The world needs nude George Clooney, not clothed George!

...before we come down too hard on the establishment and Vanity Fair, I think that it should be established that the Lebowitz has her own prurient interests.

Put two naked women and a clothed man on a magazine cover, magazine-buyers everywhere go, "Oooh, kinky." Put just two naked women on the cover, and they go, "What are you teaching our children?"

Hasn't Vanity Fair been putting nude actresses on the cover of the magazine for...ever? Didn't Demi Moore pose nude for the cover twice -- once while heavily pregnant? Did anyone wake up this morning shocked to discover that two beautiful Hollywood actresses stripped for the cover of Vanity Fair? And does anyone think Scarlett and Kiera had to think long and hard before accepting an offer to be photographed by Tom Ford and Annie Liebovitz for the cover of Vanity Fair? They'd have paid for the privilege if necessary.

Is this a problem? VF's readership is mostly female so I'm sure if this cover is a moral and political outrage, the magazine will soon see a steep decline in subscriptions. My advice, though: Don't hold your breath. My experience is that women will be just as interested in that cover as the men. I'm sure that is precisely what VF is banking on.

As for George Clooney, why would he pose nude for VF or anyone else? He's made a mint as a heartthrob, but is clearly looking beyond that for a career as a movie mogul. [Anyone who has seen "Good Night and Good Luck" and his earlier flick about The Gong Show host can see Clooney is off to a good start.] There's no percentage for Clooney in posing nude. He's moving away from that persona, not toward it -- no matter what his female fans may wish. Besides, maybe he's decided that it would be more dignified for a man of his age to shed his trousers for the ladies in private. Not everyone wants to be Sharon Stone, an aging and desperate star stripping in a pitiful plea for attention.

This time the actresses are SO pale, they almost seem to be making a statement.

yeah, how about equal time? nude George Clooney!

THe cover sounds like a copy of the Playboy cover the Heff's 3 girlfriends.

Knightly and Johansson are the most highly-regarded actresses under 25 in Hollywood (hence the Oscar nods). So it's not as if they're publicity-hungry starlets who have to be willing do anything to grab the spotlight. They had the power and position to easily say 'no' if they thought it was demeaning to themselves -- or to every actress, or to their entire gender. So to insinuate that these two powerful, accomplished (and by all accounts, self-confident) young women were somehow bullied or tricked or pressured into showing more flesh than they wanted to ...well, it just doesn't ring true.

Rachel McAdams was willing to say no, although she doesn't have nearly as high a profile as the other two -- and therefore had a lot more to gain by doing the shoot.

So she did what she wanted to do, while Knightly and Johansson did what they wanted to do.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

The women are fish-belly white, particularly Johanssen. It's very oddly posed, and not attractive. Ford is not a good-looking man, so he adds nothing in terms of sexuality.

It's weird rather than sensual.

"it's women who still face pressure to strip off their clothes"

Women aren't pressured into doing stripping off their clothes at all --- they are flattered and delighted to do it. It tickles their vanity to be held up as icons of feminine perfection, admired by men and, more importantly, envied by women. The only 'pressure' here is what the readers feel when they look at the photoshopped magazine covers and bemoan their cellulite, wrinkles, sunspots, freckles, bustlines, waistlines, etc. as needing to be fixed by the products for sale in the pages within.

Women should eschew this tripe, but they won't. They'll gorge on it, and for dessert turn to the pages of Oprah magazine to try and regain the self-esteem they've so needlessly sabotaged by ingesting such crap to begin with.

This is absolutely beyond belief. Keira Knightley was somehow trapped by that mean 'ol Hollywood system into having to debase herself by appearing on the cover of a magzine that's seen by millions? What do you think she's selling? She's delighted. Her agent is turning handsprings. She just added $5 million to her asking price. She's making her living AS A SEX OBJECT. That's what she's selling. Same with Scarlett Johanssen. What she is hoping for is to make it to the next level up, as a Julia Roberts. Exposure, no pun intended, in unspeakably important. It's not as if I'm the first person to notice this, but actresses in Hollywood will use sex to sell themselves as hard and as much as they possibly can, until age and gravity make it impossible. Then they climb up on the soapbox, and begin moralizing about how there are no good roles in Hollywood for older women.

The people who need to find some reason to criticize women who do appear nude. They are SO pale, the picture isn't sexy, they fish belly white blah blah blah.

And yes women will always appear naked because some women will always take pleasure in their own beauty and the knowledge that a bunch of men are getting a stiffy and a bunch of ladies will get all upity. Why do you think a mirrored laides armoire is called a vanity!

Really, the unsettling aspect to me is the editor's decision to interject himself into the content of the mag. That's wrong, editors are supposed to be behind the scenes, they're supposed to be objective decision-makers about the quality of the magazine. How can he be objective if he's in the picture? It's a wonderful example of the honor of publishing fading away. And how "truth" is now so flexible.