It’s Awesome That Brides Let Hayden Panettiere Wear A Strapless Dress That Shows Off Her Tattoos

hayden-panettiere-tattoo-brides-magazine-cover-picture

Sometimes magazine covers really do surprise us. For the April/May issue of Brides magazine, we were genuinely and pleasantly surprised to see that the wedding bible had featured engaged starlet Hayden Panettiere, and they’d actually allowed her to keep her tattoo! This surprises us much more than when Vogue UK put a “bare-faced” Nigella Lawson on this month’s cover without any makeup, save for a bunch of makeup and some Photoshop.

Panettiere’s tattoo being photographed front-and-center in a strapless wedding dress for Brides is more surprising than even a low-makeup cover on Vogue, because tattoos are still a polarizing issue for some people, and wedding magazines tend to skew even more conservative and mainstream than fashion magazines. A lot of people just hate tattoos, even though Cate Blanchett has one, and she is the most elegant woman alive.

And for some reason when a woman gets a tattoo, strangers everywhere will want to talk about her wedding. Even if the woman is single and has no plans to be married in the near future, concerned pearl-clutchers will gasp: “But what about your wedding? You won’t be able to wear a strapless dress!”

It is a bizarre concern, because the bride will presumably still have shoulders and be as physically capable of wearing a strapless dress as anybody. But still we hear that particular comment all the time. The implication is of course that a bride with tattoos on her back, arms or shoulders cannot wear a strapless dress without everyone seeing her tattoos, and the tattoo-hating speaker assumes she would be ashamed of her ink on her wedding day. But that’s silly because if a woman gets tattoos all over her back and shoulders, she probably intended for people to be able to see them. Getting engaged doesn’t make people suddenly hate their tattoos any more than it makes us all suddenly want dogs instead of cats.

We love tattoos here at The Gloss, so we’re super glad to see that Brides didn’t go and do something silly like Photoshop Panettiere’s tattoo out of the picture. They didn’t even turn her so the tattoo doesn’t show. In fact they specifically dressed and posed her so the tattoo would be front-and-center, and the cover is way more interesting for it. Good for Brides, pushing the envelope a little!

Share This Post:
    • Lindsey Conklin

      gorgeous cover!

    • Katie

      No see, one thing here is wrong. You don’t need shoulders for a strapless dress, you would need shoulders for one with straps. Otherwise where would the straps go? If you didn’t have shoulders, a strapless dress would be perfect, because it would still stay on your torso while your head just floated a few inches above. Duh.

    • Lz7

      I also love that she looks just like herself, i mean obviously there was some Photoshop but they kept the fly aways in her hair, she has some arm fat… Way to go Brides Magazine <3 !

      • kj

        ………………………………arm fat?!

    • Mandie

      She looks amazing! Kudos, Brides.

    • Futuralon Futuralon

      I had to dig deep to find a pic that showed my tattoo in my wedding photos. So uh… if you have awesome ink on your back make sure to ask the photographer to get some shots from behind!