I remember
Katy Perry as a wild, free, florescent-light wearing, colored-wig rocking kind of girl. So why is she on the cover of
Rolling Stone looking demure and, I guess, normal (albeit the fact that she's in her panties)?
There's hardly any makeup involved, no glitter or flashing lights and her facial expression almost looks uncomfortable. The cover line is just as odd (Sex, God and Katy Perry?). I'm sure the story will dissect the juxtaposition of her "Preacher's Kid" roots and her oversexed, party girl, pop-star image.
Here's another contrast: her
Rolling Stone cover in a bra and panties versus her fully-clothed, cleavage-free
Seventeen cover.
Even fresh-faced and appropriately dressed for a teen magazine cover,
Katy Perry looks more like the star I know on
Seventeen. Her makeup is absolutely gorgeous and the buckles, gloves and studs still give a dose of rockstar edge.
Which cover do you prefer? Which is Glam and which is a Sham? Discuss!
Kisses,
Coutura
