Body Image Activist, Eating Disorders mamaVISION

Everything is wrong about this story -EVERYTHING (and don’t you dare rip into me about calling this girl anorexic, I don’t even want to hear it, let’s just call a spade a spade already and stop with this PC non-sense).

Ahhh, on to my points;

Healthy Magazine (oh, the irony) has digitally altered a model to appear to weigh more than she actually does. Or as the rest of the articles on this topic are quoting “Skinny Model Airbrushed To Look Fatter”

Irritating. Ridiculous. Just plain wrong.

At the left, you see Polish model Kamilla Wladyka featured on the airbrushed cover to look curvier. On the right, is a bikini shot that, as far as I can tell, appeared inside the magazine (the reason I state this is because all the coverage on this story shows these two images together, in a comparative way, but the odd thing is I don’t see the difference — do you? If anyone has a copy of this UK based magazine, please let me know since I’d like to verify this).

The third picture you see if from the models portfolio, which shows her in what we call a perfect thinspiration pose; hipbones jutting out, collarbone prominent, a stoned look on her face while she leans against the wall to hold her self up.

Pathetic. THIS is what is defined as beauty. No wonder why we are all whacked out over our body image

The magazine claimed that the model had appeared healthy during a casting for the photo shoot a week before it took place, but on the day of the shoot she appeared too thin. Editor Jane Drucker admitted that the model was so thin in real life that she needed to be “radically retouched” before appearing on the cover (where is this radical retouching? So they retouched the cover, but the bikini shot inside was ok? I’m confused). Here’s more from Ms. Drucker;

“Sometimes when you cast a model, they look okay, but then when they turn up on the shoot day they might not have eaten for two or three days. You’re not in charge of their health. When she did arrive, there were plenty of clothes that we couldn’t put on her because her bones stuck out too much. She looked beautiful in the face, but really thin and unwell. She said the magazine was promoting health and wellbeing and therefore the model’s look was at odds with its philosophy. We made her legs a little bit bigger, to make her look like she was a size 10 as opposed to a size 4. It’s not what we normally do and I would never want to mislead people.”

According to the UK’s Daily Telegraph, the magazine added between 15kg to 20kg to the model’s frame (that’s 6-8 pounds). Hold on right there, I’ve heard just about all I can take in one sitting.

The fact that an editor of a magazine, one called “Healthy” for godsake, states casually “sometimes models show up and they haven’t eaten in three days,” is totally demented. But sadly real, I know because I did this. I remember getting this job where I got to go to the South of France for a week, and my booker literally hung up the phone, gave me a high five  for landing it — and then pointed his finger at me and said “Don’t eat all weekend” (So I didn’t, except for about 4 mandarin oranges and a boat load of cigarettes). For the job they had to stuff toilet paper inside my bra since I had no breasts whatsoever (since I had rejected the agencies boob job offer some months prior).

Guys, this is real. Our society thinks nothing of the fact that models are half dead. If you were Ms. Drucker, wouldn’t you feel some sort of responsibility to DO SOMETHING? Like flag the agency, or send her home?? Particularly since their web site claims that they go through great lengths to shoot the perfect cover as told in their Behind The Scenes feature….doesn’t she had some sort of moral or ethical obligation to actually use healthy models?

This one kills me. It makes me feel like all this bitching and moaning I do over this crap is useless.

mV

Say what you will about Britney Spears, but I gotta tell ya, she earned some of my respect back with this brave photo shoot reported by Daily Mail.  The 29 year old pop-star allowed her body to be photographed without airbrushing, showing cellulite, bruises and all.

“Imperfections” that can be clearly seen in the un-airbrushed shot include blemishes on her calf, her real-sized thighs and, if you look really closely, you can see her feet have dry skin on them.  The airbrushed pictures, however, tell a different story with a slimmed-down waist and flawless, skinny legs.

(more…)

Photoshop madness is in style as of late, and I have to admit I can’t get enough of it.

Partially because I love to see the fashion mags get busted, but also because, as in this example, I think the REAL image looks one hell of a lot better than the avatar version.

Case in point;

Demi Moore as a pore-free-wrinkle-free avatar

verses

Demi Moore the natural beauty (kinda) who snagged a husband a few decades her junior. Sorry, but I gotta say she looks waayyy better as HERSELF.

Who is with me?

BTW, Ashton Kutcher happened to post his wife’s image on twitter, and somebody discovered it was the actual image used for this photoshoot, view here.

So, at the end of the day what do we learn here, why the hell do we even give a rip?

I’d say its because I am on a mission to show young women how unbelievably deceived they are. I mean, back in my modeling days it was bad, but now, it is just plain, what should I say, imaginary. A graphic depiction of a human that bears very little resemblance in features, skin tone, or expression — all the unique aspects of a person striped away in order to give us some creepy perfume ad that tells us this is what is “wanted.”

Load of crap my friends, total and complete load of crap.

Love,

mamaV

Fake Twiggy vs Real Twiggy - C'mon people!

Tipster Cirsty clued me into this story, so I kept an eye on it, and sure enough this ad actually got banned!!

Finally, yesterday, the ASA banned the complete set of Olay Twiggy ads, ruling that the post-production retouching could give consumers a “misleading impression of the effect the product could achieve.”

WHAT? They wouldn’t do that…would they?

(more…)

This story cracks me up. I think because I have never heard of this happening before.

Complex magazine accidently printed the pre-photoshopped version of cover girl Kim Kardashian, showing to the world she is a real woman.

They pulled the reality photo as soon as they could, but the internet already got a hold of it.

So here's my question – when you look at magazines,do you still view them as if the images you see are real and compare yourself to them? Or do you somehow believe those are real bodies, real faces, and you will never measure up?

I hope not, this should all be soaking in by now.

-mV