As legendary and iconic as it still sounds when stars like Kim Kardashian or Lindsay Lohan reference their desire to "pose for Playboy," it's still a downright snoozefest these days. The mag has been floundering to be the shocking, trendsetting, jaw-dropping magazine of yesteryear for years now. So it's kinda crazy that they've decided to celebrate their 60th anniversary with a cover girl who is a complete yawn ... Kate Moss!
Some tongues are wagging about the fact that she's breaking the mold. Apparently, Playboy has historically chosen "curvier women," like Marilyn Monroe, Anna Nicole Smith, Jenny McCarthy, Kim Kardashian, etc., to grace the cover. Thus, we're supposed to be shocked and awed by the fact that Kate's a skinny minny ... or something. Not only is that kinda silly, but sorry, who cares about Kate Moss?
Why they chose her not only makes absolutely no sense -- it simply isn't titillating. Besides sex appeal and curves, Playboy has been known for showcasing women who are making some sort of huge public statement by posing nude between the magazine's covers. They're re-branding themselves ... or at least promoting something. There's usually that extra reason, intrigue to get us to hit up the newsstand. Because we think it'll be a collector's item or because we just want to know what the star has to say for herself.
Kate's got none of that goin' for her, as far as I can tell. But plenty of other famous women do! Why didn't they pick someone like Khloe Kardashian (she could make a statement of post-split liberation), Kim (could be her big post-pregnancy coming out!), Dakota Johnson (heeeere's Ana!), etc.?
Playboy claims they wanted Kate because she's the "biggest supermodel in the world," "a worldwide icon," blah blah. But is that really enough for anyone to care? In this case, I really don't think so ...
Do you have any interest in seeing Kate Moss nude -- or even reading her interview?! Who do you think they should have chosen?
Image via Deon Maritz/Wikimedia