You may have read the tabloid headline “Pregnant Christina Aguilera Bares Belly on Cover of Marie Claire.” Aguilera is not the first to pose nude or semi-nude while pregnant on the cover of a mainstream mag, but what I think is interesting is how the imagery and the reaction has changed over the years. When Demi Moore posed in a Annie Leibovitz shoot for the cover of Vanity Fair in 1991, reactions were extreme - retailers pulled the issue from newsstands while others sold it in a brown paper bag. “The frankness of Leibovitz’ portrayal of a pregnant sex symbol led to divided opinions, ranging from complaints of sexual objectification to celebrations of the photograph as a symbol of empowerment.”
In 2006 Britney Spears appeared nude and pregnant on the cover of Bazaar to a very different brand of criticism. Rather than being offended by the sexualization of motherhood (as was the case with Demi Moore,) the public outcry was more of a “I don’t want to have to see that.”
Earlier this year Czech supermodel Eva Herzigova also posed pregnant for Vanity Fair, the Italian version. The imagery of Herzigiva is decidedly more sexualized than the covers that came before - clad in thigh highs and a lace bra, the fact that the model is pregnant seems incidental to the shot.
And finally, there’s Christina. The imagery is decidedly different from previous covers - less about the glory of birth and more about an airbrushed pop star who happens to be 8 months pregnant. The “press” has already attacked her much in the same way they did Britney, using words like “strip,” “expose” and “flaunt” to describe the decision. I’ve also read the word “gross” when readers describe their personal reaction. How a pregnant woman can be “gross” is beyond me, but it appears a woman posing nude in any other fashion than sexual objectification for male pleasure is offensive? Because motherhood can’t ever be sexy?
Ofcourse there’s no real difference between any of these women posing nude and pregnant - the difference is how our culture views the female body, but perhaps more importantly, how our culture views a woman who makes the decision to pose nude and pregnant. While what Demi did was “empowering” what Christina did was “gross,” despite the fact that they’ve done exactly the same thing. It appears that my opinion that our current climate of hyper-sexualization and neo-conservativism is not so far off base. I shouldn’t really expect more from a culture that refers to a pregnancy as a “bump,” now should I?
I think Aguilera herself sums it up best in the Marie Claire interview:
“If you’re too sexual, you’re slutty. If you’re not sexual enough, you’re a prude. I have more than one side of me that likes to get out on a stage and sing,” Christina says “Sometimes I want to be aggressive; sometimes I want to feel empowered in my sexuality and my vulnerability. I want to put all that out there.”






Digg
nine comments
I'm distracted by how the pregnancies seem to show less and less.
An aside, but Demi's pose does look different to me. Stronger, womanly, confident and self-assured. Her chin is up, and she's looking off-camera, while the other three have tilted their heads down, and are looking straight into the lens - making the image more like a construct for us. Interestingly, Demi is also the closest to actually being nude.
Posted by Catherine
November 29, 2007, 1:57 PM
The "come hither" gaze is particularly noticable in Aguilera and Herzigova's shots, while Britney seems, well, really happy.
You're so right about Demi Moore - she's almost defiant in her gaze and pose. The shots as a group say a lot about "constructs" and how they've developed over time.
Posted by Stacey May
November 29, 2007, 2:38 PM
Hand-bra is so funny. Anything but lady-nipples! Seeing the whole rest of the tit is cool, but not the nips!
That aside, I'd wonder how much of the difference in reception between Demi, Britney and Christina is about class.
Posted by Thene
November 30, 2007, 9:15 AM
I think it's funny that the Marie Claire cover also has the headline "How I learned to love the mother I hated"
Posted by Megan
November 30, 2007, 5:58 PM
Not as funny as "I said no to sex...and got sexier." That just reeks of "good, pure, chaste girls are hot" don't it?
Posted by Stacey May
November 30, 2007, 6:09 PM
Teehee, I agree with Thene about the hand bra for nipples.
My issue about these photographs is I feel they aren't empowering or showing how women can be sexy during pregnancy- it seems like these kinds of photos are more about exploiting these pregnant celebrities to cater to peoeple who have a pregnant women fetish. (Though the photo of Moore is the least fetish-ish.)
Stacey May, there are good, pure, chaste girls who ARE hot, just the way there are girls who engage in sex who are hot.
Posted by Jelly
December 1, 2007, 8:26 PM
Brittany doesn't look pregnant to me, just bigger than usual. Maybe people think I'm nuts, but I think if that's how girls think pregnancy looks they're all the more bound to obsess about weight. The frightening thing to me here is that I don't think this has to do with affirmation at all. Since the media capitalizes on the "happy family" ideal, this is a fairly strategic image for them to show. There are lots of new "yummy mummy" fads coming out. On the one hand, it allows women to maintain elements of youthfulness & attractiveness while pregnant, but on the other, it's ultimately all about creating a new market amoung the media's most responsive consumers (women) by sexualizing as much of their lives as possible. It's great to see that women are shown as pretty/sexy while pregnant, still it's probably about the same as when Metel created a pregnant Barbie. I wonder too how often these mags have their cover women so stripped down. Is pregnancy being sensationalised by nudity or vice-versa? If so, the covers may be more about the "gawk factor" than anything.
Posted by Myra
December 1, 2007, 8:32 PM
How are these covers legal, anyway? They're almost porn! Not that I think all nudity is porn, but there's something about the way these photos are posed...
Posted by Sexy Sadie
December 4, 2007, 4:59 PM
I don't see much difference between these covers and the ones that are usually on magazines such as Bazaar, other than that the women are pregnant. Funny how magazines geared for women often have pictures of scantily-clad, incredibly skinny women on them; they're not much different than the covers for men's magazines.
Posted by John
December 5, 2007, 11:25 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.