But if a celebrity is on the cover of a magazine, chances are they're there because they're promoting their movie, television show, or album. I don't really see how you can replace Cameron Diaz with a naturally healthy model (whatever that means) under those circumstances.

That's the nature of the game--the house always wins. I think it's worth repeating: skinny women don't win the beauty game, because if you're skinny, you're too skinny, or too flat-chested, or there's something else "wrong" (read "human) about you. The odds are stacked, it's impossible to win, and that's why female celebrities exist in a state of superhigh anxiety.

I actually made a post about this in my blog (linked through my name), specifically how the same photographer/editor added big butts to Latina actresses. I also noticed they filled out Lindsay Lohan too. I think the filling out seems to be part of the creation of a particular aesthetic that varies.

Robos, I didn't mean to suggest that the answer here is to literally replace Diaz with a more zaftig model. It's about "standards" and norms throughout the celebrity/beauty industry.

I think something I noticed right away, but wasn't mentioned in the post was how this image is racialized. Cameron Diaz was not only made a little curvier, but also blonder and lighter skinned. How does that fit in with the Fashion industry's racist standards of beauty?

Hmmm. I wish I were as "fleshed-out" as the photoshop version of Cameron Diaz. Honestly, if her slightly rounder hips hadn't been pointed out, I wouldn't have noticed, even in the side by side pictures.

e-ka, I saw that, too, but I thought they were just brightening the picture overall, b/c there were a lot of shadows in the first one. If you look, even jeans she's wearing are lighter.

Also, they didn't just fill out a hip bone, they air brushed her muscles right out of the picture. Diaz is a very muscular woman, especially in her torso, and you can't tell from this (airbrushed) picture.

e-ka, I noticed that on the website, they got a little happy with the lighting. It's so obvious that "lighter" equals better, more attractive, and fixed. I wonder if it's just a hold over from racialized concepts of beauty or if it was an intentional choice or request. It's probably both.

Actually to me her face looks fuller in the first photo, possibly because they lightened the second one. They photoshopped her lower ab muscles out in the second one, but that doesn't make her seem less skinny to me.

"It's so obvious that "lighter" equals better, more attractive, and fixed."

In all seriousness, I play with my own photos a lot before I print them, and "lighter" tends to mean "I like the way it looks" or "I'm more interested in the shadows than the highlights" or "I think this will look better in print."

Lord knows the magazines are racist all the time, but the lightening aspect is really more an issue of correcting exposure, I think, at least here.

EH, when you said "That's the nature of the game--the house always wins" I instantly thought of the recent thread with the frightening plastic surgery "comic book." But I couldn't figure out the right way to bring it up.

THIS is an example of filling out with photoshop?! Puh-leeze! This is not "filling out" this is "perfecting" like all photoshop. The filling out examples are an artifact of the overall job. Bones, muscles... unsexy... they have to go. But take a closer look at her waist and ribcage. Particularly on her left (viewer's right) side. Completely trimmed away. They made an already tiny woman THINNER.

I also noticed the lightening, and while I didn't think of it in a racial context (something worth pondering) I thought of it more in a doll context. She has so much more expression and life in the unaltered photo, but in the altered. Pure barbie. It actually reminds me of those creepy pageant retouching photos that pop up here from time to time.

Sailorman,
I know that sometimes it is just more aesthetically pleasing (personally, looking through the images I think their lighting in their corrected form always makes them look sort of washed out but that's me), which is why I wonder whether it's just something that clicks in the photoshopper's mind as better or if they're trying to correct for some of the rather darkened photos they have to deal with. I think it's probably a bit of both, but I can't speak on their mental state never having met them.

I agree with all of the above - specifically even when we are "perfect" we are still not good enough. Another thing that came to mind for me was that this might also perpetuate eating disorders. If a person already has body issues, when they see a picture of themselves and it looks bigger (while still small to most of us), to their minds, they would feel even worse and diet even more.

You know, I actually feel better knowing that they're photoshopped. Knowing this, I can much more easily accept that this is not what people look like, because it's really an artist's conception, or an idea of what a person looks like. Like a cartoon.

I don't know if this makes sense, but knowing it's not real makes it a lot less powerful as an ideal or standard, because hell, I can photoshop myself some boobs, too! I wonder if making this general knowledge would help the girls out there see that none of this is normal or attainable.

Images are often lightened as part of the process of smoothing the body in photoshop. This smoothing process is made more difficult when heavy shadows are present.

Ona related note, what exactly IS the appeal of unnaturally stick-thin models? I'm a straight male and I've never found the "I just escaped from a concentration camp" look to be pretty, let alone sexy. I can't think of any male friends or co-workers who do, either. So why do they do it?

My only guess is that maybe some desperate, deluded guy thinks she hasn't eaten in a long time and if he buys her lunch, she'll show her gratitude by banging him.

Well Turk, as one of these size zero types, I think some guys are attracted to miniature-sized women because it makes them feel more...manly? (of course they might still want a bony woman to have C-cups, too, but that just enhances the WTFage)

Anyway, I always wondered how these self-stated "size zeroes" could look so un-bony. I certainly never looked that smooth.

I have to chime in in support of e-ka: I think there's something very racial about the lightening. It may be related to photo techniques and lighting and all that, but what is the cultural effect of repeatedly, consistently, making photos look more White? Lighter = better. It took me a long time to figure out that this post was about weight, I was so struck by how much lighter the second photo was. Although I think it's important to discuss techniques of photoshopping so we aren't jumping to conclusions, I think it's naive to throw out race as a possible factor at all.

It's not just a matter of what men find attractive. If that were the case, porn stars would be a lot more popular.

Also, a lot of what women do may not have anything to do with a regular guy's expectations, but with society as a whole's expectations, and this includes what we think men want.

Also, a lot of what women do may not have anything to do with a regular guy's expectations, but with society as a whole's expectations.

"I think this is about perpetuating an even more unrealistic beauty standard than unattainable thinness (something I never thought possible): the message is that you should be super, super skinny, borderline skeletal, but without any of the things that come with the territory, like jutting hipbones or small boobs."

Really? This surprises you? Living as a skinny woman I can confirm for you it's true...

"Ona related note, what exactly IS the appeal of unnaturally stick-thin models? I'm a straight male and I've never found the "I just escaped from a concentration camp" look to be pretty, let alone sexy. I can't think of any male friends or co-workers who do, either. So why do they do it? "

It may not have anything to do with guys expectation. But also, I think noting, that what women do with their bodies /shouldn't/ revolve around guys' expectations. It annoys me that guys think this way.

Women naturally come in all shapes and sizes, chubby, skinny, and anything in-between. So pardon me, but screw whatever you "and all the guys" you know currently think is sexy.

I love how all these "real women have curves" type guys are mainly looking for the curves in a very specific place. One streamlined standard that is unattainable for a lot of women is no better than another.

i'd like to point out that not only has it lightened, but the pallete colors have shifted. her blonde in the first picture is closer to her (peach/orange) skin tone. in the second, it's more yellow.

the aesthetic here isn't about race--it's about barbie, as someone pointed out earlier. they've removed the orange, softened her cheek bones and shadows and muscles and punched up her eyes. what they've done is made her look younger and softer. more vulnerable. more feminine. i can see the line difference on her legs, where they added weight. they narrowed her shirt's neckline just a little to make her breasts seem fuller.

the impossible ideal. i'm a digital artist, so the whole process sort of fascinates me. and makes me dread ever having daughters.

but here's the killer--as turk pointed out, most men just don't dig this look. this is something they're selling to women. because if we're not striving for the impossible, then we aren't buying their "advice", their cosmetics, their surgeries, their skin and hair bleachers/bronzers/etc.

i mean, we're just great little consumers, aren't we.

I was curious about why women starve themselves, not stating that they had an obligation to appear as whatever I want. It just seems that since they're not doing themselves a favor by doing it, then logically, they are doing it because it's meant to appeal to others. I was wondering who these "others" could be.

Yes, it would be better if there were no standards at all rather than a push for healthy models that varies from thin women to curvier and ultimately has nothing to do with actual health, not that healthiness is any better a standard by which to judge people anyway.

Ultimately, I think we just need to lessen the importance of beauty in general rather than attempting to redefine it. Fact is, beauty as a concept is discriminatory by nature, and that means the the standard will always be unattainable. Therefore, the only way to really win is by convincing people that it's no more their obligation to be beautiful than it is their obligation to be intelligent, creative, athletic, successful, or anything else.

Really, we just need to be as apathetic towards our looks as we are to everything else.

Fact is, beauty as a concept is discriminatory by nature, and that means the the standard will always be unattainable.

I don't agree with this. It is entirely possible for beauty to be a non-discriminatory concept, and for its discrimination to be understood as subjective rather than objective. For the first part, I think of children--I think that all children are beautiful. Full stop. Others disagree with me. I know people who think that all cats are beautiful. Full stop. (I think they're nuts, but chacun a son gout.) I think that all lilac trees are beautiful.

Now, it's also possible for discrimination in beauty to be nothing more than a reflection of the viewer's taste, not a hierarchical judgment. I love the arts and crafts movement; I think it far more beautiful than modernist decoration. That doesn't mean that modernist interiors are failing to measure up to some hierarchy of beauty; it means that my taste runs toward the arts and crafts movement instead.

Plus, I'm not apathetic toward everything else. I do consider it incumbent upon me to be intelligent, creative, and successful. So why wouldn't I care about beauty?

All beauty has to mean is giving visual pleasure. It doesn't have to be oppressive and cruel. We make it that way.

Is it just me or does Cameron look a hell of a lot sexier, more powerful and aggressive in that first picture? Although she also looks quite a bit more tanorexic.

I know that I spent the decade after puberty wishing that I had straight, skinny legs that "all the other girls" had--even though I had a nice grown-up looking figure. No matter how many male friends criticized these girls as too scrawny or argued that they didn't like those sort of legs, I wanted stick-thin legs so that I would look cuter in shorts. That unhealthy perspective about my own body was not about my male peers. It was the result of stick-thin models and actresses; the most public of successful women.

Why then are these women so successful even though they seem to violate what men find sexy? Because they satisfy the virgin/whore dichotomy--where "virgins" are the very young. I didn't want to trade in my hips, boobs, or hourglass figure because those signaled my sexual maturity. But I did want to get rid of my butt, thighs and squishy stomach because those signaled that I was well-past puberty (even if I wasn't really).

These super-skinny models are and aren't patriarchal creations. Women are definitely complicit in the continual upping of standards because let's face it: we are the primary consumers of beauty ideals. It's similar to how pretty much only other women enjoy make-up that looks entirely false (turquoise eye-shadow, shiny white lips, feather false eyelashes). I might buy the argument that we create these impossible and fluctuating standards in response to the insecurity naturally engendered by our position as second-class citizens, but come on. That puts too much blame away from us as consumers.

I don't know of a solution. I'm not even positing that there is one. But I know for my own mental health, I try very hard to abstain consuming these messages. And I try to point out the inherent contradictions to others that do participate.

The reason beauty isn't problematic for children and inanimate objects is because neither thinks to ask, "Am I beautiful?"

Subjective interpretation of the word is fine when you're only concerned with things from the perspective of the viewer and whether or not viewers can learn to accommodate each other's unique views of what is and isn't beautiful. I mean, why would it seem important to you whether or not you find modernist decoration appealing? Why would anyone else particularly care about your opinion on the subject either?

Problems arise, however, when the object (if we allow ourselves to be objects) begins to wonder whether or not the idea of itself as admirable extends beyond the people who admire it to the population as a whole. That question leads us to the magazines and other examples of what people, through their money, have chosen to support, and in these vessels, regardless of what they hold, we find the narrow definition of the word that spits in most people's faces.

It's not the fault of the magazines, of course. If we didn't look to them, we'd look elsewhere, and eventually we'll run into someone we value who can only muster a half-hearted thumbs up. It's inevitable, unless you live in a magical world that never gives you any reason to feel bad.

Barring that, I really do think the only way to stay healthy is to realize the subjective nature of beauty, which you spoke to, and then use that to reduce the importance we place on our own beauty and, most importantly, try not to care whether or not we suit most people's interpretation of the word, because odds are we don't.

"the aesthetic here isn't about race--it's about barbie, as someone pointed out earlier"

A "barbie" aesthetic IS about race. Granted that's not ALL it's about, but how can you claim that race is completely irrelevant while citing an icon of beauty that is so historically linked to Aryan whiteness?

Just because I was bored I copied and pasted these images in photoshop and overlayed them to see what the differences are. Much to my horror (not suprise) she was actually made narrower thru the ribcage and waist in the 'photoshop' picture. READ- she was made skinnier! Her muscles were removed, and her arms were made thinner. So in reality- she wasn't made plumper, she was made curvier and overall narrower. Her hips were also narrowed and made less curvy. Amazing. We all think she looks plumper in the second image, when in reality she is actually narrower, lighter, and slimmer thru the hips. gaaa. What worries me more than anything is the idea that we all were raised thinking this is what people look like.

You were raised by magazines?

Course, I was raised by wolves, and I tend to think mine was the more dangerous misconception.

Newbaum Turk – Straight men are neither in charge of (creatively) nor the target audience for most of the fashion industry. Obvious exceptions to this are Victoria’s Secret shows and the SI swimsuit edition which are clearly made with the tastes of many straight males in mind. While these models are still thin, they usually have curves and look nothing like the boney waifs you would find in your typical high concept fashion show.

"A "barbie" aesthetic IS about race. Granted that's not ALL it's about, but how can you claim that race is completely irrelevant while citing an icon of beauty that is so historically linked to Aryan whiteness?"

i'm regarding race as irrelevant here because diaz is already white. she's not being made "whiter." she's already a blonde white woman. i'm pointing out how they've made her younger looking, more striking--more barbie, for lack of a better metaphor.

honestly, if i were handed diaz's photo and told to spruce it up, i'd remove the orange because it's tacky, not because it has anything to do with race, naturals tans look great. orange just looks bad.

if she were a brunette, they would not be making her hair blonde. they're adding the yellow to make it striking. not to make her the "aryan ideal."

Reading through the comments on this site, I have noticed that posters have a tendency to be dismissive when someone suggests that an issue has a racial angle. It bothers me a bit, and not because I think everyone should agree when someone makes that suggestion. Feminism is often about critically examining the complexities and the subtexts of seemingly “neutral� spaces. I was just skimming through the links thread from yesterday and I noticed two interesting streams of conversation. Some regular posters were frustrated with the (admittedly annoying) people who come to the site and question, “Why is [issue x] a woman’s issue?� Meanwhile, other regular posters were responding to a link about the race by declaring, “That’s not racial.� I think the sentiment in that question and that declaration is the same, and it’s exasperating. Again, I’m not saying we all have to see race all the time, just wishing people would pause and reconsider for a second before they’re so dismissive. Hope I’m not hijacking, just wanted to throw in my two cents.

"i'm regarding race as irrelevant here because diaz is already white. she's not being made "whiter." she's already a blonde white woman."

I disagree. I think she is being made "whiter" and I think that it matters. Race is more than a binary black-white issue. Small differences in shade and skin tone matter. A small difference can make a Black person able to "pass" for white, or one child in a mixed race family more well-liked than another. If we take every photo in the media up one notch of whiteness, the overall effect is still damaging to women of color trying to conceptualize themselves as beautiful even if the one example we're looking at happens to be a blond white woman. If she is representative of a trend (which I think is strongly implied and accepted in the original post and most of the comments) then there is a racial undertone to this issue.

WheresTheBeef: Thank you.

your two cents are welcome.

if diaz were a black woman, then absolutely there would be a racial issue. a laundry list of racial issues in fact. but when the woman in question is already a white blonde woman, i'm reluctant to ring the racism bell. because it infers that she . . . that she what? is not allowed to be a white blonde woman?

it's decried from both sides in fat vs. skinny threads--it shouldn't BE fat vs. skinny. it should be "how we are is how we are, and that's ok." the issue with racism in fashion is that the white ideal of beauty is forced on everybody. but what should be said about those who actually fit it? should they be hidden? is their presence a way of reinforcing the status quo?

well of course it is. but neither, i think, should they have to hide themselves. the idea here is that everyone should be lifted UP. not that someone should be forced down.

and that's why i'm hesitant to apply racist connotations the photoshopping of cameron diaz, or of other white blondes.

@ Where's the Beef & Sociological Mom - YES!
I think it's the responsibility of everyone reading this blog who bears the weight of hearing over and over again that feminists are making mountains out of molehills when it comes to sexism, to step off and really really think about whether or not it's valid to say that racism isn't a problem in cases like this. Skin shade is a super political issue. Just like body size/shape.

@ meg - couldn't you use that same argument and say 'well, she's already thin, so it's not a big deal to make her just a teeny bit thinner"?

Great comment, WheresTheBeef? Thank you.

"and that's why i'm hesitant to apply racist connotations the photoshopping of cameron diaz, or of other white blondes."

I want to add, that this certainly is a racial/racist issue. Cameron Diaz is not just white, but also Cuban-American. I don't know how Diaz identifies (biracial, Cuban-American, etc), but the fact is that even in the original picture she is not white or blond enough no matter how she identifies.

The reason beauty isn't problematic for children and inanimate objects is because neither thinks to ask, "Am I beautiful?"

You're mistaken about that--children do indeed wonder and think about this issue.

why would it seem important to you whether or not you find modernist decoration appealing?

Because I'm decorating my home? Because I'm trying to figure out why I'm happier and more comfortable in some places than others?

Why would anyone else particularly care about your opinion on the subject either?

Because he/she is decorating? Because we're discussing the kinds of art we share a taste for or don't? Because we're collaborating on a graphic novel and trying to arrive at a style? There are any number of reasons why people would share perspectives on what they find beautiful.

There may be racial reasons why her skin was lightened, but I'm inclined to think not.

I honestly think that they changed her color because she looked orange-y. I know people always complain about being "too pale," they always want to be tan. Just not an orange-ish tan.

I noticed the color change too, and I think that's why. But of course none of us knows for sure.

As other posters have pointed out upthread, Cameron Diaz does have Cuban heritage, whether she considers herself white or latina or both.

Speaking as a rather dark-hued "white" woman I can tell you that even among white women skin color matters. The darker you get (as I have learned when I was a swimmer vs. not) the more your "whiteness" is called into question. And people ask me about my race a lot! None of my (paler) siblings get that kind of attention.

I think that they deliberately lightened her skin tone to make her look whiter because it seems to me that they lightened both her face and body, and made them match (before, her face was really heavy on the bronzer.) Plus, in the edited image, her hair is more clearly one tone, less highlighted, and definitely blonder. So to me, this looks like "make her lighter and blonder" not "change the lighting."

Weeellll, a woman being Caucasian doesn't necessarily mean the lightning isn't racially motivated, but when you have an actress with a Latina heritage that's kind of handwaved a lot, I'd say it's even more suspect.

EG said: "Because he/she is decorating? Because we're discussing the kinds of art we share a taste for or don't? Because we're collaborating on a graphic novel and trying to arrive at a style? There are any number of reasons why people would share perspectives on what they find beautiful."

seriously. One of my favorite things to do is go to one of the artsy Smithsonian museums with one of my pals and talk about what we find appealing... or not. For example I adore landscapes with interesting perspectives, she likes the bronze statues. And because we're opposites on this, it's tons of fun to argue about why...

But back on topic. I noticed how much whiter and blonder she looked too. But I don't think that it was just a 'she must be more pale, so that she'll be more white'. For example I've always have been considered to be too pale, and remember getting made fun of bc I cannot tan, etc etc. And of course I still get sometimes get comments, or get told that I should go work on that tan before ever blinding their eyes wearing shorts again (hello warm weather...). Granted, maybe that's not as bad as some white people assuming that black people can't tan...

Back to the picture, she's still quite tan looking to me. So while I agree that racism seems to be playing a role, it seems to me to be more that there is an 'ideal' whiteness that involves having the time and money (and location) to go get that 'perfect tan'. And of course it functions to leave out lots and lots of people who will never be able to attain that particular shade, even if they wanted to.

"The reason beauty isn't problematic for children and inanimate objects is because neither thinks to ask, "Am I beautiful?""

Yeah you're absolutely wrong here. I was not the prettiest kid in a lot of people's opinion. I sure noticed that both other girls at school and my little sister more often got attention for being "pretty" or "cute" and it definitely gave me a complex...

But again, I agree with EG that I think this is culture. I think it's cultural (and partially the fault of mass-media representations) that we have so many beauty standards, as opposed to it being more subjective, and people having more diverse tastes...

You know one group of people who tend to be really good at seeing beauty in a wide variety of forms, are visual artists... So it's definitely possible to acquire that way of seeing things.

I'm kind of bothered that "the chief executive of the eating disorder charity Beat" is reinforcing the idea that skinny means "unhealthy." While I realize that almost-exclusive use of ultra-thin models contributes to a lot of girls' and women's eating disorders, I don't see why she has to be so casual about women who are naturally really thin -- we hear enough criticism to potentially make us self-abusive, too!

Anyway, I agree that there seems to be a racialized aspect. Whether or not "white" women (I don't know how CD identifies) are supposed to be tan doesn't dismiss the concern.

Goddamn. I'm just going to start my own fucking magazine.

"Reading through the comments on this site, I have noticed that posters have a tendency to be dismissive when someone suggests that an issue has a racial angle."

Bingo. WheresTheBeef, I fully concur with your entire comment, and you said it much better than I could have myself, so thank you for putting that out there!

I was kind of confused myself when I read the actual post, because the first thing I noticed was the extreme lightening, and the second thing I noticed was how they thinned her through the ribcage...so imagine my surprise when I discovered this was a post about thickening/removing the bony parts of celebrities! I didn't notice that at all during my first look at the pics.

They trimmed her waist line and make her tits bigger. This is just as bad as any other kind of photoshopping.

And I'm sick of the idea that it's just gay men and women who are perpetuating the ridiculous beauty standards. Um, no. Straight men do it too. I can't tell you how many times I've overheard a group of straight males ridiculing women for being too fat, having boobs too small, not being in good enough shape, etc.

Also, from the article:
Stomach: A fuller, more natural look.
Um, how does her stomach look more natural in the second photo? Since when are the bellies of muscular women like Diaz completely smooth without any evidence of hip bones or variation in the shape of the flesh?

Besides that, how could it possibly be a more natural look when it's AIRBRUSHED?

The reason beauty isn't problematic for children ... is because [the child does not think] to ask, "Am I beautiful?" (Posted by: Robos A Go Go)
Ha ha ha ha..... whew.... (catches breath) ha ha ha ha....
As others have pointed out Robos, sorry but this is wrong.

But yea, I needed the laugh, so thanks! ;)

Seriously, I'm glad this discussion is going on, and that includes Robos and everyone else chiming in. I do agree with some other points Robos has brought up, by the way.

And the Calle13 Award today goes to.... drumroll.... WheresTheBeef. For eloquently stating what I couldn't. (I think someone else already said it but so what.) You are not hijacking the thread at all by bringing that up.

(OK, back to lurking)

And I'm sick of the idea that it's just gay men and women who are perpetuating the ridiculous beauty standards. Um, no. Straight men do it too. I can't tell you how many times I've overheard a group of straight males ridiculing women for being too fat, having boobs too small, not being in good enough shape, etc.

Posted by: NekkidNancy

Straight men ridicule each other for being fat and having big boobs and hairy backs or being bald...

There are some real assholes out there, but that doesn't change the fact that the stick-thin "ideal" (for lack of a better term) is not geared to please the typical straight male for the good reason that it simply doesn't. Proof of any pudding is in the eating, and very few straight men (none that I know of) find the starved thin look attractive. Want more evidence? If you look at the models on magazines that ARE geared to straight males, there is usually a big difference.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that lightening her also makes a lot of skin blemishes disappear. Since I have really terrible skin myself (which has sometimes made people treat me like I'm not a real woman or unsanitary or something) this is one of the first things I noticed. Lightening the skin of anyone digitally will make a lot of their blemishes disappear, and gives them a more doll-like appearance as a result.

As for the racial aspect, even Scandinavian women (the original pale blonde) don't look like the PSed picture.

On the other hand, I also have to wonder if they did that for recognition purposes, since she became famous as a blonde. Also, her eyes look more intense in the PSed image.... None of which negates the idea that she is being crammed into a specific racial box and made to look like a doll; it doesn't have to be done consciously to be there.

I was never that much into Cameron Diaz.

I'll show this to all those anorectic girls from the local self-help website. They don't want to be starved thin, they want to look like the women from the mags.
As a long-time professional PhotoShopper I can see that there's something wrong with a picture, like proportions out of proportions but sometimes it's very hard to say for sure without the original because the non-PhotoShopped pics just don't appear anywhere.

Speaking of racism, I guess that I don't have this thing. I grew up in a totally white monoculture so I didn't get any stereotypes built in before I was able to use critical thinking. For me, making one's skin paler or darker is a matter of personal preference and aesthetic standards. I'm milky white because I have sun allergy. I've been told a million times how getting a tan is healthy and how good it looks and that tanned people look thinner. Is that racism reversed? I'd rather guess that it's the beauty standards that require tan. Bite them.

I find it interesting that some people on here seem to be saying that in this incident the lightening is unlikely to have racist (what the hell does "racial" even mean in this context??) connotations... What that says to me is that you don't think it's deliberate. That doesn't mean it's not there.

I noticed the lightening WELL before anything else, and I have to say I do think it is influenced by a racist backdrop - basically, the ingrained idea that lighter is better, always. Sure, they lightened the whole picture and removed orange but you can't tell me the overall effect isn't to make her look whiter

Oh, and I like the part about a "fuller" stomach. My arse. It looks flatter, because they've removed any and all contour. No wonder a magazine-flat stomach is unachievable (well, almost)

A random aside from the UK, it's far far more common for air-brushers to make white celebrities darker than the other way round.

I think that there's some mythical 'middle' point of colour perfection in the minds of fashion/beauty/magazine people. Too pale is unacceptable and too dark is unacceptable - it's somewhere around the Jennifer Lopez/Shakira/Leona Lewis honey colour, that gets praised/pushed the most.

Which, as the post points out, is about setting some beauty standard which ends up not being applicable to nearly everyone regardless of race/ethnicity!

I'm not disregarding anyone's concerns about whether lighter=better in terms of magazines etc as being discussed, but just wanted to give a different UK perspective on the topic.

Thanks for the positive feedback ladies! I'm glad that others have made the same observation.

It might just be me, but she doesn't look any bigger to me, in fact she looks skinnier. They aren't airbrushing her to make her look healthier, they're airbrushing her to make her look perfect.

"Want more evidence? If you look at the models on magazines that ARE geared to straight males, there is usually a big difference."

Umm... those models usually have a waist that is almost as tiny as fashion models in women's magazines. The difference is there boobs and their hips/butt, which is sometimes attained through artificial padding, airbrushing, surgery, etc... Enough with the righteousness.

And frankly, I don't think we can look at that first picture of Cameron Diaz and determine that she's unhealthy. Yeah, she's skinny. I'd say she's a little skinnier than I am in that pic... But according to charts I'm on the lower end of the range of "normal" healthy weight for my height.

She could very well be on the very low end of "normal". With makeup on its impossible to tell if someone would look malnourished otherwise. And whatever happened to the whole idea that you can't tell how healthy someone is just by looking at them? That idea that always gets brought up and pushed hard in threads dealing with heavy people...

kultakutri, just because you grew up in a "white monoculture" doesn't mean you won't have stereotypes. In fact, I would guess that white people seem much more "normal" to you, while anyone who deviates from the bracket of humans you were raised around seems "exotic". I know this is the case for me; I still struggle with treating black people "normally" because they were such a minority where I grew up, I hardly ever encountered them, and the few that I did get to know ended up forming a sort of stereotype for me because I had nothing else to go off of.

I should add that I'm not saying that that is how you are, since I obviously don't know you, just that it's a possibility.

i'm going to take issue with those claiming that straight men don't find super skinny or modelesque women attractive. clearly most media that feature images of women to appeal to men (e.g., victoria's secret) include more women with "curves" (which ninapendamaishi correctly pointed out usually just means more T&A and which i'd argue isn't really any better--a kim kardashian ass and a keira knightley stomach are probably equally unattainable for most people) and i would agree that probably most straight men prefer women who are bigger than your average runway model.

but maybe it's because i live in LA, because i really do think that the uberthin nature of hollywood has rubbed off on more guys than you might think. since i've lived here i've heard way more men (both local and otherwise) denigrate women for being too thick/curvy/etc when really the women were thin or average, but not kate moss.

Is that racism reversed?

I always have a problem with "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination" because they imply that there's some context in which (in this case) darker skinned people have more power than white people. Reverse racism has been claimed against just about every program (like affirmative action) that is supposed to "level the playing field" or whatever, or against people of color who get something that white people feel entitled to (it's basically the same thing is a calling them 'uppity'). Unless there's some power-structure enforcing it, I don't think you can use the term 'racism' or 'discrimination.'

Actually, even male standards for women have become thinner over the past few decades. To say men aren't somewhat influenced by the media's emphasis on thinness is wrong, and you can actually look at men's magazines to prove that. Playboy models and Miss America contestants have become taller and lighter over the past few decades, and their waist-bust-hip ratio has changed so they are in fact less "curvy." A study of Playboy models over the past 50 years indicated that the hourglass figure is becoming less and less popular, because the average hip size of models was decreasing, even as height and waist size increased. I can't find the specific article I originally found, but I put some others below.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n127_v32/ai_20413253
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/20/entertainment/main533855.shtml

The second study actually indicates that while the size of nude model's bust and hips haven't changed significantly, a slimmer, less curvy look has become more prevalent.

“And I'm sick of the idea that it's just gay men and women who are perpetuating the ridiculous beauty standards.� – NekkidNancy

Straight men play a part in perpetuating some beauty standards (a bit thin but busty with curvy hips and butt ), just not the same one’s found in typical fashion magazines (tall, hyper-thin, boney, with small breasts). Of course, I do not find it surprising at all that a group of people who are sexually attracted to women would value different qualities in women’s bodies than another group of people who are (unless they are lesbians, asexual, ect.) attracted to men.

As for the lightening of the photo: As I stated before, this is a photoshop technique used to help smooth out the skin (remove blemishes, lines, shadows, ect.). I might believe it was about some racial aesthetic if we didn’t live in a country where tans are such a sought after beauty quality.

"The second study actually indicates that while the size of nude model's bust and hips haven't changed significantly, a slimmer, less curvy look has become more prevalent." – Katxyz

If the bust and hips remain, but they are slimmer, wouldn’t that mean they were more curvy?

As far as photoshopping is concerned, I have always assumed that someone appearing in magazines, TV shows and movies has had their image altered, whether with makeup, push-up bras, hairpieces, girdles, or after the fact with airbrushing and photoshopping. Which is why I'm nonplussed when people worry that they can't meet the "ideal" shown in movies and magazines. Movie stars and models can't do it, so why worry?

Of course I never thought I could be dragged around by a truck and shot by Nazis like Indiana Jones, either.

"She could very well be on the very low end of 'normal'. With makeup on its impossible to tell if someone would look malnourished otherwise."

And even if she were "underweight," that doesn't mean she's unhealthy either. Weight doesn't determine health.

I don't think this argument about whether men like what the fashion industry or movies tell them to like is really that significant. Obviously, even these "perfect" actresses aren't good enough in reality, anyway. Whatever your body's like, there are going to be people who tell you there's something wrong with it. And since what's arguably "ideal" in many magazines (small waist and thighs, huge breasts) is virtually impossible for a real woman to resemble, we're all subjected to uninvited criticism.

I think this kind of photoshopping is even more dangerous than just slimming everything down, though both are wrong. Now, not only do you have to be skinny (because they aren't really adding much weight to the women's waists)you have to do it while having fuller breasts and hips. An even less "natural" look than superskinny (which, when natural, tends to come with the tiny boobs and ass) although there are some women who do naturally look like that. We're just taking an impossible ideal and making it even more impossible.

This website I found on kateharding.net when they posted about this very issue really lets you see how photoshopping subtly but effectively changes these people's bodies. (You go to "portfolio on the upper right side and hover the mouse over the pictures to see the "before". The effect was is really...interesting).

http://www.iwanexstudio.com/

The Cameron photo is on there too, and you can see how much of a difference there really is (side by side it's harder to tell). Also, note that they make the ethnic women, not just white ones, lighter, and I personally do think there's a racial componant to that (I've seen photoshops of women of colour where their eyes, for example, are made a lighter shade of brown, or even green, and where noses are narrowed. Coming from a black/hispanic background, that absolutely screams racial to me, although they may be things you'd have to be a person of colour to really be sensitive to).

�Now, not only do you have to be skinny (because they aren't really adding much weight to the women's waists)you have to do it while having fuller breasts and hips. An even less "natural" look than superskinny (which, when natural, tends to come with the tiny boobs and ass) although there are some women who do naturally look like that.� – Tuesday

You don’t have to do anything. When did everyone decide that they had to look like movie stars and models? The ideal is not the norm. It almost never is. Oh well, that’s life.

When did everyone decide that they had to look like movie stars and models?
Oh God, you're right! Boy are we acting silly. It's not like women are judged based on their appearances or often have people telling them their beauty (or lack thereof) is a measure of their worth or get harrassed for being unattractive or are constantly told by the media that they are just. not. good. enough.

My face is just so red with embarrassment now. How could I have been such a silly, silly goose?

Straight men ridicule each other for being fat and having big boobs and hairy backs or being bald...
That's not at all the same thing and if you're not a total idiot you will realize that.

There are some real assholes out there, but that doesn't change the fact that the stick-thin "ideal" (for lack of a better term) is not geared to please the typical straight male for the good reason that it simply doesn't. Proof of any pudding is in the eating, and very few straight men (none that I know of) find the starved thin look attractive. Want more evidence? If you look at the models on magazines that ARE geared to straight males, there is usually a big difference.
Allow me to point this out to you:

Ninapendamaishi
Women naturally come in all shapes and sizes, chubby, skinny, and anything in-between. So pardon me, but screw whatever you "and all the guys" you know currently think is sexy.

I love how all these "real women have curves" type guys are mainly looking for the curves in a very specific place. One streamlined standard that is unattainable for a lot of women is no better than another.
Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly. I hear a lot of straight men talk about how curves are great and they hate anorexic looking chicks, but when they say curves what they usually mean is tits and ass. They mean the thin women you see in men's magazines who have tiny bodies and big (often artificial) bust lines.

tuesday, that's a great site that everyone should see. I used to hear that these pictures are photoshopped but you really have to see it to believe it. Sometimes I really like the natural picture more and it shows how much we like to lighten the pictures. It's not just Cameron Diaz.