Terry Richardson: Would You Do Blow With This Man?

Am I the only New Yorker who has never been able to figure out why creepy uncle-cum-hipster icon/mainstream quasi-pornographer Terry Richardson is the slightest bit relevant? I’d say it was a generation gap thing, but the man is older than me, yet he is lionized by the 18-30 year old set and those who masturbate furiously to the notion that they’re younger than their true peers.

I’ve always been utterly disgusted by this guy, yet strangely fascinated, and I guess that’s the long and short of it. VICE Magazine is up the man’s ass like a hamster, and in 2004 Australia’s Lee Jeans paid him an unprecedented 200,000 to shoot their ad campaign. That dirty fucking scumbag nails all of his models, and they’re real models too. As in hot, young, and full of drugs. And they let him deliver the bone which I just don’t understand, and would rather not think about.

He’s living the life, yet he’s covered in shitty tattoos, wanks the sleaziest moustache a man ever wanked, and has the body of a meth addict. (Not the Sizemore kind, the juvenile delinquent kind.) Let’s say nothing of those fearsome yellow 70’s shooter glasses and that ridiculous buzzcut. Or let’s. No, let’s not.

I remember my aunt once remarking that if you looked hard enough at Rick James, you could contract a venereal disease. Whereas I think that if you look hard enough at Terry Richardson, you’ll never want to have sex again.

Some particularly NSFW images are available HERE. Please note that in the image where he’s rimming the supermodel, he has quite visible earwax. What the fuck gives? What am I missing here? Why do the fashionable elite drop everything, panties and all, for this scrawny pervert?

(image: Amazon.com)