Finally confirming rumours that have floated around since March, it now appears likely that Kate Moss will be on the cover of Playboy‘s 60th anniversary cover. The story comes courtesy of a hairstylist named Oribe, who worked on Moss for the shoot. Apparently, there’s also a leaked memo concerning the cover. (Are no high profile secrets safe anymore?) Considering the issue doesn’t come out until January 2014, it makes you wonder if the gradual drip-drip of rumours has been one, long teaser to drum up hype.
If that were so, it would be an odd tactic as style blogs and the fashion sections are mostly who’s picked up the story. Fashionista.com and Playboy don’t exactly have the same readers. That explains the shocked tone of some of the reporters. “Kate Moss Plagued by Playboy Rumours” reads a headline on The Cut. Another fashion blog did a survey that demonstrated nearly half of respondents didn’t approve of the idea.
As practically everyone who’s covered this story has pointed out, Moss has never been afraid to show skin in front of cameras. Some of the best photographers in the industry have shot her nude. In the era of Google this shouldn’t be news to anyone. Why should this cover and its accompanying photo spread make headlines? Why did one online commenter describe it as “sad?”
You have to flip the perspective. The answer lies not in the subject of the photograph, but with its viewer. Fashion magazines are aimed at women. Gay men such as myself are a secondary audience, but I rarely feel like we’re the target, with the exception of sexually-ambidextrous men’s style magazines. Even though fashion magazines show plenty of nudity and objectify the female body, they do so in a way that isn’t directed at the male gaze, even it’s styled by the male gays. (I couldn’t help myself.) That’s not to say fashion media is some utopian world of body acceptance. It clearly is not. But the magazines don’t assume heterosexuality and maleness of the viewer.
When you switch from Vogue to Playboy, the scenario also flips. No longer is the female consumer focused on Kate Moss’s clothes, hair, and makeup, but the straight male is looking at her breasts. Which is why it seems odd to fashion followers that Moss would pose for Playboy. It’s not the nudity, but who’s looking at it. And I’m not suggesting gay men are all that different–the physical attributes we appreciate in our high fashion male models are not the same as the ones we look for in porn stars.
Awhile ago I heard the theory that, contrary to what you’d assume, the ideal model for men’s magazines like Playboy and Maxim is not the A-list star, but a woman men can look down upon in some way. In lieu of Oscar-winning actresses, men’s magazines seek out B-list celebrities and has-been stars. Lindsay Lohan, rumoured to have been paid $1 million for her 2011 Playboy shoot, is a perfect example–former child actor turned tabloid train wreck leggings aficionado. Perhaps that’s why someone might consider the news “sad.” Kate Moss was the face of a generation. Fans don’t want to see her reduced to T&A.
What’s missing from the story is why fashion models doing it. At age 39, Moss continues to get work with ad campaigns and cross-promotional brands. Surely she doesn’t need the money, although $1 million or more would be hard to turn down, especially for doing something you’ve spent your whole career doing. True to character, she’s staying tight lipped about the story. A cursory glance through the magazine’s history shows that many a model has posed for Playboy over the years, including Moss’s supermodel compatriots Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, and Stephanie Seymour. If fashion models can retain their self-image and dignity while posing for men’s magazines, than it’d be silly not to take the money. But I do hope Kate remembers that, when you go nude for men’s magazines, you rarely shed only your clothes.
____
Max Mosher writes about style for Toronto Standard. You can follow him on Twitter at @max_mosher_.
For more, follow us on Twitter @TorontoStandard or subscribe to our newsletter.
