The Faded Youth blog has scans of Jessica Simpson's cover appearance in November's InStyle Magazine. Simpson appears on the cover of InStyle's fitness issue, and she got that spot because over the last six months she's affected something of a transformation to her body, through heavy workouts and changes to her diet.
What's interesting to me, though, is that on the cover her image has been altered to look less fit. Proof:
In this interior image, Jessica Simpson's arms, shoulders and torso show obvious benefits from weight training.
The cover image is somewhat different, showing her with very slender arms, narrower shoulders and smaller lats and traps. (Her breasts, on the other hand, actually appear larger in the cover photo. Go figure.)
What's the point of making the model look less fit on the cover of a fitness issue?
I fear it's purely because many women still don't think they want arms or any part of their upper-body to have any visible musculature. I'm more annoyed at the girl who has posted the so-far-last quote on weight training. If she doesn't want buff arms (or is it that her boyfriend decides for her?), then why is she frequenting a fitness board that advocates weight training for women? :roll:
fm07
|
Registered
|
2007-10-20 14:50:48
Its common with magazines. Recently there was some tennis player on the cover of a men's fitness magazine who's arms had been airbrushed/photoshopped into something that was significantly bigger than what they really are. So, men get bigger arms on covers, women get smaller arms. It all evens out heh.
AlexG
-
Where's the Beef?
|
Registered
|
2007-10-20 16:13:36
I guess that answers a long held question about magazine covers - it's been transplanted elsewhere :wink:
