Johansson, Knightley Bare All for Magazine

Giggity giggity GIG-GI-TY!!

Hell yeah! Scarlett is HOTT!

Wow. Tom Ford made such a great sacrifice to fill-in for Rachel McAdams. It must've been torture to have to pose with the two hottest women on the planet naked.

yeah, he really does make it seem like it was a horrible thing he had to do, as if he filled in out the kindness of his heart...

they are hot, yes. absolutely. i won't argue with that. but... does anyone else find this photo creepy? a balding man who looks like he's about to bite the ear off a naked girl barely out of her teens is sort of... creepy.

something else is weird. the photo looks doctored. it doesn't look like all of them were in the same room for the shoot.

my $.02.

schwing

@ari: How can you tell? The picture is so small. There oughta be a rule that if they're gonna have a story about a picture, they should give us the full-size picture!! (BTW -- Scarlett was robbed in not getting nominated for Match Point! (My $0.02)

It's interesting how "pornography" becomes "news" simply because they're celebrities posing in a big-name magazine. It's even more interesting to see how many people voted for this story as something that means a lot to them.

evano - i don't know how i can tell it looks doctored. it just does. they don't look "together." it also looks like they airbrushed keira's nipple out.

but whatevs. it's just a couple of naked chicks hiding their naughty bits. yawn.

Isn't Tom Ford gay anyway?

@ ari: yeah, it's probably airbrushed... everything in Vanity Fair (and most other mags) is airbrushed.

Too bad Rachel McAdams didn't do it. She's the hottest out of the three.

@ari: if you go to the vanity fair website, there is a behind-the-scenes video. you'll see that they were together during the shoot.
@mott: how is this 'pornography'? then the venus of milo statue must be really hardcore, as it shows even more than this photograph.

@d-Faktor: Merriam-Webster defines pornography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement." How is this not pornography?

@d-Faktor: Merriam-Webster defines pornography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement." How is this not pornography?

It is not pornography because there is no erotic behavior and none of the subjects are sexually excited, thus the photo spread is not intended to cause sexual excitement.

Only a total pervert who already has perverse things running through his mind would consider this pornography.

@Gahgah: First of all, not all pornography has sexually excited subjects. Second, tell the first few people who posted comments that this image was not intended to cause sexual excitement. There is a reason the majority of people clicked on this news link, and it wasn't for intellectual enlightenment. Your definition of pornography might be a little skewed because you've become desensitized to erotic material (mostly due to overexposure). Just because you're used to 'hot' salsa doesn't mean 'medium' salsa isn't spicy.

Your definition of pornography might be a little skewed because you've become desensitized to erotic material (mostly due to overexposure).

Nope. I can discern pornography from art because I'm a mature, college educated adult. Just because a guy gets an erection from looking at a photograph of a woman who isn't even revealing her private parts, doesn't make it pornography. It just means that this guy is emotionally immature. The same guy probably gets erections from looking at ancient greek nude statues.

@Gahgah: You are comparing greek statues to nude celebrity photo shoots? Once again, you will not get the initial reaction seen at the top of this 'Comments' section with an article on classic greek sculpture. Your definition of pornography is material depicting erotic behavior (though a Google search for 'softcore pornography' will bring up subjects who are not engaged in sexual activity at all), or sexual excitement (though many of those same subjects will not appear to be sexually stimulated at all). Please re-evaluate your definition of pornography and you will see that the provocative intentions of this photo do indeed classify it as pornography. As a "mature, college-educated adult," you should be able to present an argument without labeling dissenters as emotionally immature.

As a "mature, college-educated adult," you should be able to present an argument without labeling dissenters as emotionally immature.

True, but it wouldn't have the same pizazz.

Hehe. Good point. :)

Hehe, good point.

Well, back to the photograph. I saw a bigger version of it in the Metro (free newspaper we get here on The Underground in London), because that's the kind of story they make a big deal of, and anyway, it looks like they're in the same room at the same time. On the picture used here, you can't make out so many folds in the cloth, but when you see it in full, you can instantly tell that they were all there at the time.