Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Victoria Beckham To Lose Her Clothes For Charity

Like us on Facebook:
The current article you are reading does not reflect the views of the current editors and contributors of the new Ecorazzi

victoriabeckhammtv2.jpgLet the discussions on using nude women to promote charity efforts begin! We’ve seen more celebrity ladies lately drop their clothing to support various causes (Maggie Q, Sophie Monk, Alicia Silverstone, Pippa Black) and the response has ranged from supportive to the unnecessary use of sex to sell a message. Please welcome Victoria Beckham to the club!

According to the Hollywood Rag, Posh has been signed to become the face of designer Marc Jacobs’ Spring/Summer 2008 collection and he has persuaded her to be photographed naked with the image to be used on a range of his skin cancer charity T-shirts. Of course! From the article,

“A source told Britain’s Daily Mirror newspaper: ‘Victoria loves Marc’s work but she wasn’t entirely comfortable with getting naked. Marc went all-out to persuade her. And when she heard about what a great cause it was she knew she just couldn’t turn it down. The picture she and Marc have chosen is amazing – sexy but tasteful.'”

The Spice Girl will join other celebrities such as Julianne Moore, Dita Von Teese and Naomi Campbell, who all stripped for Jacobs’ T-shirts in 2006. That year, over $60,000 was raised for charity — and Jacobs is hoping even more will benefit this time around.

So, what do you think? We all know that sex sells, but should orgs be more equal in their use of women and men for such promotions?

Like us on Facebook:

Protesting Kylie Jenner’s Use of Fur Doesn’t Help Animals

Campaigns against fur, whether that’s at the PETA level or a small mobbing like this, don’t work because they promote the use of other animal products.

Collaborating with animal exploiters won’t help animals

The two sides claim to both have the “health and well-being of animals” in mind in this partnership, but one likely said “after profitability” under their breath.

Exploitation for art is no worse than exploitation for dinner

It always seems to come back to a confused juror deciding when animal use is justified.