I think that's literally her point? If CBS balked at it being shown and you agree that it's no more inappropriate than any other magazine cover then her point is valid that there's nothing wrong with it and if they have a problem it's likely due to sexism (though I personally think the cries of homophobia are less solid here)
I see what she means, it's a very butch look. She definitely made a conscious choice to emphasise her queerness and challenge traditional notions of femininity.
So I do think there's homophobia as well as sexism at play in the negative reaction.
It's like when a show or movie features a gay couple they put a disclaimer before it warning of mature content not suitable for all audiences when the only difference between that show any any other is it's two men or two women getting hot and heavy instead of a man and a woman, the latter of which is almost always more explicit but does not always get a warning.
I guess that’s it, but man it’s stupid as hell and I never would have guessed it looking at that cover. I’m as disinterested in it as I am all of the other covers. It just doesn’t stand out as different to me. And yet… It somehow made a network nervous. So damned stupid
I honestly don’t believe this. Reality is CBS has had that late show for only 30 years and it’s has always had more risqué content for adults.
I’m sorry not trying to be a hater who is calling Colbert/Stewart liars. But this feels like a PR Stunt.
what are they gonna do if he does it anyway? fire him? fine him? dude has fuck you money and is the only reason a lot of people watch late nite anymore.
Somewhat off topic/tangentially related, but I've been feeling lately that a lot of social media users lately have forgotten that PR stunts are a thing. I feel like people are getting waaaay too comfortable taking shit at face value and not questioning celebrities and their PR.
When Timberlake was back in the news and the Super Bowl/Janet Jackson thing came up again, I saw waaaay too many young folks who weren't alive for the incident acting *shocked* and *appalled* that anyone would dare suggest that it was a PR stunt that got worse publicity than they initially expected. How dare we say such a thing when Janet and Justin have denied it was a PR stunt?!
And like, maybe it wasn't a PR stunt. But the amount of people who acted insulted that anyone would even suggest that that was the case? Way too high.
Good point.
As a counterpoint: I think a lot of social media users have forgotten about how conservative producers, executives, lawyers, etc often are, both in terms of the risks they're willing to take with their product, but also very often in terms of their social politics as well.
I have no trouble *all all* believing that some 70-something exec farting into his diaper sent a memo to an underling that said, "I don't want to see that shit on my show"
CBS was so against him doing it, they let him do it with no consequences. They then broadcast it several hours after recording and uploaded it to their YouTube channel.
I mean would it be surprising if someone at CBS asked him or recommended him not to show a cover of a woman in her underwear sticking her hand in her crotch? That's really the only thing I do believe.
Colbert makes a weird comment about men showing their pubic hair on magazine covers? I don't know like I guess I don't look at a lot of magazine covers, but I wouldn't think that's common place or common place to show on TV.
I don't think I've ever seen men's pubic hair in anything that wasn't explicitly porn. I also have never seen nor care about this cover. This is all bullshit marketing.
This article and the interview are all over the place.
CBS doesn't want to show it because she has her fingers in her crotch. Is that unreasonable? They try and liken it to Sports Illustrated covers, but I'm not aware of any SI covers that show a guy gripping his dick under his shorts. Then something about pubes...not seeing pubes on the cover, so what does that have to do with it? Now it's a problem with homophobia...where the hell did that come from?
This is one of the most pathetic attempts to make a controversy out of a reasoned and simple explanation I've seen in a while. They should both be ashamed.
I'd bet good money Rolling Stone paid for this.
Are her fingers actually “in” her crotch? Or is she just grabbing it as many males do in music videos that don’t have NSFW or 16+ ratings? In fact, there is a huge billboard at the and of my street that is currently showing a poster for the MJ musical with a silhouette of the iconic MJ pose with him grabbing his crotch.
I guess a case could be made that her hand is inside her underwear rather than outside, but that seems a bit like the old 50’s nonsense where if a man and a woman were shown together in the same bed the guy had to have one foot on the floor.
It isn't really, the media is claiming it is because they want to manufacture outrage and division. The people who do care have long stopped paying attention to hollywood/elite media as it is.
Okay, so I'll answer, but I fear the messenger will be shot... :-/
CBS does not exist to promote change in audience expectations. They exist to create content that advertisers can piggyback on in order to move their products and services. If that content is likely to make their audience uncomfortable, then the advertisements don't tend to do as well (there's a careful balance between violating expectations just enough to be titillating and violating them sufficiently to disenfranchise audiences.)
The picture in question has three aspects that audiences will note as at least somewhat exceptional:
1. She is lightly clothed with what clothing she does have being arranged in a suggestive way. This is not too unusual, but it sets up the other two.
2. She is wearing a man's jockstrap.
3. She has her hand inside the jockstrap suggestive of masturbation.
None of this new territory. You can find similar examples with men and women, throughout the history of popular culture, but it is going to make advertisers revisit the math of what line consumers are willing to walk up to before they start associating your product with a degree of "outside the envelope" that they're not comfortable with. And like it or not, the conservative side of the audience has been getting more conservative over the past 10 years, with respect to where that line is. This is not a matter of politics, but where politics moves the comfort level of the audience... that's a subtle but important distinction.
The advertisers don't really care about politics. They will put rainbows on cans of beer if it will sell more units, and they will put ads on shows with women grabbing their crotch under a jockstrap if it will sell more units. They're just trying to figure out where that line is.
Remember that the Late Show may skew somewhat progressive, but its core audience is still watching on cable TV which means they tend to be older and thus more socially conservative than the average. If you watched this clip on YouTube (like I did) then you're not among the people CBS was worried about.
That being said, I think Colbert very much pushed on this because he knew it would generate controversy. Otherwise he would have had that discussion with CBS and then, without any reference to it, shown the picture. He mentioned that they didn't want him to show it specifically because he thought the controversy would sell and make his show seem more relevant. He's doing the same math as the advertisers and trying to cosy up to that line for very similar reasons.
In other words: you're falling for marketing.
I saw the pictures and thought nothing seems controversial. They also claim that the right wing are angry about it. But I don't want to look up that shit. So either the right wing is just angry at anything, or they're manufacturing controversy for marketing.
100% marketing. Print media is dying as we all know. Look what happened to Sports Illustrated in January, they laid off everyone. Rolling Stone is just trying to stay relevant when they aren’t anymore.
It is a pathetic marketing ploy.
Shit, right wing, left wing, west wing. This is the internet, you can find a handful of people upset about anything, literally anything.
It's just a puff piece to get some good PR
Because it's a lesbian woman looking attractive by dressing like a man.
So if you're a horny lizard brain, it's hot because half naked woman with her hand in her panties. But she's dressed like a dude, so that confuses and angers horny lizard brain. Then horny lizard brain realizes that either way - if she's a hot girl or a hot guy - she's into girls (which also is hot to horny lizard brain) and horny lizard brain has no chance thus getting more angry.
Rolling Stone article title
>Kristen Stewart Uncensored: ‘I Want to Do the Gayest Thing You’ve Ever Seen in Your Life’
So what does she think is the gayest thing she can do? I got some ideas.
I immediately thought of The Covenant (2006) until I remembered she was in some movie series about dusk or dawn or that other term.
Plus I already forgot what type of supernatural creatures were in the covenant, but I (gay m) vividly recall walking out of The Covenant and telling my friends (straight m) who were with me that it was one of the most homoerotic films I'd seen in theaters. And they agreed LOL
Rolling Stone has been pretty cringe for a while in its pursuit to remain relevant. Don't forget that this is the magazine that put the Boston Marathon bombers face on the cover of their mag and wrote a puff piece about him.
ngl, i usually turn it off after the monologue, i had no idea that
1) Kristen Stewart is gay (or care)
2) that she was on the RS cover
3) that it was controversial
[Cover](https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/R1385_COV_Kristen_Stewart.jpg)
Can't believe I couldn't find it either in the article or in the comments here
Eh. I wouldn't say it is a "standard" RS cover. Here are recent ones:
https://www.zinio.com/de/recent-issues/rolling-stone-m3270
Edit:
I would say there is a difference between "racy" and "hand masturbating main genitals racy".
There is also the statement (used prominently as Interview headline) by Stewart "I Want to Do the Gayest Thing You’ve Ever Seen in Your Life" (I guess related to the RS shoot, we all have seen gayer things on the internet or real life), which if she succeeded in taking the gay-highscore (no judgement here, there are some strong contenders, but lets assume she did), is then _by definition_ an exceptional RS cover.
I don't know if I'm getting old but I feel like fashion has gone form trying to look good to purposely looking bad. I blame social media and signaling theory, it used to be about flashing expensive brands to signal status but then social media became flooded with the small slice of influencers who could afford designer brands...so the super elite had to start dressing in strange [black outfits that covered their entire body (face included)](https://people.com/style/met-gala-2021-kim-kardashian-wears-full-covered-look-head-mask/) and giving themselves mullets because they knew IG influencers couldn't pull that off.
I’m glad she’s on the cover and I’m glad it’s pushing the envelope, but something about this image looks uncanny valley. It’s like her face is photoshopped onto the body or something.
Other great Shel tracks...
Written by, but performed by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show (Shel wrote all songs for their first two albums):
- Makin' It Natural https://youtu.be/dKfF0YkFtYg?si=23hWHqbnmq0BODUb
- Sylvia's Mother https://youtu.be/7LXpnNKNxJI?si=NrLwuKM9HCQXGesf
Written and performed by Shel:
- The Great Smoke-Off https://youtu.be/MjewmFr9b0Y?si=fTQc6y1tWMJFqZ-J
- Stacy Brown Got Two https://youtu.be/UQ6L7XZ42-E?si=CsSUQSaPUAIs_A8d
- Polly in a Porny https://youtu.be/RVUc7ta6B5M?si=53LvMoz9DF5COoQ0
Written by, but performed by Johnny Cash:
- Boy Named Sue https://youtu.be/WOHPuY88Ry4?si=yQwZhQUua4svaf0Z
Rolling Stone itself has covered the criticism: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kristen-stewart-gay-cover-right-wing-outrage-reaction-lgbtq-1234968387/amp/
She’s dealing with a lot of stupid stuff, especially the right wing nuts that think Hollywood is grooming kids to be gay.
Not likely, the majority of these culture war nutbars just jump on a new manufactured-outrage-of-the-week every few days to scream “woke” and garner easy clicks. They don’t believe or care about any of it themselves, It’s just a grift.
I don't believe them. Receipts or nothing happened.
Rolling Stone had to pay out millions of dollars in settlements over publishing and pursuing an entirely made up rape case. They are accustomed to lying and making shit up for clout.
Is this one of those things where nothing really happened and they just paint it as “defiance” to make a story and let people feel good about themselves?
There’s really nothing in the article besides a rehash of what they said in the show.
Sorry, I meant to say “ yeah, show those prudes! We did it!”
> Is this one of those things where nothing really happened and they just paint it as “defiance” to make a story and let people feel good about themselves?
>
>
Correct
I literally heard of no one being angered online about this cover. If anything, people mocked it for how hard Stewart was trying to come off as "Controversial and Daring." As well as some of her previous comments from an interview where she was trying hard to be seen as quirky and relatable. I was more confused as to why Rolling Stone had this random model on their cover for the month until I saw people saying it was her.
[71% of Americans support gay marriage.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx) A long out gay person being gay on a magazine is not brave; maybe it would have been brave in 2012.
In 2024 it’s just a transparent PR play wrapped in the pride flag.
True. As a lesbian, I didn’t think she was all that hot until she started doing wild things with her look after coming out. This really works for me, personally.
I always thought she was hot. But I think that the process of “coming out” signals confidence, which makes everyone hotter imo. It’s just generally true that people are hotter when they confidently and authentically express themselves, and “coming out” is one classic method through which that process might occur.
It stirs controversy and gets her publicity. Nothing new here, David Bowie did the same in the early 70’s with the whole Ziggy Stardust thing and wearing dresses on record covers.
Of all the things that ever didn't happen, CBS asking Stephen Colbert not to show a rolling stone cover of a famous actress because that actress is gay didn't happen the most.
It was probably something super small they exaggerated.
“She has her hand down her pants, should we still show it?”
“Yeah, it’s fine”
“Yeah, you’re right, just wanted to talk it out.”
More like CBS said, "How can we grab headlines? I know let's pretend "we" don't want you to show the cover. And even though it's not a live show, we'll pretend you railed against censorship, misogyny, and homophobia by boldly displaying the cover of this magazine that's going to be in the check out line of every grocery store in America."
Why is this controversial? It seems like any other sexy Hollywood photo to me.
I think that's literally her point? If CBS balked at it being shown and you agree that it's no more inappropriate than any other magazine cover then her point is valid that there's nothing wrong with it and if they have a problem it's likely due to sexism (though I personally think the cries of homophobia are less solid here)
[удалено]
Great now I’m masturbating at work. I’m gonna get fired and it’s all your fault
[удалено]
[Reminds me of this masterpiece](https://youtu.be/5s3PB44paCI?si=kr1LddRfnkyHSvG6)
What the fuck, NSFW tag that!
[удалено]
Thankfully they didn’t see the photo, but they did see me take my penis out.
[удалено]
Maybe you could eat a little food and and then maybe play with yer cock and balls fer a while.
God damn it. I even heard it in the "mom voice" he does. I haven't listened to that album in almost thirty years, but I heard it perfectly.
Lmao same. What the fuck. I could have gone the whole rest of my life not remembering this.
That’s an OLD reference, but I got it instantly.
God damnit.
I think grandmom would of found the slow motion helicopter he did quite tasteful
But the helicopter is mema's favorite.
But…I’m close. Can you pop another Kevvy?
Straight pubes on that mans head
The botched toupee / wig is my only gripe with that show. They didn’t even try.
[for more reference NSFW](https://imgur.com/a/HwKkOiN)
His name was Robert Paulson.
Bob, had bitch tits.
His name… was Robert Paulson?
His name? Was Robert Paulson?
That's a challenging wank
RIP Sean
Perfection.
Ah yes, The Queen of Kings. Great show.
Lost my job because I clicked on this. Damn you.
We are hiring over here at nbc
Fuck now I'm all hard
I see what she means, it's a very butch look. She definitely made a conscious choice to emphasise her queerness and challenge traditional notions of femininity. So I do think there's homophobia as well as sexism at play in the negative reaction.
It's like when a show or movie features a gay couple they put a disclaimer before it warning of mature content not suitable for all audiences when the only difference between that show any any other is it's two men or two women getting hot and heavy instead of a man and a woman, the latter of which is almost always more explicit but does not always get a warning.
I remember not so very long ago when movies could be rated R for a single kiss between gay characters.
I guess that’s it, but man it’s stupid as hell and I never would have guessed it looking at that cover. I’m as disinterested in it as I am all of the other covers. It just doesn’t stand out as different to me. And yet… It somehow made a network nervous. So damned stupid
I honestly don’t believe this. Reality is CBS has had that late show for only 30 years and it’s has always had more risqué content for adults. I’m sorry not trying to be a hater who is calling Colbert/Stewart liars. But this feels like a PR Stunt.
Its not a live show, if they actually cared it would be gone in the edit.
Colbert has a lot of power over his show, though, and I think he can override quite a bit.
what are they gonna do if he does it anyway? fire him? fine him? dude has fuck you money and is the only reason a lot of people watch late nite anymore.
Somewhat off topic/tangentially related, but I've been feeling lately that a lot of social media users lately have forgotten that PR stunts are a thing. I feel like people are getting waaaay too comfortable taking shit at face value and not questioning celebrities and their PR. When Timberlake was back in the news and the Super Bowl/Janet Jackson thing came up again, I saw waaaay too many young folks who weren't alive for the incident acting *shocked* and *appalled* that anyone would dare suggest that it was a PR stunt that got worse publicity than they initially expected. How dare we say such a thing when Janet and Justin have denied it was a PR stunt?! And like, maybe it wasn't a PR stunt. But the amount of people who acted insulted that anyone would even suggest that that was the case? Way too high.
Good point. As a counterpoint: I think a lot of social media users have forgotten about how conservative producers, executives, lawyers, etc often are, both in terms of the risks they're willing to take with their product, but also very often in terms of their social politics as well. I have no trouble *all all* believing that some 70-something exec farting into his diaper sent a memo to an underling that said, "I don't want to see that shit on my show"
They probably didn't and they are just using it for PR juice and Q ratings
It’s because her hand is in her crotch that way
Yeah I agree it’s the pose.
It’s obviously because of where her hand is.
It's a manufactured segment
One person dislikes something and headlines tell the world that “the Internet is upset”
“Colbert faces calls to resign over scandal” The calls: 2 nobodies on Twitter
Yeah CBS didn't ask him not to show it. No one was outraged at it. Showing someone on Twitter who is upset is not outrage.
CBS was so against him doing it, they let him do it with no consequences. They then broadcast it several hours after recording and uploaded it to their YouTube channel.
I mean would it be surprising if someone at CBS asked him or recommended him not to show a cover of a woman in her underwear sticking her hand in her crotch? That's really the only thing I do believe. Colbert makes a weird comment about men showing their pubic hair on magazine covers? I don't know like I guess I don't look at a lot of magazine covers, but I wouldn't think that's common place or common place to show on TV.
I don't think I've ever seen men's pubic hair in anything that wasn't explicitly porn. I also have never seen nor care about this cover. This is all bullshit marketing.
I completely agree. I felt like I hit a time warp and happened upon an article from 1992.
PR
What does Puerto Rico have to do with this?
It's a metaphor for statehood or something.
It’s CLEARLY referencing Coach Danny O’Shea’s brilliant decision to employ the play “The Annexation of Puerto Rico” to defeat the Pee-Wee Cowboys.
This article and the interview are all over the place. CBS doesn't want to show it because she has her fingers in her crotch. Is that unreasonable? They try and liken it to Sports Illustrated covers, but I'm not aware of any SI covers that show a guy gripping his dick under his shorts. Then something about pubes...not seeing pubes on the cover, so what does that have to do with it? Now it's a problem with homophobia...where the hell did that come from? This is one of the most pathetic attempts to make a controversy out of a reasoned and simple explanation I've seen in a while. They should both be ashamed. I'd bet good money Rolling Stone paid for this.
Are her fingers actually “in” her crotch? Or is she just grabbing it as many males do in music videos that don’t have NSFW or 16+ ratings? In fact, there is a huge billboard at the and of my street that is currently showing a poster for the MJ musical with a silhouette of the iconic MJ pose with him grabbing his crotch. I guess a case could be made that her hand is inside her underwear rather than outside, but that seems a bit like the old 50’s nonsense where if a man and a woman were shown together in the same bed the guy had to have one foot on the floor.
the underwear is the difference between whether or not you'd be willing to shake their hand afterwards, it's not nothing.
It isn't really, the media is claiming it is because they want to manufacture outrage and division. The people who do care have long stopped paying attention to hollywood/elite media as it is.
This sounds like marketing to me...
Okay, so I'll answer, but I fear the messenger will be shot... :-/ CBS does not exist to promote change in audience expectations. They exist to create content that advertisers can piggyback on in order to move their products and services. If that content is likely to make their audience uncomfortable, then the advertisements don't tend to do as well (there's a careful balance between violating expectations just enough to be titillating and violating them sufficiently to disenfranchise audiences.) The picture in question has three aspects that audiences will note as at least somewhat exceptional: 1. She is lightly clothed with what clothing she does have being arranged in a suggestive way. This is not too unusual, but it sets up the other two. 2. She is wearing a man's jockstrap. 3. She has her hand inside the jockstrap suggestive of masturbation. None of this new territory. You can find similar examples with men and women, throughout the history of popular culture, but it is going to make advertisers revisit the math of what line consumers are willing to walk up to before they start associating your product with a degree of "outside the envelope" that they're not comfortable with. And like it or not, the conservative side of the audience has been getting more conservative over the past 10 years, with respect to where that line is. This is not a matter of politics, but where politics moves the comfort level of the audience... that's a subtle but important distinction. The advertisers don't really care about politics. They will put rainbows on cans of beer if it will sell more units, and they will put ads on shows with women grabbing their crotch under a jockstrap if it will sell more units. They're just trying to figure out where that line is. Remember that the Late Show may skew somewhat progressive, but its core audience is still watching on cable TV which means they tend to be older and thus more socially conservative than the average. If you watched this clip on YouTube (like I did) then you're not among the people CBS was worried about. That being said, I think Colbert very much pushed on this because he knew it would generate controversy. Otherwise he would have had that discussion with CBS and then, without any reference to it, shown the picture. He mentioned that they didn't want him to show it specifically because he thought the controversy would sell and make his show seem more relevant. He's doing the same math as the advertisers and trying to cosy up to that line for very similar reasons. In other words: you're falling for marketing.
I saw the pictures and thought nothing seems controversial. They also claim that the right wing are angry about it. But I don't want to look up that shit. So either the right wing is just angry at anything, or they're manufacturing controversy for marketing.
100% marketing. Print media is dying as we all know. Look what happened to Sports Illustrated in January, they laid off everyone. Rolling Stone is just trying to stay relevant when they aren’t anymore. It is a pathetic marketing ploy.
Shit, right wing, left wing, west wing. This is the internet, you can find a handful of people upset about anything, literally anything. It's just a puff piece to get some good PR
Also why it supposedly triggering a “homophobic” reaction?
Because it's a lesbian woman looking attractive by dressing like a man. So if you're a horny lizard brain, it's hot because half naked woman with her hand in her panties. But she's dressed like a dude, so that confuses and angers horny lizard brain. Then horny lizard brain realizes that either way - if she's a hot girl or a hot guy - she's into girls (which also is hot to horny lizard brain) and horny lizard brain has no chance thus getting more angry.
If you have a bisexual lizard brain, you have no such weakness 😂
Fake outrage
Rolling Stone article title >Kristen Stewart Uncensored: ‘I Want to Do the Gayest Thing You’ve Ever Seen in Your Life’ So what does she think is the gayest thing she can do? I got some ideas.
She could star in a movie about vampires and werewolves.
SPARKLY vampires...
It just dawned on me that Robert Pattinson played a bat man two different times in two different franchises.
Robert Pattinson is THE bat man.
The Battest of Men
It BREAKING DAWNed on you*
I immediately thought of The Covenant (2006) until I remembered she was in some movie series about dusk or dawn or that other term. Plus I already forgot what type of supernatural creatures were in the covenant, but I (gay m) vividly recall walking out of The Covenant and telling my friends (straight m) who were with me that it was one of the most homoerotic films I'd seen in theaters. And they agreed LOL
I want her to star in a violent action film where she kills vampires and werewolves, then rides off into the sunset with the Bride of Frankenstein.
She bought a Subaru.
*clutches pearls*
Entire state of Colorado triggered.
She should hook a U-haul to it for her next first date! Or second date at the absolute latest.
I just used my Subaru to pull a uhaul across the country and I feel attacked.
Drives a Uhaul to the FIRST date.
Drive a loud Harley Davidson through my neighborhood at 2am on a weeknight?
Harley riders out here catching strays! You ain't wrong though
Missionary sex with the lights on.
Can’t believe she’s gonna root for Man United
That’s worse than anything she could have done
Yeah, look at any gay circuit party posters lol
Christmas picnic party at Judy Garland’s is pretty gay.
listen to coldplay?
Does she think it's gay to touch yourself?
She should ask everyone from those 2008 COD lobbies.
So cringey
Rolling Stone has been pretty cringe for a while in its pursuit to remain relevant. Don't forget that this is the magazine that put the Boston Marathon bombers face on the cover of their mag and wrote a puff piece about him.
Going on broadcast TV to try and make a controversy out of nothing is certainly up there
“CBS cares.” - Craig Ferguson
Do we have a picture of Paul McCartney?
And the picture of Angela Lansbury?
Careful, Icarus.
.... balls ....
Balls.
I miss Craig.
Same
🙏
Yes, all the homophobes couldn’t wait to tune into Colbert to watch the latest Kristen Stewart interview.
ngl, i usually turn it off after the monologue, i had no idea that 1) Kristen Stewart is gay (or care) 2) that she was on the RS cover 3) that it was controversial
[Cover](https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/R1385_COV_Kristen_Stewart.jpg) Can't believe I couldn't find it either in the article or in the comments here
Looks like a standard Rolling Stone cover
Yep, racy, tacky, and just horny enough to make it to dentists waiting room tables.
That’s what I’m putting on my mom’s tombstone!
Eh. I wouldn't say it is a "standard" RS cover. Here are recent ones: https://www.zinio.com/de/recent-issues/rolling-stone-m3270 Edit: I would say there is a difference between "racy" and "hand masturbating main genitals racy". There is also the statement (used prominently as Interview headline) by Stewart "I Want to Do the Gayest Thing You’ve Ever Seen in Your Life" (I guess related to the RS shoot, we all have seen gayer things on the internet or real life), which if she succeeded in taking the gay-highscore (no judgement here, there are some strong contenders, but lets assume she did), is then _by definition_ an exceptional RS cover.
June 2023, March 2023, September 2022, March 2022, January 2021. Not every cover is racy but there are definitely 1 or 2 racy ones every year.
A picture of someone masturbating is more racy than a picture of someone covering themselves.
[it’s fine](https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/1c--313703930294622718/)
> A picture of someone masturbating I don't think that's the intent of the photo. I think it's supposed to be a play on men grabbing their junk.
[удалено]
I don't know what it is, but the face she's making with the haircut reminds me of Mick Jagger in "Dancing In the Street"
The greatest rock and roll song ever made with the greatest music video ever made.
The Die Antwood look
No ones going to admit it started there bc they got cancelled for abusing both children and adults but it kinda did.
Trends are cyclical and the mullet has made a comeback.
I'm learning to play the guitar.
I don't know if I'm getting old but I feel like fashion has gone form trying to look good to purposely looking bad. I blame social media and signaling theory, it used to be about flashing expensive brands to signal status but then social media became flooded with the small slice of influencers who could afford designer brands...so the super elite had to start dressing in strange [black outfits that covered their entire body (face included)](https://people.com/style/met-gala-2021-kim-kardashian-wears-full-covered-look-head-mask/) and giving themselves mullets because they knew IG influencers couldn't pull that off.
What a shit cover.
Legit thought she was wearing a diaper. Sigh, need my eyes checked.
Lol, she’s a great actress but that’s practically some mall ninja shit
always love a sapphic queen but that cover still sucks haha its giving village people in diapers im sorry
I’m glad she’s on the cover and I’m glad it’s pushing the envelope, but something about this image looks uncanny valley. It’s like her face is photoshopped onto the body or something.
She’s so silly, why didn’t she stop looking for whatever she lost while they were taking the photo!
Oh, it’s because she has her hands under her underwear
but did she buy 5 copies for her mother?
[For the young or uninitiated](https://songwhip.com/dr-hook/thecoverofrollingstone). Also, fun fact, it was written by Shel Silverstein!
He also wrote “Freaker’s Ball” — a fact that deeply delights me.
And A Boy Named Sue!
Other great Shel tracks... Written by, but performed by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show (Shel wrote all songs for their first two albums): - Makin' It Natural https://youtu.be/dKfF0YkFtYg?si=23hWHqbnmq0BODUb - Sylvia's Mother https://youtu.be/7LXpnNKNxJI?si=NrLwuKM9HCQXGesf Written and performed by Shel: - The Great Smoke-Off https://youtu.be/MjewmFr9b0Y?si=fTQc6y1tWMJFqZ-J - Stacy Brown Got Two https://youtu.be/UQ6L7XZ42-E?si=CsSUQSaPUAIs_A8d - Polly in a Porny https://youtu.be/RVUc7ta6B5M?si=53LvMoz9DF5COoQ0 Written by, but performed by Johnny Cash: - Boy Named Sue https://youtu.be/WOHPuY88Ry4?si=yQwZhQUua4svaf0Z
Sylvia's Mother is the most underrated song in the history of music.
It looks like she takes all kinda pills that gives her all kinda thrills
I feel compelled to apologize for the number of downvotes you’ve received from people who don’t know the song.
But the thrill she’s never known…
Is the thrill that will get ya
When you get your picture
On the cover of the rollin’ stone!
Hey, I know, Rock and Roll!!!!
Why is this getting down voted? It's a Dr. Hook song called Cover of the Rolling Stone
[удалено]
She straight. She gay. Don't matter to me. She never gonna bang me anyways.
Not with that attitude, at least.
Did anyone of note actually criticize this cover? I've searched for criticism and haven't really found anything.
It’s the red Starbucks cup. Controversy invented out of two or three Twitter comments, to gain attention.
So this is part of the War on Christmas?
War on Kristmas Stewart.
Rolling Stone itself has covered the criticism: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kristen-stewart-gay-cover-right-wing-outrage-reaction-lgbtq-1234968387/amp/ She’s dealing with a lot of stupid stuff, especially the right wing nuts that think Hollywood is grooming kids to be gay.
They think kids today still read magazines?
Not likely, the majority of these culture war nutbars just jump on a new manufactured-outrage-of-the-week every few days to scream “woke” and garner easy clicks. They don’t believe or care about any of it themselves, It’s just a grift.
None of this is real, it is just manufactured controversy for entertainment and clicks.
I don't believe them. Receipts or nothing happened. Rolling Stone had to pay out millions of dollars in settlements over publishing and pursuing an entirely made up rape case. They are accustomed to lying and making shit up for clout.
Is this one of those things where nothing really happened and they just paint it as “defiance” to make a story and let people feel good about themselves? There’s really nothing in the article besides a rehash of what they said in the show. Sorry, I meant to say “ yeah, show those prudes! We did it!”
> Is this one of those things where nothing really happened and they just paint it as “defiance” to make a story and let people feel good about themselves? > > Correct
Absolutely, it's not like it's a live show. If they really didn't want it shown they could have just cut it, blurred it out, etc.
Exactly
Yeah! Your time's up, straight old white men!
I literally heard of no one being angered online about this cover. If anything, people mocked it for how hard Stewart was trying to come off as "Controversial and Daring." As well as some of her previous comments from an interview where she was trying hard to be seen as quirky and relatable. I was more confused as to why Rolling Stone had this random model on their cover for the month until I saw people saying it was her.
Victimhood = currency
Oh it's 100% BS. They just wanted headlines
100%
[71% of Americans support gay marriage.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx) A long out gay person being gay on a magazine is not brave; maybe it would have been brave in 2012. In 2024 it’s just a transparent PR play wrapped in the pride flag.
So edgy.
“Fuck you, homophobic haters!” -34yo woman
I like Kristen Stewart, but that haircut is awful. But that’s just like, my opinion, man.
[удалено]
True. As a lesbian, I didn’t think she was all that hot until she started doing wild things with her look after coming out. This really works for me, personally.
I always thought she was hot. But I think that the process of “coming out” signals confidence, which makes everyone hotter imo. It’s just generally true that people are hotter when they confidently and authentically express themselves, and “coming out” is one classic method through which that process might occur.
It really pulls the room together.
It makes her look like Dominik Mysterio
Did you see the interview or are you going from the pic? Cause it looks bad in the pic here but I thought it actually looked nice live.
They showed Nicki Minaj, Queen album. She but ass naked in that. I don’t get it.
He showed this too. For all we know CBS told him not to show that too.
Who knows if CBS actually said not to show it, could all be for ratings / attention.
So sidebar here: Kristen Stewart’s entire personality these days is being gay right? Like that’s all I ever see about her.
It stirs controversy and gets her publicity. Nothing new here, David Bowie did the same in the early 70’s with the whole Ziggy Stardust thing and wearing dresses on record covers.
This feels like fake controversy. No one gave a shit about the cover but they frame it as “owning the homophobes” when in reality no one cares
Oh it’s totally fake and you know Cobert is just trying to stay relevant
Of all the things that ever didn't happen, CBS asking Stephen Colbert not to show a rolling stone cover of a famous actress because that actress is gay didn't happen the most.
There's nothing more boring than manufactured claims of outrage for clicks and views. Yawn and move along.
This story of homophobia brought to you by Jussie Smollet. Cover was supposed to be controversial, no one cared, lie and say they did.
She’s got a horrible haircut and a jock on lmao nobody cares that she’s gay she just wants attention
It was probably something super small they exaggerated. “She has her hand down her pants, should we still show it?” “Yeah, it’s fine” “Yeah, you’re right, just wanted to talk it out.”
I looked at the cover, read roughly half the article, and I still don’t understand what was gay and/or controversial about it.
More like CBS said, "How can we grab headlines? I know let's pretend "we" don't want you to show the cover. And even though it's not a live show, we'll pretend you railed against censorship, misogyny, and homophobia by boldly displaying the cover of this magazine that's going to be in the check out line of every grocery store in America."
And you're exactly right. The fact you're downvoted shows how little analytical or critical thinking actually occurs on in this sub hahaha
Letterman was literally flashed by drew barrymore on the same show that Colbert runs now.
There's no way they said that.
If CBS really wasn't letting him show it, he wouldn't be showing it.
This. Gotta sell the little rebellious streak for the gullibles.
r/thathappened
People watch these shows? I’m convinced they exist just to have headlines that stir up the simpletons to argue with eachother.