In a new GQ interview, Rielle Hunter has finally said something, anything, about her affair with John Edwards and the resulting child. But it's the photos accompanying the GQ piece that have provoked debate. Hunter told Barbara Walters she screamed and wept for two hours after seeing the "repulsive" shots in which she poses, half-dressed, on the bed she shares with the infant daughter she conceived with Edwards. Did GQ trick Hunter into boudoir photography, as she suggests, or is she fabricating outrage to gain sympathy? (Watch an NBC report about Rielle Hunter's interview)

Hunter knew what she doing: She's manipulating the situation to "boost her visibility and popularity," says Akela Talamasca at Manolith. After all, Hunter posed for these "shocking" photos; as a professional videographer, she surely "understands how photography works." It doesn't take a genius to realize that "keeping your pants on would be rule number one" when posing for a men's magazine.
"Rielle Hunter doesn’t understand how photography works"

Hunter was the prey of media vultures: It wouldn't be tough talking a woman "this naive into taking a few sexy shots," says Jenn Kepka in Salon. To my eyes, the "much-ballyhooed pantless pictures" don't reveal "a villain, a slut," or a "media-savvy huntress," only a "dizzyingly naive" New Age adherent. Who else would believe that John Edwards was "living a life of truth"?
"Defending Rielle Hunter"

Hunter squandered this opportunity: Rielle was granted 10 pages in GQ to "finally tell us who she really is," says Dahlia Lithwick in Slate, and she shows us an "amoral sex-kitten/child" who thinks it's OK to pose, with her child and child's dolls, in "photos that look like a creepy, male sex-fantasy from 1984." If she's a victim, she's a victim of her own terrible judgment.
"Rielle simple"


John Edwards' sex tape: Could Andrew Young go to jail?