Trending ›
Check out this breathtaking photo shoot by Norwegian photographer Sølve Sundsbø featuring Brazilian Supermodel Gisele Bündchen. It’s sizzling and it’s the perfect way to end the weekend!
 |
Gisele Bundchen Speaks Out After Her Latest Controversy – Lainey Gossip |
 Lady Gaga Reveals Her Eating Disorder – Huffington Post | |
| Madonna's Violent Stalker Escapes From Psychiatric Hospital – Fox News | |
| WEIRD: Christina Aguilera Admits She Does Everything In Her Bed – Evil Beet Gossip | |
| You Won't Believe What Product Kris Jenner Is Promoting Now – The Superficial | |
| Vanessa Hudgens Falls Out Of Her Shirt – Popoholic |
Gawd | May 3, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Disgusting.
Is she desperate for money or attention?
The implication in these poses is that she’s being carried away by a savage to be raped and is gang-rapped by two over-powering beasts.
This is the reason that god made guns. So, women don’t have to be victims.
These photos are supposed to be glamorous? What crap.
Cheesy | May 3, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Gawd- These are artistic photos. No one is promoting rape (or being “rapped” (sic) as you call it.) Calm down. If you don’t like it, don’t look.
nad | May 3, 2009 at 6:54 pm
This is a piece of art. It gorgeous. Gawd we see more of what you descrive every day seven days a week on American TV. No wonder your mind immediately went there.
Milena | May 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Gawd, this is just a lovely photo shoot. The evil is in the eye of the beholder…
Admiring Photographer! | May 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I think they’re beautiful.
I love the contrast & shapes.
Gawd, crawl back in your hole & stick to your Guns ‘n Ammo magazines…. A-hole!
lachica | May 3, 2009 at 8:17 pm
what does it mean that the male model remains completely uncredited??
how much did he get paid compared to her??
joan durtz | May 3, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Gawd = Dumb Cracker
lauren | May 3, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Im a photographer and I think these photos are absolutely gorgeous
CATHY R. | May 3, 2009 at 10:07 pm
GISELE IS FUCKING UGLY,FUGLY AND FAT. SHE’S A WHORE,SLUT,CUNT AND BITCH. I FUCKING HATE HER.
CATHY R. | May 3, 2009 at 10:08 pm
GISELE IS FUCKING UGLY,FUGLY AND FAT. SHE’S A FUCKING WHORE,SLUT,CUNT AND BITCH. I FUCKING HATE HER. FUGLY FACE. UGLY BODY.
Face01 | May 4, 2009 at 1:28 am
someone forgot to take their pills
SARAH | May 4, 2009 at 4:38 am
JEALOUS, CATHY R???
Zekers | May 4, 2009 at 5:18 am
His use of light is beautiful. Nice photos…
LeslieD | May 4, 2009 at 5:29 am
Such hatred kathy r. These are very nice shots—I thought a little pornographic but not rape or violence. Giselle is not depicted as a victim, in pain or distress. I love the shot where she has his ear in her mouth–very sensual.
Patsup | May 4, 2009 at 6:08 am
The use of light with the contrasting skin tones is absolutely gorgeous. And no doubt both male(s) and female are stunning…that’s the point isn’t it? But there is definitely a woman enslavement, man conquest thing going on here.
Jo | May 5, 2009 at 6:55 am
Wow, I thought they were gorgeous shots!
The stark contrast in the male & female form, amazing…and you just know they have big dicks!
marno | May 8, 2009 at 3:15 am
The implication in these poses is quite clear. let’s face it and not use the same old “it’s art” excuse for glamoour porn.
IOf u like it no problem, but the truth is the truth. photogrpaher is clearly playing with sexual archetypes or cliches as white female dominated big black males.
those who deny this, cant’t simply see the fact.
Rad | May 8, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Yes. One can clearly see that they need all kind of distractions in the photos, to steer your attention away from the fact that she has a fugly, utterly unattractive man-face, with a nose from here to forever.
She does not even look like a female, and they know it. She’s what, 27 for Chrost’s sake, and she looks like an OLD hag.
And it just goes to show that for some people, as long as there is some bare skin involved, it’s “artistic”.
Cleo | May 10, 2009 at 10:53 am
Best shots I have seen in a long time, and im not even particularly a fan of Gisele but these are great.
Lisa | May 13, 2009 at 9:50 am
Why post these pictures now? They are from V#42, published in August/Sept of 06′.. taken probably in early 06′ or late 05′. Why bring them up 3 years late?