Charlize Theron's Tattoo Is Beautifully Distracting on 'Vogue' Cover

charlize theronWe've seen Charlize Theron at her absolute physical worst. Remember Monster? She was downright hideous in that flick, as she was supposed to be. But it's hard to imagine anyone calling her less than stunning when she's just being herself. The South African beauty is on the May cover of British Vogue and some people are saying that a certain element of her appearance ruins the photo. That somehow, she's less gorgeous or desirable because of a mark just above her right ankle.

That mark, as it were, is a tattoo.

I'll admit, I think seeing the tattoo changes the photo a bit. It doesn't make it worse by any means, but it certainly gives the pic an edge. It shows, somehow, that Charlize is a person, not just a flawless shell with leg for days and cheekbones that just won't quit.

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of tattoos. But you know what I dislike more than I do some permanent skin ink? Photoshop. Charlize's little Koi fish could have been so easily air-brushed out, but Vogue decided to leave it be.

I have to hand it to them -- anyone who refrains from picking up the proverbial eraser and "fixing" a photo is a hero these days. In a world where models' legs disappear and where Khloe is the same height as Kim, it's refreshing to see some restraint when it comes to digital editing.

Charlize truly is a "modern glamour star" and there's no way a mark, a tattoo, a cellulite dimple or a freaking third eye could ruin her. (OK, maybe a third eye would be a little weird, but you know what I'm saying.)

Do you think Vogue should've Photoshopped her tattoo?

 

Photo via vogue.uk

tattoos, vogue, magazine covers

42 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

NatAndCo NatAndCo

Considering she's been playing more "edgy" and "evil" roles (Evil Queen for Snow White which she's probably pushing) leaving the tattoo probablyy makes sense. If she had been promoting a "softer" role they might've considered hiding it.

Ashley Rewakowski

I can't believe people STILL have such a thing against tattoos, especially on women. It's 2012 people, women get tatooed. Deal with it.

nonmember avatar HS

What Ashley said. And, still couldn't see the tat when looking for it. Took me a minute lol. I never woulda seen it if I didn't know there was one. I was thinking she was gonna have some huge thing covering her back or something but nope. Just a cute lil ankle tat. I don't see the big deal.

Freela Freela

I've got no problem with it.  I actually have a tattoo in the same place!  I doubt I would even have noticed if it hadn't been pointed out.

mrsjo... mrsjoohee

Amen Ashley! I love that women, even in high profile roles, will get tattoos, if they want them! Tattoos are artwork, that you can wear permanently. There is nothing ugly about it! Go Charlize! I love you even more than I already did... Go girl!

nonmember avatar r0sal1n3

Tattoo? What tattoo? What I noticed first was her legs...those nude heels made her legs seem endless! I don't have any nude heels. What the heck? I'm gonna go out and buy nude heels. Though my legs are short and stumpy and not drool-worthy like hers. LOL.

lovin... lovinallofthem

really ?? why are we still making a big deal out of women with tats??  so she has one.. big deal!!  i got my first one this year. im a mom of 3...and in my 40's... why the huge stigma stiLL ????????  geez

Coburn Coburn

I barely noticed it and think she is beautiful despite the tatoo. Bless her heart, tatoos are trashy.

nonmember avatar Paddy

I doubt a Vogue cover goes out without significant Photoshop work. Leaving the tat was simply a conscious decision to play the classic glamour in this shot with a little current edge, which is precisely right for Theron, and reinforced by the "Modern glamour star" caption. They probably picked this picture in part because it had the tat discreetly showing. Magazines like Vogue rarely do anything by accident, and certainly don't on their cover.

Rhonda Neeley Stephens

No, considering it was hard to find.  It seems to me that folks are just too picky these days.  Then they wonder why women have such issues and young girls diet themselves to death

1-10 of 42 comments 12345 Last
F