The Beth of Me.

[indie_lauper]

Comments

[lespromeneurs]

I agree with what you said; I am so tired of that a woman is admirable, brave or rebellious only if she shows her tits. An actress takes on "challenging" projects if the film requires her being naked. Vogue Paris is the best, most avant garde magazine, because they are not afraid to show naked women on every page, unlike Vogue US where too much cleavage will be a crisis. This "liberation" of women has turned a caricatyre of itself... we suppose casual sex and showing your sexuality with taking your clothes off whenever you can is something a liberated, free woman does

[incognegress]

I don't think beth posing nude on the cover looks degrading to people as if it were a size 0 actress posing on maxim magazine. she's overweight so it's safe to assume the editors for the magazine put her there not just for giving men a hard on but to rile people up, to be 'controversial'. which is so cliche to me as some a controversial male musician posing nude with something slightly covering his dick. I'm not sure whether to assume she's being taken advantage of by the magazine with this cover or she's taking advantage of the magazine by upgrading her status with this cover and she doesn't seem like the type that would be forced into any comprising position unless she wanted to.

[indie_lauper]

i think it's just as degrading, if not more so. when we see those size 0 actresses on MAXIM, we know they're not trying to do anything else than look sexy. here, beth is posing under the guise of being "cool" and an empowered woman... and frankly, that photo, along with its backstory, conveys nothing of the sort to me. not to mention it's for a music magazine, so already there you know there is something greater to expect. it's not all about the t&a... it shouldn't be, anyway.

when i meant degrading, i didn't mean sexually so much as morally. of course the editors didn't intend for a hard on... but that doesn't excuse the fact that she's naked, and it's rather exploitative, if you ask me. who's using who, i don't know. but i just think it's "shocking" just to shock, and not to say something bigger... which i would expect from her, considering she has brains.

[incognegress]

I do agree that her posing nude was to seem empowering and 'ballsy' to the public. sometimes I think for women to be seen and heard they have to push buttons and maybe her intention with posing was just for shock value or make people think she's flaunting her obesity. I do understand where you're coming from but I'm not at all shocked that she did this judging from her misshape pics

[beaute__exquise]

I was worried for a moment thinking this would be another "Praise Beth Ditto! She's naked on the cover of a magazine! Suck on that!" entry. NME appears to be pushing for higher sales as opposed to making a statement so I find the cover a bit cheap. Had she been on the cover of Vogue or Bazaar, then I'd agree with those that are excited but in this case it just seems unnecessary. But if it's what she wanted, who am I to judge?

[indie_lauper]

i agree, it's cheap but it's trying to be deep and prolific, and that's really what i don't get.

[cowardlykitten]

Her singing is atrocious.

[indie_lauper]

i think she has a unique voice. it's not a traditionally great voice, but you can say the same for morrissey, rufus wainwright, joe strummer, debbie harry...

[__pink__panther]

she was actually featured in a two page spread and a little 200 word blurp in the british vogue.

i agree with you extremes are bad - extreme fat is just as unhealthy as extreme thin.

but good for her for having the confidence.