Yesterday, one of the biggest stories splashed across the front pages of yahoo, cnn, bbc, and al jezeera for all I know was the news that Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley, in strategically composed nude poses, will be featured on the front cover of the annual hollywood issue of Vanity Fair.

click image for reuters article

Is it really news, even hollywood gossip news, when celebrities appear on the cover of magazines wearing nothing over their nipples and genitals other than a carefully placed hand or thigh? For the past ten to fifteen years or so, I’ve come to expect benignly airbrushed superstars in their birthday suits on the covers of at least half a dozen magazines at any given time. I really couldn’t care less about this one way or the other. Airbrushed nude celebrities certainly do not offend me, but I can say that I’ve never bought a magazine because one or more of them stripped nekkid as inoffensively as possible for the cover.

Never mind the fact that Keira Knightley in the buff is about as sexy to me as shoving my stuff between my legs and staring at myself in a mirror. Or that Johansson’s sweet, milky-white, Raphaelite booty more than makes up for Knightley’s virtual non-sexuality. Or even that I am guilty of the exact same thing as the traditional news sources by pretending this is noteworthy for an opportunity to worship at the alter that is Scarlett Johansson’s glorious, renaissance-like apple. I mean, look at that thing! And her thighs, too. grrrrrrrrr. Oh, and her powder-like white skin. Hubba-hubba. Have I ever mentioned to you how much I hate tans on really white chicks? Don’t get me wrong, I likes the ladies of all colors in the rainbow; but I’ve always had a thing for the creamy tones of northern Europe and the Celtic fringe. I think it goes back to a crush I had on Colleen O’Hallihan when I was in middle school. Everyone used to say she looked too pasty, but not for me, boy. I wonder what she looks like now? I bet she is a hot 32 year old....

What was I saying, again?