Last night was the New York premiere of Les Miserables, you guys! You know what that means? It means a few things. For one, it means that it’s only going to be a couple of weeks before we get to see the movie. And for two, it means that Anne Hathaway wore another awful dress.
This is bad, right? It’s not as bad as the last one, but it’s still not great. And if you don’t see my issue, that’s fine, I understand. But let me show you the back of the dress:
What’s even going on there? It looks like a sad chubby cape, which I’m guessing is in fashion now. Whatevs.
But hey, I bet you’re wondering about that vulva, huh? Here’s what happened: Anne Hathaway showed her vulva. She apparently missed the memo about being careful how you work your legs when you’re wearing a dress with a slit and no panties, and when she was stepping out of the car, it happened. The world saw a little bit of her junk.
Here, let me show you.
But hey, how great does her hair look? Great, right?
And here I thought she was classy. Even in the midst of my most drunken escapades no one saw what I didn’t want them to see. I don’t understand how a woman can’t get out of a car without billboarding her vagina!
She IS classy. Our society is to blame for this photo, not her. Ann’s reply to the situation was polite and true. We live in a world where we stalk and taunt celebrities, and don’t allow them the luxury of being human. mcmiller, how do you know that during your drunken escapades people did not see more than you wanted? If you were drunken, were you 100% aware of everything going on around you? Blaming her for this lacks class.
She is classy, that part’s right, but I don’t think society is to blame for this photo. If this was some photographer sticking his camera up her skirt to get this show, then yes, but Anne showed up to a very big premiere – a place where she knew that there would be lots of photographers- with no underwear. It’s not anybody’s fault, it was just a mistake.
And mcmiller probably meant that she wears underwear more often than Anne Hathaway.
Classy I doubt, and it certainly isn’t societies fault. Why the hell would it be societies fault. She’s obviously trying going all out to titillate in a way that ain’t classy. Don’t be so star struck.
It’s all about publicity. If they want he part, they have to generate publicity.
What about those shoes/boots? This poor chick needs help on about every level.
Hate the dress, HATE the shoes, and to make it all even more unfortunate: Her vagina… Love the hair though.
What the hell do these women think when they wear these teeny gowns (or high slits, or see through fabric) that it just doesn’t occur to them to put on a damn pair of knickers to cover up their woo-hoo? I can’t help but think it’s on purpose. The celebrity machine.
You’re absolutely correct; it’s her vulva not her vagina!
Never liked this woman…no class at all!
And THANK YOU for calling it a vulva. I am so sick of all lady parts being called “vagina” …the vagina is on the INSIDE.
You’re so outraged about the proper term, but you used the term incorrectly–grammatically speaking. Vulva is plural; more than one (two to be exact).
When you said:
“Thank you for calling it a vulva”, that’s completely wrong.
From what I can tell, vulva is singular (it’s 1st declension, like vagina); you might be thinking of labia, which is the plural of labium.
Harriet,
I don’t think it’s correct to say “a vulva”. One would normally say “the vulva”.
Yes, my grammar may be horrible but at least I know vulva is singular. Thank you Harriet.
“Outraged” over vagina? It’s not that serious. Only Grammar Cops (plural) are outrageous.
:)
Here’s the definition of Vulva from Webster’s:
The external parts of the female genital organs comprising the mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, vestibule of the vagina, bulb of the vestibule, and Bartholin’s glands
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vulva
So I believe it’s incorrect to say “a vulva”. Vulvae (the plural form) refers to more than one woman.
You’re complaining about “Grammar Cops” now, but you started this whole discussion by being a “Grammar Cop” on using the term vagina instead of vulva.
Now you say it isn’t that serious. Of course, you’re right about that. But that was true before you said anything at all!
;)
Who cares? We did’nt even get to see her fuckhole!
very elequently put.
and to the point, as well; no three hour lord of the rings/hobbit boredom!
CATWOMANS KITTEN!
Wow that’s some Brazilian Bikini wax job!! That must of hurt ouch!!!
What is with this obsession with going out without underwear on?! I really do not understand. I’d be busting out the granny pants to cover everything if I knew I was going to be photographed from the moment I stepped out of a vehicle. I’m sure the average woman wears underwear, why not celebs?
Seriously! You’re going to an important event, why not just put on some underwear?
Well in that case, is not even her vulva, it´s her Mons Veneris.
spent a few minutes looking for an uncensored photo of her crotch.
thanks for the uncensored photo of her crotch.
the movie I will once again pass on, since I’ve never bothered seeing any of her movies in a theater, on on video (though will buy her batman dvd when it’s five bucks at walmart)
I was in a car crash and had to wear a brace on my leg for a bit. Whatever she’s wearing on her legs reminds me of that brace! Unsexy as hell.
yeah, i thought the same way—though more like multiple sclerosis type thing.
all the phoney tv shows and movies with actors in plaster casts—mostly velcro wraps for broken arms and legs now days.
maybe anne is a cutter—and she’s hiding some razor cuts on her leg, while also showing skin elsewhere.
No class,, a picture paints a 1000 words
I can only think of one ( nasty
no such thing as bad publicity.
and, most celebrities were trash before they became rich and famous.
Marlon brando supposedly went to a school dance smelling of cow shit—he grew up on a farm.
clark gable had bad breath, and once joked about taking out his dentures to throw at somebody.
britney spears, worth about 100 million dollars, was born a nasty hick/hillbilly—and she’ll die, maybe in beverly hills, with a nasty hick/hillbilly brain; ya’ll.
Ok. Here’s the deal. First all you people chastising her for bad behavior need to stop and wake the hell up. A person can wear or NOT wear whatever they like..it’s called freedom. What everyone seems to be missing here is the fact that the photographer even TOOK THE SHOT! WTH is wrong with people that everyone seems to think this is commonplace now..if the photographer wouldn’t take the shot there wouldn’t be a marketable product. How cares what she is or isn’t wearing..the problem is much deeper than that. And BTW..This is simply a snippet of a second in the day in a life of anyone of us. To say you’d NEVER get caught in a position like this…how do you know when the camera’s aren’t there with you all day, every day?
A) A person is certainly free to wear or not wear whatever they want. We are also free to comment on it.
B) I would say that it sucks that a photographer invaded her privacy and took this picture, except that it was a *red carpet* at a *movie premiere.* This isn’t some creepy photog camping out and trying to get naughty pictures, it’s a PUBLIC affair where she should EXPECT pictures to be taken.
C) I would NEVER get caught in a position like this, because I wear underwear when I’m wearing a dress. Period.
Wear panties – it’s really that simple.
It’s not even like her dress requires that she not wear underwear….?
honestly, I think this picture was photoshopped to make it look like she wasn’t wearing underwear…
I think her reaction to the shots was great. I read an interview the day after and she handled it beautifully.
COMMANDO!!!!!
I’m thinking this was done on purpose. She’s in a long dress. She walks to the car, the dress falls to her ankles. She sits in the car and the bottom of her dress is still at her ankles. So the question is, how did it get wrapped around her in such a way as to show her crotch? Unless she moved it in the car, there is no reason for the exposure. Either that or she was sitting during the entire ride with her dress hiked up with her crotch exposed. Its a long dress, so all she had to do was slide out the car. That she rode with her dress flipped and ruffled says that this was all done for publicity. Now she gets to issue the classy statement, but jeez.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks—–16th century quote.
and sharon stone was bothered by her scene in “fatal attraction.”
and then there’s the rabid muslims who go on a violent protest whenever some american suggests….rabid muslims are violent.
Why do we care that she does/doesn’t wear underware, she has shown more in her movies. The fact that so many of us found this page explains why photographers take the picture and why tabloid (web sites) pay for them. The movie gets a whole lot free publicity ( I didn’t even know she was in the movie until today)
I’m not at all interested in the movie. Won’t even see it when it shows up at five dollar Walmart bin.
The tabloid photo of Hathaway is more interesting—as is Lindsey Lohen’s sleazy life vs Lohen lousy movies.
maybe if they wore underwear like a decent woman should. there wouldnt be a problem duhhhhhh.
not to mention how unsanitary it is. try keeping your cloths on. people… there all sluts madonna boncee miley briteney etc. etc