Ever since the 1980's there's been this annoying phenomenon where actors and actresses supposedly "pose nude" for magazine covers, but when you see the cover, it becomes quite clear that they are in fact covered up in all the places that count!
What qualifies as nude anyway? If hands or arms or legs or some prop is covering the person up, then isn't that pretty much the same as a bikini or some other clothing that only covers those areas?
I personally think that it's kind of dishonest to say they're nude, after all we're all nude under our clothing.... What do you guys think?
2006-08-24 09:22:12 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
If they didn't make the false claim, I wouldn't be complaining. My question is more about the need to lie about it.
2006-08-24 09:30:42 · update #1
I never thought about it before, but yeah I guess I'd feel a little cheated. But I'd think you should know which mags would cover up and which ones wouldn't...
2006-08-24 09:30:43 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do you care that they pose nude?
Like you said, "after all we're all nude under our clothing". Exactly so why are you curious about seeing them naked if everyone has the same stuff when their naked.
It's not the cover that their nude on, it's the pages on the inside of the book. Open the magazine next time.
Duh!
No celeb is going to go all porned out naked, just teasingly nude.
Get a life.
2006-08-24 09:28:29 · answer #2 · answered by alwaysbombed 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they were probably nude in front of the cameramen but not in the mag. thats why i quit buying those magazines, kept getting gypped.
2006-08-24 09:26:00 · answer #3 · answered by pete cochino 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no. y wood anyone wanna see their favorite stars naked????
it's like, losing all self-respect.
2006-08-24 09:44:22 · answer #4 · answered by cowgirlup_abby 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try porn if your that desperate!
2006-08-24 09:24:51 · answer #5 · answered by *Star* 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋