Model Miranda Kerr — you know her from Victoria's Secret, most likely — got her picture on the cover of a Rolling Stone by going naked for the its "green issue." Having policed mainstream mag nakedness a time or two before, I'm torn: Green = good, for sure. And there's nothing wrong with being proud of your body — not that she has even an ounce of reason not to. Incidentally, I also love that she says she did it, quite specifically, for the koalas: "Something like 80 percent of the koalas' habitat has been destroyed since Europeans arrived in Australia.'' Fair enough. However, I wonder more about the magazine: On the rare occasions when there happens to be a female on Rolling Stone's legendary cover, it's rare she isn't naked. (Just a few examples: here, here, and here. Implied girl-on-girl courtesy of shared ice cream cone doesn't count. Pretty much the only way to be female and not naked on RS is to be Taylor Swift — good girl! — or a mid- to post-breakdown Britney.) I say it'd get more attention for any given "cause" at this point if they put a lady out there wearing something more than underwear.
What do you think? Is green a good enough cause to go nude? Or do you even need one at all? Anyone else notice that Stone has a history of requiring nakedness for a female to appear on their cover?