Dmitriy T.M. sent in a post by Irin Carmon at Jezebel about Playboy memorabilia up for auction, including images of centerfolds with editorial comments for the Photoshopper to fix various problematic aspects of the photos. The marked-up images gives us a peek into the process of creating a centerfold, as well as the scrutiny applied to literally every aspect of the models’ bodies, which are found wanting in a dizzying array of ways, with their blatant imperfections resulting from being actual living humans.
This one includes instructions to fix her large pores and soften her laugh lines (see the top left):
The rest of these images are *definitely* Not Safe for Work, so beware:
This model had unacceptable stretch marks, pubic hair stubble and blemishes around her genital area, and needed her forehead and hands softened:
Miss October 1998 had to have veins removed, a “better curve to butt” added, and lots of smoothing and eradication of nearly invisible moles and freckles. Also, her boobs are described as “too rough,” whatever, exactly, that means:
As Carmon says,
…the message is clear: even after a genetic bounty, all-but-certain plastic surgery and dieting, good lighting, a pro-photographer, and dozens of shots, even the fantasy woman is not fantastic enough.
Comments 34
anon — November 22, 2010
Jezebel will post any time Playboy appears in the news. Not surprising as Jez is owned by the same network conglomerate that owns the porn site Fleshbot. They took the link to the porn site off their navigation footer but still regularly crosspost porn postings from Fleshbot to Jezebel. As a women's news/gossip site that will post articles about egregiously women-hating events like tucker max or the yale frat chanters, it's interesting how they shoe-horn in the porn and promote commenters that reinforce it as a normative part of the community. As someone said "You don't have to look for porn any more - porn is looking for you!" Impossible to escape it.
md — November 22, 2010
It's seems amazing that there aren't more gay men around.. considering how terribly imperfect women seem to be! Shed a tear for the poor unfortunate straight man!
karinova — November 22, 2010
It's interesting to note how few of the things the photo editor marked are touchups to the actual photography (contrast, color, etc.), and how many amount to basically nitpicking the models themselves— specifically, the signs of their attempts to get closer to the Standard. So stretch marks on breasts (from oversized implants) must be killed, but obviously, oversized boobs are kind of ideal. (As long as they sit high. And are "smooth." And the nipples aren't "too" pointy/perky/w'evz.) Pubic hair stubble is anathema... but the natural distribution of pubic hair is most certainly not okay either— it must seem to magically grow as an inch-wide strip. Or a heart, or a Mickey Mouse head, or whatever. Point is, it's gotta look natural. Duh. Oh, and armpit stubble? Let us not even speak of it. Suffice to say, kill it with fire!
Aaaand then there are the repeated instructions to remove or alter basic body parts/features— eg, any hint of a circulatory system, completely natural and necessary folds in skin where limbs are bent, mysterious (but copious) "lines" that do.not.exist, and oh, their entire faces. Some of the marked-up shots look remarkably like pictures of plastic surgery patients marked up for the OR: lift this, move that, cut those bits out. Because yeah, they may have already had plastic surgery, but nope: still not good enough.
Ugh. As a woman, this is like a kick in the gut. Followed by a curb-stomp.
I mean, you can really feel the hate.
____
PS to anon:
Agreed, Jezebel is gross. Never heard of "Fleshbot" before, but... 1) why am I not surprised, and 2) ew. That one word kind of just sums everything up, doesn't it?
Mere — November 22, 2010
I love seeing these alterations. It's so easy to forget how almost every media image we see is so processed. I wish there was an "after" available to compare.
Kinda surprised at all the Fleshbot hate here. They seem to be increasingly trying to engage a female audience (see the recent "Porn for Women" posts and all the sex toy reviews) and have always struck me as a more pleasant porn source than most.
bibantropus — November 23, 2010
That's, probably, one of the reasons why unedited amateur adult content is gaining popularity in the naughty section of the internet... As with any phenomena - you get counter-feedback... and that means freckles, scars, celulite, wrinkles,acne, etc... http://cosmid.net/models.html (btw, you souldn't post NSFW stuff!)
Stephanie — November 23, 2010
IMHO, as a former graphic designer, boobs being to "rough" means that the Photoshopper needs to "soften" them using filters and light effects.
Basically, Playboy centerfolds are supposed to appear soft and gauzy with no hard lines. The lighting of that photo drew too much attention to the curve of the model's breast and nipple (which naturally draws the eye, particularly to real or imagined "flaws"), so it would probably be considered distasteful to the editors and audience. Especially those who "just read it for the articles."
Regarding people who read Playboy for the articles, they do exist. According to my mom, the only person in my family who had a subscription to Playboy was my Nama (mom's mom) who actually did read it for the articles. The rest, she handed over to her husband.
Anon — November 25, 2010
I thought this was fascinating. I saw the whole post elsewhere and it just amazes (and disgusts) me. It's no huge revelation or anything, but it's still always sad to me.
Richard — November 26, 2010
Of course Playboy was doing its thing long before Photoshop came on the scene. And lets not forget that women's fashion magazines do this same kind of thing to a no less exacting standard. The difference is only that they're not showing quite so much of women's bodies.
Kait — November 29, 2010
I was so disappointed to discover that upon growing up, my naked body didn't start appearing in soft focus. I blame my brother's Playboys for giving me unrealistic expectations!
Sunday Speed | LoveLiveGrow — December 12, 2010
[...] “The message is clear: even after a genetic bounty, all-but-certain plastic surgery and dieting, good lighting, a pro-photographer, and dozens of shots, even the fantasy woman is not fantastic enough.” (h/t) [...]
Rjjspesh — January 4, 2012
This strengthens my opinion that people actually HATE women's bodies. This constant alteration and unrealism means that what we see before us are not females but cartoons & jokes
Darby Heavey — July 9, 2023
This is why the Girl Next Door and Homegrown porn got popular in the 1970s. Most guys prefer natural looking women. I will insist there are more gay men in photography and advertising than any other industry. Hugh Hefner has a strained relationship with real women. He's a f****ing child.