'The Hill's' star, Audrina Patridge, has a message for all her young fans. The topless photos in which she appeared years ago were not meant to be "provocative;" especially the one in which she wore nothing but an extremely short, Catholic school-style jumper, knee high socks, and black leather shoes. To Audrina's credit, I'm sure NO man - or woman - has ever fantasized about that. She claims they were meant to be 'artistic'. Of course, why else would she have posed for Playboy - a magazine known for its dedication to...art?
Audrina also claims she was "naive and overly trusting." I appears she had no idea that Playboy might take extremely sexy, nude photos of her in order to sell lots of magazines. It's terrible the way these new, upstart men's magazines with no reputation stumble upon these poor, unsuspecting, just out of high school girls looking to build a solid, artistic, and wholesome portfolio. Shudder to think. What's worse; the photos were never published until now. Okay, that's just rude.
Our question: What would Audrina have said about those pics if they were published, she got paid, and they jump-started her entire career? Would it matter, in the least, whether they were 'artistic?' It seems our perceptions are always a bit different when money's involved.
So, remember kids, if you're going to allow some fly-by-night organization to take your picture, make sure you get reimbursed. It would be a crying shame if you every did attain some iota of celebrity status, only to have to explain away old sexually explicit photographs as 'artistic' just because you didn't get paid.
Comments