impossible standards of beauty

[miriam_e]

It is bad enough that all women have to compete against a handful of very beautiful women splashed over every billboard, magazine cover and advertisement in those magazines and TV, it turns out that they have had to compete against figments of imagination masquerading as photos.
http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/index.html

(Click on a photo and then hover your mouse over the resulting photo to see before/after.)

Oddly, I find most of the unretouched pictures more attractive. I wonder if others feel the same way, and if they do, whether media strangleholders will ever get the message that people like people, not imaginary plastic dolls.

Comments

[gillen.livejournal.com]

It's true. Some are improved but most are just made plastic. That one girl with the vaguely indian head-thing on? MUCH more attractive prior to retouching.

[sharpblonde.livejournal.com]

Yeah, a lot of the ones I saw were much better before. A few were better after. I found it odd that in some of them they just changed the color contrast. The result just didn't work on most of those. I much prefer black women over orange women, thanks (possibly that's just my computer though). I especially found that the ones where they enhanced breast size were less attractive. I much prefer a more natural shape to size.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Yes, I have to admit I like slightly droopy breasts because they look softer. Large, tight breasts look either sore because they're full of milk, or hard with bags inside them, surrounded by internal scarring. Either way, not very sexy. I don't care about size one way or the other and never understood the modern obsession for giant mammaries.

I agree with you. Natural shape is much nicer.

[metalhero.livejournal.com]

Yahhh!! some of those are downright freaky!