Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Supermodel Stephanie Seymour "Dimes" Herself With Two Sons in New Photoshoot

I’ve never heard of Stephanie Seymour before this morning. Probably because she’s just one more classless, morally vacant woman trying desperately to make herself meaningful by advertising how hot she is to anyone who will pay attention for however long they will.

That kind of woman is a dime a dozen, and I don’t pay much attention to dimes. Even if they are supermodels like Seymour. Except, of course, when they pose provocatively with their sons.

And when I say “provocatively,” I mean “trashy.”

The supermodel, mother of two, just wrapped up a photoshoot for Harper’s Bazaar, where she’s dressed in lingerie and striking I-want-it-right-now-big-boy poses with two young men, aged 17 and 20… who just happen to be her kids.

Yahoo features one such picture, where Seymour is dressed in a black satin number that barely covers her down-there, which she accentuates by resting her hand on that very specific portion of her anatomy. Her other arm is thrown around her younger son’s shoulder as she gazes breathlessly at him, looking for all the world like she’s begging to be ravaged.

Gross, I know. So is the way his arms are right back around her, one hand fondling her naked waist.

Yup, I said “naked.” That’s because Seymour’s older son right is behind her, unzipping the side of her dress, leaving a whole lot of curves in full-view.

Double gross, right? Even triple!

But possibly even more pathetic is Yahoo’s playful back-and-forth about the photoshoot. It laughs about how “awkward” it is, yet goes on to defend it:

“Here’s the thing: It’s fashion – meant to titillate, provoke, and eroticize – not to be taken seriously. It’s almost creepy of others to point out the ick factor, right?”

So fashion isn’t meant to be taken seriously, even when it smacks of incest or encourages horrendously inappropriate parenting tactics? And eroticization is just a chance for a good laugh, not a smutty exploitation of femininity and sexuality, two ideals that are supposed to mean something more than mere titillation?

And let me get this right… It’s “creepy” to point out how creepy the photoshoot is? Please someone explain that non-sequitur to me!

Oh yeah, and I’ll forget about Stephanie Seymour and her ten-cent price tag by the time I’m done publishing this post.

No comments:

Post a Comment