Today's female models look like 14 year old boys. I mean, do you think Sophia could have pulled off this now days?

I think the "poochie" model looks like a woman.

Eh, models in magazines should be the kind of models who enable the magazines and their advertisers to turn the biggest profit. If the "real" models are unpopular, magazines are unlikely to stick with them out of altruism or ideology. And if they are popular, then I don't see why magazines should pass up the opportunity to make a buck on it.

Models in magazines should be beautiful. That's the point, isn't it? Where I draw the line though is the amount of airbrushing. Heidi Klum walks down a street 8 months pregnant with 3 children and somehow still looks supermodel, a feat I've never mastered. Yet a mag will airbrush her until she is no longer recognizable. That's where it gets crazy, when the beautiful people no longer measure up. Where does it go from there?

You can be beautiful and not airbrushed or altered. I am all for cute models but I hate that the pictures have been altered (yes - they have ALL been Photoshopped and airbrushed). Also - the pic in Amys link was so small...I really didn't get the impression that the woman was a size 12. In that small image she looked like a size 6 with a pooch. And I don't give a fuck for that. I am a size 4 and I have a pooch too.

Ok, the woman in that picture is NOT fat. She's not a stick figure like a lot of models out there today, and yes, she has a bit of a belly pooch, but that's more likely caused by not getting enough exercise, or perhaps she was heavier and lost some weight prior to this photo.

However, it's mostly the pose that is to blame. The way she is sitting causes the belly to pooch outward, and if there is any flab there at all, it gets magnified. If she were standing in one of what are typically considered "glamour" poses, there would be hardly anything to complain about.

You'll get no argument on this one. The simple fact is that people like to look at other beautiful people. Whether man or woman, if they're put on stage to be admired simply for their exteriors, they had better be beautiful.
I was half-watching the Miss Universe Pageant the other night and caught myself wondering what other accomplishments these gorgeous girls had to their credits? Had they completed a degree? Held a non-modeling job? Written anything or learned to play a musical instrument? What, beyond looking hot, was their contribution? Some would say that was enough, but I felt a lack. It seemed to me that the pageant was a dinosaur from an earlier age where all a woman was expected to do was look hot and be subservient to her man. I guess I expect more.

THAT"S a plus-size model? Just looks like a beautiful woman to me. I was expecting a BBW from all that.

>>There are angles from which I don't look my best -- the same is true of most people.

Even Twiggy!

You need to scroll UP this link (to the airbrushed/non airbrushed pix at the top...). I admit I gawped!

http://tinyurl.com/nr73xf

I expect models to be (unrealistically) attractive. That's why they're models. If you can have a career as a model without a gorgeous face and a fantastic figure, then shouldn't we all be modeling?

Models are fun to look at - that goes for both females and males. I don't want to see a tubby dude w/ a hairy back when I open a magazine (I can just go to the beach or pool for that). Likewise, I don't really want to see cellulite or saggy stomachs on women.

Magazines are entertainment. An escape. But at the same time constantly seeing air brushed stick figures is annoying. Like, give it up already and go eat something.

The model from the Glamour article isn't "fat" to me. Sorry. I don't mind looking at her. Is she the socially accepted ideal? No - which is why we're having this discussion. I'm not offended by the notion of a little balance in magazines. Some average people in there. And then leave the bikini shots to hotties. I might be older than the target demographic but male A&F models are so, so, sooo fine.

I don't find fashion models beautiful, or even pretty. For the past two decades or so they look like anorexic insomniacs. Not a look I aspire to.

I like the pin-ups of the 30s-50s. The cheesecake retro look.

"I like the pin-ups of the 30s-50s."

Nice. My personal aspiration is to be really strong and lean. Like a figure girl (a less dramatic looking bodybuilder). And without the ridiculous looking "tan".

I basically just want Kristal Richardson's body. I love muscles on people, it's a lot harder than you think...trust.

This is not the best example to bitch about, because that is a beautiful woman, and in the tiny picture, she looked pretty small. I looked up other pictures of her, she's still gorgeous and blond, and the tummy pooch went away in a different pose.

"Actually, from eating almost no carbs, I have muscles, just from being lean. It's pretty amazing"

You're no Kristal Richardson. That kind of body needs work, not just a low carb diet.

The low carbs has nothing to do with your muscles, it's the "being lean" part. No matter how you get lean, you will find muscles under there.

Holy Crap, Amy, you are harsh. She's not huge, or ugly! I'm glad that people are moving away from the anorexic 14 year old models. You want to sell me something? Show me someone like me looking good in it!

And I don't care what their agents say, most models are anorexic, and use drugs to stay thin. I was in the industry, and I know.

And most men I've ever heard with an opinion, prefer poochie-girl types to sticks.

Not to mention, models don't even look like models now. They are all photoshopped and airbrushed to death.

What ever happened to curves? 99% of the men I've talked to, and been with, LOVE curves! The other 1% liked either uber skinny or uber fat.
There is nothing wrong with being voluptuous. There is also nothing wrong w/ being uber skinny, if that's what your mate likes, and you're happy with it. Same goes for being uber fat.

When I look at a magazine, I want to see women who fill out the clothes in the right places. That makes the clothes look better and sells me on them. I'd rather see a curvy model than a stick model- The clothes just hang on them, and honestly, it looks kinda gross.

OT- I just read your latest column, and I must say, you are spot on w/ the advice to the first letter. Every woman and man should read The Gift Of Fear. Also, is there another place other than Creators, that I can read your column? The Creators site gives my browser fits. It doesn't play well w/ Firefox or Chrome, and IE is banned in this house, so that isn't really an option.

""Actually, from eating almost no carbs, I have muscles, just from being lean. It's pretty amazing"

You're no Kristal Richardson. That kind of body needs work, not just a low carb diet. "

I might add that to get a body like Kristal Richardson you have to eat a lot and you have to eat carbs. Unless you want to atrophy your muscles you must eat complex grains post-workout in order to allow the muscle fiber to repair itself. If you're just trying to reduce overall BFP then, yes, cut carbs almost completely (exception: some fruit). But building and maintaining muscle mass takes mental and physical effort above and beyond skipping the bread basket.

Being thin and being ripped are two totally separate things and take two totally separate paths to achieve. I'm just saying that if I had to pick an ideal body type to have I wouldn't want to be all skinny.

I don't know which is more off-putting to men, and harmful to women: the idealization of stick-thin women as models, or the rationalization that being a fat cow is just fine, thank you!

By the way, to a lesser extent, I see the same dynamic happening to men: chiseled abs in the ads, fat slobs on the street.

THIN =/= FIT =/= FAT

Plus sized model?? Seriously there is NO WAY that girl is a size 12-14 and if she qualifies as plus sized than I must be a damn whale and I'm only a size 8. Although maybe model sizes run smaller than ordinary people sizes.

Like others above me have pointed out, that sitting pose is not flattering on most women.

Sara, she's almost 6 feet tall, that might result in a larger size without her looking very big in a picture.

That is actually probably a good-looking woman, but I absolutely hate the slouchy pose and what it does to her body. She's not hanging out with her boyfriend or a bunch of girlfriends in the sauna, she's being photographed in a beauty magazine for a huge audience. The least they could do is pose her in a flattering way, unclothed or not. It doesn't make sense to me, to deliberately show her body in an unattractive way, and I don't really want to see it.

Beauty sells as well as provides pleasure, and there are good reasons for that. As "interesting" and different" as people find this picture, how many people want to look at it again, rather than a picture of an unusually beautiful woman? Or at the very least, one of this woman looking more beautiful than she is here? This picture isn't so much ugly as pointless.

I wouldn't want to see that gut on a male or female.

It reminds me of Jennifer Love Hewitt's bikini figure . . .

http://thesuperficial.com//bfm_gallery/2009/08/0805%20JLH%20Bikini2/gallery_main/gallery_main-0805_jlh_bikini2_00.jpg

And let's not forget sillycone bag marks like these on Frenchy (whomever the hell that is). . .

http://thesuperficial.com//bfm_gallery/2009/08/0820%20Frenchy%20Topless/gallery_main/gallery_main-0820_frenchy_topless_00.jpg

Jay's post reminds me of why it's so necessary to separate the men from the boys.

Feebie, remind me of the difference.

Debra, when one does a photo shoot there are always going to be some crappy pictures. Sometimes a pose doesn't come out as well as it should.

I agree that they didn't need to use it.

Wait, I take that back. It got them a TON of publicity. They did need to use it. It makes them "look good"

Amy, while easy to admire, has a foreshortened —and transparently self-flattering— eye for the components of human attraction.

I think that she is beautiful and sexy.

I suspect that by showing a curvy woman in this unflattering pose, the magazine could get kudos for using a "real" woman without resorting to posting a photo of a woman who actually does represent the majority of American woman (fat). The magazine looks good and "real" women feel that they are represented. Yay, everybody wins. Meanwhile, nothing really happened.

"Meanwhile, nothing really happened." Marina FTW!

This shot was done on spec for the art director and I can state with authority that the photographer probably hated making it. Similar reason that I threw an art director out of my studio once.

And? Say it with me now, there is NO airbrushing. It's called photoshop and even the full CS version is only $1k or so. So it's not expensive to do fixing up. One of the large problems is that often the images are going out of the hands of photographers and into the hands of editors/art directors. Which means the person with the most personal investment in the aesthetic of the image, and how that image captures a person [regardless if you are shooting the clothes] is not the person that "cleans up" the image. If you look at how fashion designers sketch, and the often impossible body proportions, what fashion mags are doing with photoshop, is trying to realize that with a human face.

This particular image is supposed to be the antithesis of that, but it is as staged to be opposite as it can be. It is ENTIRELY possible that they photoshopped extra onto her body to make it look worse.

I've been airbrushed, Swissarmy. It's applied to one's body, not the photo. I know it exists.

Topless surfing girl with the implant ripples is hilarious. Another great argument against fake boobs.

Every woman I (now) know would kill for Love's booty, even in that pic. It's better than most, and it's not like she was posing trying to look good. She was on vacation, enjoying calorie-laden cocktails and having fun! How good do you look, Jay?

"I highly doubt that. And no disrespect, Gretchen, but I'd trust Doctor Michael Eades on this or Gary Taubes over you."

Okay. I'm sorry. I was being slightly dramatic.

We're talking about two separate things.

You're skinny. And you said you have muscles b/c you don't eat carbs. No. You didn't "get muscles" from the lack of carbs - you reduced your body fat percentage thereby revealing the muscles that already existed underneath. You don't add muscle to your body by not eating carbs. It's not really possible.

I'm talking about bulking up like a figure girl (example I gave was Kristal Richardson). In order to look like THAT you must eat carbs (and lift heavy weight) during a bulking period. Not just carbs, though, a balance of fat, protein and carbs. Muscles need protein but your body needs carbohydrates in order to fully utilize the protein into new muscle. Reason: when you are eating carbs your body will use that for energy first and all the protein will then be used for recovery (add new muscle).

If you don't eat many carbs your body will look to other things you eat - the protein - as an energy source. This means the protein will not be used for muscle recovery; you won't get bigger.

You aren't trying to add muscle so your diet works for you. People's bodies are very similar in how they react to certain stimuli but our goals are different. I want to add muscle. I cannot eat the same way you do and meet my goals. It's very calculated - it's specific carbs at specific times in specific amounts and proportions relative to fat and protein. Athletes of all kinds have very unique dietary needs and if everyone ate a low-carb diet, sure, they'd be skinny, but they'd also have no energy to bench press their body weight, or more, or go do a 1 mile sprint in under 4 minutes. Low/no-carb might work for you b/c you don't do double sessions at the gym 5 or 6 days a week. To sustain that level of activity you've gotta consume complex carbohydrates.

...and you're saying Taubes refutes this all in his book?!?

Don't worry Gretchen, I often notice "tunnel vision" on this web site. You are quite correct.

And I often notice that when this "one diet for all!" topic comes up, there's no thought given to the fact that, as Gretchen explains very well, people can have physical goals other than just being thin while expending minimal effort.

I ran 60 miles per week in college, did lots of strength-training, core work and cross-training because I wanted to run a 5k as fast as I could. My goal was fitness, not a dress size. This couldn't have happened with a low-carb diet.

Gretchen,

It can be done. Here is an example:

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to-freak-how-i-gained-34-lbs-of-muscle-in-4-weeks/

This is his basic diet. Pretty standard low carb fare:

Proteins:
Egg whites with one whole egg for flavor
Chicken breast or thigh
Grass-fed organic beef
Pork

Legumes:
Lentils
Black beans
Pinto beans

Vegetables:
Spinach
Asparagus
Peas
Mixed vegetables

He reduces his fat more than Amy, but the standard way of doing things isn't necessarily the only way or the best way.

-Julie

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304--7771-1-1X3-3,00.html

I would also say that we eat far more meat than ever would have been available when we evolved.

dunno, Karen, we were hunter gatherers, we ate a LOT of meat, especially if you are european ancestry. grains are farily recent in comparison.

momof4... in the industry we never used airbrushing to mean shading on the body. You airbrushed a photograph to take out imperfections before you put it on a stat-camera to get it ready for color separation printing for a magazine. Stat on wiki
There were other ways of doing the ready... but basically you were making a final photographic product, and then taking a picture of THAT for production. For that reason any adjustments were taken care of at that point, and you could remove people, take out lines, soten and so-forth. It can amount to fakery if you do a lot...

hence the term "airbrushing" to mean manipulating the image in a way that isn't reality.

All of this is done in 1/100th the time with modern digital tools, it's just sometimes the skill isn't there...

Just so's you know...

"I like the pin-ups of the 30s-50s."

Yeah, that's my ideal look, too: exaggerated hourglass, tiny waist, soft curves, like Ava Gardner or Elizabeth Taylor. Today that look would be decried as "flabby," no doubt, and I don't even know if that kind of figure is even possible without the use of restrictive girdles and such that women used to assist them in achieving the silhouette. I read an article about the demise of the hourglass figure due to lifestyle and diet changes from the 1950s:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/real-life/2007/10/08/the-hourglass-diet-115875-19914354/

I remember reading an article about the casting of Mad Men, where the creators were saying that it was difficult to find women to cast to look "period-appropriate" for the 1960s, as most actresses nowadays are super-toned and very athletic-looking, and back then women didn't really "work out," per se, and so had a softer, less muscular look.