What is wrong with this picture? It is suppose to be a picture of Eva Pigford and the R&B singer, Maxwell. After a little research, very little research, I found out that the guy is only a Maxwell look a-like, but Eva is the real deal (from America's Next Top Model). Since I wouldn’t know Maxwell if he sat beside me on the city bus I have no idea if the bruh is him or not. Nor do I care. Nor do I care about the picture.
I see nothing wrong with the photo. I see it as just another peice of art. I think it is done in good taste. As a matter of fact, the people in it don’t even look real. Where the heck is Eva’s breast? I never knew she was so very flat chested.
The buzz around the picture is what is it's purpose? Why are they nude? Why are they on bales of hay? Why? Why? Why? Well, if this same image was of unknowns would the questions still be out there? Why can't it just be art? Real art speaks for itself or at least it allows to viewer to make their own judgments. Why is it that when you put people of any kind of celebrity in a picture there most always be a higher message?
Anyway, what do you think? Have you seen the picture? Do you think it is too graphic, because the Maxwell guy has his hand over Eva’s cootie-coo and his own crotch?
I personally find absolutely nothing erotic about the photo. Heck, even Eva’s breast or lack there of, are less than sensual. I mean, anyone who could get their rocks off to this picture had to have been getting boners when they undressed their sister’s Barbie doll to see if it was anatomically correct; because this is the photographic equivalent to nude Barbie and G.I. Joe.
-One Man’s Opinion. Peace.
Of course, it could be an aid for women's shoes. What do you think, VV?