![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52435-100x100.png\")
Clearly it's too hip for 'W'.
Clearly it's too hip for 'W'.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-471775-100x100.png\")
\"Did she have some sort of weird car accident that left a wedge of meat missing from it?\"
Yeah, it was the same accident that made her the clearest, most radiant skin of any 47 year old I've ever seen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
@katstermonster: Actually... one can statistically prove you to be a bi simply by consolidating the list of girls for whom you have publicly expressed a desire to \"go gay for\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1020806-100x100.png\")
@MostlyHarmless:
I have a belief that All women are inherently Bi.
The female figure is a beautiful thing, and to deny that just bcuase you're a woman is to deny your own sense of sexuality AND aesthetics.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1306088-100x100.png\")
@cash_da_pibble: Then all men must be inherently bi too.
The male figure is a beautiful thing, and to deny that just bcuase you're a man is to deny your own sense of sexuality AND aesthetics.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545239-100x100.png\")
@cash_da_pibble: I don't think you have to be a lesbian, or even a bisexual to appreciate the beauty of someone of the same sex. To me, those kind of thoughts devalue non-heteros. If men were as open as women when it came to rating the attractiveness of their fellow males, I don't think people would say that they are inherently bi too. We're just more likely to talk about it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@squinko: I don't think you have to be a lesbian, or even a bisexual to appreciate the beauty of someone of the same sex. To me, those kind of thoughts devalue non-heteros.
I agree completely in concept, though I've come to feel sorta uncomfortable using labels like \"hetero\" and such, because--
If men were as open as women when it came to rating the attractiveness of their fellow males, I don't think people would say that they are inherently bi too.
--if asked to use labels to describe this situation, I'd honestly say I have observed the opposite. Not that men are more likely to talk about male attractiveness, but that men seem more likely to be inherently bi. Men I've observed tend to be more interested in the sensual aspects and less on the mechanics than they'd ever have you believe (if they're the type that insist on labeling themselves as \"straight\").
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
@cash_da_pibble: I think it's not so much \"Demi Moore is hot, I must be bi\" it's more like \"I'd like to look like Demi Moore\" and admiring her physical beauty is wishful thinking that someday we'd all look as good as her.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223645-100x100.png\")
She has too much clothes on for me to really tell. Perhaps she would be willing to take them all off. ;)
Perhaps this is a pictorial representation of the \"L\" shaped economy we are in right now.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53958-100x100.png\")
Myhipgone (where the patient's hip disappears without notice) is a tragic disease and it would behoove us to reach out to rather than ridicule its sufferers.
Any of us could wake one morning to find ourselves unable to wear low-rise jeans, thong underwear or any bikini-bottom that doesn't have a side-tie string.
We've all heard the names being used: \"Tragically Hipless\" saying things like this solves nothing.
I encourage all of you to think and then give mightily to my private hip research foundation HipRestore which just happens to be registered in an offshore bank. :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1028776-100x100.png\")
Also note above the \"I\" in DEMI and see how her hip has a curve begining, yet on the other side where the \"hunk\" is missing ... she looks straight on that side....hmmmm ... Hot for 47, yet just a bit (LOL) out of proportion.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
A little off topic, but could someone explain a weird thing with tagging to me? Why is, instead of a link about say, Demi Moore, the tag for Demi Moore (who has a grand total of one article (this one!) about her on this site) linked to her name? All the Gawker sites do this (or former Gawker sites, old habits die hard?) - the tag is at the bottom of the article, it would be more helpful, IMO, if the link on the person/product's name linked to say, their IMDB, wiki, webpage, etc. instead of a tag, especially when it's the only use of said tag.
/mini rant
@coren: Every tag is alone when it's used for the first time. This will *probably* be the Ms. Moore's only appearance on this site, but we don't know that for sure. She might show up again two years from now, and if she did, would you expect the editors to go back and retag this article? If they want to link to her Wiki, they can do that at the first mention of her name or in the links section. It would be inappropriate to arbitrarily make the tags do something other than tagging. (Also, it would be a pain in the ass to code.)
@kexline: No no no, I think I wasn't clear/I'm being misunderstood - the tag should still exist: it's sitting at the bottom of the article, and can obviously be there without it being tagged in article (for example, the magazine and tragic tags are not linked in the article itself but are still tags for the article (if that makes sense)). The first mention of her name is the Demi Moore tag. In this case, it doesn't matter cuz I know who Demi Moore is - but if it's some author or a more obscure actor or whathaveyou, it'd be nice if that linked to some more info on them, especially in cases where the site has no other coverage of said whathaveyou
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-121828-100x100.png\")
@coren: In general, tags don't link offsite; they are used to mark sets of articles or photos (Flickr, for example) or whatever (Twitter hashtags, perhaps) that relate to the tag. It just so happens that currently, the \"Demi Moore\" set for this site has but one element.
@larrymac - please put me on your do not call list: I wasn't trying to say tags should link off site - I meant that rather than have that be a tag, it should be an offsite link, while the article could still be tagged Demi Moore without that in article tagging (much like tragic and magazine are tags for this article without being linked in article).
@coren: To clarify what I'm asking:
When you click on Demi Moore, this takes you to a page of articles on the Consumerist similarly tagged (in this case, just this one). I'm asking why this is done rather than a link to an appropriate informative page, (especially considering said tag also exists in the tag section at the bottom of the article)
@coren: Ah, I didn't even know that her name within the article was anything other than plain text until I moused over it.
Bad UI designer, bad. No cookie.
@larrymac - please put me on your do not call list: I wouldn't have either, had I not read this in a blog feed first. I don't know a good reason for not making urls a different color, but I'm also just lowly tech support ;)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-570438-100x100.png\")
I don't buy magazines. I print my own at home. That's why I don't run into these kinds of problems.
C'mon people, no jokes yet about getting a piece of Demi moore's ass?
She's 47? I feel so old having salivating over her watching Striptease.
Well it's pretty clear that the motto of fashion magazine photo editors is \"I don't care if it's not anatomically possible, make her skinner somewhere!\"
I have the missing part at home in my fridge. when I get home from work, I'm going to put it in the microwave for a second and then.....
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469349-100x100.png\")
This is no secret or surprise. She gave a pound of flesh to Ashton for an xmas present in '07. Hollywood weirdo types!
The wound has healed nicely though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
Demi means half. So of course you'll only see part of her.
FYI, Demi posted a link to the original photo on Twitter...it wasn't Photoshopped. In her own words, she just has no hips. ;) [twitpic.com]
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1471334-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
To me it looks like she is leaning/resting her weight on one leg, and slightly on an angle. That or she also has freakishly uneven arm lengths.
@Taliskan: I envy the naivety of someone who can look at a magazine cover and conclude that no image manipulation was used at all.
@Taliskan: Follow the outer line of her left thigh. It doesn't match up with her left hip.
@Taliskan: I Think it could go either way. Left leg is slightly forward. The question is not whether the image is retouched, as where it has been retouched. Either this is just incredibly bad luck combined with a weird, sort of half way between poses stance and fabric creating a weird illusion,
or
it's a composite of two slightly different poses. This could happen if light fell on different parts of the subject / the material in undesirable ways that weren't caught during the shoot for whatever reason, and compositing two was easier / looked better than shopping different bracketed exposures together. But I think it would have been noticed in this case.
Either way, I think people are getting way too upset about this. Sometimes, people just see things differently. How many people would notice this , even looking closely, if they hadn't been told it? Even visually trained people get so wrapped up in an image, they see things completely differently from a casual observer.