Uproars Entertainment

Why is there such an uproar about making companies state if they airbrush a model?

What difference does it make? Do people looking at the people actually feel better about themselves if this is explicity stated? In my view it is crazy. Surely, any company who wants to advertise something (hence sell it) will use whatever they can to make it desirable. Are people really trying to emulate an airbrushed model (or sometimes not airbrushed) that this is necessary?

Public Comments

1. Let's put it this way: the models these companies use are already very attractive. If THEY are not considered good enough to represent a high standard of beauty without being "perfected," then how can the average woman hope to feel that she is attractive at all? And yes, models are held up to women as something to emulate: the idea is that if you wear this dress or use this product, you might gain something of the model's beauty. This is called an "aspirational" mode of advertising, and it deliberately plays on customers' insecurities in order to get them to buy something. Any honest advertiser will tell you that's how it works. All of this means that when it comes to photoshopping models, women are being made to hold themselves to an extremely artificial standard, and it is not realistic to expect that they will all become so secure that it won't matter. After all, the advertisers and beauty/fashion magazine editors WANT them to feel insecure, so they will continually be looking for new products or new clothes that might improve their looks. There is also an argument that these photoshopped models give men an unrealistic notion of how women should look, particularly when they appear in porn and men's magazines. I am a former model, so I think I have a fair insider's perspective on what's going on.
2. I completely agree with you. Now there is so much controversy. Its just a picture & the company wants to advertise thin, pretty models wearing the product.