Everyone I know has naked pictures of themselves as babies and has taken snapshots of their wee one in the buff. Some people find photos of bare babies offensive and exploitative, while others see them as family treasures.
Sarah Palin's onetime son-in-law-to-be Levi Johnston and son Tripp had a photo shoot with the sometimes racy rag GQ. In one of the shots, the shirtless papa is changing the tiny tot's diaper, leaving him fully exposed. I find the clothed images endearing, and if anything, I could stand the dad putting a shirt on, though it does remind me a bit of the hysterical book Porn for New Moms. Hmmm . . . maybe Bristol is having second thoughts about letting her baby daddy loose. What are your thoughts on the Johnston boy images?
Debut
Anna Sui
Antik Batik
I thought he wasn't allowed to be alone or see baby Tripp, I thought the Palin's were such horrible bad people. I thought.......never mind.
1It is inappropriate to expose his penis.
2I really use to like Levi. But now he seems to be only after media attention and money.
3It's not a candid shot - it's for a GQ photoshoot. Nudity is not the problem with these pictures - it's that Levi feels like it's appropriate to use his son as a prop in these pictures. What exactly qualifies this guy to be on GQ anyway????
4When I voted for "adorable" I had taken the Levi/Tripp part out of the equation. As I started to read all of the other comments, I started to see their points as well. So I guess while I still think the photos are quite cute (and I would *love!* to have gotten snapshots of my hubby changing our little man without a shirt), I wish that these photos of Levi and Tripp would have been more genuine and less for show.
5I voted inappropriate because it's Levi Johnston. Enough said. Eww.
6What's inappropriate is Levi Johnston selling his story or talking to anyone that will listen and using his son in the pictures.
7Naked baby pictures with genitals showing are OK for the family scrapbook, but not for GQ. I'm assuming he got paid for the photo shoot, so I hope Bristol is getting child support from him. I also wonder if she could take any legal action against him for this if he did it without her consent.
8Classless. Beginning to think with the Gov. showing up at that Memorial Celebration in a mini-skirt which was showing half of her thighs and then these pictures, the whole bunch deserves each other.
9I agree with Lilsugar.
10Oooooo, I agree with Chouette4u on both points of it being OK for family stuff and him needing consent. I don't have a problem with the nudity but being that it was staged is a bit ick.
11I agree with lilsugar.
12Lilsugar, you word it so well
13I think as a photo (to be kept and maybe put in a family album) it is adorable, so that's the way I voted. I re-read the article and noticed that it was used in a magazine and the photo was specifically taken for a magazine if I'm reading this correctly? That, I do find inappropriate. If you are staging a photo to be put out in public, it shouldn't involve nudity. There are sickos in the world & to me it's in the best interest to protect your little ones!
14I've seen some nice naked baby pictures but this one isn't even cute. I don't like it at all.
15I don't like the fact it's in a magazine. And Levi needs to put a shirt on, he's to pale to be showing off like that in a magazine.
16Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.