A long time ago, I worked in the advertising industry. I’ll never forget the first lingerie ad I worked on. The art director stood behind me as I photoshopped a photo of a gorgeous woman in her underwear.
“Ewww, her thighs are too big, make them smaller,” he said.
So I photoshopped her thighs down.
“Oh, her skin is offensive, smooth it out.”
So I did.
And so on. Finally, we were left with an image that looked good… I guess… but it didn’t look anything like the woman we started with.
At that moment, a lightbulb went on in my head. I was participating in some pretty evil shit. I thought of my little sister and every other little girl who might look at that picture as a pubescent girl, already obsessed with her self-image. I thought of all the girls who might look at that picture and starve themselves so that they could look like this “ideal” of beauty — when the “ideal” didn’t exist herself.
I didn’t work there much longer after that. That was the only job I’ve ever done that I was ashamed of.
For a great piece on this, read Impossibly Beautiful. H/T Feminist Law Professors
By Email
By RSS Feed
In my opinion, objectifying women and children for the purpose of sexual titillation is much more offensive than a little photoshopping on someone’s thighs or skin.
Only when the “boys” of domaining get this will the domaining industry be taken seriously and respected as a real business, conducted by real men, as opposed to 7th grade boys slobbering over BigBoobs [dot] whatever.
Bugzita,
I guess that we have a difference of opinion then. I don’t mind “objectification” of anyone. We are, after all, objects. In fact, the porn industry has, since internet porn took over the market, been increasingly driven by a market for “real women.”
What bothers me about the “little photoshopping” is that it creates an unrealistic body image, broadcast worldwide, that young girls then aspire to. However, it is no more achievable than looking like a comic book character. In the end, the damage to girls’ psyches is far worse than any damage that comes from objectification.
On the other hand, those who complain about objectification are usually simply bitter that they are not the ones being objectified. That is a different kind of psychological damage, but it isn’t damage to the defenseless.
I’m not sure what “domaining” has to do with this — unless you’re talking about GoDaddy’s ad campaigns?
Just my take: we see “impossible images” all of the time. After all, when I was growing up I was hurt that women didn’t fall for me the way that they fell for James Bond in the movies.
Then it dawned on me: that is called FANTASY. Besides, I found out that there are women who don’t mind having Inspector Clouseau. :)
Another note: in college, I envied all of those powerlifters who, say, increased their benchpress from 200 to 500 pounds. Later I found out:
1. Not everyone is meant to be strong and
2. There is, ahem, a chemical effect.
So, for me, part of the process of growing up is to learn to accept reality and to accept one’s own limitations.
[...] Legal Satyricon: this is a thoughtful essay on the photo shopped images that are used to sell “beauty” to… In short, the images you see in, say, underwear ads are often [...]