Speaking of Katy Perry… February 6, 2011 Jill I cannot stop looking at this (via the Hairpin). Took a bus to DC this weekend and stared at that GIF for a good five minutes. Pretty sure the girl next to me was disturbed by that behavior. But, seriously. Christ.
Yes, I can see how that would be addicting. And of course the question is, why would she agree to pose for a magazine cover in bra and undies with such a dumb look on her face…to start with? I know you’re no Katy Perry lover…up until now I haven’t taken much notice of her. Why do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation?
Ew, the right column has a quote about the Jesus tattoo on her wrist she got to remind her of where she comes from. Yeah, I’m so sure that her deity endorses her message. **Gag**
The Nerd: Ew, the right column has a quote about the Jesus tattoo on her wrist she got to remind her of where she comes from.Yeah, I’m so sure that her deity endorses her message.**Gag** Hell, maybe her deity does endorse nudity. People supposedly weren’t made with clothes on. But they weren’t made with photoshopped skin either. I say the score is at Jill-1 Katy Perry -1
Marie: Why do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation? Next time I throw on a short skirt and a low cut shirt, I’ll remind myself that there’s no way I could be doing it because I like the way I look. I’m actually doing it for male satisfaction. No rape culture issues here.
Marie: YWhy do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation? I don’t usually comment here, but as a *legasp* lesbian woman who would gladly go through about 90% of life nude for *pearlclutch* her own benefit and various other personal reasons, I’m having a hard time letting this one go. Seriously, sometimes women do things (even things you ((general)) don’t approve of) to please themselves. I would think that that would be included in feminism 101. As for the post itself, I’ll just say that I find the amount of altering media does to women’s bodies (and thus perceptions of “normal” and “acceptable” related to them) truly heinous and leave it at that.
Why do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation? Bette Page, Marilyn Monroe, Mae West, pretty much every costar in any of Elvis’ films… Just sayin’…
ZOMG, I stared until I was dizzy. For G-d’s sake, what did they do to her HAND?!?! Marie: Why do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation? Yah. I’m with PA on this one; your comment is veering uncomfortably close to slut-shaming in I-Blame-The-Patriarchy style.
Marie: Yes, I can see how that would be addicting. And of course the question is, why would she agree to pose for a magazine cover in bra and undies with such a dumb look on her face…to start with?I know you’re no Katy Perry lover…up until now I haven’t taken much notice of her.Why do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation? OH MY GOD HOW HORRIBLE THAT SHE WOULD POSE IN HER UNDERWEAR WHAT A DIRTY SLUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Marie: Why do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation? Oh honestly. Maybe she likes being close to naked. Maybe it titillates her to know people are looking at her. You don’t know why Perry or other celebrities dress the way they do. I’m getting very tired of the discussions that go on about the way that women dress. If we wear clothes that show “too much” skin we’re called sluts by the far right and told by some feminists that we’re just catering to the male gaze. If we dress more conservatively, we look old or frumpy or we’re not confident enough in our bodies. It’s ridiculous. It makes me want to scream “I LIKE THE WAY I LOOK NAKED,” every time anyone starts talking about scantily clad women and the male gaze. I like standing in front of my mirror with no clothes on, I like going out in clothes that show off my body. I like when my lover looks at me. As long as they don’t make creepy approaches, I don’t mind other people looking at me. That being said – I do think that the amount of photo editing that goes on is absurd, although the first thing I noticed is that the lighting in the before pic seems really weird and makes Perry look kind of grey.
They actually photoshopped her less than average, I think. Her body has essentially the same shape. I was surprised.
I think the message is: looking human is just not fashionable. We should all be cyborgs. I feel like Marilyn Monroe, for all the issues she had, was at least treated like she was, you know, acceptable by the media, rather than this *thing* that has to be modified beyond recognition before the public should be allowed to get a glimpse. Marie, I really don’t get your comment. So what if she wants to sit there in her underwear? I was in a short documentary where I was *gasp* half naked in two scenes. The horror!
I find it interesting, that obviously nothing was changed about her hair. And I agree that it is one rather less photoshopped picture. On the cover she still seems someqhat natural, I remember a lot of pictures of Katy Perry where she looks like some kind of Cyborg with disturbingly shiny skin.
As much as I was also mesmerized by the changes, I agree with Medea, they changed her less than I typically see. I do media literacy programs with girls at work and compared to some of the pictures we work with, this is minor stuff. It’s just the first one I’ve seen in a gif like this. I’d be interested to see some of the more dramatic photoshopping presented in a gif. I get the feeling that celebrities are less radically changed than lesser known models, simply because people are aware of how big names normally look. Although, every so often there are pictures of celebrities like this where we get to see the changes that are made.
To quote my favorite troll of all time, “lol. boobs.” But seriously, the concentration around “fixing” them is obsessive. This whole thing is just really sad.
I think the message is: looking human is just not fashionable. We should all be cyborgs. I feel like Marilyn Monroe, for all the issues she had, was at least treated like she was, you know, acceptable by the media, rather than this *thing* that has to be modified beyond recognition before the public should be allowed to get a glimpse. Well, except for the nose job, chin surgery, hair bleach, colored contacts, girdle, make up, and airbrushed shots for Playboy, of course…
Marie: Why do so many young celebrities these days think nothing of making themselves scantily clad (or nude) sex symbols for men’s tittilation? These days? It’s called the oldest profession for a reason. Money talks and everything else walks. Market forces at play. all entertainers, male and female, do something like this in various forms.
While I do think this is an unflattering picture of her (she looks stoned to me), I think that given the circulation this picture’s going to see, the editing’s appropriate. Whenever I’m going to show up in a “nice picture” (yearly family photo, work newsletter, etc.), I make sure I retouch my makeup, fix my hair, and generally make myself look much nicer (and less oily) than I actually do in person. I guess I just think that this is the logical extension of that, and if it were my photo appearing somewhere that circulated, I’d be embarrassed if someone didn’t retouch my picture. Although I do agree that the hand thing is weird.
I dislike that they made her thigh thinner. She has a conventionally attractive body as it is. The thigh is the one thing that irritates me.
Yeah, the point is not “OMG why would she pose in her underwear?!” The point is: The first picture, unphotoshopped, is really amazing. She’s teeny-tiny and her boobs are big; her skin is great; there are no actual “flaws” to fix. And they still photoshopped her boobs higher and broader, and got rid of teeny moles on her neck, and messed with her hand (?), and changed the color of her skin. What struck me about it wasn’t that it was a Photoshop of Horrors where they totally changed everything she looked like; it was that she already embodies magazine-perfection and they STILL found things to change. And the changes are particularly striking when you see them flashing back and forth.
Jill: Yeah, the point is not “OMG why would she pose in her underwear?!”The point is: The first picture, unphotoshopped, is really amazing. She’s teeny-tiny and her boobs are big; her skin is great; there are no actual “flaws” to fix. And they still photoshopped her boobs higher and broader, and got rid of teeny moles on her neck, and messed with her hand (?), and changed the color of her skin. What struck me about it wasn’t that it was a Photoshop of Horrors where they totally changed everything she looked like; it was that she already embodies magazine-perfection and they STILL found things to change. And the changes are particularly striking when you see them flashing back and forth. Exactly. She’s already the epitome of conventional cis/hetero prettiness. The changes they made might not be as dramatic as some of the hack-jobs I’ve seen before, but they’re pretty creepy nonetheless.
Yeah, I understand warming up the color (color-correcting for natural light ain’t no thing) and even smoothing out her skin a little bit (because it looks like some of the texture was more photo noise than actual skin-texture), but this was just weird. Barbie-fying the skin, perking the boobs, slimming that tremendous fugly OMG right thigh, messing with her hand, removing her moles? It’s a somewhat less bizarre version of the Kelly Clarkson Self cover–there’s “looking her personal best,” and then there’s “looking like what someone else thinks you should look like if you weren’t so gosh-darned wrinkly.” Every time I see one of these, I think back to when I worked for a fashion magazine and had to talk to one of our stylists about the models she booked. We’d just gotten photos back with 18-year-olds modeling mother-of-the-bride dresses and girls with no breasts or fat to speak of modeling slimming bras. I pointed out that she might want to occasionally book older models for those shoots. She just blinked at me with wide eyes. “You mean, like, 25?” Followed by, “You know their skin doesn’t photograph as well.” I was an elderly, Cryptkeeper-esque 26 at the time.
Anyone else notice they airbrushed out the definition in her lower abdominals. So…let’s add to the list of what women should look like…thin but not too buff.
The sad part is… while I am horrified that her picture was so altered, if I had a picture taken of myself in similiar clothing, I’d demand the same workup. Beauty culture claws it’s way in early and deep.
PrettyAmiable: the thigh bugged me, too, somewhat irrationally. I was like “seriously? That too? Wouldn’tve guessed that one.” It’s like there finally exists a perfectly patriarchy-acceptable thigh but they’re like “nnoooo, must photoshop it anyways!!” Why haven’t they just skipped entirely to 100% computer-generated women yet, Simone style? At this point they might as well just paint us like the old-school artists; not a pixel is left un-Smudged as it is.
Why haven’t they just skipped entirely to 100% computer-generated women yet, Simone style? Because graphic artists cost more than female performers.
I can’t help but think that perhaps everyone here’s missing the point of a glamour photo: The point of a glamour portrait is to make the subject look as absolutely beautiful (to the artist’s eye) as possible. And yes, in this case, the subject was already “beautiful,” but why would someone whose job is to maximize a photo’s (subjective) beauty stop short simply because the subject was already very pretty? Marylin Monroe could have skipped makeup entirely and put her hair in a scruffy bun and still looked gorgeous, but she looked even better with makeup and good hair. Interestingly, Ms Perry’s not the only thing touched up in this shot: The (rather serious) wrinkles were edited out of her clothes and some of the wrinkles were taken out of her sheets. To rebut an earlier comment about artificially-generated images of women, I think you too are missing the point: The goal isn’t to have the most beautiful image; the goal is to have the most beautiful image that still resembles Katy Perry.
Renee: The point of a glamour portrait is to make the subject look as absolutely beautiful (to the artist’s eye) as possible. And yes, in this case, the subject was already “beautiful,” but why would someone whose job is to maximize a photo’s (subjective) beauty stop short simply because the subject was already very pretty? Errr…no…the purpose is to make it as saleable as possible. A good friend of mine does this stuff for travel media. There is a set of (mostly) unwritten standards for what makes a photo saleable and those standards only coincidentally have anything to do with the artist’s own views about beauty. They are a product of a creepy kyriarchical structure that never finds female bodies acceptable. Also, all people are beautiful. Every single person is beautiful…no makeup required.
There is a set of (mostly) unwritten standards for what makes a photo saleable and those standards only coincidentally have anything to do with the artist’s own views about beauty.They are a product of a creepy kyriarchical structure that never finds female bodies acceptable.Also, all people are beautiful.Every single person is beautiful…no makeup required. Do you think cultural norms of beauty can, or should, be abandoned? It’s easy to say all people are beautiful… but it seems like all societies have standards of beauty.
Bagelsan: PrettyAmiable: the thigh bugged me, too, somewhat irrationally. I was like “seriously? That too? Wouldn’tve guessed that one.” It’s like there finally exists a perfectly patriarchy-acceptable thigh but they’re like “nnoooo, must photoshop it anyways!!” The most ridiculous part (to me) is that the other thigh ISN’T made thinner. This raises confusion in me regarding what the media actually finds attractive. Renee: The (rather serious) wrinkles were edited out of her clothes and some of the wrinkles were taken out of her sheets. They also took off a sock. I don’t think anyone’s commented on that, and I can’t stop thinking about it. To respond to the meat of your argument – I think of glamor photos as something that is done for personal consumption – not as something that gets sold. I think this is why I can’t get quite on board with you. So – I agree that there’s nothing wrong with wanting to preserve a picture of yourself looking your best (say, sans a pimple you had at the time of the picture if you dislike pimples) – but I think it means something else when you start selling that image as some ideal for women. And also to be clear – I don’t blame Perry for this. I blame the business. I doubt she got much say at all.
Tony: Do you think cultural norms of beauty can, or should, be abandoned? It’s easy to say all people are beautiful… but it seems like all societies have standards of beauty. Tony Yes and yes. Also, sure. Beauty standards are a social construct. One human societies use as a basis for distributing social power. If we see the construct for what it is, wholly imaginary, and start looking at people outside of that construct, its not hard to see beauty in everyone.
PrettyAmiable: The most ridiculous part (to me) is that the other thigh ISN’T made thinner. This raises confusion in me regarding what the media actually finds attractive. Sockless women with only one super skinny thigh who have sheets, bras and skin that do not obey the laws of physics. Obviously.
William, Marilyn and her contemporaries were modified – glamour is always about an illusion, to one extent or another – but not on the level people are now. Rapid technological advances are making the very look of humanity unpopular somehow, and this is weird. At least Marilyn was allowed to have thighs. The odd thing is, for all I know, my granddaughter will be complaining about how women of my generation were allowed to [insert something we take for granted here]. Yes and yes. Also, sure. Beauty standards are a social construct. One human societies use as a basis for distributing social power. If we see the construct for what it is, wholly imaginary, and start looking at people outside of that construct, its not hard to see beauty in everyone. Kristen J. I disagree. The standards for physical attractiveness can be a slippery thing, I don’t think you can just characterize them *just* as a social construct. I think commercial beauty standards (which themselves vary) are one thing to discuss, but for as long as we occupy bodies, we’re going to respond to each other’s flesh in positive and negative ways. I find people’s responses can be very interesting – I wouldn’t qualify all of them as necessarily a damaging force that must be dealt with.
Natalia: I disagree. The standards for physical attractiveness can be a slippery thing, I don’t think you can just characterize them *just* as a social construct. I think commercial beauty standards (which themselves vary) are one thing to discuss, but for as long as we occupy bodies, we’re going to respond to each other’s flesh in positive and negative ways. I find people’s responses can be very interesting – I wouldn’t qualify all of them as necessarily a damaging force that must be dealt with. Natalia Beauty isn’t attractiveness. The things we are attracted to may be informed by social standards of beauty, but they are not coextensive. If they were then people who are not conventionally attractive would never find sexual partners. Said differently, beauty is an ideal…a standard that people push themselves to conform to. As with all ideals its a construct something impossible to achieve. Attraction is a physiological response to another. Its individual and localized.
Attraction is a physiological response to another. Its individual and localized. I think attraction is actually more than that – and I also don’t believe there is a great dividing line between beauty and attractiveness. We’re attracted to that which we perceive as beautiful – in one way or another. And our perception is influenced by a host of factors. Is it wrong of me to find Perry beautiful because Rolling Stone says that she is? (Well, the weird unnatural image of her that they’re promoting at least – she’s more beautiful when she’s allowed to look human, but I digress) I don’t think so, necessarily. Some people are always going to win more points in the so-called beauty game than others – I don’t think that’s necessarily so awful either – but it depends on what the stakes are. People who conform to a particular beauty standard, women in particular, may find themselves in a whole lot of trouble as the result (body gets treated like public property, etc.). Yet another problem is not having any standards of your own – only those that are foisted on you (how many teenage girls go through that in the States? Virtually all of them?). These things I view as dangerous, not the idea of beauty per se.
I don’t think that perspective works when examined cross culturally. You still have the problem that beauty is defined very differently across cultures AND tends to correspond heavily with physical characteristics of the privileged groups in those societies. Certainly we are often (but not always) attracted to people we consider beautiful, but that perception of what is beautiful is formed in a society that equates the markers of privilege with beauty. So are we attracted to beauty or to privilege? Isn’t that a knapsack we need to unpack? And what do we say to the teen age girl who cannot meet the standard of beauty set by our culture? Are there not things about her that are just as lovely as those who have those markers of privilege? Why are her eyes not lovely even though they are slightly smaller? Why is her skin not as lovely because its not the perfect shade (see photo above) or color for that matter?