Feb 20th 2006 11:07AM Numerous threads to comment on here:
If someone were to ask me, as a male, to model a diamond-studded male version of this "bathing suit" (ha ha), I would do it. There's nothing wrong with modeling skimpy clothing. It's what one does when it's on (which leads me to agree that the hip-swinging, pouty-lipped look that Victoria's Secret models use is indeed bordering on the pornographic, by comparison to, say, a similarly clad model in a J.C. Penney catalog, who is simply standing for the camera in her underwear).
2. If this were a nude painting at an art gallery, no one would have a problem. The nude human form has been a subject for artists for 1000's of years, and no one is saying that Michelangelo's David's private parts (including lots of hair), or most of the female nudes from the greco-roman era (sculpted without hair between their legs) were pornographic; by contrast, they're standard learning for all art history students in the western world.
3. So Ms. Sims' pose and shaved appearance need to be contextualized. Of course she's sexy...she's got twinkly eyes, a nice smile, AND a beautiful figure, and is wearing items that do what all sexy things do: hide just enough to make it enticing. And it IS not the natural way of humans to be as non-hirsute as she is. But we have been modifying our bodies for years; this seems a natural extension to it. As for the bathing suit itself, it does seem laughable that someone would have gone to the trouble to create it.