The hype behind the headlines
My favourite story of the week comes from (gasp) the Daily Mail. Lingerie brand Gossard decided to drop Penny Lancaster as the 'face' of their underwear range, in favour of Rachel Hunter. Given their respective roles as Rod Stewart's girlfriend and ex-wife, it was always going to be a great story. "The Ultimo humiliation," proclaimed The Mirror, noting that Penny had been deemed too low profile for the job and suggesting that she was also less attractive.
However, the Daily Mail took a close look at the photo of Rachel in the famous Ultimo garment, a weird swimsuit-cum-strapless body stocking affair, and decided that they might as well have asked a Barbie to model it. A full-page story showed how Hunter's stomach had been airbrushed so heavily that it bore no trace of muscle, and no loose skin of any description - quite a feat for a woman who's had children. The Mail also detailed how stray hairs had been removed, the curve of the breasts enhanced, and even the poor woman's knees had been virtually erased. Looking at the monokini-clad Hunter (always an instructive experience) is revelatory - she has, as the Mail claim, been completely, and extremely obviously, worked over. This being the Mail, a photo of her looking rough on the beach was thoughtfully provided for comparison.
Whether you find the catalogue of Rachel's imperfections distasteful or not - "Wrinkles, bags under her eyes, crow's feet and even signs of a double chin" - there's an important issue at stake here. Given the evidence that media representations have a significant effect on women's perception of their own bodies, is it responsible to allow advertising campaigns to show this kind of unattainable perfection? No human being could diet to look like Hunter in the photograph, as the Mail rightly points out: "If a girl was this thin, surely you would see her ribs or even stomach muscles?"
When Kate Winslet was given the airbrushing equivalent of diphtheria for a GQ front cover, the actress herself hit out at the extent to which she had been slimmed, saying that she had not authorised the alterations and that she was entirely "happy as she was".
Sometimes models and their defenders argue that women should not be criticised for their appearance - they can't help being 5 ft 10 and a mere size 6. Much as I hate to admit this, they do have a point. But this queering the pitch - putting together physical traits which could not co-exist, such as Emma Bunton's apparently endless legs on a 5ft 2 frame - is far more disgusting. When advertisers have moved from assaulting consumers with endless images of physical
perfection to outright impossibilities, we have to wonder how masochistic we really are.
26th Feb 2004