Quick note on something hilarious I read while perusing the gossip blogs that are my Internet equivalent of Real Fruit gummies:
On August 5th 2009, Marie wrote:
I don’t know if it’s because everyone has fake boobs, I’m starting to think that the real thing are the weird looking ones...
The end of that sentence is "or because she's a kid," which I did not post because it's in reference to the fact that the owner of said chest puppies is Vanessa Hudgens, a Disney star - and she was allegedly 17 when she took the pictures that were then leaked from her Blackberry. But for the purposes of this post, that's neither here nor there.
Rather, I wanted the opinion of a captive audience of (possibly more than) 3. I still firmly (ha!) believe that fake ones are the weird ones, but maybe I'm just strange. Do fake (and we'll include airbrushed and retouched/Photoshopped-beyond-reality in that folder) breasts look "normal" to you now, such that real ones seem sort of...off?
The reason why I think this is interesting is that as far as Photoshopping women (and men) to seem more attractive, my initial gut reactions to the photos are often a 50/50 split on whether I find them attractive or not. This is a great website with before and after versions of retouched photos of celebrities. I'm also coming from a position in which I know that most photographs are retouched, and I have a very healthy self-image. What I find interesting is where we would draw the line between "attractive" and "weird" when it comes to things that are supposedly more enticing than the real thing, and whether or not - or how often - the "better" version has replaced the mental image of the real thing in our minds.
Nah, just kidding. I just wanted to talk about boobs.
(shout-out to the brilliant folks over at Sociological Images for the website about photo editing).
Posts
