See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Bloodthirsty Liberal » Stylin’
2. Spitana.Com » Tasteless fashion photos of the day
3. Old War Dogs

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On September 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   Go to Vogue’s site for the full-size photos:

   No thanks

2. #2
   On September 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am, swj719AWG said:

   Go to Vogue’s site for the full-size photos:

   Maybe when I’m not at work…

3. #3
   On September 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm, nbarry said:

   And this is going to sell haute couture? Give me a break!

4. #4
   On September 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pm, sharinlite said:

   Everyone is trying to “prove” their bona fides to be in the news. Never mind that it is shameful, disgraceful and stupid. But, I’ve learned this: stupid is as stupid does. No further explanation is ever necessary when that is clearly understood.

5. #5
   On September 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm, ajmontana said:

   Is this where the folsom freako’s shop?

6. #6
   On September 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm, jeffshultz said:

   Interesting that the “uniforms” used by the “soldiers” are two generations out of date - they are the “chocolate chip” ones from Desert Storm that were superseded by the “pecan sandies” of the original OIF, and are now being phased out in favor of various types of digital camouflage dependening on what service you are in.

7. #7
   On September 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm, spidgy said:

   American shameful photographer Steven Meisel.

   Ah, that’s better.

8. #8
   On September 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm, greenfairie said:

   Meisel is a hack and a half, but the cokehead, dopey editors of these magazines help plan and approve of these spreads. The fashion industry is full of numbskulls and the people who fawn over them out of fear they won’t look cool if they don’t.

9. #9
   On September 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pm, ajmontana said:

   “Faux News Alert”
   Italian Vogue ships thousands of garments for the S & M crowd at Folsom just in time for Fleet Week. film at 11:00

10. #10
    On September 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pm, T J Green said:

    Hedonism sells, apparently.

11. #11
    On September 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm, olblueyes said:

    Ahh yes, if only tdy’s to the desert were full of that much fun and “frolic”.

    Interesting that the “uniforms” used by the “soldiers” are two generations out of date

    I noticed that too Jeff. I wonder if that is their way of dissassociating themselves with the Iraq War and maybe harken back to the good old days of U.N. approved actions in the Middle East such as the Gulf War. Now that was a War we could all support (sarcasm). I suppose we should be glad that Vogue has not banned depictions of U.S. military like San Fran has and that the magazine is portraying them as humans with human desires and not a bunch of violent rapists and murdering psychopaths.

    I don’t really have a problem with the pics in general except for the American flag depictions like Michelle noted using one as a blindfold. Even more offensive is picture number 16 of 18 on the vogue site. A soldier is laying on a cot as a girl dances over him. The American flag is draped over the end of the cot and hangs down touching the dort floor (a big no-no) and if that wasn’t offensive enough the soldier has his boot resting on the part of the flag that’s on the cot. I simply can’t believe that this wasn’t done on purpose to offend Americans. I guess it’s simply not European and/or in “Vogue” if it doesn’t offend Americans and our cultural sensitivities.

12. #12
    On September 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pm, max said:

    hmm… might work as recruiting posters

13. #13
    On September 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm, rbb said:

    What more do you expect from a country that builds its tanks with more reverse gears than forward gears and changes its government faster than the weather…

14. #14
    On September 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

    I completed several photography courses and even did the NYIP course and my photos have been published numerous times and this stuff by vogue borders on immature or insanity. I’ll check with my psych professor to see which mental health disorder they have (personally, I think its a personality adjustment disorder)

    Reminds me of a clothes company 8-9 years ago and their advertising campaighn (sp?) that took photos of convicts in prison with a glamourising bio of them and they placed them in their stores. They were glamourising the “criminal” behavior before hip-hop made it mainstream.

    My photographs are fairly straight forward,have recently starting using digital and have been liking the results
    from various graphic programs.

    GSP
    If you are interested in my work, contact me and I will send you an invite to my yahoogroup. (Its a troll-free zone)

15. #15
    On September 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm, Regulus said:

    First impression on reviewing the entire slide show: “What the ….?”

    I suppose it’s intended as some sort of caricature of Americans, but it only comes across as self-parody, and a dangerous one at that - for it reinforces the beliefs of those in this country and among the Mohammedans who see “sophisticated” and “nuanced” Europeans as effeminate, licentious, oblivious and debaed.

    I suppose the younger ones among us “barbaric” Americans will have the last laugh, though, when Italy joins the rest of Western Europe as a province of Greater Eurabia, when the minarets get built onto the Vatican, when magazines like Vogue get shut down under Sharia law, and when foolish “models” like these get whipped in public or forced to cover themselves from head to toe in bedsheets instead of flaunting their breasts.

    Your time is coming, Vogue-Italians… I only hope I live long enough to laugh at you when the day arrives.

16. #16
    On September 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pm, rightside said:

    A “not safe for work” warning would have helped in this instance…

17. #17
    On September 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

    I totally disagree with the Malkin Minions on this one, and I am politically conservative. When I am not at work, I will look at all the photos, probably 2x.

    I live a normal, mainstream life, and I find suggestive pictures of women pleasing to the eye. I do not believe this denigrates them in any way.

    On Halloween 2 years ago, I dressed up as a criminal, my ex as a sexy police officer. She led me around on a leash. We got rave reviews, and it was all in good fun.

    Look, art attacking the Virgin Mary, or child pornography, ship me to North Carolina and call me Jesse Helms (yes, I know he retired).

    This does not bother me. Our culture has bigger things corroding it than gorgeus adult women getting naked and tempting men, which is as old as Adam and Eve.

    Respectfully,

    eric http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

18. #18
    On September 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pm, nbarry said:

    Sex and warfare have gone together like pasta and sauce since time immemorial. At least, the U.S. military can boast of superior conduct to other armies that practice rape as standard operating procedure, including certain U.N. peacekeeping forces. Nor do I detect anything in the photos that shove an absence of consent in my face.

19. #19
    On September 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pm, NeoConNews said:

    It isn’t so much offensive to me as it is stupid. It does reveal quite a bit about perception in Italy though, doesn’t it?

20. #20
    On September 27th, 2007 at 3:00 pm, Al in St. Lou said:

    I hope it reveals nothing about perception in Italy. I prefer to think that it reveals the perceptions of those in the fashion magazine industry in Italy.

21. #21
    On September 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm, Anton said:

    Eric, when you see the photos I don’t think you’ll find much fun or eroticism in them. Some of the models are nice-looking and unclothed, but the overall effect (for me) was as if a gay man arranged the photos in a vague idea of what straight men and women would find hot. Didn’t work.

    Then he added the American flags as a way of being “transgressive.”

    Meh.

22. #22
    On September 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm, William Teach said:

    Whatever happened to the days when “art” could just be art?

23. #23
    On September 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

    Anton,

    You very well could be right, and will look at the photos on my unmonitored home computer based on prior comments of others.

    As for Art, I once got an F on a report in 5th grade on the true meaning of art. It is hard to flunk a subjective paper, but my dad grounded me through clenched teeth after the teacher called him.

    Inspired by an episode of “Charles in Charge,” I wrote the following sentence:

    “Art is short for Arthur.”

    I maintain to this day it is a true statement, but art is subjective.

    eric http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

24. #24
    On September 27th, 2007 at 7:35 pm, zorro said:

    I’ll give Steven Meisel a little credit, at least he didn’t use the women of Code Pink as the models.

    As for the 18 slides, junk.

25. #25
    On September 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pm, schal said:

    Okay, hold on: Isn’t vogue a fashion magazine?

    What the hell does any of this have to do with style, glamour, or fashion?

    Unless it’s now in style to go around topless, wearing nothing but camo pants.

26. #26
    On September 27th, 2007 at 11:23 pm, HeatherRadish said:

    *snicker* Yeah. I can’t imagine where a real woman would wear that halter dress that didn’t cover the boobs, or the “bustier” that only covered the waist.

    Mud isn’t very glamorous, either.

27. #27
    On September 27th, 2007 at 11:36 pm, DaveC said:

    for the last photo. (18) with the topless chick entering the GI’s tent..
    that can be mistaken for a beginning of a photo shoot in Penthouse..

    art/porn.. porn/art.. looked about the same in a lot of those shots..

28. #28
    On September 30th, 2007 at 8:40 pm, Floyd R. Turbo said:

    First chance to catch up since being out of town until today. Glad I didn’t click at work Friday. I never was any good at interpreting artwork. Nearly flunked several English courses because of that. Looking at the photos, I can’t pretend to even guess at what he’s trying to say. Beautiful women portrayed in those photos are anything but. Bizarre. Weird. Strange. NOT art. No thanks. Not my idea of art. Not sure what my idea of art is but that ain’t it.

29. #29
    On September 30th, 2007 at 9:18 pm, SFWife said:

    Wha????? I knew it! So that’s what my husband is doing over there when he says he’s on “Ops”. Thanks for the evidence Michelle…he’s gonna get an earful tonight!

30. #30
    On September 30th, 2007 at 11:16 pm, scrubjay said:

    I don’t see anything wrong with the photos. They don’t show the men portraying American soldiers doing anything un-American or un-patriotic. They don’t carry an anti-war message. They simply show men and women showing affection for one and other. The only thing that I thought was odd was getting a tatoo on your butt.

31. #31
    On October 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pm, Callie369 said:

    This is Bush’s brave new world?????