Home Videos Photos

GaGaLoo Magazine Cover BANNED In The USA!!

| Filed under: Lady GaGa

634021896713840072jpegjb.jpg

Well THIS seems a little ridiculous!!

Over the weekend we posted the FIERCE cover of Q Magazine featuring our beloved GaGaLoo grabbing her "enhanced" crotch and strategically covering her tittays.

Despite there being NO nip, much of the USA, including the store Borders and then all of New York State, is refusing to stock the magazine unless all that lower boob is covered up!!

In order to be displayed, many chains are requesting that Q seal the issue in a protective bag.

WTF?? We've seen MUCH worse on magazine covers openly displayed for everyone to see!!

What do U think?? Is the Lady's photo too offensive to the eye??

MTV Video Music Awards' Worst Dressed Of ALL Time!
The Highest-Paid Women In Music 2013!
On Stage Ouchies!
MTV Video Music Awards 2013: Worst Dressed
Guess The Bra: Celebrity Edition!
Hollywood's Highest Paid Stars Under 30!
Email this  »

168 comments to “GaGaLoo Magazine Cover BANNED In The USA!!”

More comments: [1] 2 »



  1. 1

    Perezeee she can't Fn sing, douche



  2. 2

    LAME! BAN CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!



  3. 3

    This is ridiculous. I see nothing wrong with the cover.

    Check Out GenerationGossip.com



  4. 4

    too offensively UGLY.



  5. 5

    hmmm, shame it's been banned. i don't think the boob is the problem, probably the dildo she has placed down her pants perhaps?? the full article has already been posted online…she initially wanted to have it covering her eyes, in her hair, everywhere! haha

  6. chang says – reply to this


    6

    oh tell those fucking stiffs to lighten up! It's gorg!



  7. 7

    Gaga should always be banned ,Ugly drag



  8. 8

    Underboob is fine. The government is made up of Christian conservatives who like to censor America, including LEGAL ADULTS. It makes me sick how they try to control our sex lives, among other things.



  9. 9

    Are they afraid of sticky floors? Clean up in the magazine aisle hahahaha!



  10. 10

    meanwhile you can still pick up maxim or a raunchy looking sports illustrated issue………



  11. 11

    Yeah, it is too offensive. Ugly as fuck people shouldn't be on covers of anything unless its a historical magazine or some shit.



  12. 12

    yeah, i agree thats lame

    but really…who cares. Are there not more important things to talk about?…



  13. 13

    you can see the same thing on E! - seems like anything without nipps is OK on that channel at this point! Ga Ga looks just terrific, as usual!



  14. 14

    the boob its not offesnsive to me,, her FUCKING UGLY FACE ITS OFFENSIVE!!



  15. 15

    youre KIDDING me????????? they think THIS is bad??? do they not live in our same society????? assholes. i say be proud of that cover GAGALICIOUS!!!!!!!!!

  16. MRU says – reply to this


    16

    USA is ridiculous when it comes to moral.
    Boobs - a natural thing is banned
    but there doesn`t seem to be any limitis what they can show regarding violence.



  17. 17

    join the movement on fb - 1 million against Perez becoming the next american idol judge



  18. 18

    I agree that this could be offensive. I wouldn't want to see this in a store that I am in, but then again I don't like her and think she's dumb looking with her "costumes."



  19. 19

    shame it's been banned. the partial nudity probably isn't the reason it got banned, i think the dildo placed in her pants is the problem. the article is online already, she initially wanted to have it in her hair and covering her eyes! haha.
    i don't think the dildo is noticeable enough though, and that was one of the problems in the photoshoot..where she eventually broke down in tears.



  20. 20

    Uhm, I think it might have more to do with the fact that it appears she is not only grabbing her crotch, but also a 15 inch hard cock in her pants. I am not sure if it's just the lighting on your photo, but I pretty sure I am not the only one who sees it.



  21. 21

    I've seen headlines on Cosmopolitan magazine that could be considered more offensive than that cover. But I guess a picture is worth a thousand words.



  22. 22

    i don't think it's offensive at all. she looks great.



  23. 23

    the only thing offensive about it is her face



  24. 24

    Uh, I think the strap-on is more offensive than a little glimpse of boob.



  25. 25

    I've seen much worse on other magazine covers… this is rediculous!



  26. 26

    I think it's because she's actually wearing a black strap-on and you don't really notice it at first.



  27. 27

    that is so dumb. we see more boobage watching VH1 than this cover is offering.



  28. 28

    I think it's because her cock is showing



  29. 29

    I think she's wearing and grabbing a black strap-on, although you don't notice it at first glance because it blends in with her pants.



  30. 30

    a ban on lower boobs? I don't understand americans at all…



  31. 31

    I see nothing wrong with the cover.



  32. 32

    This, along with the other raunchy magazines should be removed. GaGa's a joke anyway.



  33. 33

    Fierce? No, fiercely gross and unattractive maybe. Scary definitely.



  34. 34

    be serious .. think about someone other than yourself. little kids in the store are going to walk by and see the cover.



  35. 35

    the last line of that post just asked for nasty comments lol
    and my answer is, yes it is too offensive, not because of the boob but because its her and her boob lol



  36. 36

    Umm this is some major BS! There have been much worse magazine covers out… like Janet Jackson's Rolling Stone cover. So stupid…



  37. 37

    I have a feeling they're banning it for the strap-on (look close…it blends) she's rockin', but are blaming it on the lower boobage! Either way it's lame!



  38. 38

    As ugly as she is? YES! When are you going to get cataract surgery?



  39. 39

    well obviously its offensive… to beautiful people. she fugly as hell.



  40. 40

    So it's OK to put Demi Moore NAKED and pregnant on a mag cover but not ok to show 2 inches of Gaga's boob on a cover????????? INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!



  41. 41

    Censorship is getting pretty gay, lol



  42. 42

    Re: DM-Lollipop – dude chill out… go cry to someone who cares.



  43. 43

    As a whole, the US (the country I live in and adore) can be fucking uptight at times. Seriously, it's a fatty peice of flesh. That's it. Get over it. Who the fuck cares. What's more of a disgrace are the hords of morbidly obese people walking around showing their back fat.



  44. 44

    No, I do not find the photo offensive!



  45. 45

    Re: BritneyBarnes – and apparently you should always have a dick in your mouth.



  46. 46

    Keep in mind people, this is coming from the same obnoxious uptight people who think breast feeding in public (even discretely) is offputting. Shame.



  47. 47

    The Queen of Pop is not only a pop icon but a great businesswoman who makes brilliant career moves. She sure can generate controversy and interest! Amazeballz!



  48. 48

    i think it's pretty creepy actually



  49. 49

    Every photo of GagMe is offensive. And any with Hilton and GagMe should be burned.



  50. 50

    If a store dose not want to carry a magazine, for whatever there reason is, then they do not have to.



  51. 51

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHHA SHAME.



  52. 52

    Well this shoot has been issues anywys, lady gaga did not even like these pictures she did not feel comfortable taking them and it shows in her eyes. Awww wished I could hug her. I love the emotion behind her voice. She is a good lady mixed up in fame and its not easy for her. I cant wait to see where the gaga story goes one day. We wont forget her!



  53. 53

    I'd much rather see her wearing anything or nothing, than those two flabby dudes dressed in their hideous version for women's wear. Can't they ban them instead?



  54. 54

    Oh boy she's gonna go through some major controversy for this one.



  55. 55

    This cover would be shocking…..if we lived in the 1960s. It's freaking 2010, I've seen more offensive covers on Maxim.



  56. 56

    That is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention STUPID. What has happened to this country in the last 10-12 years, seriously? Does anyone remember the Rolling Stones magazine cover with Janet Jackson having her boobs held from behind? That was just as "risque" as this, and no one made such a big deal about it. These stupid conservatives are just ridiculous.

  57. starz says – reply to this


    57

    there nothing wrong with it..its not like no one seen a boob these dayz…Tv is worst!



  58. 58

    If there wasn't any controversy, it wouldn't be GAGA!



  59. 59


  60. 60

    In many states, it's considered public nudity if you show the breast from the nipple down. It's ridiculous!

  61. Dr_C says – reply to this


    61

    Of course it's offensive to the eyes! Gaga is offensive to the eyes!



  62. 62

    i am absolutely offended by it. Yay Borders.



  63. 63

    I'm sure if this was another person besides Lord GaGa you would be insulting them. DOUCHE



  64. 64

    Sorry guys she is a great entertainer and obviously getting very rich but Lady Gaga is fugly



  65. 65

    They won't allow her magazine to be stocked, but yet they have porno magazines right next to Glamour, People magazines etc. yet they want her to cover up her lower boob. I live in Brooklyn so I don't understand this. I mean I don't like Gaga, but I just find this to be ridiculous.



  66. 66

    i didnt even notice she was grabbing her crotch. you want to know whats offensive , that would be the wo-man. I cant eve look at that !



  67. 67

    Any woman that wears a strap on in a cover shoot (especially a woman who wears masks and costumes to red carpet appearances) likes the controversy so arguing over it or saying it's unfair for them to ban it is pointless. She asks for this type of attention, her whole career is based upon shock factor. Let's face it, Gaga is a great entertainer but without her shock factor she wouldn't be what she is, her albums wouldn't have sold and she would already be forgotten. If it means one magazine being banned, so be it. Her "fans" should stop complaining…she made her bed, now she (and her fans) can lay in it. If she doesn't want the controversy, she needs to stop trying so hard to be so shocking.



  68. 68

    THANK HEAVENS!! NO ONE WANTS TO SEE HER FUG MUG ANYWHERE!
    LADY GAG-GAG. GROSS!

  69. DavHa says – reply to this


    69

    Sometimes I wonder the difference between US conservatives and the communist dictators that they are so against…

    Anyway Christina Aguilera had been on MTV with outfits that didn't cover her lower boob she turned out fine… Is America regressing?



  70. 70

    in stores like borders, a plastic bag is appropriate. it is a trashy cover and has nothing to do with music…… or fashion



  71. 71

    Her ugliness is offensive to me.



  72. 72

    umm Jennifer Aniston's GQ cover shows a little more boob than this. Hypocrites.



  73. 73

    ALSO YOU FORGOT TO MENTION SHE HAS A FUCKING DILDO IN HER PANTS TOO PEREZ.WOW SHE REALLY HELPING THE RUMOURS ISNT SHE??



  74. 74

    she is ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! banned the bitch up



  75. 75

    Ugh you know whats stupid they allow maxim here.Wtf is the difference!?!?!?! the difference is half the sluts they allow here don't do anything to make a difference.Gaga stands up for what she believes.This nation is fucking sexist and it's disgusting.WE LOVE YOU GAGA



  76. 76

    This is ridiculous! Lady Gaga Rock On!!!!



  77. 77

    shes too ugky. so that means she wont sell a magazine. she has no sucess in europe. and more madonna did many magazines of that kind and she even made sex book and sexy sexy videos and they all were banned from usa. but madonna was and is hot.- gaga isnt.



  78. 78

    yes this is offensive to my eyes…horses shouldn't be on the cover of music magazines



  79. 79

    Wait a minute…this is offensive, but it's okay for my local supermarket to have the SI swimsuit issue, with just as much exposed boob, at my 6-year-old's eye level? Huh?



  80. 80

    Re: blubabiecutie – it's called sarcasm… wow. Think before you speak dipshit.



  81. 81

    Re: Brainbug – Your lack of intelligence is offensive to me.



  82. 82

    Re: ontheball. – a joke… like your miserable excuse for a life?



  83. 83

    I love lady gaga, this picture is not that bad because I have seen worst! I love lady gaga! That all I have to say



  84. 84

    This is the best thing that can happen for her. Also, Rpattz can pose on a cover with his head between a chicks legs & people are falling all over themselves. I don't get it, and I don't want to say it's sexism, but yeah. I don't agree with censorship of any kind. If you don't like it, don't buy it…period.



  85. 85

    Re: XHollywoodXfame
    The difference is that those girls are at least attractive. Lady Gag-Gag is completely fugalicious.



  86. 86

    I have to agree with the statements that it's likely the enormous strap-on that's the biggest issue.



  87. 87

    Ugh this girl is so fucking ugly. That's why she's always dressing crazy, to distract from that FACE. Another talentless hack makes it big - why? I just don't get it!!!



  88. 88

    NOT OFFENSIVE!!! MAGNIFICANT!!!

    LOVE U GAGA!



  89. 89

    she's wearing a huuuuge strap-on, that's why it's been banned :(



  90. 90

    That is so absurd! Sports Illustrated has shown WAY MORE tata action, and they never get censored! That is ok…it will just give the magazine more hype. And I would think that the strap on was more of an issue than the tata.

  91. Vex says – reply to this


    91

    she's just trying to hide her cock bulge………..hermaphrodite munster



  92. 92

    FUCKING UGLY SKANK. BAN HER FROM EVERY PUBLICATION. BAN HER FROM SINGING. SOMEONE PLEASE KIDNAP THIS BITCH. 15 MINUTES ARE RUNNING OUT. SKANK



  93. 93

    Re: jdogin – ugh I cant look at that wo man shit either. That was the worst.



  94. 94

    it's beautiful!



  95. 95

    Re: pusspuss – Talentless? Really? Done any research?

    She began playing piano by ear from the age of 4, she went on to write her first piano ballad at 13 and began performing at open mike nights by age 14. At age 17, she gained early admission to the New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. (One of only 20 students in its 45 year history to enroll early). Talentless? I think not.



  96. 96

    thats outrageous, so what its a little boob, its hot:) lady gaga is the best and i would buy that magazine anyday, and yea ive seen worse way worse, so stop being to dramatic and sell the damn thing:)



  97. 97

    That is ridiculous. There are some effed up covers and they ban THIS? What the hell.

  98. chiro says – reply to this


    98

    Ilove Lady GaGa but her face is hard to look at! She has a nice body but her face is busted!!!!



  99. 99

    The RIhanna GQ magazine cover is far worse than this.



  100. 100

    YESS!!THANK YOU AMERICAAAAA

More comments: [1] 2 »