Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's Vogue. It's a magazine about fashion. She should have on fashion. That's the whole idea.

She's beautiful and I'm not going to take away from her beauty by tearing her down, but there's no reason for her to be nude on the cover of a fashion magazine.

+1

If she were sexualized, I agree. But she's not spread-eagled. It's an elegant photo, with great lighting. It's art.

+1
I love fashion and this cover stopped me in my tracks. Gorgeous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's Vogue. It's a magazine about fashion. She should have on fashion. That's the whole idea.

She's beautiful and I'm not going to take away from her beauty by tearing her down, but there's no reason for her to be nude on the cover of a fashion magazine.

+1

If she were sexualized, I agree. But she's not spread-eagled. It's an elegant photo, with great lighting. It's art.

Anonymous wrote:I realize I am in the minority on this thread, but if this woman is a model of her own right (which I'm assuming she is since she is on the cover of vogue), then why is the thread title, "yolanda's daughter ..."? who is yolanda?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
omg pp, you've opened my eyes. I finally understand myself for the first time thanks to your comment. Obviously I was mistaken all the years that I've gone to museums and studied art and noticed that men love drawing and painting naked ladies and by virtue of their subjugation women have not the chance to participate equally in the arts and invoke their unique point of view (and paint things OTHER than naked ladies and prostitutes and lovers). I thought that I can objectively enjoy art by men but still recognize that they have their foibles, but I was wrong! Obviously my point of view was skewed because I just hate men! Nevermind that I always thought that I liked men, I don't know me! Clearly my two-sentence post provided a clearer picture of my psyche than I could ever understand. Thank you, pp, you are a brilliant thinker, not some idiot who throws around ad hominems instead of having a point.

Feminazis ruin everything - including art.

This is why college should not be free - too many people like this won't be able to find jobs in lesbian women's studies, as the three jobs available are already taken.

I like how you made up a new major- "lesbian women's studies." What, is regular women's studies not "feminazi" enough for you? Based on this post, I would assume you have never been to an actual college and probably have a lot more familiarity with unemployment than I do. Don't worry pp when college is free you can go too!

Actually, I have a masters degree, but it's something useful - technology. I recognized that there were actual jobs in that field. Actually it was Andrew Wilkow that made up that major - I give him full credit.

Interestingly enough, my husband never went to college. He is brilliant technologically, but learning disabled (dysgraphic) and back then, colleges would make no accommodations. So he worked real hard (foreign concept, I know), self-studied and did well enough to retire at 35. Both of us now have our own companies (his larger than mine - I wanted to raise our kids, not a daycare) and we are doing what we want to do, when we want to do it.

The point of education is not navel-contemplation - it's to prepare someone to work in the real world, in actual fields that are growing.

Mhmm. On the internet, we are all retired at 35, right pp?

Not all of us, no. My point is I am indeed educated, and my husband did quite well without a college education - enough to choose his career path well and make a killing in the stock market. Given the ability to telecommute now, as well as the importance of utilizing social media as a part of one's marketing plan, the internet is critical in one's success so I wouldn't be so quick to 'diss' it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's Vogue. It's a magazine about fashion. She should have on fashion. That's the whole idea.

She's beautiful and I'm not going to take away from her beauty by tearing her down, but there's no reason for her to be nude on the cover of a fashion magazine.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
omg pp, you've opened my eyes. I finally understand myself for the first time thanks to your comment. Obviously I was mistaken all the years that I've gone to museums and studied art and noticed that men love drawing and painting naked ladies and by virtue of their subjugation women have not the chance to participate equally in the arts and invoke their unique point of view (and paint things OTHER than naked ladies and prostitutes and lovers). I thought that I can objectively enjoy art by men but still recognize that they have their foibles, but I was wrong! Obviously my point of view was skewed because I just hate men! Nevermind that I always thought that I liked men, I don't know me! Clearly my two-sentence post provided a clearer picture of my psyche than I could ever understand. Thank you, pp, you are a brilliant thinker, not some idiot who throws around ad hominems instead of having a point.

Feminazis ruin everything - including art.

This is why college should not be free - too many people like this won't be able to find jobs in lesbian women's studies, as the three jobs available are already taken.

I like how you made up a new major- "lesbian women's studies." What, is regular women's studies not "feminazi" enough for you? Based on this post, I would assume you have never been to an actual college and probably have a lot more familiarity with unemployment than I do. Don't worry pp when college is free you can go too!

Actually, I have a masters degree, but it's something useful - technology. I recognized that there were actual jobs in that field. Actually it was Andrew Wilkow that made up that major - I give him full credit.

Interestingly enough, my husband never went to college. He is brilliant technologically, but learning disabled (dysgraphic) and back then, colleges would make no accommodations. So he worked real hard (foreign concept, I know), self-studied and did well enough to retire at 35. Both of us now have our own companies (his larger than mine - I wanted to raise our kids, not a daycare) and we are doing what we want to do, when we want to do it.

The point of education is not navel-contemplation - it's to prepare someone to work in the real world, in actual fields that are growing.

Mhmm. On the internet, we are all retired at 35, right pp?

Anonymous wrote:It's Vogue. It's a magazine about fashion. She should have on fashion. That's the whole idea.

She's beautiful and I'm not going to take away from her beauty by tearing her down, but there's no reason for her to be nude on the cover of a fashion magazine.