If you happen to have the latest issue of Cookie magazine (which I only do because Jeff brings it home from work--let's be clear on the fact that I would never pay money for it), please turn to page 37.
Oh wait! It's online.
Look at the picture of the mom in her sunny yellow dress, holding a naked one-year-old in each arm.
Now look more closely at the little boy on the left. It's not as obvious on screen as it is in print, but he has been completely emasculated by an overeager airbrushing. I realize that it would not be cool to publish a picture of this child's meat & potatoes, but seeing him without them is freaking me out.
And furthermore, it looks like the older child is using unnaturally prehensile toes to try to sneak a look up his mom's skirt.
Round of sarcastic applause to the photo editor on this one. Of course it's hard to get a decent picture of two babies and a preschooler. But you should have kept on trying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
*snort* Yeah, he's lost all his boy parts in that picture. Wonder if that's how Barbie's Ken got his start?
Oh, I KNOW, I saw it. Too creepy.
I saw that in the magazine (I know, I got it for free out of horrified curiousity) and I thought something looked weird, but thank you for pointing out exactly what was wrong. Poor kid.
Is it just me or is it rather odd to publish a picture of the babies naked anyway? With all the talk about privacy on the interent, I'd be uncomfortable ever publishing even the most innocent picture of my children like that. Why did they need to be naked? It looks especially odd especially considering how done up the mom is and then there's the boy in denim. It's like they're trying to cover the entire fashion spectrum. "Well get the babies in there naked, the boy casual and the mom looking dressed to kill, that way everyone's confused as to what planet this mock-up family is actually from"
All I can do is look at that photo and wonder what is wrong with her? I would have been swearing by that point with a shoe up my skirt and two one year olds. There is no way I'd be smiling. I wonder if she's photoshopped too?
Ewww. That's a little Oedipal.
That is pretty creepy.
We had a favorite photographer take shots of Q when he was eight months old (which was tricky enough), and he was describing trying to get a clean picture of three kids, parents, and a dog. Oh boy. I'm pretty sure he didn't resort to photoshopping out the boy parts though.
That is just WEIRD.
1. Actually? It is rather obvious.
2. It is rather creepy.
3. Why then, did the photographer want a nudie shot?
4. The article bugged me, anyway. At a start, I'm tired of articles featuring the Perfect 21st Century Woman, in her spotless outfit, fab mod home, having her cake and eating it too with perfect gorgeous kids and successful career
And that's not sour grapes, honest abe.
I saw this photo too (magazine pilfered from pediatrician's office) and wondered about the naked baby thing. But I didn't notice the airbrushing!
Those are the things I miss since my eye sight went bad.
I would have never noticed that if you hadn't of pointed it out.
To be perfectly honest I have never even heard of that magazine....am I that out of touch?
That is really creepy. And it bothers me that the mom is dressed to the nines while her kids are naked.
(oops, what Scribbit said, I see)
Also, what if the babies decided to pee right then? Ewww.
WOw. THAT IS SERIOUSLY bizarre. I've never heard of that magazine. Course I'm not cool or hip either. Maybe that's why?
Cookie is secretly stashed by my bedside.
But I am ashamed to admit I didn't notice the photo.
I am too busy looking at the ads, thinking about how interesting it would be to have kids who could wear high fashion clothes without mussing them up.
I pretend I am cool.
oh see? i needed that laugh...and it was perfect.
i think naked babies are gorgeous and all but, seriously, with all the child porn laws these days PLUS the fact that hanging out with one on each hip in one's sunny yellow dress is more contrived than the airbrushing...weird call on the magazine's part all around.
and
and apparently i stopped in midsentence, is what.
i was going to add, that the little Ken-doll in question is NOT going to be a fan of that photoshoot when he gets older!
Never heard of Cookie before. So unhip, I know. But that photo - that entire ARTICLE - is so unnatural. And if it's real, then I want HER life.
You killed me with the prehensile toe line though.
I actually get this magazine for free somehow, and noticed the same thing about the kids, and I have to wonder what they were thinking trying to do the photo shoot with naked kids anyway. I am far from perfect, but even I could tell that would make it hard to get good pictures they could actually use!
Yeah... photographer should have kept clicking. bizarre, bizarre, bizarre.
Post a Comment