Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
58 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » PBEM » The Village Square

Subject: Magazine Images - airbrushed or untouched (possibly RSP) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was just reading this interesting quote, and I'm still digesting what I think of it. I was curious what some of you guys think about it...

Quote:
American Eagle will not use retouched photos of its models for its new lingerie campaign, the company says, preserving all so-called imperfections, ranging from stretch marks to tattoos. But despite the company's apparent good intentions, research psychologist Peggy Drexler says that this strategy can be just as damaging to young girls' self-esteem. "By calling attention to the bodies of their unretouched models, American Eagle is doing exactly what it purports to be rallying against: Drawing attention to women's figures and all their possible 'flaws.'" Drexler wrote at time.com. "A similar hypocrisy occurred recently when website Jezebel offered $10,000 to anyone who could supply unretouched images from Lena Dunham's Vogue cover shoot. Under the guise of supporting and defending a 'normal size' body, they were, in fact, making a spectacle of it. American Eagle is no different." Drexler goes on to say, "It's arguably preferable that campaigns continue the practice of airbrushing, and for teens and women to believe that most photos they see in advertisements and in magazines are enhanced, and couldn't possibly represent the truth. It's one thing to understand that you can't live up to a celebrity ideal, or to the picture on the cover of a magazine—it's not real anyway. But when the teenage girl still doesn't live up to the unretouched, natural, 'real' women in American Eagle's ads, how will she view herself then?" [time.com, 1/30/14]

So is airbrushed pictures of women that we KNOW we can never look like because they are touched up better or are untouched realistic pictures showing us that everyone has flaws better?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archidamia
United States
Hazel Park
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I read something once that claimed that having plus size models was more damaging to self esteem than thin retouched models. The reasoning went that the plus size models weren't very plus, and are still picked for their perfect proportioning of their bodies. So people were seeing what was supposed to be a more "real" woman and still not living up to the image.

I ahve no idea how scientific this was because I can't source it anymore, but this isn't the first time I've heard something like this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
miraria wrote:
I read something once that claimed that having plus size models was more damaging to self esteem than thin retouched models. The reasoning went that the plus size models weren't very plus, and are still picked for their perfect proportioning of their bodies. So people were seeing what was supposed to be a more "real" woman and still not living up to the image.

I ahve no idea how scientific this was because I can't source it anymore, but this isn't the first time I've heard something like this.

Do you think it is true? I'm trying to evaluate my own thoughts about when I see "perfect" women, and how I compare... And I'm having a hard time doing that... I can understand the "logic" I'm just trying to see evaluate if that is how I really "feel" or not.

Honestly I think for me the bigger "self-image" issue is in movies where the actresses always have perfect hair because before every shot they have hair-dresser make it perfect. hehe. I know I could never have my hair look that perfect all day (and sometimes not even for the 20 seconds after I do my hair in the morning) but I still look and wish.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archidamia
United States
Hazel Park
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Melsana wrote:
miraria wrote:
I read something once that claimed that having plus size models was more damaging to self esteem than thin retouched models. The reasoning went that the plus size models weren't very plus, and are still picked for their perfect proportioning of their bodies. So people were seeing what was supposed to be a more "real" woman and still not living up to the image.

I ahve no idea how scientific this was because I can't source it anymore, but this isn't the first time I've heard something like this.

Do you think it is true? I'm trying to evaluate my own thoughts about when I see "perfect" women, and how I compare... And I'm having a hard time doing that... I can understand the "logic" I'm just trying to see evaluate if that is how I really "feel" or not.

Honestly I think for me the bigger "self-image" issue is in movies where the actresses always have perfect hair because before every shot they have hair-dresser make it perfect. hehe. I know I could never have my hair look that perfect all day (and sometimes not even for the 20 seconds after I do my hair in the morning) but I still look and wish.

yes, i think it CAN be true. anecdotally i have a friend that wears the same size i do, weighs within 10 poudns of what i do, but she's very hourglass figure. her proportions are "classic". and if I let myself compare(which i try not to do but it happens sometimes) I feel frumpy and think she looks amazing.

but thats not scientific either. it just makes me think it COULD be true.

i don't think using airbrushed unrealistic bodies is the thing though. i think, when using "real" women ACTUALLY using real women, with a variety of body shapes would be the answer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They still pick what they deem are "incredibly attractive" women who fit a specific style, airbrushed or not. I don't see how it changes anything.

And, personally, I think if you're going to rally against airbrushing and retouching you should probably go after them using makeup in photo shoots as well. I mean, it's just airbrushing with real paint and oils.

I mean, if you look at pictures of a "model" without makeup they look totally different than they do with hair and makeup done. Does that mean we should stop having people photographed and on magazine covers with makeup?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I mean, even take movies. Nobody takes hours and hours to put on make-up every day. So even watching a scene in a movie is fake because of all the elaborate make-up to make the people look "pretty".

But, if you look at those same actors and actresses in person or without the professional make-up, they look normal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
I mean, even take movies. Nobody takes hours and hours to put on make-up every day. So even watching a scene in a movie is fake because of all the elaborate make-up to make the people look "pretty".

But, if you look at those same actors and actresses in person or without the professional make-up, they look normal.

Yeah, I agree, I know I'm more affected by movie/tv images than I am magazine images. I personally don't wear any make up. I think people that never wear make up look fine, but as soon you start wearing make up you start looking "sick" when you don't wear make up. But people that don't wear make up look normal when they don't and then look amazing when they do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Melsana wrote:
I was just reading this interesting quote, and I'm still digesting what I think of it. I was curious what some of you guys think about it...

Quote:
American Eagle will not use retouched photos of its models for its new lingerie campaign, the company says, preserving all so-called imperfections, ranging from stretch marks to tattoos. But despite the company's apparent good intentions, research psychologist Peggy Drexler says that this strategy can be just as damaging to young girls' self-esteem. "By calling attention to the bodies of their unretouched models, American Eagle is doing exactly what it purports to be rallying against: Drawing attention to women's figures and all their possible 'flaws.'" Drexler wrote at time.com. "A similar hypocrisy occurred recently when website Jezebel offered $10,000 to anyone who could supply unretouched images from Lena Dunham's Vogue cover shoot. Under the guise of supporting and defending a 'normal size' body, they were, in fact, making a spectacle of it. American Eagle is no different." Drexler goes on to say, "It's arguably preferable that campaigns continue the practice of airbrushing, and for teens and women to believe that most photos they see in advertisements and in magazines are enhanced, and couldn't possibly represent the truth. It's one thing to understand that you can't live up to a celebrity ideal, or to the picture on the cover of a magazine—it's not real anyway. But when the teenage girl still doesn't live up to the unretouched, natural, 'real' women in American Eagle's ads, how will she view herself then?" [time.com, 1/30/14]

So is airbrushed pictures of women that we KNOW we can never look like because they are touched up better or are untouched realistic pictures showing us that everyone has flaws better?
Without research, no idea.
But I do think that defending airbrushing as a positive is poppycock.

Models are picked for having "ideal" body proportions and beauty. By airbrushing, the bodies are moved from the attainable(if not always a good idea to try and attain) to the realm of the impossible to attain.

The solution is not to continue airbrushing. It's to diversify when choosing models.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
They still pick what they deem are "incredibly attractive" women who fit a specific style, airbrushed or not. I don't see how it changes anything.

And, personally, I think if you're going to rally against airbrushing and retouching you should probably go after them using makeup in photo shoots as well. I mean, it's just airbrushing with real paint and oils.

I mean, if you look at pictures of a "model" without makeup they look totally different than they do with hair and makeup done. Does that mean we should stop having people photographed and on magazine covers with makeup?
False dichotomy.
You can have both shots with make up, and shots without. Make up doesn't automatically increase beauty, nor lack of make up decrease beauty.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But the image of "models" isn't even attainable. They look for a specific body type, height, leg length, etc... It's not a question of "we only take skinny people"


So, the very idea of having "models" isn't attainable to anyone. If it was, they could be working as models. Therefore, I don't see the huge outcry to airbrush. I view it as similar to make-up.

So, unless these magazines and designers start using average people on magazine covers and they market their clothes to average people, I don't see a reason to freak out about it. It is what it is. You aren't going to tackle the problem from the magazine side.

So, instead, you need to simply encourage people NOT TO BUY THE MAGAZINES. Then, we'd be fine. But people still do, because they want to. So, they exist.

Frankly, showing a model with a tattoo or airbrushing out a mole versus not doesn't do anything about a "problem" which people see. The problem isn't the airbrushing or the make-up, it's the entire industry.

And it's not going to change, because people are supporting that industry with their dollars.


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Phelanpt wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:
They still pick what they deem are "incredibly attractive" women who fit a specific style, airbrushed or not. I don't see how it changes anything.

And, personally, I think if you're going to rally against airbrushing and retouching you should probably go after them using makeup in photo shoots as well. I mean, it's just airbrushing with real paint and oils.

I mean, if you look at pictures of a "model" without makeup they look totally different than they do with hair and makeup done. Does that mean we should stop having people photographed and on magazine covers with makeup?
False dichotomy.
You can have both shots with make up, and shots without. Make up doesn't automatically increase beauty, nor lack of make up decrease beauty.

A professional make-up artist will make anyone "look better" than they would without. That's the whole point of make-up, to cover what the average person considers "flaws" and to accentuate attractive features.

You can have a personal view of disliking make-up, but that doesn't change society as a whole. Or you just prefer realistic-looking-make-up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Make-up isn't just colors and bright lipstick. There's a lot of concealing make-up.

You put a professional make-up artist on me and take a picture, I assure you if they are any good it will look much better than me without make-up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Buss
United States
Muncie
Indiana
flag msg tools
"It seems, that is, I may have become, quite by accident, the chosen, what what?"
badge
“Here is my secret. It's quite simple: One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes.” ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Petit Prince
Avatar
jageroxorz wrote:


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.

The system isn't made for change.

It starts with Disney Princess' and Barbie dolls and ends with Glamor Magazines and Mabeline.

Saying that airbrushing doesn't matter is like saying that buying a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't impact your budget. Small things add up, and small changes do to.

I'm all for the lack of airbrushing. That said, it's a marketing ploy. Show me that they also don't tighten their "standards" for the models they choose, or alter their product lines.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Gatti
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Melsana wrote:
I was just reading this interesting quote, and I'm still digesting what I think of it. I was curious what some of you guys think about it...

Quote:
American Eagle will not use retouched photos of its models for its new lingerie campaign, the company says, preserving all so-called imperfections, ranging from stretch marks to tattoos. But despite the company's apparent good intentions, research psychologist Peggy Drexler says that this strategy can be just as damaging to young girls' self-esteem. "By calling attention to the bodies of their unretouched models, American Eagle is doing exactly what it purports to be rallying against: Drawing attention to women's figures and all their possible 'flaws.'" Drexler wrote at time.com. "A similar hypocrisy occurred recently when website Jezebel offered $10,000 to anyone who could supply unretouched images from Lena Dunham's Vogue cover shoot. Under the guise of supporting and defending a 'normal size' body, they were, in fact, making a spectacle of it. American Eagle is no different." Drexler goes on to say, "It's arguably preferable that campaigns continue the practice of airbrushing, and for teens and women to believe that most photos they see in advertisements and in magazines are enhanced, and couldn't possibly represent the truth. It's one thing to understand that you can't live up to a celebrity ideal, or to the picture on the cover of a magazine—it's not real anyway. But when the teenage girl still doesn't live up to the unretouched, natural, 'real' women in American Eagle's ads, how will she view herself then?" [time.com, 1/30/14]

So is airbrushed pictures of women that we KNOW we can never look like because they are touched up better or are untouched realistic pictures showing us that everyone has flaws better?
I think the bolded part of the quote is both true and highly inaccurate. It requires that people completely understand that the images they see aren't real or attainable. Many people certainly do realize this, but I'm fairly certain that not all of them do (especially internally, even if they have at least some of this knowledge on various levels). This is especially true of younger people that have less worldly knowledge and experience (and are more susceptible to this sort of advertisement, otherwise, it wouldn't be done).

What about if/when they can just computer generate the entire image without using models? Even if no part of the image is an actual living human, it likely doesn't make the psychological impression of the image any less powerful or damaging.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ThatFedoraGuy wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.

The system isn't made for change.

It starts with Disney Princess' and Barbie dolls and ends with Glamor Magazines and Mabeline.

Saying that airbrushing doesn't matter is like saying that buying a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't impact your budget. Small things add up, and small changes do to.

I'm all for the lack of airbrushing. That said, it's a marketing ploy. Show me that they also don't tighten their "standards" for the models they choose, or alter their product lines.

I'm saying, if you're for the lack of airbrushing, you should also be for the lack of make-up.

Because they're the same thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rgatti wrote:
Melsana wrote:
I was just reading this interesting quote, and I'm still digesting what I think of it. I was curious what some of you guys think about it...

Quote:
American Eagle will not use retouched photos of its models for its new lingerie campaign, the company says, preserving all so-called imperfections, ranging from stretch marks to tattoos. But despite the company's apparent good intentions, research psychologist Peggy Drexler says that this strategy can be just as damaging to young girls' self-esteem. "By calling attention to the bodies of their unretouched models, American Eagle is doing exactly what it purports to be rallying against: Drawing attention to women's figures and all their possible 'flaws.'" Drexler wrote at time.com. "A similar hypocrisy occurred recently when website Jezebel offered $10,000 to anyone who could supply unretouched images from Lena Dunham's Vogue cover shoot. Under the guise of supporting and defending a 'normal size' body, they were, in fact, making a spectacle of it. American Eagle is no different." Drexler goes on to say, "It's arguably preferable that campaigns continue the practice of airbrushing, and for teens and women to believe that most photos they see in advertisements and in magazines are enhanced, and couldn't possibly represent the truth. It's one thing to understand that you can't live up to a celebrity ideal, or to the picture on the cover of a magazine—it's not real anyway. But when the teenage girl still doesn't live up to the unretouched, natural, 'real' women in American Eagle's ads, how will she view herself then?" [time.com, 1/30/14]

So is airbrushed pictures of women that we KNOW we can never look like because they are touched up better or are untouched realistic pictures showing us that everyone has flaws better?
I think the bolded part of the quote is both true and highly inaccurate. It requires that people completely understand that the images they see aren't real or attainable. Many people certainly do realize this, but I'm fairly certain that not all of them do (especially internally, even if they have at least some of this knowledge on various levels). This is especially true of younger people that have less worldly knowledge and experience (and are more susceptible to this sort of advertisement, otherwise, it wouldn't be done).

What about if/when they can just computer generate the entire image without using models? Even if no part of the image is an actual living human, it likely doesn't make the psychological impression of the image any less powerful or damaging.

Yeah, I think those thoughts are what my gut was reacting to when I read the quote, and why I brought it up here. I mean, no matter how much I know the picture is edited, it doesn't mean I'm any less likely to WISH I looked like that. We frequently wish for things that we know are impossible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
ThatFedoraGuy wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.

The system isn't made for change.

It starts with Disney Princess' and Barbie dolls and ends with Glamor Magazines and Mabeline.

Saying that airbrushing doesn't matter is like saying that buying a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't impact your budget. Small things add up, and small changes do to.

I'm all for the lack of airbrushing. That said, it's a marketing ploy. Show me that they also don't tighten their "standards" for the models they choose, or alter their product lines.

I'm saying, if you're for the lack of airbrushing, you should also be for the lack of make-up.

Because they're the same thing.

Not exactly... with airbrushing they sometimes make legs thinner and stuff that is physically impossible, make up doesn't do that sort of "magic".
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
But the image of "models" isn't even attainable. They look for a specific body type, height, leg length, etc... It's not a question of "we only take skinny people"


So, the very idea of having "models" isn't attainable to anyone. If it was, they could be working as models. Therefore, I don't see the huge outcry to airbrush. I view it as similar to make-up.

So, unless these magazines and designers start using average people on magazine covers and they market their clothes to average people, I don't see a reason to freak out about it. It is what it is. You aren't going to tackle the problem from the magazine side.

So, instead, you need to simply encourage people NOT TO BUY THE MAGAZINES. Then, we'd be fine. But people still do, because they want to. So, they exist.

Frankly, showing a model with a tattoo or airbrushing out a mole versus not doesn't do anything about a "problem" which people see. The problem isn't the airbrushing or the make-up, it's the entire industry.

And it's not going to change, because people are supporting that industry with their dollars.


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.
I think you're being too extreme, but I do agree that it's a systemic problem in the industry, and that airbrushing or not airbrushing, make up or no make up isn't the big issue.

But most people don't change big issues. They change one small issue after another, till things get better. I believe that stopping airbrushing may be a small step, but it's in a positive direction.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archidamia
United States
Hazel Park
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
ThatFedoraGuy wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.

The system isn't made for change.

It starts with Disney Princess' and Barbie dolls and ends with Glamor Magazines and Mabeline.

Saying that airbrushing doesn't matter is like saying that buying a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't impact your budget. Small things add up, and small changes do to.

I'm all for the lack of airbrushing. That said, it's a marketing ploy. Show me that they also don't tighten their "standards" for the models they choose, or alter their product lines.

I'm saying, if you're for the lack of airbrushing, you should also be for the lack of make-up.

Because they're the same thing.

I can apply makeup to myself though. i can't airbrush myself.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Val K
United States
Bowie
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Comparison is the thief of joy.
8 
 Thumb up
0.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
Phelanpt wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:
They still pick what they deem are "incredibly attractive" women who fit a specific style, airbrushed or not. I don't see how it changes anything.

And, personally, I think if you're going to rally against airbrushing and retouching you should probably go after them using makeup in photo shoots as well. I mean, it's just airbrushing with real paint and oils.

I mean, if you look at pictures of a "model" without makeup they look totally different than they do with hair and makeup done. Does that mean we should stop having people photographed and on magazine covers with makeup?
False dichotomy.
You can have both shots with make up, and shots without. Make up doesn't automatically increase beauty, nor lack of make up decrease beauty.

A professional make-up artist will make anyone "look better" than they would without. That's the whole point of make-up, to cover what the average person considers "flaws" and to accentuate attractive features.

You can have a personal view of disliking make-up, but that doesn't change society as a whole. Or you just prefer realistic-looking-make-up.
You misunderstand me. I was saying that you can BOTH have models WITH make-up and WITHOUT. It's not one or the other. It's not a matter of having to stop all make up use on covers. Hence me calling it a false dichotomy.
My personal view doesn't even enter into it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alyse Sefchik
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Melsana wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:
ThatFedoraGuy wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.

The system isn't made for change.

It starts with Disney Princess' and Barbie dolls and ends with Glamor Magazines and Mabeline.

Saying that airbrushing doesn't matter is like saying that buying a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't impact your budget. Small things add up, and small changes do to.

I'm all for the lack of airbrushing. That said, it's a marketing ploy. Show me that they also don't tighten their "standards" for the models they choose, or alter their product lines.

I'm saying, if you're for the lack of airbrushing, you should also be for the lack of make-up.

Because they're the same thing.

Not exactly... with airbrushing they sometimes make legs thinner and stuff that is physically impossible, make up doesn't do that sort of "magic".

A true make-up artist with an airbrush can do the same thing with their talents. In a way that you use airbrush and make-up can do the same thing as long as it has a very stable hand and experience.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archidamia
United States
Hazel Park
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Valkerie32 wrote:
Comparison is the thief of joy.

yup. I wish I had more control over my stupid brain.

also, sometimes its hard not to make comparisons yourself when OTHER people are making them about you .
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archidamia
United States
Hazel Park
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desired_hanyou_aly wrote:
Melsana wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:
ThatFedoraGuy wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:


It will only change when people stop buying the magazines and designer clothes.

The system isn't made for change.

It starts with Disney Princess' and Barbie dolls and ends with Glamor Magazines and Mabeline.

Saying that airbrushing doesn't matter is like saying that buying a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't impact your budget. Small things add up, and small changes do to.

I'm all for the lack of airbrushing. That said, it's a marketing ploy. Show me that they also don't tighten their "standards" for the models they choose, or alter their product lines.

I'm saying, if you're for the lack of airbrushing, you should also be for the lack of make-up.

Because they're the same thing.

Not exactly... with airbrushing they sometimes make legs thinner and stuff that is physically impossible, make up doesn't do that sort of "magic".

A true make-up artist with an airbrush can do the same thing with their talents. In a way that you use airbrush and make-up can do the same thing as long as it has a very stable hand and experience.

when they airbrish they actually do it where the clothes are too though, thinning out waistlines, thinning out legs inside pants. Stuff that makeup can't do.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darth BK
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Valkerie32 wrote:
Comparison is the thief of joy.

but a driver of the economy...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |