![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I know everyone has probably had their say on the topic of JK's views already, but I had to weigh in too.
I am regularly appalled by the... what's the word? ...Worship? of the skinny, androgenous, pre-pubecent figure. Of magazines promoting wafer-thin sexless bodies as the ideal for girls and boys to set as a goal. But it is a ludicrously unachievable goal as this ludicrous advertising demonstrates -
This is a prime example of the ridiculous Photoshopping the advertisers do on the models! The purple lines I've added as a rough estimate of where I think her body really was and you can see by the lighting changes where she was cropped.
My point being that not even the models are thin enough! They're promoting figures that cannot be achieved in Real Life as the ideal. What does this do to kids who have no idea that a figure in photo can be manipulated like that? I have seen women's ragmags simply stretch pics on actresses - widthways when they want to flail at them for being fat, lengthways if they want to point the finger at them for being too thin. Seriously WTF?
And, of course, being that wafer-thin means no boobs, so implants are required. Or, as is now the trend in Hollywood, the poor actresses who do happen to have some cleavage are getting breast reductions!! (Jennifer Connelly leaps to mind) Because the andrgenous look is what keeps them working. *head desk*
Look at photos of Marilyn Munroe - all womanly hips and breasts - she would be laughed out of Hollywood today for being horrifically fat.
Which, in my mind is silly and tragic. Women have hips. Women have breasts. They have been designed by nature (or God) to bare children and need hips and breasts to do so. Yet it is the pre-pubescent girl figure that is held up as the ideal, which I find extremely disturbing.
It's not just girls either. The ideal male must either be musclebound or boyish, both with no bodyhair (again with the pre-pubescent).
Why is this? The paedophilic overtones creep me out, and I can't help feeling it's like some weird sort of anti-promotion of sexuality - we're not permitted to show you images of sexually mature males and females because, godforbid, you might think about sex! But we want to use sex to sell our product so we'll use models who look pre-pubescent so that you don't notice. O.o *sigh*
I am regularly appalled by the... what's the word? ...Worship? of the skinny, androgenous, pre-pubecent figure. Of magazines promoting wafer-thin sexless bodies as the ideal for girls and boys to set as a goal. But it is a ludicrously unachievable goal as this ludicrous advertising demonstrates -
This is a prime example of the ridiculous Photoshopping the advertisers do on the models! The purple lines I've added as a rough estimate of where I think her body really was and you can see by the lighting changes where she was cropped.
My point being that not even the models are thin enough! They're promoting figures that cannot be achieved in Real Life as the ideal. What does this do to kids who have no idea that a figure in photo can be manipulated like that? I have seen women's ragmags simply stretch pics on actresses - widthways when they want to flail at them for being fat, lengthways if they want to point the finger at them for being too thin. Seriously WTF?
And, of course, being that wafer-thin means no boobs, so implants are required. Or, as is now the trend in Hollywood, the poor actresses who do happen to have some cleavage are getting breast reductions!! (Jennifer Connelly leaps to mind) Because the andrgenous look is what keeps them working. *head desk*
Look at photos of Marilyn Munroe - all womanly hips and breasts - she would be laughed out of Hollywood today for being horrifically fat.
Which, in my mind is silly and tragic. Women have hips. Women have breasts. They have been designed by nature (or God) to bare children and need hips and breasts to do so. Yet it is the pre-pubescent girl figure that is held up as the ideal, which I find extremely disturbing.
It's not just girls either. The ideal male must either be musclebound or boyish, both with no bodyhair (again with the pre-pubescent).
Why is this? The paedophilic overtones creep me out, and I can't help feeling it's like some weird sort of anti-promotion of sexuality - we're not permitted to show you images of sexually mature males and females because, godforbid, you might think about sex! But we want to use sex to sell our product so we'll use models who look pre-pubescent so that you don't notice. O.o *sigh*
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
And it really is amazing to see what trainers say or the Army wants your weight to be at and what your doctor says is unhealthy. I am in the Army National Guard and for a 21 year old female at 5'2" the weight they want you to be at the most 118. My doctor said that to be healthy, you can weight up to 135. 118 to 135 is a big difference.
And it's nice to see what they really do to those pictures. It is really sad to know that a super skinny model still isn't even skinny enough. That is why girls who 20 years ago wouldn't be considered fat feel awful and are made fun of because they are "fat".