cimorene: (Default)
Cimorene ([personal profile] cimorene) wrote2009-02-13 11:41 am
Entry tags:

news of the day

Rolling Stone Interview with Joss Whedon: Revolt of a TV Genius (or: Why I Don't Have High Hopes for Dollhouse) (Download the pdf scans at the link), via @paperandglue.

Beth Ditto makes a great voluptuous non-conformist cover model for the debut of Love magazine, and looks better naked IMO than your typical Barbie, but... WHY ARE THE NIPPLES GONE? Seriously, this is the real nipplegate: people being presented in photography without them. What?!

Yesterday's Daily Show was SO RIGHT about the economic crisis and the congressional hearings. (For a mainstream news take, have yesterday's Wall St CEOs berated by lawmakers @Reuters.)

Via [livejournal.com profile] hollsh, the Literal LOLs category at Cake Wrecks, the Bad-Cake Mocking Blog. (Example: the "2008 I want sprinkles" cake.)

Michelle Obama's Vogue cover & shoot. This might be the first time in my lifetime that Vogue has been relevant to society outside the fashion/media industries - certainly the first time in my memory.

[identity profile] cimness.livejournal.com 2009-02-13 05:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, and it's not like it makes it less obscene! She's still clearly naked and humping a wad of cloth and her nipples are not an actual, y'know, sex organ, per se! It's not like "oh, she's masturbating, but at least she can't breastfeed!"
ext_30643: (Default)

[identity profile] scrimschaw.livejournal.com 2009-02-13 05:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Maybe they're trying to make us think that she doesn't have breasts? Like, "Those are not boobs you see. Those are strategically-placed blobs of flesh that LOOK like breasts, but they cannot be, because they don't have nipples."

Or something.