Deep Cover: Noteworthy Stories from the Newsstand

Occasionally, I read something other than fashion magazines! Even so, topics that relate to some of the most frequent complaints about the glossies arise frequently. I’ve culled these points of interest from recent readings:

The February issue of Wired graphed the BMIs of Playboy centerfolds from December 1953 to January 2009, and then compared the results to the BMI of the average American woman over the same time period. The outcome won’t surprise you: The models’ BMI shrank from 19.4 to 18.2, while the national average increased from 22.2 to 26.8. Wired points out that, while the stats could be skewed because the Playmates provide their own weights and measurements, what Playboy thinks its readers will consider ideal is far more revealing than the actual numbers.

 

The March issue of Psychology Today probes the growing frequency of suicide among teen girls. A new book, The Triple Bind: Saving Our Teenage Girls from Today's Pressures, postulates that society and the media subject girls to unrealistic pressures, creating strain when girls are expected to become caregivers, excel academically, and still fit conventional standards of beauty. Female role models, the book’s authors claim, are “ultra-sexy, ultra-feminized women, like the female surgeons on Grey’s Anatomy or swimsuit-modeling tennis players…” Ultra-sexy, ultra-feminized women? Like, say, the Photoshopped images that appear in fashion magazines?

 

And speaking of Photoshop, the editor-in-chief of Shape answered readers who wrote to complain about what they thought was the egregious retouching of singer Faith Hill’s bikini-clad body on an earlier cover. In March’s “Editor’s Letter,” Valerie Latona says, “I can emphatically and truthfully say we do not alter stars’ bodies: We select A-listers, like Jaime Pressly (whom we voted this year’s Sexiest Body in Hollywood), who are healthy role models—and have the curves to show for it.” In response to readers’ correspondence, the magazine says, “We never alter any Shape model’s body—including those on our cover. The women we feature put a lot of hard work into staying healthy and should be given the credit they deserve.”

Comments

[Rio]

It's interesting that fashion industry puts so much work into finding/creating stick-thin women, not just because of how rare they are in real life, but because natural curves are overwhelmingly considered ideal by the public.

[rmc]

I was disappointed by the Wired article. On the surface, it appeared insightful, but was it really necessary to feature centerfold shots from the back issues of Playboy? It appeared to be yet another opportunity for them to objectify women under the cover of "culture studies."

They have countless profiles and feature articles on men who work in technology and very few on women. When they do profile women, they seem to fall back to the old virgin-or-whore complex.

There was the lovely striptease cover from March 2007 and the more recent cover of socialite Julia Allison. Contrast these with the current issue's profile of a father working to unravel his young daughter's genetic secrets.

I love learning about technology and appreciate the insights Wired brings, but I'm intensely frustrated with their portrayal of women.

[Chuckles McGee]

“We never alter any Shape model’s body—including those on our cover. The women we feature put a lot of hard work into staying healthy and should be given the credit they deserve.”

Perhaps they aren't photoshopped, but look at the box on the table of contents page of any shape magazine and you'll see about a half dozen individuals whose work went into the production on the front cover. Lighting, hair, make-up, photography, wardrobe, along with a list of all the cosmetics used... yeah.