Feb 12, 2009

WTF?!?! Aubrey O'Day's Playboy Cover

So I'm perusing Mr. Vegas' site, 2DopeBoyz.com, and I come across this:
So after breaking up with Danity Kane, Aubrey O’day decided to break up with her clothes as well and pose for Playboy. I only have the cover (and the shots with black bars over certain areas) so the cover is all I’ll post for now. But if you like I’ll post the spread when it lands on the the internets. Hit the jump…
Because I noticed in the "opening" pic (above) that she REALLY resembled Heidi "Plastic" Montag of The Hills fame, I couldn't help but "hit the jump," mostly so I can leave a comment stating my Heibrey O'Tag observation. Of course once I saw the cover, my already cranky-ass went on a little anti-Aubrey O'Day heyday.

Without going into a Mean Girl rampage, I will say that I've never understood this girl's appeal. She was cute when Danity Kane originally formed, but once she grabbed for the blonde extensions she started to resemble a basset hound; (For the record, I think basset hounds are adorable- and a resemblance to one could even be cute, but in her case, it isn't, again- at least not with the blonde hair). But my biggest issue with this picture is how incredibly fake she looks! Set aside the fact that I already mentioned her face resembling über-plastic, no longer unique looking, future surgery addict, Heidi Montag, which really doesn't sound like a good thing, does it? I'd like to state, that this girl is 5′4″! There is no way that her legs are that long, furthermore nor is she that thin (which for another record, is fine- but why fake it?).

Note the shorter legs, which is pretty common to find on an averaged-height/stubby girl, 

Notice the little belly bulge? Which is totally natural to find on a girl that eats.. and isn't Barbie (nor genetically blessed).

And why does her skin resemble my girl, Barbie’s? Seriously, Playboy graphics team: Why? The more I look at her, the more I realize they made EVERY part of her look like that of a Barbie doll. Don't believe me? Go ahead, grab your Malibu Barbie and compare; from her fake tits (that I'm sure has the same unyielding sensation as Barbie's chest); to the shape of her waist; along with her waist to hip ratio; the legs... all the way down to her feet! Even the point of her toe is similar. All Barbie.

I'm not sure why Playboy originally wanted this girl in their mag, considering she's not doing anything buzz-worthy, and that headband line is a joke (although I would never wear it, I do like the Sex & the City Movie, Carrie Bradshaw rip-off)! Nor do I understand why she was chosen for the cover, but there she is, so why did they have to airbrush her so much? They went to great, fake lengths to mold her into what Playboy "readers" would normally find appealing, which just makes me wonder: What's the point? She's obviously not really want you wanted, so why bother?

1 comment:

  1. Her lower legs have been stretched so much in the pic that if she actually tried to stand on them, I think they'd snap. But that's nothing compared to that weird, weird over-airbrushed skin. Playboy, what were you thinking?!

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails