GangstaFam said:

Add a zero after each 20

i prefered the first outfit on Mila:



and i gotta agree with sassy...at this point im over janet...sad but true.

sosgemini said:

i don't blame you guys. i'm rapidly losing interest myself.

ehuffnsd said:

like the great bjork sings,

"your trying to hard...undo!!!"

ehuffnsd said:

Pics 4 & 5 are odd but she still looks great. The concepts are kinda boring, if she's gonna be naked all the time let's get creative at least

you guys are just hating but it's just entertainment. someone who looks that damn good at 40 should keep flaunting it. it's hot. she's a fucking pop star. end of story.

badujunkie said:

therefore, sex sells and there's no way around being naked.

that's entertainment.

wonder505 said:

what a fucking shame too. nowadays fuck singing. just show your coochie and all is right in the world and you become a star, i.e. paris "ho" hilton. talk about low standards
[Edited 8/27/06 9:10am]

badujunkie said:

Did being a pop star always involve being naked? I mean, yes I suppose most pop stars over the years always were pressured into "being sexy" to help record sales, but it seems no one can have a career these days unless they pose for lad mags.

minneapolisgenius said:

And that's what's so sad. The stars, particuarly the females, have to be naked and that's just plain wrong. Sexy is not bad at all and I know that sex sells but damn. Way way waaaaay too much now.

will someone show me a pic of Gladys, Patti and Tina naked at 40?


if you have the goods, you really don't have to go this route.

I'm with Calhoun though, if you gonna do the naked, skanky thing...at least be interesting.

At least lil kim is gonna have on a blonde wig, green eyes...and some skanky outfit from Fredricks of Hollywood that she added some bling to....

something....

butt naked wita beepah...!!

Good god almighty, women MURDER me sometimes

Its her OWN pussy, she's the only one who'll go to the toilet with it, there4 its her OWN choice to do it(to hell or to heaven) nobody is asking ya'll what you're doing with your own.

I see 40+ baggy assed lookin' heffas on the street letting their stomach hang and heavy broads wearing nothing but a body-bra and short-cut jeans on "formal places".

And people look @ them like "Its America, they gotta express themselves".

But when a good looking woman have the personal choice to flaunt it, "she's skunk".

I feel like talking to a bunch of Church ol' maids

Harlepolis said:

i believe you're missing the point of the discussion. its just sad that the majority of women in entertainment have to shed their clothing for the sake of popularity and sales. yes, janet has a right to flaunt it, ut it's all apart of a marketing scheme, and that to me, is not creative.

wonder505 said:

Like somebody else mentioned earlier, she's done proving herslef.

Whether its sad that she's overdoing the sex thing or not, it ain't my place to judge a woman who's old enough to be my MOTHER. Hell, its her own burden to carry.

Pam Grier was sexually all-in-your-face. Nobody is babbling their faceholes about her, wanna know why?

Coz she's comfy cozy about it, so does Miss Jackson.

I'd be on the same page as ya'll when you hound on somebody for flaunting sexuality when they're not REALLY comfortable doing it(I.E. Mariah, who I prefer than Janet).

Mariah isn't really hand-in-hand with sexuality. She doesn't look comfortable doing it. In plain english, thats fake!

Now Janet on the other side of the town, doesn't really hide the fact that she's a HORNY chic. If she does feel fine talking about it/flaunting it, then its up to her.
[Edited 8/27/06 10:31am]

Harlepolis said:

The POINT is what else is new, that's entertainment now-a-days because everyone is doing it. When Pam Grier did it and even when Prince flaunted his sexuality, it worked because it was unique at the time. But when everyone is doing the same thing to sell sell sell, it's not creative, its typical.

Janet is not hiding the fact that she's horny and guess what, most other female acts aint gonna hide that fact either, so what else is new.

Like I said, that's entertainment and that is what is expected. Its boring now.

And its FHM for foo fuck's sake ain't ya'll done being TOO DEEP?

Harlepolis said:

Your right about the magazine, however preferring someone to be more creative than typical is not deep.

Anyway, no need to worry. I think people who feel that way is in the minority. Tits and ass will always sell and that's the end of the story.
[Edited 8/27/06 10:38am]

wonder505 said:

Regardless, this whole nudity/semi-nudity thing is nothing but a "tOmato/tomAto" subject for me.

Once you're done showing your ass, its a wrap. You killed the imagination for good(creativity or not).

You could get a portrait of your pussy being done by Picasso, the result is the SAME; you left no room for imagination.(Again, creativity or not).

My issue here is not her so-called lack of creativity but JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE period.

Harlepolis said:

I disagree with you here, Harle. I don't think most women should be walking around half naked, whether it's Janet or 40+ baggy assed lookin' heffas. Whether it's men or the women objectifying themselves, I have a problem with it. You are right, it's her body to do with as she pleases. If that's the image that she wants to put out there, it's our right not to respect her.

Hobbitch said:

If the idea is GENERAL, then fair enough.

Harlepolis said:

interesting that you have issue with women taking issue with this and not men as well.




I think we are just tried of janet being naked all the damn time. its played out, its boring, its just her tits and ass...again. Basically, there's no point to it so why do it. Its not about women judgin' or being this or that....

just do something different....we get it...you lost weight....ok..here we go again...

okay first of all this is fhm "FOR HIM MAGAZINE.' so what the hell did you expect . if choses to promote herself to men I don't find anything wrong with that. now if see did this for any other magazine like ebony or essence then yeah that would be a problem . but this clearly was posted here to get a negative reaction,so congrats scprio. she's alos doing high fashion magazine shoots comming up too I believe but I expect it to be ignored just like the promo pics because it seems to me you people clearly want to focus on what you see as negative .
I also don't understand why people want to give her or any other female artist hell about their sexaulity . when clearly I see male more artist talking nothing but about sex wheather's it in your face or sutle. but we expect female artist to not talk about sex or if they do to move on?
anyway I also feel that people exergate alot when it comes to Janet's sexuality for example the all for you cd alot of people would say the whole cd is nothing about sex becuase of songs like " would you mind" and love scene" but when you look at the overall concept of the cd it's clearly about her break up with Rene and moving on. people do the same things with her interviews for example yours truly scprio posted a section of her vibe interview now the portion she posted you would think that the whole interview was about sex when it wasn't .

now on sallysally comments . I agree there's clearly more to for her to talk about than sex. yes even Janet said this but she wanted to keep the cd light and mellow and I don't see nothing wrong with that. even during Damita jo , Jimmy Jam said that she was very upset and biter over the whole superbowl but when they went back into the studio she chose not to write about how she felt becuse she didn't want to come across that way angry and biter. and obvouisly she didn't want to write about Michael beacuse it was very painful for her. I think for what ever reason people expect her to bear her soul on an album and show her enotions when clearly she doesn't have to too and I think she's chosing to write about what she see's as a postive in her life her relationship with JD. which is why she might be singing more about sex. but I suspect that if Jd and her had kids you would proably see a change in Janet just like what happened to madonna and she would have something new and postive in her to focus on .
[Edited 8/27/06 12:36pm]

Harlepolis said:

I don't. I'm secretly laughing to myself inside.

The point is, it's getting old. And not just for Janet. It's getting old for just about everyone who has a photo spread in mags like these. It's not even sexy anymore. Just old hat and boring to me. And yes, it's FHM. Just what I said: another lad mag. You're supposed to be naked in those. I just think it's SO passé at this point.

I suppose it's not boring to the 18-25 year old boys that they cater to though. But then, I doubt they'll all be running out to buy her album because of these pics anyway.

minneapolisgenius said:

I think they will. That's why she's doing it.

wonder505 said:

I wouldn't. But then, what do I know, I'm not a teenage boy. Are they really that gullible? Do boys go out and buy a woman's album, in other words, become a NEW fan, just because they pose almost naked in magazines? Does this really work?

minneapolisgenius said:

yes and young women too who strive to look like that. its all marketing. nothing new. but in all fairness, the majority will be her fans and those who appreciate her music. that's why i'm not sure she feels she has to do that. but, its her choice.
[Edited 8/27/06 13:10pm]

the thing i dont understand is why do the jacksons fuck with their faces . the body is bangin, but the face is not right and it doesnt match and never has, particulary the nose. this has bugged me about her for ages way before this fhm. imo it makes her face looks older, skin not as soft-a stark contrast to her body.

wonder505 said:

That's what I mean: I'm sure it will be the fans she already has who will be buying anything she puts out these days.

It just amazes me that an image (literally, an image in a magazine) is all it takes to sell albums these days though. And I really didn't know that about the gullible boys comment I made earlier. I never had brothers, so I have no clue.