42 Responses

  1. SS at | | Reply

    Yuck! I don’t care how modern we are this is very unbridal and classless.

    1. m at | | Reply


    2. sana at | | Reply

      +100000… pnp would you do this BRIDAL in your case? or even if you were attending someones would it make watever…

  2. Vineeta at | | Reply

    Smoking Hawttt.. She looks amazing. Love the cover..!!!

  3. DC at | | Reply

    I love it! So bold! So different!

  4. Bhoomi at | | Reply

    How awkwardly beautiful those legs are !!! Jaw dropping gorgeous !!!

  5. Varsha at | | Reply

    Absolutely love this! Couldn’t have thought of a better person to pull this off.

  6. alti at | | Reply

    Yeah, because a half-naked contortionist as a bride is the LOOK! Not!

  7. Styl at | | Reply

    Now picking up my jaws from the floor! HOT!

  8. Adara at | | Reply

    Ha ha ha. Yeah if its some bridal-porn . Maybe it would work. As of now, the pose looks disturbingly yuck.

  9. Vrinda at | | Reply

    This woman. ..sigh!

  10. footnotes and finds at | | Reply

    wow she looks stunning! great cover!

  11. Dee at | | Reply

    The cover in itself is hot! Lisa looks amazing and the Manish Arora on her is fab. But it doesnt sell to me as a bridal issue. Call me a traditionalist but this is so not Indian bride-like.

  12. Mahasweta at | | Reply

    Lisa sure does look hot but her pose reminds me of a praying mantis! Don’t mean to offend anyone but her legs were the first thing I noticed in this Cover!

  13. Nadia at | | Reply

    It’s never a good sign when a Vogue cover can be mistaken for a FHM cover in fancy dress. Sorry P&P, not with you on this one.

  14. orange at | | Reply

    Lisa is smoking hot, no doubt ..but that ‘spread-your legs-wide-apart’ looks inappropriate…

  15. Shreya at | | Reply

    Lisa has great legs. Not convinced this pose is the best way of showing them off though, especially with the dupatta flowing outwards from beneath. Very awkward!

  16. RDM at | | Reply

    HOT !!! Crazy quirky not bridal at all – but still Fantabulous !!

  17. Brand-ish at | | Reply

    It could have been a great cover on a stand alone basis but for that pose – as much as an expert she is at doing risque, not even Lisa Haydon looks good in that awkward-legs pose! And Vogue or not, there is nothing bridal about the cover!

  18. just me at | | Reply

    I wish the same concept had been executed in a pose that did not give us a direct look at her bridal crotch! I’m all for not-the-norm stuff but her face here looks kinda dead and the first word that came up seeing her legs and that pose is “splayed” and there’s something so awkward about that word and that’s what I felt about the cover as well – comically splayed legs.

  19. Puneeta at | | Reply

    I have decided. This is the kind of bride I want to be.

    If it weirds out the so-called educated people on HHC, then how horrified would the mamis and paatis be! :D

    YAY! :D :D

    1. Puneeta at | | Reply

      PS: I hope the negative commentators here realize that she is not an actual bride. She is just portraying the extravagant and luxurious “bridal” feel.

      As a creative writer and content strategist it pains me personally to see these reactions. This is why art becomes generic, and starts appealing to the lowest common denominator. ARGH. And then you lot have the gall to complain about HNY!

      1. preeti at | | Reply

        Chill. Ever heard of Warhol? If he did not make the generic look artsy, not sure who else did.
        A good artist will cry over the dumbing down of art. A great artist will make the banal a masterpiece.
        Btw, the cover is okay. Nothing to crow about.

      2. Asha at | | Reply

        Dude chill. This is not an art forum, this is a fashion blog that’s open to everybody. And if the comments from the “lowest common denominator” pain you personally, don’t read them. Me? I like to read all of the comments, including humblebrags like yours.

      3. bumblebee at | | Reply

        A woman sitting with her legs splayed is modern? How very outdated. I find the so-called creative types who churn out such lazy ideas really tiring.
        If you wish to be modern, why should that depend on the shock-value? Why must it hinge on other people’s reaction to your clothes or lack of it? I have posed nude (no, really) for a shoot and it felt fantastic. My shedding of clothes and my inhibition was purely for myself and if at some point I want to share it with others then it would be with the intention of sharing my experience. May be I have just passed the point of deliberately looking to offend or shock others and taking perverse pleasure in it. Here’s a passing thought: No one really gives a hoot about you, except yourself.

    2. Saya at | | Reply

      The Maamis & Paatis who fawn over Vidya Balan types must be the one getting the shockers. Not the ones who can rock a backless with kanchipuram & mallipoo come December season in Chennai. Maybe you should widen your spectrum & circle of maamis. LOL!

  20. Shweta at | | Reply

    on a second thought is that (bridal issue) anything to do with Lisa? I mean the title of the article of her’s looks totally different…I know I could be completely wrong here :P ….anyhow she is haaawt

  21. Akki at | | Reply

    If this was a cover of the Kamasutra…sure why not? But bridal..no way. If cutting edge is being vulgar and tantalizing under the veil of ‘bridal’ ..yeah VOGUE gets it right.

  22. Anonymous at | | Reply

    She’s drawing focus to her crotch and below, so I guess it’s a bit vulgar. How come Vogue India doesn’t get the most obvious things?

  23. feya at | | Reply

    ‘The sari gets sexy’
    I really do not believe it needs to get ‘sexier’ than it already has (& that’s even if less clothes can be translated as sexy).
    So long for nurturing & upholding one’s culture & traditions…

  24. Afsheen at | | Reply

    Its an editorial look, not some wedding album photo. For those who didn’t like it, even they are talking about it.

  25. shwetha at | | Reply

    i am not sold just because its vogue.

  26. neharika at | | Reply

    Is this really bridal no. Not even for a bride who is thinking of jumping in the pool right after the wedding. But does Lisa look hot.. Hell yes! But when does she not. The only other person who can pull this look is kangana or dp I think

  27. Bindas at | | Reply

    Striking cover! And to all those that say this is not appropriate bridal wear – remember this an editorial – liberties are allowed, warranted, heck even necessary. Worn with an ornate lengha, any bride would give up an arm and a leg to wear this outfit!

    Bravo! this cover will CATCH/GRIP my eyes on a magazine stand. From Vogue’s perspective, that’s mission accomplished!

  28. Ddj at | | Reply

    Sorry, this is not edgy or provocative. At first glance, her pose makes her look like a giant scary insect, which is a shame considering how gorgeous her face and makeup is and her toned legs

  29. Pav at | | Reply

    The cover is cringeworthy – and that is probably the effect they were going for. And people who classify this as ‘non generic art’ are welcome to have opinions, but please stop putting yourselves on pedestals and dismissing everyone else’s.

    1. Saya at | | Reply

      *Slow motion clap* :D

  30. Violet at | | Reply

    This is such a welcome departure from the convention. And I don’t think it’s vulgar at all. As a society we’ve been conditioned to think in such a rigid manner that the mind can’t rise above stereotyping certain ‘poses’ and ‘gestures’. Elevate beyond these gross generalizations and you’ll see the art and beauty in this cover. In this case, only the gaze can be perverse..the pose is striking and the styling is magnificent and yes HAWT! She’s working it and vogue is killing it :)

  31. Amu at | | Reply

    the model is hot… the clothes are intricate…. but this photo is extremely awkward… it looks as though she is on an invisible potty and covering up her lady bits with bridal sari… very awkward/classless. I get trying extreme poses for artistic expression… but at least make it appealing…. if she had made a more pouty face with this pose, it would surely look like she is straining for a BM… terrible…

  32. Malaise at | | Reply

    You all need a chill pill. This cover is obviously about the bridal (wedding) night. It’s too artsy fartsy for you heathens.

  33. kasthuri at | | Reply

    Nope this is not bridal. This is more “porn-ish”. “On your face” is a understatement here.

  34. shansi at | | Reply

    I am sorry,but she looks like a meercat ready to escape from predation.

Leave a Reply