Kristen Stewart has a message for people who hate her Rolling Stone cover
The Love Lies Bleeding actor was a guest on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert this week
Aux News Kristen Stewart
In January, Jeremy Allen White sent the internet (and a couple of out-of-line red carpet interviewers) into a full-blown tizzy when he appeared in naught but his tighty-whities for Calvin Klein’s spring campaign. In November, Barry Keoghan took off even more for the final scene in Saltburn. Those two got billboards in New York City and dirty bathwater-scented candles, not to mention widespread thirst and adoration. But when Kristen Stewart put her hand down her jockstrap for Rolling Stone’s March cover, she got a whole string of vitriol from all the usual sources. (We won’t link any of it here because it’s gross, but you can read it for yourself in RS’ excellently titled, “Right-Wingers Are Terrified of Our Gay Kristen Stewart Cover.”) Can you spot the difference?
Earlier this week, Stewart went on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, during which the host revealed that CBS actually asked him not to show the offending cover on air. He went rogue and did anyway, joking with Stewart that she “look[s] better in a jockstrap than [he] ever did.”
Getting into the more serious side of things, Stewart called the backlash “a little ironic because I feel like I’ve seen a lot of male pubic hair on the cover of things.” “I’ve seen a lot of hands in pants and like, unbuttoned,” she continued. “I think there’s a certain overt acknowledgment of a female sexuality that has its own volition in a way that is annoying for people who are sexist and homophobic.”
“It’s not remotely explicit,” she added. “Female sexuality isn’t supposed to actually want anything but to be had. And that feels like it’s protruding in a way that might be annoying.”
Stewart has clearly thought about this a lot. In her most recent film, Love Lies Bleeding from director Rose Glass, the actor plays a stuck-in-a-rut gym owner who shares a number of sultry scenes with a vivacious bodybuilder (played by Katy O’Brian) that would probably piss conservatives off in a similar way were they to ever actually see it. (The film is playing in theaters now.) “It’s more like a power play, and an exchange and a particular physical response to touch and to verbiage that is so exacting that it feels real,” Stewart said of the direction behind the film’s sex scenes (via IndieWire). “It’s just that it’s so detail-oriented, like, the physicality, the orifice, the actual opening of a woman is acknowledged and talked about, and it’s not seen, but it is felt, and it is really fucking satisfying. Because that is so rare.”
Take that, right-wingers! Or as Stewart perfectly summarized on The Late Show, “fuck you… but I never will!”
59 Comments
It must suck to be a conservative. I’m a bit surprised to find out they loved Barry K’s dick flopping about everywhere. Seemed gratuitous, and nothing else.
“Well, there goes that dream”
Seriously, do they enjoy anything fun that doesn’t involve subjugating someone?
Being right-wing is either about trying to ‘win’ the love of your distant, neglectful conservative parents, or it’s about becoming the abuser so that you feel safe from your abusive conversative parents. Or both.
“Someday that will be my foot in the boot!”
And god/jesus is one of those distant, neglectful parents.
Being right-wing is either about trying to ‘win’ the love of your distant, neglectful conservative parents, or it’s about becoming the abuser so that you feel safe from your abusive conversative parents. Or both.
Per Frank Wilhoit (not to be confused with Francis Wilhoit):
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be
in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups
whom the law binds but does not protect.This principle applies all the way from the highest level of government down to the level of individual personal relationships, where there must be a power imbalance so that someone can dominate someone else. The concept of voluntary cooperation only barely exists for conservatives, in the context of people in the same in-group, who nevertheless are likely to still have one of them who claims power over the others.
I like that. (Social) conservatives need easily identified “bad and unlawful” people because they’re so wrapped up in an identity that self-designates as “good and righteous”.
The even sadder part is that conservative belief isn’t the root problem; it’s really just an encapsulated mechanism for plutocrats to control the populace. I’ve come to believe that the fundamental mechanism of human history is the battle between the rich assholes who have all the power, and everyone else. This goes way back before Marx and capitalism; almost every human society of every size has had Big Men who managed to convince everyone that Big Man Has All The Power is the best possible system.And one of the tools they use to convince people of that is to pit sections of the populace against each other. Per Bill Moyers, speaking about LBJ:
We were in Tennessee. During the motorcade, he spotted some ugly racial
epithets scrawled on signs. Late that night in the hotel, when the local
dignitaries had finished the last bottles of bourbon and branch water
and departed, he started talking about those signs. “I’ll tell
you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the
lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice
you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and
he’ll empty his pockets for you.”https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/(For the record, I don’t think LBJ was endorsing that approach, as much as describing it, although perhaps resignedly.)
Yep.One of the quotes I’ve always come back to: “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”Wasn’t the actual quote*, but DAMN does that fit well.*https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/29/hire-half/
Where are all of the people who were so offended by this photo shoot?
Pretty pathetic that she thinks this was the gayest thing she could think of for the cover. A much more powerful and compelling image would be something like kissing her partner, them doing noses, or even just holding hands and smiling.
Doing noses?
If you don’t know about doing noses, you aren’t cool enough to do it.I totally know what it is, and definitely didn’t have the same reaction you did.
Ah I have heard a different name for that but it uses an out of date and offensive, in some circles, name for Inuits
Yeah, Eskimo isn’t one of those terms that is inherently offensive (it most likely comes from the Algonquin: Ayas̆kimew and means something like, “A person who laces a snow shoe”) but it has fallen out of favor over time. I get it too, the word Inuit means “the people” and that is about as non-offensive a general term as you can get. And it is better to have a term coming from within for a group than one given to them from without. I’m kind of interested if some day Eskimo will come back into favor in the same way that Black and queer have become positive terms.The funny thing is that the so-called “Eskimo kiss” isn’t how Inuit people greet people they have close, personal relationships with. The kunik is nose to cheek or nose to forehead, not nose to nose.
All of which is to say, most people I know just call it noses because there doesn’t seem to be a better term for rubbing your noses together in order to display affection for each other.
Yeah, I assumed “doing noses” was some dirty term among people I’m too young to regularly interact with in a context where describing a sex act would be appropriate. I was genuinely puzzled when Urban Dictionary came up pretty blank on the term. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Gross. Keep that creepy shit on the dark web.
That’s fair
I don’t think “Kristen Stewart, Rolling Stone’s March cover star, just wants to ‘do the gayest thing you’ve ever seen in your life.’” refers specifically to the cover, but, yeah, unless she’s willing to porn it up, I’ve seen gayer.
The quote is specifically referencing the RS cover and nothing else.What else could she be referring to?
Yeah that was an interesting caption. It’s shocking and provocative, but what about it is gay? The mullet?
Pretty pathetic of you to think your opinion matters.
The whole reaction just makes clear that conservative men expect women to cater to their boners all the time.Even if you decide that Stewart’s look in this Rolling Stone cover isn’t appealing to you (and it’s certainly meant to be jarring), can’t you just decide that it isn’t your cup of tea? Or maybe appreciate it as something unusual and shocking? It’s hard to understand the reaction of rage to seeing a single photo of an attractive woman not designed to appeal to your particular tastes.It’s especially weird because we are living in a golden age of ogling attractive women. Don’t like the photo of Kristen Stewart? Cool, photos of women you do find attractive, in all manners of dress and undress, doing all kinds of things, are at your fingertips. Hell, there are nude, more conventional images of Stewart available to all, 24 hours a day.
KStew’s movies are hit-or-miss for me, but I’m here for her giving zero fucks about what the troglodytes want. I hope her final form is “the Li’l Nas X of cinema”.
I can’t tell who comes off looking dumber, the conservatives who complained about this cover obviously designed to provoke them into complaining, or the progressives who are once again gleefully celebrating being gaybaited into watching a mid movie.
I don’t see homophobic; I see the usual attention-seeking. She’s not a great actor, so what else can she do to grab attention? And let’s not forget, this is Rolling Stone; a magazine no one takes seriously.
IDK, I think the cover is sexy as hell. Granted, I’m not pee-my-pants terrified of women, so maybe that’s the difference.
i am terrified of them for sure but it kind of makes the cover hotter tbh
$1000 says 98% of these chodes (men AND women) bitching about this cover spank to PornHub material that looks juuuuuust like this smoking hot photo.
On a slightly related topic, I’m pretty sure the whole Bud Light/Dylan Mulvaney blowback happened because Kid Rock was fapping off to her Insta account, but finding out Anheuser-Busch was funding it was a bridge too far for him.
Sapped his Fap huh?
Pretty sure that’s the thrust of the overall apoplexy around Trans folks, as well as the reason that 99% of the vitriol is on M to F transitions.These fuckers are pissbaby scared that they will be (or have been, or are) attracted to a woman who transitioned from M to F. That’s the chief issue.To that end, I wonder how many of those dudes have found themselves jacking it to, say, Patti Harrison?
You said “thrust.”
There’s a Dylan Mulvaney? As if it wasn’t hard enough keeping the other three straight (no pun intended). John MulaneyDylan Mulvaney Dylan McDermottDermot MulroneyIt’s like some weird-ass version of Wordle.
She’s right, I can’t go to a magazine shop and avoid half-naked men on the covers, and that’s ENTIRELY different from women who are on the covers of magazines. Always buttoned-up to the throat with dresses so long that they’re all dirty from dragging on the floor.Seriously, what is the big deal about this cover?
This bullshit is a strategy used by the wealthy, corporate, and powerful to get ordinary folks to keep on voting for the political party that helps the former and hurts the latter, in a mass redistribution of wealth upward—and people fall for it every damn time.
She deliberately tried to get under the skin of people by proactively declaring she wanted to do the “gayest thing you’ve ever seen.”Why was it so important for her to declare that intention? And why should we be shocked that many bristled at the notion?Imagine a star suggesting they wanted to do the “most wholesome, family-oriented thing you’ve ever seen”. The far left would be similarly outraged.The whole thing just wreaks of outrage-baiting bs.
It’s ridiculous to even acknowledge anything from twitter at this point. We don’t always need the alt-right dorks’ opinion on things. That cover shot reminds me of Ripley, so of course I like it.
I’m surprised the cover came as much of a shock to anyone, because that’s always sorta been the energy she gives off, right? At least since she came out and people stopped seeing her as Bella Swan.
Yeah I feel like I’ve seen this picture of her many times before. And she has the same facial expression range as Jonathan Majors.
I mean I’m not gonna lie, it kinda works for me. (And I think she is good when actually acting, as in Crimes of the Future.)
I don’t really know that much about her and haven’t seen many of her films but she always seemed to me, at least post Twilight, to be a provocateur in the best way possible.
She is so butch that she looks like a post-op trans-girl. But who cares? She just screams for attention.
STFU dickless
Rolling Stone has been irrelevant for over 30 years…
Fuck you’re old
Oh boy, time to hate the other side’s Two Minutes Hate for two minutes!… wait a second…
Big star for you, both for the reference and for being spot on. Reminds me of that Onion article about “Marilyn Manson reduced to going door-to-door in attempt to shock people”.
Credit where it’s due, that’s pretty gay. Good for her.
BAGUS BANGET
Stewart poses on cover of magazine, no one says anything. Publicist: “Hey, to draw attention to the magazine, talk about how outraged people were of your photos. No one will care that people weren’t really offended by it. It will be great publicity for you.” People buy into this made up drama hook, line, and sinker every time.
Why are they mad? Just don’t buy it! This is like more of the anti-gay library bullshit: If a conservative doesn’t want to read it, then no one can read it. They want to control *everything* for everyone. This shit is exhausting.
Oh please. She was cosplaying and wanted a reaction. Maybe it is the area of the world I live in but most lesbians I know don’t have mullets and look greasy. Getting certain people worked up was the whole point. She is 33 going on 16.
And look at you react! Go nerd go!
I’m a conservative who stumbled into this discussion, and it’s absolutely fascinating at every level, from the Rolling Stone article at the top to the Colbert interview in the middle to the AV Club commentary at the bottom. That’s because everyone is speculating on conservative anger that is completely imaginary.I read several conservative websites. I follow lots of conservative Twitter accounts. Nobody on the right is talking about Kristen Stewart right now. We forgot about it weeks ago. The right’s initial reaction to the RS cover wasn’t anger. It was a collective shrug followed by pity with how miserable she looked and sounded.
All of you imagining the anger that conservatives feel now is as fictional as imagining how Eru Ilúvatar felt when Melkor introduced his own melody during the Ainulindale. It is speculating on something that doesn’t exist.Have a nice day!
I will give her a massive compliment and say that I think she was very well cast as Joan Jett