I jumped for joy when I pulled my mail out and there was a new magazine in there! It's seriously sad how excited I get about mail in general, but particiularly a new read. So it just so happens that yesterday's excitement was over the new issue of Marie Claire (I'm a new subscriber) and Mandy Moore was on the cover. I just love Mandy Moore- there is truly nothing to dislike about her, and I was super pumped that she was on the cover [ especially since she just got married to Ryan Adams this past Tuesday, but THAT is another post- I promise].
However, despite my love for Mandy, I couldn't help but notice they had airbrushed the crap [literally] out of her. I love her because she's a "real girl" and generally appears to be a "real size" and not a mystical size 00. Imagine my surprise when I saw this picture on the cover:
and this picture on the inside:
Anyone else seeing how abnormally skinny she looks? I mean, granted, she looks great! Not unhealthily thin or anything like that, but do they think that we do not see real life pictures of Mandy on blogs and in magazines on a weekly basis? She hardly looks that thin in real life [at least, not lately anyway]. This photo was taken just a few months ago:
and she looks great! But she is certainly no 00 here. So why does she need to be in the magazine?
I'm definitely not coming down on Mandy here, and I understand that magazines want their cover subjects to look their absolute best, but I guess my point is, why does that mean a double zero instead of a 4?
These magazines are all on "behappywithwhoyouarehaveagoodselfimageyoudonthavetobeskinny" bandwagons in their editorial stories but are preaching something completely different on their covers.
Just sayin', it's something to think about.
1 comment:
You should check out the recent NYTimes opinion video on how France is trying to require magazines to print statements for each photo in which retouching has occurred.
Post a Comment