Should there be health warnings on airbrushed/photoshopped pictures?

Airbrushing has not been used for years. It is all Photoshop nowadays. I don’t know why people still the expression. As for labeling images of models, all that will do is shorten a model’s working lifespan. Truly fit models will then be in demand, effectively reversing the result that they are aiming for. At the moment girls know that it is probably an enhanced image. If the models were known not to be enhanced, that would worsen self esteem. Aren’t too many “young” models already so skinny that they need photo manipulation to put weight back on?

@DarkScribe well that, too, sounds like a good outcome

I don’t really understand why it would require a health warning. Isn’t it a general understanding that most ads of anything including humans, cosmetics and food is ‘enhanced’? Perhaps fine print saying “artistic interpretation of product” might be helpful (sort of like the “serving suggestion” print on cereal boxes), but I think a health warning is pushing it too far.

I think it’s a good idea, for the sake of young girls.

@rabbitheart what do you believe is the harm in putting it as an official health warning?

Education, education, education. And reinforcement that no one needs to look like a Photoshopped image in order to think of themselves or others as worthwhile humans.

Maybe what would actually help is if manufacturers and designers and others in that business show people in a ::gasp:: realistic amount of makeup and in clothes that flatter their real bodies.

I mean, being real. How hard would that be?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think official health warnings should be reserved for products that are truly (and directly) damaging to your health. Overuse of ‘official warnings’ could result in people paying less attention to the more dangerous and important warnings, if that makes sense. Especially considering how many manipulated ads exist, it would be like seeing “caution” signs all over the place– we wouldn’t be as frightened of them if they were placed on every street.

@aprilsimnel I mean, being real. How hard would that be?

It would be very hard – on sales figures. The reason they use attractive models rather than Ms Average is that no one would buy the product. The reason they use Photoshop isn’t so much to alter figures as to improve skin tone etc. I don’t think that many people really know just how much “digital enhancement” is really involved. It is as much an aid for the photographer as the model.

@rabbitheart But it seems that for some people these ads, when considered cumulatively, can lead to unhealthy choices and decisions

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I absolutely agree that it can lead to unhealthy choices, and I don’t mean to downplay the importance of body image. Instead of fine print on posters however, I think an intimate education of body issues and self image in schools would be more effective without turning it into a national health crisis. Photoshopped ads aren’t the only things that lead to bad decisions.

@rabbitheart oh definitely, definitely, you’re completely correct…I just think that if this step can be taken, it should..in that every little bit helps, no?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir But it seems that for some people these ads, when considered cumulatively, can lead to unhealthy choices and decisions

So do ads for McDonald’s and Kentucky etc., lead to unhealthy choices. I’d love to see them banned – it would do far more good than putting warnings on photos.

@DarkScribe same here

Such a strong focus on appearance that one would threaten one’s own health sounds to me like a symptom of an Axis II Cluster B Personality Disorder. I don’t think a warning label would be sufficient.

It is getting dangerously close to the ridiculousness of this (my favorite being ‘cape does not enable wearer to fly’).

I think it’s fair they have to put a tiny disclaimer on ads saying ‘false lashes used in this commercial’ when the girls have eye lashes the length of their arms, but health warnings to tell people models are unnaturally skinny is really assuming a lot of stupidity of the audience.

@pdworkin Well you’ll need to explain to me, what you, specifically, think threatening one’s health would mean…because it’s not necessarily only about falling into anorexia or other eating disorders…it’s also about a mental state of the person…maybe they won’t do anything physically to themselves but consistent messaging around them can make a person feel like shit, generally, and all the time and that can lead to unhealthy steps to be taken…and these unhealthy steps are very common…crash diets, starting to smoke, responses to being stressed out, sexual acting out in an unsafe manner, you name it…hardly do I think that all the people engaging in these behaviours have Axis II Cluster B Personality Disorder…and forgive me, lol, but I don’t have my handy dandy DSM-V-whatever number it is this year poster on my wall these days…but on Oct. 7th I’m going to see my therapist and will make sure to check it out then

No No No No No No! Absolutely not!

If one is stupid enough to assume that an image of a model in a magazine is natural they’re doing mankind a favor by starving themselves to death.

The whole ‘There aughtta be a law’ mentality, will it ever stop?

Since when is France leading in some area proof it’s a good idea? (Foie Gras excepted)

@wildflower well it’s not necessarily stupidity, imo – more like a lot of people are really unaware that these are being retouched to such a degree – that video made by Dove or something that showed how a model gets ready and how much her photo is retouched was very popular, widely circulated and it was quite an eye-opener for many people…

@Noel_S_Leitmotiv I didn’t say it was proof that it was a good idea – all I said that ‘france is leading’ and that I think it’s a good idea

@wildflower A large part of the magazine industry for example is ignorant because they are young girls. I don’t see why some of you are against something that could lessen the number of cases of eating disorders.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: True, good point.

I know there’s all sorts of people out there and some will do harmful things to themselves for the most ridiculous of reasons, but do you really think we can stop them all?

I had TONS of barbies as a kid, but didn’t starve to death (in fact have never been in any real danger of taking on her proportions)

I know what the point is, @DarkScribe, I just don’t think it’s a good point to sustain an individual’s or society’s emotional health, nor does it help us from destroying ourselves via rampant materialism. Somewhere along the way people are taught that they are not good enough as they are. That’s messed up. I don’t feel it’s right to make money off people’s insecurities in ways that aren’t actually helping them. Granted, it’s not going to stop, I know, but I don’t have to like it.

Those ads and magazines are meant to encourage rampant materialism. And once the masses buy into the latest aspirational makeup compact, antiperspirant, outfit, car or piece of jewelry, it’s on to the next. And the next. And the next. The bar keeps getting moved. And for what? Who’s any happier? So I find these ads and photoshopped models and so on insidious on many levels.

The energy people put out in order to be the thinnest, best-looking, clearest-skinned, best-dressed with the most toys who gets laid the most often by other rich supermodels and Masters of the Universe types is a huge waste of time and resources on one end, just as much as the masses running off to McDonald’s and gorging themselves and plonking down to watch TV is on the other.

[/rant]

The problem (first) is how do you determine how much editing is OK, before you need a label? Cropping? Using a softbox? Soft focus?

The problem (second) is similar to California’s Prop 65 (“This product/building/bay contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause reproductive or other harm”)—And yes, they have those warnings on the fishing piers in SF. The warnings are on everything, so largely ignored.

@wildflower we’re not talking about stopping them all..nor are we discussing what your anecdotal evidence (though I’m glad you grew up okay, :)) means for all people…we’re talking about the health warnings having a positive effect on those that they CAN reach and on those who haven’t considered such a thing before

It really is a mad world, we have one section of the health police bewailing the “obesity epidemic” and another bemoaning an issue that encourages girls to lose weight. Every girl who decides to lose weight is not automatically going to develop an eating disorder – diets and feminine concern with weight loss date back for more than one hundred years. Check ads in the newspaper archives in your local library if you doubt that.

Luckily most guys don’t have these issues. Most who I know look at another guy in a magazine ad and focus on the product, not the model.

@grumpyfish yes I agree with you…that is one of the problems, the ‘who’s going to set standards’ kind of thing…but as with everything else and with all other standards, they are set, after all by some sort of entity and then they get applied…

@DarkScribe many guys do have those issues, believe you me and it’s not that guys just ‘don’t have these issues’ somehow out of thing air…it’s because in our society, women’s bodies are held to more scrutiny as we place value on their beauty but with men we place value on their successes…sexist, obvioulsy, but you know that

I like the fact that @Simone_De_Beauvoir brought up the Dove video. It educated thousands upon thousands of viewers about what exactly goes on in the process of creating an ad. I’m not against “lessening the number of cases of eating disorders,” I’m all for finding a method that does not involve decreasing the value of an official health label. What if every middle school student were required to go through a class during which they discussed body image, and were shown the Dove video? Don’t you think that would be far more effective than a tiny label on a poster?

So let me get this straight: we want magazines to show ‘pretty’ pictures, but we also want them to tell us these pictures aren’t realistic….......what’s the point of that? Wouldn’t we be better off seeing the unedited pictures in that case? Of course, I’m pretty sure sales would drop dramatically across several industries if that were the case, because, back to the start: we want pretty pictures….

@rabbitheart it would be more effective, let’s do it! and put the labels.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir many guys do have those issues,

I have never met one – not who has ever indicated anything along those lines. As for scrutiny of women’s bodies – sure – watching the girls go by, as the old song lyrics point out – is a fun pastime.

I just think that this is something everyone needs to be educated about at some point. Sure, a lot of people know already that the ads are heavily edited, but some don’t. It’s something that people form a young age should know. I agree with @rabbitheart about putting it in schools. Couldn’t hurt.

However, I think there’s another problem in that people are getting their perception of beauty from ads. I’m just going to be honest in that my perception of beauty does not come from magazines and billboards; it comes from what I see in other real unedited people. This is coming from someone who loves Photoshop and photography. I take pictures and edit the hell out of them in order to make them appear surreal. But that’s because it’s supposed to be art. Art is not meant to be a direct reflection of real life.

@wildflower but DO we want pretty pictures? there is a push (as the pendulum always swings back) now to see realistic looking models – magazines posting a naked photo of a woman that wasn’t a size 2 received gushing letters from thousands of writers about what a difference that made, about how they NEED to see things like that…and the model in question had a bit of a tummy sagging fat or whatever…

More companies should use ordinary models, like Dove does.
I don’t know about where you (all) live, but in the Netherlands they have campaigns where they do just that.
I’m not sure they decided to use that strategy to decrease the amount of people who develop low- or wrong self-image about themselves, or they just thought they found a new potential buyersgroup, but anyway, it’s a nice idea (to me).

@Simone_De_Beauvoir magazines posting a naked photo of a woman that wasn’t a size 2 received gushing letters from thousands of writers about what a difference that made

One instance a couple of weeks back and it has already blown over. No follow up. The problem is that aside from the market for plus size clothing – no manufacturer wants to use such models.

@DarkScribe still it was an instance and there will be more and it showed a need, it highlighted a gap

@Simone_De_Beauvoir if we didn’t, would this conversation be taking place? i.e. if ads and magazines with glamourised images didn’t sell, would this topic even come to mind?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m not a Dr. and I don’t mean to play one on Fluther. I would just say that when I encounter a beautiful person who is preoccupied with his or her appearance I consider that a warning not to engage. I have enough anecdotes to substantiate this position for myself.

@pdworkin then you must not engage with many many people…but in general one doesn’t have to be ‘preoccupied’ with their appearance in order to be negatively affected by years of damaging and illusory media

Thanks for the diagnosis. I’m going to go up my engagement rate now.

@pdworkin I didn’t diagnose you. and I do hope more people get the pleasure of your company. I know I do.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir DarkScribe still it was an instance and there will be more and it showed a need, it highlighted a gap

Maybe, but if a one legged model, or an albino model was to do the same thing they would also get as much if not more coverage. How does the media coverage equate to a public need or acceptance? Thousands of letters – if there were that many – from an audience of hundreds of millions doesn’t really indicate much. You might be right, and it would be great if you were, but I have my reservations.

Do you really think that if for instance – the “octomom” was to do the same thing that she wouldn’t get a massive amount more coverage? I regard it as a media stunt – nothing more.

@DarkScribe no it doesn’t indicate something huge but it indicates something and I just know it, people want to see more realistic images relfected back to them..but obvioulsly my gut feelings aren’t evidence

@Simone_De_Beauvoir people want to see more realistic images relfected back to them

Some people do, those who accept themselves, who aren’t still hoping to change – to lose weight, to get toned and more attractive etc. The rest want to see their goal – the person they like to think is lurking inside them and going to come out – one day.

Women’s responses drive the market – the choice of models – not men. There is an incredible amount of very careful research involved in marketing – if something would work better then it would already be in effect.

@DarkScribe well that’s not true…I want to lose weight, have better skin, longer hair whatever…I don’t need to see false images EVERYWHERE…I already know what I want to look like, according my own past self or when comparing myself to friends or whatever…point is when you’re shopping for things like watches or alcohol or whatever, there is NO need (other than the assumption that sex sells) to have retouched models everywhere…if I need jeans all I need is for a pair to fit me…and I’ll go to a store and buy a pair, I don’t need to see models wearing them that don’t look like me or anyone even close to my look…they don’t look like anyone…retouched images look like aliens…

and I understand about marketing, I’ve read all too many books and articles on how much research actually goes on and I know what you’re saying…this however doesn’t mean that women don’t have internalized sexism going on

that reminds me of the commercial advertising “slimming jeans than make you look like you’ve lost ten pounds” on a size zero model. Bull shit.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir well that’s not true…

In general it is. The magazines are selling – and to women. If they didn’t like them, they wouldn’t buy them, or they would have switched to one of the several attempts at magazines featuring “real” models that pop up every few years and made them popular. The majority of women are keeping the status quo in effect. The audience demographic is young women – teens to twenty something – with regard to the offending fashion and lifestyle oriented offerings. If the audience attitude changes, the content will change almost immediately.

I buy magazines as often as possible, but not because of the models. I just like magazines. The clothes, the articles, the new products. I barely look at the models and would be delighted if magazines began to feature non-retouched ads and such.

@DarkScribe well sure consumers are keeping the status quo in effect, doesn’t mean they don’t want to see something else..consumers don’t think they can change anything, people need to be empowered…advertising as an industry has a lot more umph behind it through research and money and staff working round the clock on hoodwinking people into consuming (I am critical of advertisers, is that clear? lol)...look I know people buy these magazines…it’s the same reason I watch reality tv – because I and they are masochists…well some of us anyway…@facade is sane and buys these magazines to look at products which is how it should be

@Simone_De_Beauvoir it’s the same reason I watch reality tv

Ouch! My pet dislike – (un)reality television.

Consumers don’t have to think anything, as long as they buy one magazine in preference to another, they are driving the market. There are an awful lot of competing magazines out there, few would buy all of them – most will have a preference and that preference is what decides on advertising directions.

I buy most. ELLE (which is delivered to me for free for some reason), Glamour, InStyle. I don’t buy Cosmo, I already know how to please my man :) I also don’t buy the “black” mags. All the relaxers and complaints about Black men make me nauseous.

I gave up all those trash mags by the time I was 20, and once I did, I started to feel a lot better about myself. Occassionally, I will pick up a Cosmo at the doctor and once I’m done looking at it I feel fat and inadequate, and I get the urge to buy things.

I think these mags are destructive to women, whether it’s consciously or not. We see how women who look a certain way get treated in society, and we want to emulate it.

It would all have to start from scratch. Fashion would have to change, people would have to accept the way they look so they can accept images of themselves looking back at them from magazines and movies.

Health warning, no. But maybe a disclaimer saying: people in this magazine are larger and uglier than they appear.

I can see a reason not to make it a health warning; that does seem silly to me. But I could definitely see a law that says that doctored photos be labeled as such. Then people and even young girls may get the message that this is not a realistic look to aim for. Changing our image of what is and isn’t attractive is in the long term the best way to go, but as with so many things, I can’t see how we get there from here.

I suddenly thought of the fact that in newsmedia it is considered (almost) a crime to photoshop.
But i guess in advertisementland other rules apply?

@rebbel interesting point…journalists have a responsibility to their consumers, supposedly…advertisers have a responsibility to corporations

@rebbel I suddenly thought of the fact that in newsmedia it is considered (almost) a crime to photoshop.

No almost about it – the image has to be untouched. Lawsuits result if it isn’t.

I want them to say when the model has fake hair also.

@JLeslie I’d like cosmetic companies to have to have a disclaimer on mascara ads, too.
I can see the models are wearing false eyelashes!

I absolutely think there should be health warnings. I think it is a fabulous idea.

Despite what Darkscribe says, the term airbrushing is still commonly used to describe the act of ‘digitally enhancing’ your photos. Yes, I believe there should be truth in advertising, although I didn’t think of calling it a ‘health warning’.

@YARNLADY Despite what Darkscribe says, the term airbrushing is still commonly used to describe the act of ‘digitally enhancing’ your photos

Yes, I know – I didn’t suggest that it wasn’t used, I just wondered why. I doubt that many really understand what airbrushing was, or the difference with digital technology and use the phrase as “catch all” for any image modification. It makes as much sense as referring to a flat screen display as a “tube”.

@DarkScribe tube, phone dial, and on and on

Just out of curiosity, if there is to be a warning about the skinniness of the models because it causes poor self image. This because the average person cannot attain that level of either the real or photoshopped skinniness, then how about the beauty of the models. Most people do not have facial features that pleasingly perfect. So the warning should report that as well. Something like

“Please note, the average human female could not achieve these looks or this body without substantial digital manipulation. So don’t emulate it, strive for it or feel badly if you aren’t.”

And then how about when they take pics of Jane Fonda or Sharon Stone, perhaps there should be a disclaimer so the old ladies such as myself don’t feel badly. Something like

“Most people who are aging naturally cannot possibly look like these women, without plastic surgery or botox or digital maninulation, they too would have wrinkles and their skin would not fit as well as it appears to.”

The list is endless. Are people, even the young females at whom most of this is directed, really that stupid? Do they really need warnings?

@rooeytoo

There is evidence that these ads do negatively affect the self-image of many women and I do not think that by any means qualifies these women as stupid. Having a warning label below the images (more general not as specific as you describe) is just a way of snapping women who look at the ads back into reality. It is a way of honoring the fact that this is a form of art and not the looks of the average person, in many cases especially with photoshpping it is not the looks of a ‘real person’ even. We don’t need inundated with images that don’t reflect what a real woman looks like, this is a small step in honoring that this are not in fact representations of “real women” (with the photoshpping).

I think mental health warning is an accurate representation.

I want to clarify my answer. I don’t think it is a health warning. It is more like a statement of what is fake or altered so we regular ol’ women have a GD chance.

But then no one would want to be a model. Really, I don’t think you can have any warning.

I wouldn’t mind seeing “This photo has been digitally enhanced/altered.” That, combined with education in schools (including that great Dove video), would do the job without being overly strident about it.

I am of the humble opinion that most men prefer women to models. I know I do. Give me actual size over a model any day.

I hope that at some point in time, common sense will return and people will be able to figure out for themselves that putting a plastic bag over your head is not a safe thing to do (aimed presumably at children who can’t read anyhow).

The more warnings on more products just make society in general, less able to think for itself and more reliant on someone else to think for them.

I would rather see the world revive its lost ability to be able to think, evaluate and decide all by itself without the necessity of reading a disclaimer.

When someone tells me the obvious, I consider it an insult to my intelligence. So if young girls especially are learning poor self image by looking at photoshopped pics of skinny women, then their parents should get to work and point out the real female heros of the world! Those who excel in business, sports, politics and on and on, not those who by a fluke of nature have a pretty face and long legs.

Again I will say that being affected by the inundation of artificial images is not a sign of poor intelligence or people who do not think for themselves. It happens at a subconscious level (i mean that’s how ads work) , the warning just brings it back to the conscious level. There is no stupidity for asking for truth in advertising.

My loathing for people who aim to be like those models (and the men who lust after such cartoon characters) overrides my concern for such people.

Why do you loathe them?

@Facade , First of all to loathe them, I have to generalize. When it comes down to individuals, the logic I use gets different and more tolerant.

But the kind of person (even if a teen) who allows authority (celebrities and tv) to dictate to them what is pretty…. is the same kind of person who is lazy minded on all sorts of things. Because of them, Bush got elected twice in a row. Because of them, traffic doesn’t flow as well as it otherwise could. Because of them, all sorts of stupidity occurs. Brand names rule. Bureaucrats get entrenched. Awful Muzak spews forth out of PA systems in every supermarket.

The reason is their lack of observance, and their laziness to think critically, and their willingness to just suspend their own minds and let some other authority do their thinking for them.

We have a mediocre culture due directly to people who get lazy and prefer not to critically think. And all sorts of body-types are innately attractive to the human mind, but the empty-minds only take in what they’re told or suggested to take in. Then you get freaks of nature with bare bones, shaved eyebrows, shoulderpads, etc.
The whole concept of beauty gets warped and polluted, ironically causing them to make themselves uglier than they naturally are.

Even the most intelligent, productive, thoughtful people can have eating/exercise disorders because of what they see. I don’t think your correlation is accurate or valid.

@Facade, yeah but you’re referring to eating disorders, which are actual diseases. So I can’t even really include that in my generalization anyway. There’s very few people with anorexia or bulemia, compared to the average mainstream idiot with his self-created pathologies. And it’s the average mainstream idiot, that i’m really identifying here.

I’m talkin about your everyday human beings, with their handbags, or golf clubs, brand-name jewelry, or whatever. Talkin on their cells while driving. Using their text machines like pacifiers. Flipping through US Magazine, actively brainwashing theirselves… these people because of their numbers in mass, basically control America. And look what they created.

Um, OK.

Project much?

@Kraigmo
I agree with @Facade

I think you are assuming that it is a choice to be affected by these magazines when ads work at a subconscious level first. Women don’t choose to see so many images of these “fake women” that they start developing a poor self image. It has nothing to do with laziness or inability to think clearly etc… It is not something that happens because of passivity. It is a social construct (especially at the teenage level). In fact how can you even suggest that teens are empty-minded? They are responding to the social construct, they need to be taught how to think critically about these images. Warning labels are one way to teach them to do that. Even once someone is taught to think critically it does not mean they aren’t affected at a subconscious level because they are so thoroughly inundated with such imagery.

what a great discussion…thank you, guys, for that

@RedPowerLady , I noticed, back even before I was a teen, that the people around me were falling for brainwashing. Why did all the Boys need to wear Vans shoes and Adidas shorts? And all the girls into something else which I forget? Then when I grow up I find out, that people take these simplicities and transfer them onto important things in life, and what we end up with is: 3 huge groups: Democrats, Republicans, and Nonvoters… and 3 huge forms of GroupThink. And outside of that are the exceptions.

And this rule applies to fashion and self-identity, unfortunately. And I remember this being a conscious choice as a child, so I grew up knowing all it takes is a little personal decision to not others dictate how one’s mind works (while not rejecting any obvious truths either).

As for the types of girls to fall for these ads, I stand by what I said, but I also incorporate what you said, since what you said is totally true, as well. And of course the level of which what I said or what you said occurs, depends on the individual.

And I although I don’t want to ban these ads or force warnings on them (but I’m open to that, i’m not strongly of this opinion) , I just know that if we did this to every problem in life, it might get overwhelming.

But I do very much agree with Simone and others that these ads send out a destructive, wasteful, or twisted subconscious message. And the fact they’re photoshopped makes them even more potentially twisted.

And since education is compulsary, I think we need to have the States start requiring the teaching of how advertising works, as a subject in all grades, no less important than math, history, and geography. A whole year should be devoted to how images are created by minds in New York and LA, then bodies are hired, and graphic designers are hired, and what occurs, focusing on the fakeness of it all.

In the 1970s when I was growing up, the character Chachi once wore a bandanna around his jeans on Happy Days. Within days, elementary children were doing the same thing across America. And they didn’t even know why. They need to be taught why. In 1984, Fonzie had a baby named Ashley. Over the next 10 years, thousands of girls were named Ashley. Not that its a bad name… it’s still pretty.

But people need to be taught in schools how and why these things occur. A lot.

@Kraigmo Teaching how advertising works goes against everything the US stands for… Money

@Facade yeah, I think that’s why the 2 subjects, advertising and ethics, are never taught in any normal elementary school

@Kraigmo
I appreciate what you are saying about how education about advertising is needed and making conscious choices about ones identity is to be supported.

I do think you are confusing consumerism based on ads vs. the unconscious self-image that is affected based on ads. Your examples of women and handbags, the people in the in-crowd who must be in-fashion, Chaci and the red bandana all have to do with consumerism. We aren’t discussing how these ads affect buying habits but rather how they affect women at a level that is often uncontrollable. Even the most well-educated and self-aware woman could develop a poor self-image based on these ads, because there are just so many of them and because of how they work.

Also you are also making an assumption that there is always a choice involved in how your self-image develops. Unfortunately self-image forms from both the inner self and the outer world. And when the outer world is telling you that “this” is beauty and it becomes part of your subconscious schema then you have fewer choices about how your self-image develops. This is not ideal of course but for the majority of people it does work this way.

I also find it quite offensive that you are categorizing women into types. They type that fall for these ads and they type that don’t. Do you know that the majority of women are affected by these ads? Why do you think that is? It is not because of stupidity or lack of self-awareness. It is because this happens at a level that one is unaware. There is also something to be said about the idea that choice about self-image is not as rudimentary as being self-aware. There are many other factors at work. One’s culture being part of them.

Now this doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with you about many things you’ve said. But I simply think that categorizing women into the stupid who fall for the ads and the smart who don’t is a complete fallacy.

Now I feel as if I’m repeating myself so I’m not sure if I will have much more to say on the topic.

@RedPowerLady – There is evidence that these ads do negatively affect the self-image of many women It would be interesting to look at some studies on the link between self-image and the power of advertising, self-esteem and literacy, etc. Consider TV ads for passenger cars. It is troubling that so many include in the text “Do not attempt [whatever feat of driving skill is demonstrated]. Skilled driver on a closed track.” Are we really that stupid? Real life driving is nothing like what is in the films.

One of the objectives of education is enabling self awareness. Even wolves educate their young, for pity’s sake. If it is found necessary to put warning labels on ads, then there has been a significant failure of the education system. It was either Huggies or one of the diaper companies that featured older children, rather than babies, in their ads. Anyone who is around infants knows that babies are bow legged and flat footed, but it took a doctor, in our press, to bring attention to that fact. Since then the pictured babies look more like the real thing.

@bea2345 RE:warnings; I know of two specific cases where people actually did try what they saw on TV/movies and died doing it. In San Deigo, a group of teens in a car died when the driver tried driving through a cattle car on a train track, just like in the movies, not realizing the movie set was a ‘break-away’ and not a real train car. In Los Angeles, a young man layed down on the center line of a two way street, to let the cars drive past him like they did on TV, but he was run over.

Many, if not most warnings are put on products after/because someone has already died or been injured.

This is when I think of the Darwin Awards…

@YARNLADY – That must be why the advertising trade continues to flourish. On the one hand, we have the persons who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. On the other hand, we have an ethic in which free speech is considered a good and an advertiser can say almost anything. (Don’t mistake me. Unfettered free speech is to be preferred to censorship. But that was one of the reasons that the US was one of the earliest nations to have free elementary education for everyone). There has been a failure of communication.

I couldn’t agree more @DominicX: GA

@SpatzieLover here in the uk they do have little footnotes on teh tv adverts for mascara that say, “dramatisation” or somthing to that effect!

@bea2345
Are we really that stupid?
It is not about stupidity, well okay sometimes it is, lol. The way ads work on someone’s subconscious affects the decisions we make consciously. However we aren’t aware that there are these subconscious schemas playing in the back of our head that we did not create ourselves. For many people it can take serious counseling to bring these schemas forward and challenge them. This is because they work outside of our control. That being my point, although some people just act out of stupidity, many many others are acting on forces outside of their control. It really surprises me that so many people assume that people do these things, or rather have their self-image affected, out of shear stupidity (or un-education). Our minds are much more complicated than that. Especially when it comes to self-image and forces such as that.

This theory that people are affected by ads because of lack of education is a bit off. Are we saying that those who have PhD’s are less affected in their self-image when they see such ads? In fact many tests that determine how such imaging affects the self-image are conducted on college students. In fact I ran one such study when I was in college.

I advocate more education but that isn’t going to solve the problem on how such ads affect our self-image.

Just a side note. I haven’t responded so many times to strongly advocate for warnings, although I do think they are a good idea. My reason for discussing the topic so extensively is to hopefully provide some information that helps anyone realize that this is not something that occurs because of stupidity. I really am shocked that people think this way, it has little basis in the truth of how our self-image develops or even on how our minds work in response to such inundation of ideas. This is in response to those who have said or suggested that we are stupid to need such warnings or that the “stupider” people are affected while others aren’t.

My first post: I gave up all those trash mags by the time I was 20, and once I did, I started to feel a lot better about myself. Occassionally, I will pick up a Cosmo at the doctor and once I’m done looking at it I feel fat and inadequate, and I get the urge to buy things.

I have a BA and an MA is Women’s Studies. I am very versed in critical theory and media culture, and even I become sucked in by the images I see. I tell myself that what I see is not real, and that I should not be influenced, but at times I am. I cannot explain why. I stop myself from going down destructive paths, and I am by no means brainwashed by society (many fluther users can tell you that). So please don’t assume what kind of people are influenced by the media.

I think men are that stupid. I think they don’t notice hair pieces and fake eyelashed and that the cellulite is being “brushed” out. But, if most men are like my husband he doesn’t care what is fake as long as you look good—ugh. When I was a teen it was less of an issue because I was young and thin, and did not really feel like I was falling short, except maybe I wanted my breasts to be a little bigger. Back when I was young a lot of models were 14, my girlfriend in school was 14 when she started. They did not have to fix much on her. Not to mention that I am more worried about people being too fat than too thin.

@tinyfaery Great Answer. Thank you for the example. I was sincerely hoping someone would come out with a good one and yours is perfect. Very well put.

Real Eyes Realize Real Lies

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – and do you need a disclaimer to do so?

To those who believe the government should intervene in the freedom of the press, do you also believe that the people who are being influenced by the photos would bother to read or believe the disclaimer???

The people should concern themselves with intervening into governmental affairs, rather than allowing the government to intervene in anything at all. Freedom of Press is nothing more than a license to lie.

Warning labels for “High Voltage” or “Poison” are considerations to physical harm. Who has the right to police a thought? Only Evolution can do such a deed.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Freedom of Press is nothing more than a license to lie.

That is a very ill considered claim. There might be a degree of editorial bias, but then every person you meet has some degree of personal bias. If any form of media lies it will become immediately apparent as none have exclusive access to news and collusion between a group of fiercely competitive media entities is about as far-fetched as it is possible to get. They effectively police each other.

It is hardly interfering with freedom of the press to put a warning label on items. This is especially true when health concerns are involved, including mental health concerns.
And warning labels have proven effective in other circumstances so why not here?

The real problem that I have with all this is the presumption that NONE of these models looks like a real woman. That is nonsense. There are many very real, very healthy woman out there who look like that without any form of “AirBrushing” (That was for Yarn Lady – :) )

My wife has weighed about 105 lbs since I met her, I have five daughters, all of whom are slender and attractive. None of them needs me to Photoshop them to make them look good – they are REAL women. None of them spend an inordinate amount of time on diet or exercise, beauty aids etc., they just eat in moderation and live a healthy slightly athletic lifestyle. Any of my daughters could have modeled, and without needing Photoshop – two still could, the others are around thirty.

The woman in the ads are not Photoshopped to look unnatural, just to look ideal. Much of the objection seems to come from disgruntled overweight women. Advertisers use Photoshop mostly to even out skin tones etc., NOT CHANGE BODY SHAPE – that is rare and usually only for an established model who is passing her prime. Models have a fairly short “Best By” life. If you get away from the USA there are MILLIONS of women and girls who really look like that. Spend some time in France for instance.

The real issue here, is that a normal, healthy, responsible women does look like the models – they are not mythical creatures. Banning Photoshop or forcing labeling will make matters worse as then they will be looking at the real thing without the ability to shy away from the reality that they are not all they could be by saying – “Ah, they are only that way because they have been photoshopped…”

Can’t anyone grasp that? Take away the fudged images and you will be left with indisputably genuine images. They will NEVER stop using attractive women in advertising.

@DarkScribe If there are plenty of women that look like models then why do we need photoshopping? No reason to argue against taking away the “fudged” images if the ones left are still beautiful.

The following statement is not only a fallacy but is also quite offensive: “Much of the objection seems to come from disgruntled overweight women.”

This movement actually started when women started noticing that their daughters, beautiful daughters, were having poor self-images resulting from such advertising. Not to mention the women who responded to ads by engaging in eating disorders and getting increased amounts of plastic surgery? If this isn’t true how do you explain all the beautiful tv stars who get more and more plastic surgery to look more like how they are supposed to?

They will NEVER stop using attractive women in advertising.
The issue is not if they will stop using attractive women. The issue is what do we define as attractive. And why the need for photoshopping when there are so many beautiful women out there. Look at the DOVE campaigns, they have many real beautiful women in their ads. Good for them!

You might find this video interesting: dove evolution

Does the woman they start with look like the woman they end with?

@DarkScribe

Ideal? Not even the Playmates I’ve shot recognize themselves. We don’t record reality. We build it.

And we use 14 year old girls for cellulite cream ads (with parental permission of course).

@RedPowerLady If there are plenty of women that look like models then why do we need photoshopping?

Because it is a career, and because it makes the photographer’s job a lot easier to do things in PP that can be done in camera but with more difficulty. A sharp lens shows imperfections, a portrait lens with a diffusion filter loses detail and the model’s job is to attract attention to the product – so detail is required. With Photoshop you can have the best of both. Also, a model is more than a mannequin, she has experience and skill – changing every year or two to a bunch of new models would be more difficult than using (and fudging) the ones you have.

Since the beginning of time some girls have felt less attractive than other girls – don’t blame Photoshop for it – it was happening long before even airbrushing (with it limitations) was developed. Women should try – in general – to stop relating to beauty as a viable attribute because as long as they do, they are propagating the problem. Beauty fades very fast, only a very young girl/woman is considered beautiful by modern criteria, which is why women wear bras, high heels, makeup etc., all aimed at appearing more youthful.

There definitely are many women who are beautiful without Photoshop – I am constantly surrounded by them. But I live in a holiday resort area – so it is to be expected.

We put marbles in the bottom of soup bowls and bring all the meat to the top. We put shellac on chicken wings to make them shine. We use colored Crisco for ice cream and hold a cigarette over cold black cool aide to imitate hot coffee (no oil skim). All the ice is acrylic and so are the pours.

It’s all a lie.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies It’s all a lie.

Are you having a bad day or a bad life?

(Not trying to offend, but you seem a little bitter.)

Nothing bad about acknowledging the truth behind lies.

Try and get a burger from McDonalds that looks like the one in the picture. Try and find a girl who looks like the Mabeline Covergirl.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Nothing bad about acknowledging the truth behind lies.

It is the advertising industry – no more a lie than the stage. Unless you take it seriously.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Try and get a burger from McDonalds that looks like the one in the picture. Try and find a girl who looks like the Mabeline Covergirl.

I don’t eat at McDonalds, and I married a girl who looks like a covergirl.

(I ate at McDonalds once – in 1978 and I didn’t like the food – it gave me indigestion – so I never went back.)

My job is to get you to take it seriously.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies My job is to get you to take it seriously.

You are in for a LOOOONG career.

I’ve left that career to pursue imaging with substance.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ve left that career to pursue imaging with substance.

Ah! Substance. (Keep it well hidden…)

Can’t do that when it’s hanging on a wall, archival, gaining value every second. It remains beyond my generation. One piece of artwork that makes an honest statement about society is worth more than the hundreds of fleeting moment editorial lie ads I’ve shot. I get sick at myself for doing that. My job was to lie to the public. Getting money for it made me a whore.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies My job was to lie to the public.

I have worked in media for more than twenty-five years and have never once had to lie. I might present something in as good a light as I possibly can – but always truthfully. I wonder what the difference is?

But in all honesty, let’s play fair. Any girl who uses a push up bra, makeup, or even hair curlers has set out to alter her image of reality. Photoshop is the natural evolution of that.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Any girl who uses a push up bra, makeup, or even hair curlers has set out to alter her image of reality.

Yes, and isn’t it nice when they make themselves pretty? I don’t complain.

(You forgot perfume – that is one of the nicest of the feminine “secondary” attributes.)

My journalism days were way different than my advertising days. My Photo J was turned over to an editor who writes copy to slant the image, but the shot was straight. Advertising changes the shot and flowers up the copy to enhance and entice the viewer. We cause women to want to be another woman. But that’s no different than every young male wanting to be the hero in a movie.

The problem arises when priority is given on people changing themselves into something they are not. If I can make you think I’ve got what you need to do that, then you’ve just bought my snake oil. Miracle cures are hot sellers. But this is not a cure for humanity, it’s a curse to humanity.

The most beautiful people I know are the ones most comfortable with themselves exactly the way they are.

@DarkScribe two things – first of all, fine, so they don’t change their body shape but hardly are models (regardless of your anectodal evidence about your daughters and wife, people are different) living healthy lifestyles to be that skinny and secondly, anyone next to them would be ‘overweight’ even though we’re not overweight at all…

I don’t want 5’3” size 12 or larger women being put in front of woman all of the time as the ideal or normal. I don’t want size 2 5’8” either. They are both generally unhealthy.

@JLeslie

They’d make a hell of a tag team.

@JLeslie I don’t want size 2 5’8” either. They are both generally unhealthy.
With regard for the disparity in sizing convention between the US and Australia, a 105lb 5’3” (my wife’s size) or a 110lb 5“8” (two of my daughter’s sizes) are often claimed to be unhealthy by many US women – even accused of having eating disorders. They are a size 6 here. They are absolutely normal and healthy – they don’t diet and they also don’t avoid natural exercise – they like sports and athletic pastimes etc.

It annoys me when someone suggests that they are not normal. I grew up on surfing beaches and most girls were built like that. It was absolutely normal – and when I lived in the US in the seventies it was normal there too.

@DarkScribe

They may have been size six here a couple of decades ago, but not any longer, not with those proportions. Women’s clothing sizes have been consistently getting smaller because marketing tells us she’s more likely to buy the jeans that say she’s smaller. Today’s size 2 was yesterday’s size 6.

All part of the big lie.

@DarkScribe I was just talking extremes, I should not have tried to be so specific. I’m actually agreeing with you overall. I think th epeople who are most upset by the ads and airbrushing are people who are overweight. If you looke through all of my comments wy above I said that they used to use 14 year olds in ads and they were thin and near perfect, and it didn’t get to me as a young woman because I was thin also. like most teens when I was young. Now so many are overweight it troubles me (I mentioned that above also not in the same words). American 6 is good for me. although 5’8” 110 seems less than an American 6. I am a 6 when I am 132 give or take 2 pounds and I am 5’6”. But, I am not saying they are unhealthy. I am way more worried about people being too fat than too thin in general.

@DarkScribe they are normal
but they’re not what everyone should strive for, that’s all

@JLeslie I am way more worried about people being too fat than too thin in general.

Yes, anorexic or obese is bad but there is still a huge bias toward overweight, unhealthily thin in nowhere near so common. I honestly feel that if it was possible to only have the modern average (not normal) women depicted in magazines that it would make obesity far worse. One of the prime reasons for difficulty in weight control is that they (the food manufacturers) are still pretending that low fat is the best way to lose weight – rather than cutting back on processed carbs. I, and my entire family eat a diet high in healthy fats, but low in processed carbs. Research for more than ten years has refuted the seventies “low fat” myth that kick started the “obesity epidemic”. Consumed fat doesn’t turn automatically into body fat – carbs do.

I think we were agreeing overall, not sure why you pulled that particular quote from my previous post.

I agree processed carbs are bad, but no carbs is bad also in my book. Carbs go to fat if your glycogen storage is full, and since Americans eat too many calories of carbs and don’t burn them off they rarely have their glycogen levels go down, so all carbs are going to fat. A runner uses up his stores, when they are depleted that is “hitting the wall.” Anyway, I worry about diets like Atkins, not that I think you are suggesting eating bacon and cheese, but Americans have taken low carbs to mean no carbs and eat crap. I know you are not saying that at all, it seems you are focused on polyunsaturated oils, whole grains, veggies, I agree with all of that. When I was a thin teen (5’6” 125 size 4) who was active my cholesterol was still 270. The only thing that brings down my cholesterol is eating less cholesterol. Fewer carbs doesn’t do it. Fewer hydrogenated fats doesn’t do it (well I don’t eat much of that anyway, but one time I switched to butter from margarine and my cholesterol went back up again, meanwhile I think both are bad).

According to the vic gov au site a woman of 5’3” and 105 pounds has a bmi of 19 and is considered underweight. That sounds really scrawny to me. Australians in general though
are right on the heels of Americans for the fat awards.

With regard to the sizing, you just never know, I usually wear 8 Australian and when I order from USA will buy 6 or 8 depending on the brand and style. I keep reading where the average Australian woman is a 12 or 14. Isn’t that about the same for USA, the average would be a 12?

@rooeytoo

It’s very odd how that works. Runway models are usually booked between size 4 & 6 for shows. But the clothing provided for them to wear is most always size 12 because yes, that is the most typical AM size. Height plays a crucial factor in this phenomenon. The runway model may be size 4–6 for bust/waist/hips, but her arms and legs fit size 12. Designers enjoy the draping line of their creations on long and lanky forms. But to see those girls in the buff is quite a gangly sight.

@rooeytoo a woman of 5’3” and 105 pounds has a bmi of 19 and is considered underweight. That sounds really scrawny to me.

Scrawny?

This is my wife and she isn’t bad for a woman about to turn fifty. (Like her pussycat? She loves tigers.)

This is my youngest daughter a couple of years ago. She has had modeling offers all of her life but she is studying computer science at University.

and this is my next youngest daughter

this is my third youngest daughter when she was still a teen.

are they “scrawny”? They are all under 19 BMI in these photos.

This is my third youngest now with a BMI of 21 – but she gave birth to my grandson a week before this was taken. My own BMI is 21.7 and I am extremely fit for someone in their fifties.

BMI is pretty much discredited nowadays as an indicator of appropriate weight when applied to people who are actually fit – it doesn’t allow for muscle mass and it is overly generous – many health authorities regard the high end as unfit unless the person is athletic. It also doesn’t allow for people who eat and exercise to the extent where they have low body fat but without excessive muscle bulk. It might work at the high end as a warning to couch potatoes, but many athletes are considered overweight if BMI is the only criterion.

Scrawny ???

@DarkScribe first of all I sincerely hope youre wife and daughers are okay with their photos being posted in this manner and in relation to their weight, secondly, what is it exactly that you’re trying to convince us of?

@DarkScribe Your family is beautiful :). Are you converting from Kilo’s? The height and weight doesn’t seem right. My aunt is 5’3” and sickly and weighs 100, she looks terribly thin.

Just thought I’d add that most general definitions say that a BMI under 18.5 is “underweight”, not 19. Hell, I have a BMI of 19. I’m definitely quite skinny, there’s no doubt about that, but I’m not underweight.

@DarkScribe I think you should at least consider the idea that it is women (in general) telling you this is unhealthy and you, as a man, are arguing that it is not. To me that is poignant.

So the model in the outfit is unusually lean and you aren’t. That doesnt necessarily mean the clothes of makeup won’t work on you.

Try it on and be honest with what you see. If you’re not sure ask a friend or clerk for help.

Let go of the insecurity and jealousy of models (professionals that transform their bodies for their carrer like people do all the time) and instead evaluate yourself as an individual.

Think of models being retouched as proof that nobody is perfect, therfore perfection is meaningless.

Go with what works for you. Regardless of others. The confidence that results from this is far more attractive that physical ‘perfection’.

I’m very pleased in the trend towards larger models (why shouldnt there be big girls and lean girls working in the field, yay choice! They still get retouched too, because the product should have the detail, not the model.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a professional model or a co worker. Judging yourself against them is meaningless and limiting.

Appreciate you for you. It will show on you and look great.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir DarkScribe first of all I sincerely hope youre wife and daughers are okay with their photos being posted in this manner and in relation to their weight

Why would they be concerned – they all have facebook and flickr accounts with these photos on and they are not concerned with their weight or health in any negative fashion. My wife is on numerous web sites as a result of various career directions – board members – committees, awards etc. (I won’t be leaving the links active – it was just to make a point about that weight not being scrawny.)

What I was illustrating is that these weights are not “scrawny” when they are on an otherwise healthy female.

@JLeslie Are you converting from Kilo’s? The height and weight doesn’t seem right. My aunt is 5’3” and sickly and weighs 100, she looks terribly thin.

That is my point – she is probably not fit with that weight – and no, I am not converting (with an error) I am old enough to have been raised with the imperial system – decimal came later. My family are all fit. My second youngest daughter is a martial arts and gym junkie, but when relaxed she doesn’t look overly muscular.

@DarkScribe Your family are all very attractive and obviously well proportioned and healthy. That’s great. (Dang Aussies!) The point is that whether through “air-brushing” or extremely unhealthy dieting, when models are made to project an image of extreme thinness, it can set up a climate of unhealthy standards and unhappiness for some young girls and women. I don’t think a health warning is appropriate but I do think it is valuable to discuss the issue and try to change the standards so these unhealthy images are not the norm in advertising.

@RedPowerLady I think you should at least consider the idea that it is women (in general) telling you this is unhealthy and you, as a man, are arguing that it is not. To me that is poignant.

I am actively involved in fitness and general health – it is one of my specialty areas in media. I also participate in my family’s health activities, diet and lifestyle. I raised them that way. My wife and I walk and run together several days per week – and I do all the cooking/manage the food etc.

It is just that so many people regard a low end BMI as near anorexic and it isn’t close to being that IF the person is fit.

@janbb when models are made to project an image of extreme thinness

The discussion is image manipulation. They don’t make models thin with Photoshop – sometimes they select thin models and make them more appealing using Photoshop. The model – the “heroin chic” and the “waifs” are truly thin – they often weigh less than eighty pounds at five-six. Look at some of the model web sites and check their specs. Some list weights as low sixty-five pounds. I don’t like them and agree that they should not be considered representative of normal women. I had occasion last Christmas to lift one them off a yacht into a dinghy and she weighed about as much as a nine year old child. For the entire day she didn’t eat – at a picnic cruise.

@DarkScribe I agree with everything you have said in your last post to me. Being healthy actively is fantastic. Judging someone with a low BMI is not cool.

My argument is merely that as a man, especially one with such a beautiful family, it may be difficult for you to understand how these ads work on a woman’s self-image at the unconscious level. Not that ads can’t work on men the same way or that gender is the issue. However this self-image issue has been well documented among young beautiful women as well as unhealthy women. I advocate for more healthy education and active lifestyles, heck yes. At the same time I also believe that these ads have a very unhealthy affect on how a young woman’s self-image develops for many of the reasons that have already been stated in this post.

This is in response to your statement: Since the beginning of time some girls have felt less attractive than other girls – don’t blame Photoshop for it – it was happening long before even airbrushing (with it limitations) was developed. Women should try – in general – to stop relating to beauty as a viable attribute because as long as they do, they are propagating the problem.

You are correct that self-image has always been affected by how women feel about themselves. However lately women have developed unreal senses of themselves from being inundated by these ads. The problem has become more drastic and severe and are propagated by supporting a social structure that thinks the most beautiful women are photoshopped to have perfect skin and to have stereotypical figures that women of color in particular often do not fit. And you say again that women should not relate themselves to others. And I suggest, again, that because of the way ads work this happens at an unconscious level so a large part is beyond the woman’s control. The sentence previous to this has been my main point all along.

I think the point is that there are healthy women at these weights and sizes and to “warn” against them because the look was achieved indirectly is pointless. Should the genuine ones wear Tee Shirts with warnings – “I am below the modern fat percentage for less than ideally healthy women. – Don’t envy me”?

@DarkScribe It seemed to me that the discussion had expanded from just photo-enhancing to distorted images. Some people are naturally and healthily thin, some people are naturally and healthily plump (not obese) – why can’t we see images of both to sell products? And my point was that unlike your family, most of these models are not following a healthy diet and exercise program.

@RedPowerLady it may be difficult for you to understand how these ads work on a woman’s self-image at the unconscious level.

Not so. I have always been healthy – but for much of my early life I struggled to gain weight. I worked out, drank huge quantities of protein shakes – was unhappy with the fact that I didn’t “bulk-up”. It is what started my gym career. When I look at old photos now I wonder what I was thinking – I was a surfer with good muscle definition and very fit – but I wanted to look like Hulk Hogan, not Bruce Lee. We all have our insecurities. I have no idea what caused my desire to bulk up – I can’t recall – but it was an obsession for more than ten years. I do understand youthful obsession.

@DarkScribe Fantastic. Thank you for sharing. Then you illustrate my point perfectly. You have no idea what caused your desire but it was a serious obsession. That is how these ads affect millions of women. They have no idea where there unhealthy self-images are coming from, even the beautiful women. That is because it works at a level outside of our control and thus can manipulate us for years, similar to your experience, before we realize how odd our obsession has become.

@janbb It seemed to me that the discussion had expanded from just photo-enhancing to distorted images.

It all part of the same package. The issue isn’t photo manipulation, but what they are manipulated to. They are – in most cases now that the “heroin chic” look is dead simply “polished’ versions of real women.

I would like to see more women modeling who are at a weight as a result of a healthy lifestyle rather than just a diet. Without some muscle definition to support the dura their skeleton shows through and makes them look bony/gaunt. It isn’t attractive, whereas a woman with an identical height and weight who isn’t bony looks great.

@DarkScribe Agreed!

It occurs to me that to leak naked photos of most of the popular thin models would do the trick. They are decidedly unfeminine and not the least bit attractive when naked – unlike figure or glamour models. No guy would look for more than a second or two when they aren’t wobbling along with some ridiculous concoction draped on them. No boobs, ribs and hip bones showing, loose abs. They have as much feminine allure as the average ten year old boy. They wander through the change areas naked and oblivious – I think that they realise that no one is interested in them naked and so don’t bother covering up. Many of them have ongoing skin problems – the real use for Photoshop – probably as a result of diet deficiencies.

Blame Leslie Hornby – she started it.

Only if people start eating them.

I haven’t read the 100’s of comments afore mine. But yes! most definitely Besides why can’t people just be people blobs and all.