Tots Inapprops: Taylor Momsen Revolver Cover


My eyes almost popped out of my head twice this morning, on account of two photos posted by Racked. The first pic showed Zach Galiafanakis in a red one piece channeling Marilyn Monroe, faux mole and all. The eye poppage here was obvs prompted by humor – I laughed hard enough to snarf Sugar Free Red Bull through my nose.

The second pic wasn’t amusing so much as appalling: Taylor Momsen channeling a sex worker and/or female action hero in a Robert Rodriguez film. Witness the state of young fame today:

Garter belt? Check. Studded stripper platform stiletto sandals? Check. Sheer thigh-highs? Check. Visible pleather panties? Check. Even so, it’s not the outfit itself that’s offensive: It’s the context in which said outfit appears. Did someone forget to put this behind the counter with the other porn rags? Revolver used to be a music magazine. With this cover, it’s now a music magazine that’s one nipple away from Penthouse.

Let’s forget about Revolver’s use of shock value to keep itself in business for a hot sec, and discuss the starlet decorating the latest issue. I don’t want to hear any gaff about how Taylor Momsen didn’t choose to be a role model or whatevs. Objecting to being photographed in this outfit isn’t grounds for sainthood; it’s a mark of self-respect. Then again, Taylor Momsen is seventeen years old. That’s another way of saying she’s too young to know what the fuck she’s doing.

Who the fuck are her handlers? Where the fuck are her parents? How many high school girls are going to copy their fave Gossip Girl star’s Revolver cover style this Halloween?

Is our over-sexed, over-exposed, celebrity ass-kissing culture desensitized enough to see an underaged babe dressed as a gun-toting dominatrix, and think it’s okay?

I have to go put my eyes back into my head now, and try to forget what I’ve just seen.

Comments

  1. Rachel L. says

    Plus she’s been photoshopped to hell and gone. Her limbs all look like spider legs, she has no shoulders, her wrists and upper arms are the same width. And you can’t figure out where her legs are supposed to be meeting– making the aforementioned pleather panty look really odd at the crotch.

    And she’s underage– the scary thing is the intersection of this cover with her role as the face of Madonna’s clothing line, which is being marketed to tweens.

  2. Allison says

    I agree… this is pretty shocking! I’ve commented before (about the AA protest), and I know you’re in New York, so you should check this out: http://www.sparksummit.com. It’s a one-day summit for girls, girl-serving organizations, media professionals, policy makers, etc. protesting the sexualization of girls in the media.

  3. Amy says

    Wow. Just…wow. And not in a good way. If she looks that tired and used up at 17, where will she be at 25? More importantly,where on earth are this girl’s parents? I can’t imagine any parents allowing their daughter to do that. Wildly inappropriate and incredibly sad.

  4. Kira says

    You do realize 17 year olds have sex right? It’s not like she’s that under aged and you can’t see anything so I don’t see the problem honestly. There’s far bigger issues than some 17 year old star on a music cover.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>