Spot the odd one out?

John Slattery. In a Tuxedo.

Tinie Tempah. In a Tuxedo.

James Corden. In a tuxedo.

Lana Del Rey. In nothing.

And they say that there is no longer a need for feminism?

Let me start off by saying; I'm a big GQ fan, I like their style and the magazine is always well designed, and yes, I know that at the end of the day its basically a high class Lads Mag, but it was always kept me entertained when reading it.

But is there a need for international chart topping singer Lana Del Rey to be naked? And not only naked, but looking vulnerable and almost child like, and weak? And if they must to go down the naked route, they could have made her a lot more powerful looking, ála Helmut Newton's famous nude.

 

which LOVE did a very good interpretation of.

If you compare Lara & Lana, there is no question of who looks more powerful.

And on that note, why is Lana naked in the first place? Does no one remember Anne Hathaway at the Oscars looking amazing in a Lanvin Tux and Brian Atwood pumps? 

Or Diane Kruger at InStyle's Summer Soiree in Jason Wu?

There are plenty of ways to wear a Tuxedo and still be feminine, sexy, powerful and most importantly equal. Cause at the end of the day, that was my major issue when I saw these covers on the News Stand. Lana Del Rey is undoubtedly more internationally recognized thank John, Tinie or James, yet her cover does not equal that of her success.

I think Margaret Cho said it best when she said:

“You know, you don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist. You should just fucking be a feminist, really. And if you’re not a feminist, you should kill yourself.”

Blunt? Yes. True? Possible... At the end of the day who brought you into this world? It wasn't a stroke, I can tell you that much.

DRN

Have an opinion, agree or disagree? Let me know in the comments.