Kim Kardashian Before and After Photoshopped
It was just another column, one of about four I wrote that week. I came across a poll suggesting that—contrary to popular belief and statements from a high-profile British minister—90% of girls were well aware that photos in fashion magazines were airbrushed and unrealistic. I read the available poll information, wrote a column that included other similar studies for context and perspective, and posted it to LiveScience.com.
You should read the original column, but here’s a synopsis: “A cosmetic surgery website, Good Surgeon Guide, conducted a poll of 1,078 teenage girls to discover how they feel about airbrushing and other digital manipulation of photos in fashion magazines. Contrary to popular assumption, the poll reveals that nearly 90 percent of girls are aware that the majority of celebrity images are airbrushed, and not an accurate representation of the celebrities’ appearances… The findings are in line with earlier research suggesting that teen girls reject fashion models as realistic role models…. (I then cite two studies, and end with a quote from Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth): “Today you would be hard-pressed to find a twelve-year-old girl who is not all too familiar with the idea that ‘ideals’ are too tough on girls, that they are unnatural, and that following them too slavishly is neither healthy nor cool.”
Jessica Alba Before and After Photoshop
I didn’t give it much more thought; the poll showed that teen girls were more intelligent and media-savvy than often given credit for—they saw right through the advertising bullshit. Even Naomi Wolf’s statements agreed with the poll’s findings. I thought the poll and column would be welcomed as positive news.
I was wrong.
The column appeared on no less than three Facebook pages, and the reactions were fascinating. There were well over 100 comments that fell into three general categories.
Faith Hill After and Before Photoshop
1) “Polls are worthless/flawed.” Several people expressed doubt about the poll’s validity because it was conducted on behalf of a surgery Web site. Others suggested that logical, critical analysis could not be applied to self-reports. Clearly, some polls are better than others, but well-designed and well-conducted polls have been shown to have very good validity. It is simply not true that polls and self-report surveys are worthless. Furthermore, many of the claims about how women feel about themselves (and their influences) are based upon personal questions and self-evaluation. If we dismiss all self-reports as inherently unreliable, then what objective measures can we use to determine women’s feelings of self-esteem and body satisfaction? I did not hold this poll up as a model of brilliant scientific research, I simply reported on one interesting finding in the poll that I had previously written about.
2) “Ben Radford is full of shit.” One poster challenged my research and claimed that I had presented a biased picture of the poll, and was proffering “lousy reporting.” While admitting that the data I presented in the column was completely accurate and correct (87% of girls said they knew fashion photos were airbrushed), one person stated that I “cherry picked the info on the poll… a whopping 62% from wanting to look like them and 79% from wanting to change at least one body part.” This seems to be a misunderstanding, both of the poll and the column I wrote from it. The column topic is about one finding among several in the poll; I have a strict word count, and did not have the space to discuss in detail all the poll’s findings and their implications. This is regularly done in journalism and science reporting; just because a column or article does not discuss every aspect of a study does not mean the author is cherry-picking evidence or presenting a biased view.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy Before and After Photoshop
It is quite true that the poll found that 62% of girls wanted to look like celebrities, but that has nothing to do with the subject of my column: airbrushed fashion photos. The claim is specifically that manipulated photos cause problems for girls by creating unrealistic expectations—the 62% measure had nothing to do with airbrushed photos, it was simply a question, “Would you like to look like Britney Spears?” (Or Fergie or Kim Kardashian, etc.). Frankly, I’m surprised that only 62% said yes, since the media myth is that nearly all women want to look like celebrities—if that is true, why do nearly 40% of girls say they don’t? So if you actually read the study, and understand the point of the column (as well as the constraints on it), you realize that the piece was not biased or slanted. I simply don’t have the luxury of extra hours and extra pages to fully analyze parts of the study that aren’t relevant to the subject of photo retouching.
3) “That can’t be right because it’s not what I’ve heard.” One woman sarcastically wrote, “Yes, you know more than me, a woman, who has to deal with these issues everyday, because you did research,” to which I replied, “The research I’m reporting has been done over the past 20 years by this country’s top eating disorder experts. With all due respect, I will take their scientific, peer-reviewed findings over your personal experience as a woman…”
Madonna Before and After Photoshop
Another woman noted, “Someone at SI is really intent on pushing an agenda on this issue. Disturbing.” I had no idea how to respond to this… What possible “agenda” was SI (or, more accurately, myself) pushing by factually reporting the results of a poll that found that 90% of girls know that fashion photos are airbrushed and unrealistic? When I debunk homeopathy I’m accused by alt med supporters of having a pro-Big Pharma agenda; when I disprove UFO claims I’m accused of having an agenda to help the government cover up UFO information. And when I help debunk the widely-held idea that most girls are fooled by airbrushed photos of celebrities, I have some other hidden agenda. My agenda is testing popular assumptions for their accuracy and truthfulness—even those which I generally agree with. It’s always struck me as odd that when I offer evidence and arguments that challenge people’s beliefs, their first assumption is always that I haven’t researched the topic sufficiently (or that I have some hidden agenda). It rarely occurs to people that perhaps I am more familiar with the topic than they are, or at least approaching the subject from a different perspective. A lot of skeptics have no problem asking psychics or UFO buffs for evidence of their claims, but get very defensive when their own assumptions are challenged.
It was also clear from the comments that some—perhaps many—of the people commenting on the column didn’t actually read it. They were simply responding to what others were saying, instead of taking a minute to read for themselves what the column said and did not say. I recognize that not all Facebook respondents were skeptics or critical thinkers, but the fact that so few bothered to actually read the poll (or my column on it) was disappointing.
Clive Owen After and Before Photoshop
If readers want to challenge the methodology of the polls and surveys I reference that’s fine. That is healthy and quite appropriate; all facts, claims, and methods should be challenged. But accusing me of biased or shoddy research—or having some mysterious hidden agenda—is quite another.
So for readers who disagree with the poll, here’s the upshot: If you believe that this poll is wrong, and that girls and women do not know that fashion photos are airbrushed and unrealistic, please provide evidence for your claim.
Britney Spears Before and After Photoshop
Interestingly—and somewhat disappointingly—few if any of the commenters actually addressed the point of the column, and the poll’s main finding: that almost 90% of girls know that fashion photos are retouched and not realistic. Why don’t we talk about that?
I remember reading the initial article, and I grant that a high percentage (I would say almost all, actually) of females young and old know fashion photos are retouched, but I would like to see a survey drill down into how well we spot photoshopped images when they’re not celebrities or ads in fashion magazines.
For example, many females may assume the image has been modified whenever they see a fashion image of well known Britney Spears or Madonna, but what about when they’re thumbing through a catalog or the Ann Taylor website? Do they make accurate assumptions about the degree of photoshopping that occurs to these fashion shots of no-name models? I have a background in retouching photos of models and have some idea of how often it happens (all the time, including in photos that are about selling furniture or cars and not clothing), but even I forget this when I’m looking at the latest clothing lines on the American Eagle website.
That we all know high end fashion photography and celebrity photography is photoshopped does not strike me as wildly new or startlingly information. What I want to know is do people understand the models they glance over in that Ikea catalog have often been retouched, particularly the women?
I think a deeper study on this issue is warranted, and that drawing conclusions from the current study is premature. It may be in fact true that a large percentage of girls and females know the extent to which images of women are regularly retouched in and outside the clothing industry, but I don’t think this study proves it one way or the other. It’s not just fashion magazines that retouch photos, though they’re the ones we hear about all the time. It’s car ads, furniture ads, stock photography used in electronics flyers, movie posters, etc. These are the images that concern me, because even though the thing being sold or promoted isn’t related to a woman’s body, it is still being modified.
I honestly never knew that other ads were airbrushed! I just thought it was celebrities! Wow, you learn something new every day! I do know someone that worked in the tv industry and the time it took to make up even really “good looking” tv actors. A whole team of people to pull together just one person in the cast.
Oddly I remember in high school kids that couldn’t go to class if they didn’t have 2 hours to get ready in the morning. If they were not perfect (if artificial) they could not go OUT. My own mom (remember killer mom) still has a fit I usually leave the house without lipstick. I live in New Hampshire, shaving your underarms and legs is considered pretty over the top here!
I remember once the actress Helen Hayes commented she was glad she wasn’t ever considered one of the “beautiful” actresses, that had to contend with alway appreaing perfect and needing to fight aging constantly. I have a very beautiful friend, Linda, that really is the living embodiment of a Barbie Doll (even the hair) and her insecurity meant I had to find her dates. It was so much easier just being “plain” than being “beautiful”.
Rachelle: “It’s not just fashion magazines that retouch photos, though they’re the ones we hear about all the time. It’s car ads, furniture ads, stock photography used in electronics flyers, movie posters, etc. These are the images that concern me, because even though the thing being sold or promoted isn’t related to a woman’s body, it is still being modified.”
That is an excellent point. Just about the only time people get upset about retouched photos is when the subject is women, but virtually every photo in every magazine and in every advertisement of every subject (beaches, cars, men, apples, steak dinners) has been retouched and altered.
Modified images are everywhere, and have been around for decades. I guess my real question is, “And?…” I just don’t know of any research that suggests that airbrushed images are somehow bad or harmful. Maybe they are, I just want to know what the data shows instead of *assuming* that altered images or good or bad. There are people who suggest that men are dissatisfied with real women because they are comparing them to unrealistic images, but I want to see the studies that show it– otherwise it’s just speculation and theory.
My husband just said that Madonna is spooky in BOTH those photographs!
How much more appealing Diane Keaton, though she admits to using a body double and sells skin products.
I personally have always thought that Kate Winslet is one of the most beautiful women alive.
Nicely done! I have to say, I do all our family photos myself, and I photoshop them before distributing.
I would suggest that comparing retouching of women to retouching of steak is probably not the best comparison to make, as our opinions of what is a normal looking steak likely have less psychological and cultural effect on any group as our opinions of what normal looking women or men look like.
In my experience, women are generally touched up more often than men but I do not necessarily know for a fact that is true, and probably it’s worth our time to actually find out if it is or not. Certainly men are under pressure to conform to cultural images of masculinity as well as women.
Also worth studying in my opinion is the different ways images of men and women are retouched depending on the intended audience. Are images of women photoshopped differently when the audience is men (pornography) than when the audience is women (fashion) and how does that affect the different ways men and women perceive beauty?
My impression of the original article is that it came off as somewhat dismissive, though probably unintentionally so. I would also suggest that knowing something is one way doesn’t always translate to people thinking critically or rationally about it. For example, we know fast food and sugar are bad for us in large quantities, but we eat too much of it anyway. Body image is not always the easiest thing to think rationally or critically about, and while we may academically understand the images we see around us are impossible aspirations, that doesn’t necessarily translate to rational decisions about how to dress, whether or not we need to diet, and how we perceive and feel about ourselves.
Some studies have been done. A quick search through Google Scholar using the terms “women” “photoshop” and “body image” (and variations thereof) shows this has been studied, and while I don’t have the money, time or expertise to read these studies and critique them as valid or not, many of the abstracts indicate there is something here to be thoughtful of, that this is more than just speculation. To be fair, I haven’t read through the studies and don’t have the background to critique the methodology or conclusions.
You claim you want to see studies that show these images are harmful, but given my search, I have to ask: did you look for any? And if so, which ones did you find and what has made them worth dismissing, since you’ve indicated above that you’re still looking for “the studies that show it”?
I like that bit of proof that girls are smarter than we give them credit.
I don’t LIKE the proliferation of airbrushing or the limited representation of the female form but I let my dollars express my disapproval. Even when I was a teen I didn’t buy fashion magazines and I continue that trend today.
But that’s an aesthetic preference and a judgment on my part. And I don’t use “the fashion industry is ruining our kids” argument. Really, I don’t like invoking “kids” as a point in any argument because I think it’s an emotional ploy.
I’m not at all surprised that you received emotional responses to the facts you presented. In my attempt to study different forms of activism, I ended up perusing excerpts of books like “Feeling politics: emotion in political information processing” by David P. Redlawsk
I sometimes have a knee jerk reaction to new information that contradicts my worldview but I’m also someone who’s thoughtful and willing to examine my pre-conceptions…even if that means I have to wait until after I get past that initial knee jerk reaction.
What’s fascinating to me is that some people don’t take that next step of examining their reactions or their beliefs. And it’s frustrating that you can lay out all the facts in front of a person and they may still cling to their preconceptions.
But “not wanting to change what we believe” fit’s with my empirical experiences of the people around me. Much as I want humanity to be a bit more rational, I’ve come to recognize that emotional attachment to our beliefs is a persuasive force.
Rachelle– “I would suggest that comparing retouching of women to retouching of steak is probably not the best comparison to make, as our opinions of what is a normal looking steak likely have less psychological and cultural effect on any group as our opinions of what normal looking women or men look like.”
I see what you’re getting at, but I’d question your idea of a “normal looking” steak or a “normal looking” woman or man. The subjects in the photos we’re talking about are of course not intended to be “normal” at all; in fact the reason that they are so airbrushed and retouched is so that they look perfect. I don’t think people look at images in advertisements and assume that they are seeing anything normal, but instead unrealistically abnormal (the poll seems to confirm this). When I see a photo of a perfect tropical beach scene at sunset on a calendar or travel brochure, I know that it’s a contrived, idealized version of the subject; if I actually go there, there will likely be annoying tourists or harsh sun or jackhammer noise from construction nearby—not the ideal perfect beach scene. Similarly, I know that if I happened to run into Britney Spears on the street, she would not look like she did on the cover of one of her CDs. This poll suggests that nearly 90% of girls react the same way.
“Are images of women photoshopped differently when the audience is men (pornography) than when the audience is women (fashion) and how does that affect the different ways men and women perceive beauty?”
Good question, I’d be interested to find that out.
“I would also suggest that knowing something is one way doesn’t always translate to people thinking critically or rationally about it. For example, we know fast food and sugar are bad for us in large quantities, but we eat too much of it anyway. Body image is not always the easiest thing to think rationally or critically about, and while we may academically understand the images we see around us are impossible aspirations, that doesn’t necessarily translate to rational decisions about how to dress, whether or not we need to diet, and how we perceive and feel about ourselves.”
I agree—which is why in exploring this subject it’s important to look at other measures, such as studies on body satisfaction, rates of dieting, etc. As it happens, the other measures seem to confirm that fashion images do not cause measurable harm. If images of thin women cause most girls or women to want to be thinner to be like the models, then why are only a minority of women dieting? (And even if a majority of women were dieting, that might actually be good news since the average American woman is clinically overweight.)
“You claim you want to see studies that show these images are harmful, but given my search, I have to ask: did you look for any?”
Oh yes, many. In fact I begun not by looking for studies suggesting that the images are not harmful, but instead those what suggested that the images were harmful. I found that in study after study there was far more speculation and conjecture than actual evidence. I then researched what some of the top eating disorder experts said in peer-reviewed medical journals, and nearly every one stated that there remains no proven link between body image concerns and media images of thin women; I provide a half-dozen references in the PDF mentioned at the original story.
I don’t get it, as a teenager, I *always* knew that celebrities and ads were not accurate. Frankly, I found them disturbing, as approaching the uncanny valley. It never occurred to me that I should try to look like them. And this was even before computers and Photoshop (although not by much, although photo manipulation has been around for as long as photography has).
Actually, those airbrushed magazine covers provided a very valuable service for em growing up. Any guy who expressed an interest in his partner looking like a girl on the cover was a guy I knew to avoid. His inability to accept reality would surely create problems in his future relationships, so I had no desire to become one of his future-exes.
Joreth- I agree! I can’t imagine a guy telling his girlfriend that she should look like a woman on a magazine cover. I’m not saying it’s never happened, but I don’y believe it’s common, and besides the guy is probably a loser.
What I find really interesting about this subject is that it is essentially a logical fallacy called a straw man argument– basically attacking a position that no one took, an argument no one made. If there were people who were going around claiming that they believe that the images they see on TV and in magazines and in popular media are realistic and represent reality, that would be one thing.
But I don’t know of anyone who says that, or believes it. It’s possible they exist, but I’ve never met anyone who has said that, nor read of any studies demonstrating that many or most people (or girls) think that. Pointing out that media images are retouched and heavily faked is true– and obvious to almost everyone.
If no one really takes the media images as realistic, then there’s no real point in critics saying, “Look! Here’s a secret you don’t know: Fashion photos are faked! They are airbrushed!” Who said they WEREN’T faked? Who said they weren’t airbrushed? They are arguing against a claim that no one really made.
When I went through my body hating phase (am I over it yet? well, kind of) it was because I was modelling the behaviour of my peers.
Teen girls in the media always seemed to be obsessing over their weight. When I wanted to be a “Teenager” which is, for some reason, glamourised in our culture, I started obsessing about my body too.I think the depictions of teen stereotypes (image obsessed, weight paranoid, popularity driven, boy/girl crazy) are possibly more damaging to young girls than the images in magazines.
I was a skinny thing, but I’ve always had big thighs and a slightly thick middle. My ribs stuck out more than my breasts and I still thought I was fat because I had rolls on my belly when I sat down and my thighs touched! How did I become aware of these things, my peers pointed them out on themselves. My mother didn’t help (she used to call me “Thunder Thighs”) but mainly, I thought I was supposed to be obsessed with my weight. I never had an eating disorder, but I would stand in front of the mirror for hours and hate what I saw. Other girls would talk about how fat they felt, and how they hated their bodies, so, not wanting to feel like an outcast, I joined in as well.
I had one friend who had to be hospitalised because of an eating disorder. I wasn’t that close to her at the time but I do know this: She did ballet, she had always been slightly pudgy, she was a perfectionist, she was homeschooled, and had only recently started going to public school and so was facing social pressure for the first time.
Now, far be it from me to draw conclusion from mere correlation, but I think these sorts of factors are more influential than anything she would have seen in a magazine.
Elizabeth– Wow, really interesting. It’s nice to actually hear women’s personal stories and points of view, instead of the usual glib generalizations. I think you may be onto something about how the teen stereotypes may be more damaging than magazine photos. And one thing you wrote really struck me: “I thought I was supposed to be obsessed with my weight.” I wonder if other women/girls feel the same– it’s like as a society we expect girls to obsess over certain things, and impose our own fears on them.
Ben — To be fair, it’s probably a pretty difficult thing to test properly. How would you go about establishing a control for this I wonder? Wouldn’t we need a control group that had never been surrounded by retouched images in their day-to-day lives? It would be a very difficult control to set up, since these visuals are literally everywhere in our daily lives.
All the links in the original article are to other articles on the same site, which are summaries. Do you have links to any of the original studies? (Ones that don’t require credit cards to read?) I’d like to look at them when I have time. (I can’t find the PDF to which you refer…? All I see in the original article you linked to at http://www.livescience.com/culture/teen-girls-fashion-magazine-model-images-100812.html are links to more livescience.com articles. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong area or at the wrong article…? Is the PDF in a sidebar somewhere?)
Also: I would agree that, when we’re talking about fashion magazines and sunset beaches in tour guides, we are talking about a model of “perfection”, which I think most people presume is not an accurate representation of “normal”. I do not and have not disputed that people in general understand these photos are retouched and modified so as not to represent reality.
However, when we’re talking about other, stock photography, much of it is shot and chosen to speak to “average” and “normal” people. For instance, I don’t look through a furniture cataloge and see the people represented there as representations of “perfect”; certainly the advertisers I worked with tell me they’re looking for images to speak to how sofas and cars will fit in with “normal” and “average” people, yet still we photoshop. When someone is selling you a sofa, you expect the image to be a “perfect” sofa, but probably we think less about the “perfection” of the male and female models in those images, since they (or their bodies, or things on their bodies) aren’t what is being sold to us. Likewise the travel brochure featuring the five star resort shows the “perfect” hotel room with the “perfect” view, but do we realize that the couple ordering room service in bath robes are also modified “perfect” versions of people? I’m not saying we don’t, but I’m not sure we do either.
Do you have links to the original polling questions? I would like to know if the poll only asked about photoshopping in fashion magazines or if it asked about media images of women in general.
Elizabeth: I agree with you that the tendency to obsess about body image and weight is probably more cultural and peer driven than to do with anything we see in magazines. Until I was in my twenties, my peer group was largely filled with female friends who were comfortable with their bodies and so was I. It wasn’t until I started spending time with a different group of females — ones who were vocally and outwardly self-conscious about their bodies — that I started to wonder seriously about my own and feel self conscious about it.
very cool! My one daughter went to an all girls boarding school. Monthy weigh ins were required for many of the girls. Weekly if they noticed too much weight loss. The funny thing is a lot of people assumed that since it was an all girls school, eating disorders would not be an issue. There were no “boys” to influence how these young women felt about themselves. But sure enough, there were eating disorders galore. I have to say the girls there were very relaxed about make up and many even tottered off to class in their pajamas. But, eating issues simply were a part of life also.
Rachelle-
>>“To be fair, it’s probably a pretty difficult thing to test properly. How would you go about establishing a control for this I wonder?”
Depending on what specific measure you’re studying, yes it can be difficult. There’s one study among girls in Fiji in the 1950s I think it was that suggested that eating disorders increased when TV was introduced there, but it is not considered a well designed study and it was impossible to attribute the increase to TV specifically. There are probably significant populations of people who are not constantly exposed to retouched images the way most Americans are (the Amish for example), but I think the real issue is that I suspect that if being surrounded by manipulated images was somehow harmful, that effect would have been revealed by now. That is, they are so pervasive that we should see some evidence of harm if they are harmful—about a billion people have seen these images for literally decades, and so far there’s no good evidence of a problem (nor, for that matter, a plausible proposed mechanism for the harm).
I have most of the (hardcopy) articles and summaries in my files, but don’t have access to them at the moment (plus I gotta get to my day job!). But the PDF I was referring to is at the bottom of the other big piece I have on Shethought, “Deconstructing Barbie and Bridget Jones” (a link is at the top of this page). That’s got plenty of references.
>>“do we realize that the couple ordering room service in bath robes are also modified “perfect” versions of people?”
I can’t speak for others, but I can tell you that when I see stock photos (for example that often appear in Psychology Today or Scientific American Mind), the human subjects are not fashion models, but they are clearly models, and the images retouched. Maybe I’m more savvy, being in the publishing business, but I’ve always assumed that any professional/commercial photography has been altered in some way.
I don’t have the original polling questions; I requested them from the press contact but she has not gotten back to me and I was under deadline and couldn’t wait a week for her to respond! Here’s a press release on the study: http://www.goodsurgeonguide.co.uk/press-releases/teenage-girls-aspire-to-look-like-airbrushed-celebrities~19/
Ben — Thanks for sharing the link to the press release, and for clarifying which post the PDF was attached to. Thanks also for the conversation: very interesting and informative. I am still learning a lot about how good studies are constructed and how to recognize the good from the bad. I also thought your post on Barbie was excellent, and I have often mentioned my dislike for how Barbie is blamed often wholesale for the woes of female body image. (And, speaking as someone who’s natural proportions and body shape are comparatively close to some Barbies’, I also dislike Barbie-blaming conversations that say “real” women don’t look like that because, well, I do look like that.)
Rachelle- thanks! Being able to decipher studies is not easy, and takes practice.
And you’re exactly right: “Real” women come in all shapes and sizes, and just because one body shape is rarer, or is considered more attractive than another, means nothing. It doesn’t mean that women who do look like Barbie (or Kate Moss, for that matter) are vain or anorexic or culturally brainwashed into thinking they must look that way to be loved or accepted.
Maybe they are naturally thin. Maybe they do in fact have an eating disorder. Either way, criticizing them for their body shape is misguided and pointless and counterproductive. Women need to stop harping on each other’s bodies– who gives a shit if the woman down the street (or in a fashion magazine) is thinner than you are? If you want to be thinner, then diet and exercise. If you are happy with your weight and don’t want to be thinner, then don’t.
The “Real Women Have Curves” mentality may be empowering to some women, but is simply not true. SOME real women have curves, some don’t. Stop being so damn judgmental and worrying about how other women look, or whether they have curves or not. It’s none of your business. If people are at an unhealthy weight (too much OR too little), that should be addressed, but in no case is any criticism warranted.
I wrote: “Maybe they are naturally thin. Maybe they do in fact have an eating disorder.”
I’d like to add: “Or maybe they work hard to achieve and maintain that body shape, and are justifiably proud of it.”
I think in a way your article missed the point. Yes, most women know that celebrity images are photoshopped. But knowing something is illusory does not necessarily remove its psychological effect. When someone shouts hurtful insults at me, I know it’s because they’re angry – but the insults still hurt. In this case knowing that photoshopping goes on is different from really understanding; for example, one can easily look at that Faith Hill cover and know intellectually that it’s photoshopped, but unless you’ve seen the before and after series you may not realize that her arm was thinned substantially. It’s easy to take away from that “goodness, my arms are fat”. Whether one goes on a diet, exercises less to avoid building muscles, or simply feels bad about oneself (all of which are responses I’ve seen), it has an impact.
Your broader claim – that if image manipulation had pernicious effects on people, we would have seen those effects society-wide – is also a bit tricky. Feminists have been pointing to and analyzing society-wide negative effects of this sort of thing for decades. Unfortunately, sociological problems like this are extremely difficult to construct rigorous scientific experiments on. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and when a subject is difficult to study, whether it’s pulsar emission mechanisms or the social impact of artificial beauty ideals, studies with ambiguous results and limited power just mean “we don’t know”, not “nothing is happening”. With a weak study, a fact that is extremely significant in terms of human cost may still be statistically insinificant. So I’d say, maybe there are society-wide pernicious effects; we haven’t been able to test this adequately.
As for mechanism, better to read smart feminist thinkers than me. But how’s this? We know we’re not going to look like Marilyn Monroe, or Jessica Alba, or whoever the current beauty ideal is. But the point of ideals is that they’re what you strive for. Whether they’re achievable by anyone, even the people the pictures were actually of, is irrelevant to their place of ideals. But the process of striving for an ideal can be expensive – financially, medically, and emotionally. In some people it can be outright destructive; I lost a friend to anorexia a few years ago. Nobody can possibly be as thin as these photoshopped images? Sure, but some people kill themselves trying. Others feel horrible – with, as Elizabeth McRae points out, the full assistance of their friends and family – about themselves, or spend money and blood trying to get closer to the ideal.
The key problem with discussing this subject here is the same problem I have with feminism: it’s all extremely hard to test using the scientific method. (And I’m not really familiar enough with other reliable methods of truth determination, like the ones historians use or the ones judges use, to even try to apply them.) So by that standard I have to say that I don’t know how poisonous the pervasive ideal of impossible beauty is; maybe your implication is right and it’s harmless.
>I think in a way your article missed the point.
Perhaps it did; let’s discuss.
>“When someone shouts hurtful insults at me, I know it’s because they’re angry – but the insults still hurt.”
I’m not sure the analogy between hurtful insults and fashion photographs is valid. If someone shouts an insult at you, you have no choice but to be subjected to it. But the choice about whether or not to buy (or look at) a fashion magazine or photo is completely yours. If you find the images insulting or depressing or hurtful, you can simply choose not to look at them. Yet many, perhaps most, women actively seek out those images, and get pleasure from them. How do you explain that?
>“one can easily look at that Faith Hill cover and know intellectually that it’s photoshopped, but unless you’ve seen the before and after series you may not realize that her arm was thinned substantially. It’s easy to take away from that “goodness, my arms are fat”.
Why on earth would looking at a photo of Faith Hill make you think of your arms? Why would the physical comparison even come up? Does looking at any photograph of a female somehow automatically trigger a comparison in your mind? If you looked at photos of heavier women, would you think, “goodness, my arms are thin” (and therefore feel better about yourself)? If this is true, then it would seem logical that most women would prefer to look at photos of women who they consider to be less attractive by comparison, yet that is not the case.
>>“Feminists have been pointing to and analyzing society-wide negative effects of this sort of thing for decades. Unfortunately, sociological problems like this are extremely difficult to construct rigorous scientific experiments on.”
It is true that some of issues of body image disturbance and the media are not easy to quantify, but it is hardly an untestable hypothesis. Either exposure to thin images lowers self-esteem and increases the risk for eating disorders, or it doesn’t. This is not extremely difficult to construct an experiment on; I’ve read a half-dozen pretty well-designed studies that have done it. The answer is no.
>“studies with ambiguous results and limited power just mean “we don’t know”, not “nothing is happening”.
I find it hard to believe that all the researchers and all the studies are so fatally flawed that they can’t find what they are looking for. The answer is not “we don’t have the data.” The answer is, “we have 20 years of data, and there seems to be no correlation.” The problem with your position is that it is always the default: no matter how many studies have been done, you can always say “we need more/better studies.” But at what point do you conclude that there is nothing there, and devote the time and research resources to more productive leads? You can always ask for another $5 million in funding, or another 10 years of study, but there are finite resources, and every dollar spent on a hypothesis that can’t even demonstrate a mechanism or measurable harm is money taken from research that can demonstrate those things. At some point it becomes an ethical question.
>“We know we’re not going to look like Marilyn Monroe, or Jessica Alba, or whoever the current beauty ideal is.”
Whoa, hold on! Who said Monroe, or Alba, or Moss, or Jolie was the current beauty ideal? Where did you get that? I can point to dozens, maybe hundreds, of women with wildly different looks and shapes that could be claimed as some sort of ideal. Where are you getting this “beauty ideal” you refer to? Which ideal? Kate Moss? Pam Anderson? Emme? Anna Nicole Smith? We can agree that just because a woman appears in Playboy or a fashion magazine does not necessarily mean she is automatically some “ideal,” right? So where is this socially agreed-upon definition of the ideal beauty?
>“I lost a friend to anorexia a few years ago. Nobody can possibly be as thin as these photoshopped images?”
I had a friend who had bulimia, and she got very upset when she heard people suggesting it had anything to so with the media or thin images, because it was about controlling her personal life, trying to live up to any impossible ideal. Did your friend tell you she was trying to look like some photoshopped image? Most of the literature on anorexia suggests it has little to do with media images.
correction:
because it was about controlling her personal life, NOT trying to live up to any impossible ideal.
Although I agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be hard proof that “exposure to thin images lowers self-esteem and increases the risk for eating disorders” and I don’t personally use those arguments in my body politics becasue of that lack of proof…it seems like you’re taking your argument to an extreme by suggesting that we are not, or should not, be influence by the world around us.
“So where is this socially agreed-upon definition of the ideal beauty?”
Are you suggesting there is no standard of beauty, period? What I’ve read suggests that quantifying pretty and ugly is difficult because the standards of beauty change throughout time. But there does seem to be some mark of agreement when people “see it.”
Younger, thinner, healthy complexion, and facial symmetry are on the list of things that are generally considered physically attractive.
“We can agree that just because a woman appears in Playboy or a fashion magazine does not necessarily mean she is automatically some ‘ideal,’ right?”
I certainly don’t agree with that statement. While it may be hard for us (at this point in time) to correctly define what our cultural beauty ideal is, I would still suggests that “ideal” is strongly featured in our media.
Here’s the thing…while I understand and agree with your frustration at people not being able to incorporate new information into their worldview, your comments seem to include this suggestion that we should “get over” any disagreement we may have with the way the fashion industry or advertising or the media portrays women becasue it isn’t harmful.
I don’t think the media is harmful, I just don’t think it’s representative. And, in my opinion, I’d like it to be more representative. As a fat woman I could count on one hand the women I’d seen on TV or in moves that look even remotely like me up until about a year ago when Fat Acceptance became all the rage. (Now we have two whole TV shows.) That fact may not have given me crushingly low self-esteem but it certainly made me feel like I wasn’t normal.
I’ve been trying hard to be respectful here becasue I really get the feeling you and I disagree politically. But this line, “Stop being so damn judgmental and worrying about how other women look” sure seem like your arguing your opinion, not the original point of your post.
I’ve been trying to think before commenting, and a lot of what Anne says resonates with me. Look at the previous post on being rational in an irrational body – no matter what we may know intellectually, many of us are still scared of the monsters under the bed. No matter if we know the images aren’t real, that doesn’t tell us what reality is.
You say it’s a choice to look, yet you also agree that photoshopped images are pervasive, in every catalogue and billboard around us. So are we supposed to walk through life with our eyes closed?
And yet as I say that, I know that the majority of the women around me in real life do not look like the pictures, so shouldn’t the pictures be outweighed by the majority? My only answer is that in my gut they aren’t, they still have the power to make me feel bad.
If I’m understanding you correctly, the research you refer to looks at things like eating disorders and has found that these images don’t increase those risks. I’d be interested if there is anything that has looked at more subjective measures of self-esteem – feeling bad impacts your quality of life, even if it doesn’t lead to death or serious medical problems.
Hi Elizebeth
Many, perhaps most, women actively seek out images of thin, beautiful women, and get pleasure from them. Do you have any thoughts on why that is true, if they are so damaging to self-esteem and happiness?
>“you’re taking your argument to an extreme by suggesting that we are not, or should not, be influenced by the world around us.”
No, I don’t doubt at all that people are often influenced by the world around us. In fact I just wrote a column about how 1 in 5 Americans think that Obama is a Muslim, due largely to the news media. The reason so many people are misinformed is that some pundits have repeatedly and explicitly told them “Obama is a Muslim.” In the case of thin images, no one is repeatedly or explicitly telling women “You should look like this.” It is certainly possible that women are influenced by media images of thin women. I’m just pointing out that that that question has been studied for decades, and there seem the be little or no evidence that it is true.
>“So where is this socially agreed-upon definition of the ideal beauty?”
>>Are you suggesting there is no standard of beauty, period?
You were the one that brought up “current beauty ideals,” not me—I was just asking you to define your terms! :-) You said it existed, and I asked where I could find it. I would argue that there is in fact no universally or socially agreed upon “ideal beauty standard.” Kate Moss, Emme, Anna Nicole Smith, Kim Kardashian, Naomi Campbell, and dozens of others are widely very beautiful. Which of those very different body shapes and looks would you consider to embody the “beauty ideal”? The concept of an ideal is one “standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence.” I would suggest that there is no one standard “ideal”—or there are many different looks that are widely considered beautiful.
>>Younger, thinner, healthy complexion, and facial symmetry are on the list of things that are generally considered physically attractive.
That’s correct, but this is not the same thing as the “beauty ideal” you brought up. A person can be young, thin, well-complected, and have facial symmetry and look nothing like a “beauty ideal.” “Generally considered physically attractive” is not the same as an ideal beauty. I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here: No one claims that looking at photographs of people who are merely young or thin or have good facial symmetry causes body image disturbance. The claim is that photos of “idealized beauty” (whatever that is) is to blame.
>>“We can agree that just because a woman appears in Playboy or a fashion magazine does not necessarily mean she is automatically some ‘ideal,’ right?”
>>I certainly don’t agree with that statement. I would still suggests that “ideal” is strongly featured in our media.
Just so I understand: you are saying that any woman who appears in photo in a men’s magazine or women’s fashion magazine is by definition an “ideal beauty”? If this is true, then Kate Moss and Queen Latifah (a thin white woman and a heavier Black woman) are both part of the same “ideal beauty”? I’m honestly not sure where you’re getting your definition or conception of an “ideal beauty.”
>>I don’t think the media is harmful, I just don’t think it’s representative. And, in my opinion, I’d like it to be more representative.
I’m confused; I thought you were arguing that the media was harmful. Whether the media is (or should be) representative of its audience or not is an interesting question (and one I’ve researched), but a different topic altogether. I’ll resist the temptation to digress!
>>I’ve been trying hard to be respectful here becasue I really get the feeling you and I disagree politically. But this line, “Stop being so damn judgmental and worrying about how other women look” sure seem like your arguing your opinion, not the original point of your post.
Actually I’d guess we probably agree politically, but I could be wrong. :-) You’re right, my comment about women being judgmental was not relevant to the original post, it was a sideline. But I do think that people should be less judgmental about women and their bodies.
Hi Deb
>“No matter if we know the images aren’t real, that doesn’t tell us what reality is.”
That’s quite true. Do you think people look to advertisements and fashion magazines to tell them what reality is? My guess is that most people get their idea of reality from the real world, the things they experience in real life, not on TV or in magazines.
>You say it’s a choice to look, yet you also agree that photoshopped images are pervasive, in every catalogue and billboard around us. So are we supposed to walk through life with our eyes closed?
Of course some sources of thin media images are hard to avoid (such as billboards), but most of them are sought out. I’d say that 95% of the images appear in women’s fashion magazines—ones you have to actively pick up, pay money for, and intentionally look through. Seriously, women could avoid the majority of thin images if they chose to—but they don’t, in fact most women purposely seek them out. And their self-esteem and beauty satisfaction are just fine!
“the majority of the women around me in real life do not look like the pictures, so shouldn’t the pictures be outweighed by the majority?”
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that photos in fashion magazines should only depict ordinary-looking people instead of models?
“I’d be interested if there is anything that has looked at more subjective measures of self-esteem – feeling bad impacts your quality of life, even if it doesn’t lead to death or serious medical problems.”
Oh yes, plenty of studies on that; so far there’s no good evidence. References can be found in the PDF of “Barbie and Bridget Jones,” the link is at the top of the page.
Ben –
I think you may have confused me with Anne. I was replying to the comment you made in response to Anne.
Oops, sorry! Late night! :-)
Hello ! Great website with content that i look for some week ! Maybe you can chnage a little bit color of the design but it’s actually cool ! I’live in Switzerland and so i dont speak great english so i wish i’m not to too much mistake ! Bye bye and continue like that
I really like your writing style, excellent info , appreciate it for putting up : D.
I agree that most girls know that many, if not all, photos of supermodels and celebrities in magazines and online are photoshopped. However, after seeing hundreds of those photos, I believe it still leaves an impression on the subconscious of “this is the ideal, this is what I must strive for” which is why so many girls feel bad about their bodies, or aspects of their bodies. In the face of all the airbrushed beauty, research such as that the majority of women (going up to 90% I believe) have cellulite, no matter their weight, and that many women get stretch marks on their breasts, hips and thighs due to fast growth spurts in puberty goes forgotten.