a little bit in love again

[pantryslut]

"But as necessary as retouching may seem in order to fill the coffers of corporate behemoths like Procter & Gamble, Revlon or Warner Brothers Records it is not okay for the rest of us -- the readers, that is -- that this goes on. In a world where lying, deception, and the fudging of facts has become endemic in everything, all the way up to the highest levels of government, this is yet another example of a fraud being perpetrated on the public... and the public, for the most part, is not yet in on the joke. Magazine-retouching may not be a lie on par with, you know, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," but in a world where girls as young as eight are going on the South Beach Diet, teenagers are getting breast implants as graduation gifts, professional women are almost required to fetishize handbags, and everyone is spending way too much goddamn time figuring out how to pose in a way that will look as good as that friend with the really popular MySpace profile, it's fucking wrong. And we're glad you agreed."

Jezebel. Also see their previous post.

Comments

[smashingstars.livejournal.com]

I am always amazed at what gets done to a retouched photo. Some of the comments after the article were terrible, especially the discussion about Hill's "back fat". This was great:

"She looks like the typical overly tanned gone-to-fat desperate-to-look-younger (dressed inappropriately for her age) middle-aged woman who was once unimaginatively hot-ish. In other words, pre-photoshop, she looks a lot like me. ... i think she's quite a bit more of a fatty than me too."

If anyone wants to know why magazines Photoshop pictures, there's your answer. Jerks like the commenter above are the ones buying the mags.