By now I’m sure everyone knows about Amy Winehouse being asked by the Grammy Awards producers to cover up her tattoo’s nipples for her performance, but can we just pause a moment and reflect on how this is being reported to media outlets?
Every article I’ve read says the Grammy producers “expressed concern” over her tattoo’s nipples. I highly doubt that was what actually happened between the producers and Winehouse’s camp. Of course the producers have concerns, but I doubt they are for the good of the American public, especially since the FCC just slammed ABC for a partial nude butt shot on a show that aired five years ago and is no longer even on TV.
But the thing is, the Grammy producers didn’t “express concern”: they told Amy to cover it or she would lose her spot on the awards show. Of course, they couldn’t afford to have Amy back out at the last second, so they were hoping she’d realize this was her moment to prove herself to those who have doubted her and she’d lay down like a dog and cover up the nipples. Can you blame her? With all the negative press she’s been getting lately she had to find some way to refocus everyone’s attention on her talent as a singer rather than her talent as a burn out druggie.
I mean, it’s a topless woman tattooed on her arm. Was it really necessary for her to cover up for the Grammy Awards when almost every picture of Amy has it visible to the naked (no pun intended) eye?
Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.