Posted on 02/16/2015 7:16:45 PM PST by BenLurkin
An unretouched Marie Claire photo of Cindy Crawford leaked on Friday, in which the 48-year-old supermodel looks pretty amazing posing in a black bra, undies, a furry coat and a hat. Marie Claire commented on the photo, sharing that its origins are actually from a December 2013 cover story from Marie Claire Mexico and Latin America.
"No matter where the photo came from, it's an enlightenment -- we've always known Crawford was beautiful, but seeing her like this only makes us love her more," the magazine writes."[The photo] is real, it is honest, and it is gorgeous."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes, she is an attractive woman...but be sceptical... lol
If a woman is ‘Hollywood’, chances are really good she’s paid for enhancment...
Perhaps you ought to watch TV with your wife once in a while...even Rush talks about the “lo-fo” voters...those that DO pay attention to celebrities...and then vote accordingly and appropriately (they think...) )
Have a good one!
kg/nancy
Go with post #21...REAL!
I knew it!
Well, if the lights were off, or, naw. I pass.
That's not what's happening at all. This trend of women sharing makeup-free and un-retouched photos has nothing to do with men. Some women are complaining that photoshopping has gone too far, so models and other famous people are putting un-retouched photos out there. It's just a trend - the latest thing to do.
It has nothing to do with making men feel guilty about anything. LOL.
And of course, everyone is (usually) more attractive at a younger age.
I do not buy what that picture is selling. There is no way she looks like that. Look at her inner thighs, chest and stomach. It looks like she is a severe burn victim, which she isn’t. Something else is at play here, whether bad lighting, jpg artifacts or something else.
Ack! It does make me laugh every time I see it, though...:)
I disagree. I do think this type of lecture about how unattractive/less attractive women are just as beautiful as more physically attractive women is a pointed criticism of objectifying women.
We always hear criticism of men because they make women sex objects and don’t pay attention to the woman under the skin, but that isn’t our fault, and it is what makes the differences between sexes exciting for men (and women)
The REALLY important thing in all of this that highlights the real power of women is not that a younger, physically beautiful woman makes a man want to be a younger man, or a man that stands up straighter, because that is simply a hard-wired, biological thing.
The real magic that a woman can have on a man is that if she is the one he loves regardless of the shape of her body, the attractiveness of her face, or the smoothness of her skin, she makes him want to be a BETTER man. It is that civilizing influence that women have on men that is the magic.
Beyond distressing - quite ugly.
One would question why she would ever be photographed knowing her body was so fat and ugly. Ughhhhh...
Was she laying down on her stomach on a deck chair before this photo was taken?
Oh yes. That's why I said "folks" and not "women." The vast majority of humanity looks better in low lighting, and hold onto that seventh veil.
Be it known to all:
I would NEVER, EVER, mock and scoff at somebody suffering from a congenital skin problem, or some disfigurement caused by accident or disease.
But people who deliberately roast themselves in the sun and then think their radiation burns are attractive are fair game! :-)
Candlelight is a date’s best friend.
He and she both look better, and the low light dilates the pupils, a look of love.
(It’s also more available than belladonna)...
I know this is going to be difficult for some of you to accept, but the fact is that women objectify younger men, too. On internet forums where women talk to each other, they pass around photos of young men with cobblestone abs and full heads of hair. They don't care how much money the guy makes. They want him to look "hot." So, men and women are really not so different in that regard.
And whoever released this photo of Crawford more likely did so to be vindictive. That is, if someone released this photo without Crawford's permission, that someone wasn't making a statement against the objectification of women. She (or he) was just being catty.
Some famous women have been releasing their own make-up-free, un-retouched photos in response to criticism that photoshopping is making little girls feel bad about themselves. So, at first, I thought Crawford had released this photo. But, as it turns out, she didn't release this photo. Someone else "leaked" it. IOW, someone was being very catty. But Crawford might be smart enough to play along.
LOL, that completely isn’t difficult at all for me to accept, The fact that women also sexually objectify men, but if were being honest… When in your entire life have you ever heard any criticism of them for doing so?
It’s almost impossible, as a man to even go a portion of a day without seeing something that criticizes men for doing what God really made us to do!
I certainly have no problem living with that, you got to be who you got to be, but the double standard is indeed irritating.
Well, too many of you do take it to the extreme. And I disagree with you about God's intentions - I'd say that God did not intend for people (especially married people) to ogle other people.
But that's not even what this story is about. It's not a criticism of men. I can see that you see it that way, though, and I can see that I'm not going to change your mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.