had the one with Mariah not even a full year ago.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm torn between "it sexualizes pregnancy" and "its beautiful but overplayed" ... It doesn't really bug me too much, honestly, but I think it's funny how they always pose just about the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like 'em, though I can't really say why.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's totally not just you!
    I completely agree that pregnancy is such a beautiful, amazing thing, but those covers are something entirely different. Just like you said about the gay ones. Both homosexuality and pregnancy are a part of humanity and putting them on a cover of a trashy magazine just is stupid!

    ReplyDelete

Say word.