Remember when Kim Kardashian posed for Playboy? No? Okay, your elderly uncle who still buys print magazines of naked ladies because he doesn’t understand how to use the Internet remembers. Anyhow, she looked good! But then she regretted it, stating:
“I’m sorry I did Playboy. I was uncomfortable. My mom said, ‘Go for it!… you’ll have these beautiful pictures.”
Pictures of hot-young-you when you’re old-elegant-you (I used elegant there because I couldn’t find an upbeat synonym for prune-like) is probably one of the best reasons to pose for a magazine like Playboy. That, and getting to meet Hugh Hefner and talk to him about Marilyn Monroe. And you’d be featured next to stories by Nabokov. Jeez, Playboy is cool, may elderly uncles buy it until the end of time.
But that’s not the point! The point is, okay, Kim Kardashian felt bad about posing naked. She kind of feels like her mom pushed her into it, which seems odd. But that’s fine. Sometimes people make mistakes.
But now she is naked on the cover of W. I guess being naked there is okay? Why? I thought being naked made her uncomfortable. I am confused.
Is there really such a huge difference between being naked for W and being naked for Playboy? Maybe I’m just too inclined to see Playboy as a relic from a time when “quoting Nietzsche” was a serious suggestion in their “ways to seduce women” articles. Maybe Playboy is all full of lust, while W is all full of art. What do you think?
Recommended by The Gloss:
What We're Reading: