Even though Kim Kardashian has rambled on about how she regretted posing for Playboy, she had no problem stripping down for the recent issue of W magazine.
And the ironic thing is -- she bares more in W.
Kim posed for a sexy Playboy shoot in 2007, and though the photos were enough to make teenage boys drool (among other things), beads, arms, and blankets were conveniently placed to cover the naughty bits. But on her W cover, her body plays peek-a-boo with typographic taglines and, in the pages, she bares a full-frontal, dipped in silver, no-nipple-hiding shot (even her most risque Playboy photo was done at an angle).
All in the name of art, right? Or does that just make her a silvery naked person? It sure doesn't exactly leave much to the imagination. If she "felt uncomfortable" doing Playboy, I don't see how this time around is any different. Because it's W, that makes it classier? Maybe once upon a time when you could pinpoint the demographic (Playboy = men, W = women), but nowadays, these images are up on the web for all to see, without having to buy the issue. Pulling out the "It's art!" card is just an excuse -- an excuse that covers up about as much as that silver paint does. She knows exactly what she's doing, and trust me, it isn't because she's a fan of modern art.
What do you think of Kim's W shoot? Think it's a cry for attention or is it honestly just art?
Image via WMagazine.com