We have gotten a ton of e-mails about this cover in the last few days, and since it's a slow week thanks to the recent holiday -- I guess all our celebrities are too hung over to put much effort into their fuggery? -- I decided to go ahead and post it even though it might give us all nightmares.
Considering this woman routinely wears leotards, or bra-and-panty sets, or uses pieces of actual tape to cover her boobs where most of the sane world would use this revolutionary thing called a "shirt," then being clad entirely in bubbles is really not even that shocking. It's only really a step or two removed from the norm (and she's practically already done it on stage anyway).
But I wonder if, in actuality, she would like this cover. Yes, she's naked, and yes, she looks curvy, and yes, she fancies herself a performance artist. But did the whole thing HAVE to come together and create the twisted visage of a cross between Dita Von Teese and Dee Snyder?
I think I'll just back away slowly and thank the magazine gods that Rolling Stone stopped publishing on that really huge paper.
Considering this woman routinely wears leotards, or bra-and-panty sets, or uses pieces of actual tape to cover her boobs where most of the sane world would use this revolutionary thing called a "shirt," then being clad entirely in bubbles is really not even that shocking. It's only really a step or two removed from the norm (and she's practically already done it on stage anyway).
But I wonder if, in actuality, she would like this cover. Yes, she's naked, and yes, she looks curvy, and yes, she fancies herself a performance artist. But did the whole thing HAVE to come together and create the twisted visage of a cross between Dita Von Teese and Dee Snyder?
I think I'll just back away slowly and thank the magazine gods that Rolling Stone stopped publishing on that really huge paper.
