Comments on: Levi Johnston Does ‘GQ’ Magazine

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:00:23 +0000

I thought the pics of Levi and Tripp were great. I think they were just showing the kind of dad he is and that he won’t run out on his kid like so many other men. Anyone who has ever had children knows that the best way for an infant to bond with its father is skin on skin. I think that is what the pics were getting at. I don’t think his sister should have been pictured or that the pics should have been taken in a hotel room. Show him being a dad in his true environment. And as for Tripp being naked… people need to grow up! I don’t know of any parent who has not snapped pics of their child in the bath or getting changed. He has been through enough give him credit where it is due.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Sun, 31 May 2009 09:41:37 +0000

Oscar – this is already a weird situation … It’s 2009 and babies & children can’t give their permission to be nude in a magazine – which is why they should be covered up …. It’s a new sick internet world. Why do I think Bristol had no idea he was doing this shoot??

By: Ranni

Ranni — Sat, 30 May 2009 08:19:39 +0000

I agree with winnie, The pic would have been great as mens Mag should exite we guys

By: winnie

winnie — Sat, 30 May 2009 08:16:58 +0000

he should be naked too with baby;s pee tit in mouth

By: Oscar in Miami Beach

Oscar in Miami Beach — Sat, 30 May 2009 06:51:27 +0000

What’s wrong with the kids dick that a star has to be placed there?.Doesn’t the kid has a dick or is deformed or something?.A kids dick is nothing shameful to have to covered it up.By doing that you have created a weird situation.The original photo was with the kids dick exposed and I do not think you are so prude as to be ashamed for the kids dick being seen.Shame on you Trent for being a hypocrite.Everybody knows what David and you do but I guess by this attitude you must do it in the dark.Touche!!!.

By: Sara

Sara — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:23:22 +0000

Please don’t imply that Bristol outclassed Levi in any way with her People cover!… On it, she’s quoted as saying, “If girls realized the consequences of sex, nobody would be having sex. Trust me, Nobody.” First of all, that’ll be a tad more embarrassing down the line for her son than a couple naked baby pictures. Secondly, someone needs to give the girl a heads up that not everyone is as ignorant as she is; people are aware of the consequences of sex, which is why they use various forms of birth control.

By: JJ

JJ — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:49:24 +0000

@Carolina B/c I don’t think the point was showing a beautiful moment b/t him & his son, I think the point was to see Levi shirtless. LOL. I feel kind of bad for baby Tripp, talk about getting caught in a bad situation. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the Palins, it’s Levi’s family who has been stirring up all this drama in the media. I think they both just need to take a step back and just focus on being parents, not posing for magazine covers. Maybe it’s b/c I’ve obviously never lived in any sort of spotlight that I can’t understand, but I just don’t understand parents who use their newborn children for financial gain. I could never do that to my daughter.

By: Carolina

Carolina — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:04:22 +0000

i think the photos of him topless with the baby are endearing, its not like its never been done before? its so cute when guys just hold their babies against their skin, just like its gorgeous when mothers do it. i dont think he should be criticized for this, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

By: jessica

jessica — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:29:35 +0000

i still don’t know why he has his baby nude- like i agree with other people- there are alot of sick people – i would never do that to my baby

By: CHASE

CHASE — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:27:52 +0000

I don’t think the shirtless thing is that weird. It’s summer, it’s hot and what not. But, posing shirtless in a magazine is a little weird. He seems to be milking this thing FOREVER. Kind of silly.