I can never understand what's wrong with half of those photos ;_;
Printable View
Pretty much every generalized statement of this kind describes me as an unhealthy, skeletal girl. I weigh about 98-100 pounds, and my height is about 5'3", but I'm not skeletal - just my arms are a little thinner than I like. Every other part of me is fine. Stop it, people!
Obviously I know airbrushing has been around sometime, but usually the models look some what normal... That reminds me..There is is D&G shoot I think where the looks ridiculously thin.
These days even guys are getting body conscious.. Hell I wish I had a body of a Greek God or something akin to that...
>>> Lol, even my cousin who is a total photoshop amateur can do a better job than that..
I wish I was in 2D....<+_+>
That would be wierd lol
Coming from a decidedly unskinny girl on this note, I hate the REAL WOMEN HAVE CURVEZZZZZZZ thing. No you are not more of a real woman for being a fatty, nor are you more of a real woman for being athletic, or less of a real woman for having no boobs. REAL WOMEN HAVE FEMALE GENITALIAAAAA funnily enough, it has nothing to do with whether you're skinny or curvy or short or tall or w/e. The REAL WOMEN thing irritates me more than I can possibly express. Augh. It's so damn stupid, and it's hugely insulting if you don't fit into the REAL WOMAN parameters being presented in the statement. There's more than one way to be an attractive girl, it's not nice being made to feel otherwise.
Body size to weight ratio is ridiculous.
At 69" I have weighed both 128 pounds before I joined the Army and 155 now. I'm exactly the same size. I can wear the same clothes at both sizes. Makes no sense to me.
I think that's why they started. It would be better if their point was 'real women look like all sorts of ways' but that's not as concise and good for short advertisements.Quote:
There's more than one way to be an attractive girl, it's not nice being made to feel otherwise.