Even though she dipped out of the spotlight for a minute, Lana Del Rey is making headlines again. First, she dyed her hair a striking new shade, and now she’s sittin’ in the buff on the cover of British GQ. Why? Because she’s been named their “Woman of the Year,” which means that, unlike their men of the year, she gets to sit around nekkid. Check out the full cover by clicking here!
I don’t have a problem with nudity, but this cover is a bit disappointing. I mean, it’s just so bland. The men of the year get to stand around in their fancy tuxes and look all suave, and she kind of just looks like she’s huddling in the shower while wearing nice jewelry. If you’re going to give us a vanilla backdrop, GQ, at least give us an interesting outfit (AKA, not nothing). [via Gigwise]
What do you think of Lana’s cover? Is it creative, bland, offensive…what?
guest
it’s overdone. “oh a naked woman on the cover of a men’s magazine, that’s new.” said no one ever.
guest
It’s not that she’s posed naked that I have a problem with, it’s that when you see the other covers with men on them and they’re all fully dressed in suits vs. the only woman featured whom they chose to have completely nude. Clearly GQ has a lot more respect for men than women.
guest
@colorMEpurple2@xanga - Why do you automatically assume that naked = lack of respect? Maybe they tried doing the same with the men of the year but they both had beer bellies or moobs or something. (LOL jk…but yeah.)
guest
@hallentine@xanga - are you serious right now lol. all of the men are standing up straight, presenting themselves strongly in suits, one of the men actually has polished women’s hands groping him, and they decide on the cover for Lana of her completely naked and in a vulnerable stance. If you can’t see why that shows a lack of respect towards women then I don’t really know what to tell you.
guest
I’ve spent a lot of time in movie theaters, and can deal with nudity, etc. But back before my generation, with Jane Russell, Lana Turner, even Marilyn Monroe, they didn’t resort to nudity to get famous. Not that anyone would have printed it, but women got kudos for their performing abilities, not by not wearing clothes. Just think of a few who’ve made it to the top without dressing like that. Meryl Streep, Frances McDormand, Emily Watson, Marcia Gay Harden. Can really out perform most others. I know Catherine Zeta Jones has posed nude, in such positions as to not show everything, so I guess if I don’t see everything it leaves more to the imagination. I’m comparing her to Liz Taylor, who never stripped below a swim suit. And for the record, I love Catherine. Love her work, shear talent of dance, winning England’s tap dancing award at the age of 12, her ability to sing on Broadway, and her acting prowess. Yes, I love her!
guest
what do i think? i think she’s naked on the cover of a men’s magazine.
guest
I feel like the men they chose were there because of their achievements. They were “icons” and “solo artists.” The woman was chosen for her sex. She is the “women of the year.” They make it obvious that men are valued for a number of different accomplishments, but a woman is only valued for her body.
It’s not that I mind GQ featuring sexy ladies. I just feel like they should be recognized as individuals as well as sex symbols. Looking at the cover, I don’t even know who she is. She’s just another naked woman.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that this shows a very shallow view of female sexuality. You don’t have to negate the whole woman to portray her as a sex symbol.